3 ms·

In the link you provide, I don't understand why Russia couldn't just turn the gas flow off rather than destroy the lines, if the purpose is blackmail. Also, if

In the link you provide, I don't understand why Russia couldn't just turn the gas flow off rather than destroy the lines, if the purpose is blackmail. Also, if you look at the two recent times the US accused Syria of chemical attacks, both turned out to be misinformation, as determined by the international body that investigates these things. Yet the first time it "happened" was called back to as evidence that they "did it" the second time, even though neither even occurred. https://apnews.com/article/chemical-weapons-syria-archive-aleppo-04f6a88cb89098925d5ca2ee2d09d74b https://apnews.com/article/chemical-weapons-syria-archive-al...

miguelazo 4y ago
Exactly. These people will go through the most insane mental gymnastics to preserve their simplistic worldview. Sad to see so many brains rotted by Russiagate.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
kube-system 4y ago
Deniability is the main difference between shutting them off and sabotaging them.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Does that work for the EU situation? Russia had already denied to supply the required amounts of gas before the sabotage happened...
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Russia had suspect excuses for those cuts as well. Never once did they say “we’re shutting this off because fuck you”. They always left room for diplomatic deniability.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Fair enough.
- colordrops 4y ago
  Deniability and blackmail are at odds with each other.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Yeah it’s not blackmail, it’s coercion.
    - colordrops 4y ago
      What's the distinction? I'm going with the term used in the wiki link.
twaw 4y ago
Determined by what?
denton-scratch 4y ago
Indeed. Nonetheless, that sabotage seems to be a fact. I'd completely forgotten about the story in parent's wikipedia link; the similarities are striking. But in Georgia, they struck Georgian electricity distribution at the same time as pipelines; in the Nordstream attacks, they're not attacking European electricity distribution. So why blow things up, when you can just turn them off? Maybe for show. By blowing them up, they demonstrate that they'll never be turned on again. What's that good for? It shows Russia's contempt for the cancellation of NS2, for business with the West in general, and for sanctions. Perhaps it's a muscular display of their power in the field of energy. How can you show off, if you're going to deny that you did it? Well, it won't be the first time. There has been a number of murders by poisoning recently, just in the UK, that were pretty obviously Russia, that are denied by Russia. But the purpose of those murders was likely meant to intimidate - they needed to be obvious. So I recognize the MO. I still think it's Biden, based on nothing at all. Except that he more-or-less promised he was going to. These pipeline explosions ocurred in the "exclusive economic zones" of Sweden and Denmark respectively, so I understand. They are being extremely guarded about their investigation, refusing all requests to observe. Including from Germany, who are part owners. I think that's interesting, given that one early suggestion was that "Sweden done it".
- colordrops 4y ago
  > I still think it's Biden, based on nothing at all. Except that he more-or-less promised he was going to. Well the US is now on track to be the largest LNG supplier on earth.
  - foverzar 4y ago
- foverzar 4y ago
  > Perhaps it's a muscular display of their power in the field of energy. The mere fact that you use "perhaps" and have to imagine an interpretation for what could or could not be regarded as a vague signal, tells us that it's not it. You know, just by definition of what a "display" is.
_djo_ 4y ago
> Also, if you look at the two recent times the US accused Syria of chemical attacks, both turned out to be misinformation, as determined by the international body that investigates these things. Yet the first time it "happened" was called back to as evidence that they "did it" the second time, even though neither even occurred. That’s a misleading summary of their findings. The OPCW was prevented from conducting any on site investigations in Saraqib, meaning it could not conclusively prove the use of chemical weapons. That doesn’t make the claims ‘misinformation’. In Aleppo the claim was made by the Syrian government against rebels, not by the US government. The Fact-Finding Mission wasn’t able to visit the site of the alleged incident or the hospital where injured victims were treated. It had to rely on data including interviews, hospital records and videos and photographs. Its investigations and analysis “did not allow the FFM to establish whether or not chemicals were used as a weapon,” according to the report issued Friday. And there is substantial confirmed evidence of the Syrian government using chemical weapons against its own people, such as at Ghouta amongst other places. [0] [0] https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/report.pdf https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/1...
- miguelazo 4y ago
  The OPCW mission was totally compromised. https://thegrayzone.com/tag/opcw/ https://thegrayzone.com/tag/opcw/

