5 ms·

i suspect this is all about buying more time for the world to get over the shock of this terrorist attack, thereby hopefully preventing for a few more days the

i suspect this is all about buying more time for the world to get over the shock of this terrorist attack, thereby hopefully preventing for a few more days the end of the world. as for 'valid reasons' -- i can't think of any. as for likely suspects, only one country that could do it and expect to get away with it without any serious repercussions -- the US. and, by extension, our protected partners in aggression -- the UK, in particular. also Nato. Israel, i suspect, would be out because of close ties to Russia, but you never know. Russia has officially said the UK was involved in the attack. the UK has offered the Shaggy defense. the US had the most to gain, and Russia had the most to lose. so the official word, so far, from most western media including every mainstream pr firm has been: Russia did it! Self-sabotage! They're so dastardly with their false flags! :-D our intellectual culture is in bad shape.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> terrorist attack A targeted attack against a strategic resource, during a war, with no [direct] civilian casualties. This doesn't meet the common definitions of terrorism. This is equivalent to bombing train yards, not city centers. The best argument for it being terrorism is the civilians who may freeze to death this winter, but even that is dubious.
- readonthegoapp 4y ago
  i would argue, if any party, group, organization, state intentionally blows up civilian infrastructure, it is either a terrorist attack and/or a war crime. if it is by a state, then it could be considered 'aggression' -- the 'supreme international crime'. as for the no direct / immediate civilian casualties part ("dubious") -- we can think of myriad examples of terror attacks and war crimes where the vast majority of civilians dying as a result of said attacks came later, even from 'indirect' causes -- dresden, hiroshima, nagasaki, al-shifa, etc. but whether you decide to classify it as a terror attack, terrorism, war crime, or something better or worse, i think we should be consistent, regardless of who the perpetrator(s) is/are.
  - orwin 4y ago
    My quick definition of terrorism is (loose translation): systematic violence for political gain. A terrorist attack is an attack perpetrated in a terrorist campaign. I don't think this really qualify, but i guess i could see why. It could be a war crime though.
  - yencabulator 4y ago
    Destroying "civilian" airports, bridges, ports, transformers, water towers etc infrastructure is sort of standard practice in war though -- I doubt the states actually waging war are willing to consider those war crimes.
    - readonthegoapp 4y ago
      Russia is at war with Ukraine. so Ukraine did it?
Mikeb85 4y ago
> Russia had the most to lose. Russia has the most to gain because they'll simply sell the natural gas to Asia or through another pipeline, meanwhile they want to pressure Europe into not supporting Ukraine any longer. The Ukraine war could literally end modern Russia as we know it, more defeats and the entire current government and structure could collapse. If somehow they survive the war, years of sanctions will. The Ukraine war is an existential threat for the Putin government... And that's not even counting the fact they love false flags and blaming others...
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > they'll simply sell the natural gas to Asia or through another pipeline Which pipeline? They don't have pipelines to Asia that can handle the gas they meant to send through Nordstream.
- hollerith 4y ago
  >they'll simply sell the natural gas to Asia That would require either pipelines or port facilities for loading LNG transport ships in Russia and in China, either of which would take years to implement. The gas fields are in North-Western Siberia, which is closer to Europe than to China.
  - Mikeb85 4y ago
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-oil-and-gas-pipelines-from-Russia-credit-US-Energy-Information-Administration_fig2_268047847 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-oil-and-gas-pipel... Keep in mind Turkey and Caucasian nations are in Asia...
    - hollerith 4y ago
      I see the map. What is your point?
- foverzar 4y ago
  > Russia has the most to gain because they'll simply sell the natural gas to Asia or through another pipeline No, not really, how do you suppose this would work? There is a pipeline A to Europe, and pipeline B to Asia. Both operational at production capacity. How something happening with pipeline A would suddenly positively affect pipeline B? > meanwhile they want to pressure Europe into not supporting Ukraine any longer. By killing the only leverage it had on Europe? How would that work? > And that's not even counting the fact they love false flags and blaming others... Is that fact, though? Could you elaborate, what are you referring to specifically? I've noticed it became a popular idea over the last few years, but I never really managed to figure out the grounds for it.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

> terrorist attack A targeted attack against a strategic resource, during a war, with no [direct] civilian casualties. This doesn't meet the common definitions of terrorism. This is equivalent to bombing train yards, not city centers. The best argument for it being terrorism is the civilians who may freeze to death this winter, but even that is dubious.

readonthegoapp 4y ago
i would argue, if any party, group, organization, state intentionally blows up civilian infrastructure, it is either a terrorist attack and/or a war crime. if it is by a state, then it could be considered 'aggression' -- the 'supreme international crime'. as for the no direct / immediate civilian casualties part ("dubious") -- we can think of myriad examples of terror attacks and war crimes where the vast majority of civilians dying as a result of said attacks came later, even from 'indirect' causes -- dresden, hiroshima, nagasaki, al-shifa, etc. but whether you decide to classify it as a terror attack, terrorism, war crime, or something better or worse, i think we should be consistent, regardless of who the perpetrator(s) is/are.
- orwin 4y ago
  My quick definition of terrorism is (loose translation): systematic violence for political gain. A terrorist attack is an attack perpetrated in a terrorist campaign. I don't think this really qualify, but i guess i could see why. It could be a war crime though.
- yencabulator 4y ago
  Destroying "civilian" airports, bridges, ports, transformers, water towers etc infrastructure is sort of standard practice in war though -- I doubt the states actually waging war are willing to consider those war crimes.
  - readonthegoapp 4y ago
    Russia is at war with Ukraine. so Ukraine did it?

Mikeb85 4y ago

> Russia had the most to lose. Russia has the most to gain because they'll simply sell the natural gas to Asia or through another pipeline, meanwhile they want to pressure Europe into not supporting Ukraine any longer. The Ukraine war could literally end modern Russia as we know it, more defeats and the entire current government and structure could collapse. If somehow they survive the war, years of sanctions will. The Ukraine war is an existential threat for the Putin government... And that's not even counting the fact they love false flags and blaming others...

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> they'll simply sell the natural gas to Asia or through another pipeline Which pipeline? They don't have pipelines to Asia that can handle the gas they meant to send through Nordstream.
hollerith 4y ago
>they'll simply sell the natural gas to Asia That would require either pipelines or port facilities for loading LNG transport ships in Russia and in China, either of which would take years to implement. The gas fields are in North-Western Siberia, which is closer to Europe than to China.
- Mikeb85 4y ago
  https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-oil-and-gas-pipelines-from-Russia-credit-US-Energy-Information-Administration_fig2_268047847 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-oil-and-gas-pipel... Keep in mind Turkey and Caucasian nations are in Asia...
  - hollerith 4y ago
    I see the map. What is your point?
foverzar 4y ago
> Russia has the most to gain because they'll simply sell the natural gas to Asia or through another pipeline No, not really, how do you suppose this would work? There is a pipeline A to Europe, and pipeline B to Asia. Both operational at production capacity. How something happening with pipeline A would suddenly positively affect pipeline B? > meanwhile they want to pressure Europe into not supporting Ukraine any longer. By killing the only leverage it had on Europe? How would that work? > And that's not even counting the fact they love false flags and blaming others... Is that fact, though? Could you elaborate, what are you referring to specifically? I've noticed it became a popular idea over the last few years, but I never really managed to figure out the grounds for it.