miguelazo 4y ago

Exactly. These people will go through the most insane mental gymnastics to preserve their simplistic worldview. Sad to see so many brains rotted by Russiagate.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

kube-system 4y ago

Deniability is the main difference between shutting them off and sabotaging them.

tsimionescu 4y ago
Does that work for the EU situation? Russia had already denied to supply the required amounts of gas before the sabotage happened...
- kube-system 4y ago
  Russia had suspect excuses for those cuts as well. Never once did they say “we’re shutting this off because fuck you”. They always left room for diplomatic deniability.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Fair enough.
colordrops 4y ago
Deniability and blackmail are at odds with each other.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Yeah it’s not blackmail, it’s coercion.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    What's the distinction? I'm going with the term used in the wiki link.

twaw 4y ago

Determined by what?

denton-scratch 4y ago

Indeed. Nonetheless, that sabotage seems to be a fact. I'd completely forgotten about the story in parent's wikipedia link; the similarities are striking. But in Georgia, they struck Georgian electricity distribution at the same time as pipelines; in the Nordstream attacks, they're not attacking European electricity distribution. So why blow things up, when you can just turn them off? Maybe for show. By blowing them up, they demonstrate that they'll never be turned on again. What's that good for? It shows Russia's contempt for the cancellation of NS2, for business with the West in general, and for sanctions. Perhaps it's a muscular display of their power in the field of energy. How can you show off, if you're going to deny that you did it? Well, it won't be the first time. There has been a number of murders by poisoning recently, just in the UK, that were pretty obviously Russia, that are denied by Russia. But the purpose of those murders was likely meant to intimidate - they needed to be obvious. So I recognize the MO. I still think it's Biden, based on nothing at all. Except that he more-or-less promised he was going to. These pipeline explosions ocurred in the "exclusive economic zones" of Sweden and Denmark respectively, so I understand. They are being extremely guarded about their investigation, refusing all requests to observe. Including from Germany, who are part owners. I think that's interesting, given that one early suggestion was that "Sweden done it".

colordrops 4y ago
> I still think it's Biden, based on nothing at all. Except that he more-or-less promised he was going to. Well the US is now on track to be the largest LNG supplier on earth.
- foverzar 4y ago
foverzar 4y ago
> Perhaps it's a muscular display of their power in the field of energy. The mere fact that you use "perhaps" and have to imagine an interpretation for what could or could not be regarded as a vague signal, tells us that it's not it. You know, just by definition of what a "display" is.

_djo_ 4y ago

> Also, if you look at the two recent times the US accused Syria of chemical attacks, both turned out to be misinformation, as determined by the international body that investigates these things. Yet the first time it "happened" was called back to as evidence that they "did it" the second time, even though neither even occurred. That’s a misleading summary of their findings. The OPCW was prevented from conducting any on site investigations in Saraqib, meaning it could not conclusively prove the use of chemical weapons. That doesn’t make the claims ‘misinformation’. In Aleppo the claim was made by the Syrian government against rebels, not by the US government. The Fact-Finding Mission wasn’t able to visit the site of the alleged incident or the hospital where injured victims were treated. It had to rely on data including interviews, hospital records and videos and photographs. Its investigations and analysis “did not allow the FFM to establish whether or not chemicals were used as a weapon,” according to the report issued Friday. And there is substantial confirmed evidence of the Syrian government using chemical weapons against its own people, such as at Ghouta amongst other places. [0] [0] https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/report.pdf https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/1...

miguelazo 4y ago
The OPCW mission was totally compromised. https://thegrayzone.com/tag/opcw/ https://thegrayzone.com/tag/opcw/