3 ms·

My 12 year account was permabanned from r/news with no warning or recourse for speculating on this possibility when it happened. Sabotage by Russia doesn't mak

My 12 year account was permabanned from r/news with no warning or recourse for speculating on this possibility when it happened. Sabotage by Russia doesn't make sense from almost any angle you look at it. That doesn't necessarily mean the US government did it, but it's done far worse in the past.

erentz 4y ago
It would be very counter to the suggested goals of the US for it to demolish just 3 of the 4 pipelines. Leaving one of the brand new, larger pipelines untouched. A pipeline that had just been completed but the activation of which had been put on hold due to the start of the war. Only so that Russia could turn around after the event and offer to jointly activate this new pipeline with Germany. An act that had Germany capitulated would be a major political win for Russia, and blow to the suggested US goals.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  This is potentially the best counter argument I've seen so far. Do you have a source with stats that suggest that certifying the new line faster would have increased the total flow potential more than the other 3 combined?
- jacknews 4y ago
  Perhaps the explosives misfired. Or they're still there waiting to be triggered. It makes no sense for Russia to destroy infrastructure that delivers it's own products. It makes every sense for US to cripple Russian gas supply to Europe in the future, to be replaced by abundant US fracking gas. US has long bemoaned Europe's 'dependence' on Russian gas (or maybe 'independence' from US-controlled oil/gas). Now the US holds the leash again.
syzarian 4y ago
Shortly before the explosions Russia had shut down Nordstream1 for “maintenance”. This was believed at the time to be an attempt to squeeze gas supplies in Europe in retaliation for sanctions and helping Ukraine. By September 2022 Nordsteam1 was operating at 20%. I think part of the issue for Russia is that contracts specified payment in euros but Russia was blocked out of SWIFT. This effectively meant Russia wasn’t paid for gas it delivered. If the pipes were inoperative then the contracts were void. Germany had already decertified Nordstream2 by this time. I think it is unreasonable to believe that the U.S. attacked the energy sources of NATO allies as they scrambled to get enough energy before the onset of winter. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/22/european-gas-prices-surge-as-russia-announces-nord-stream-1-shutdown.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/22/european-gas-prices-surge-as...
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Shutting them down for maintenance means you have leverage because you can return the flow. Irreparably destroying the pipelines means you destroy the leverage Russia might have been able to use over Germany and others. > I think it is unreasonable to believe that the U.S. attacked the energy sources of NATO allies as they scrambled to get enough energy before the onset of winter. Why? Physically cutting off the flow of gas from Russia has been a hug boon to US LNG business. It's had the effect of decreasing their energy reliance on Russia and increasing their reliance on the US. That's not necessarily a bad thing in the long run, as this war has demonstrated. It also gives European elites an out to avoid pressure from their common folk to make a deal with Russia as things get cold. Harder to do that when they can theoretically just flip a switch to return the gas flow and resolve the pain.
  - syzarian 4y ago
    As stated it got Russia out of the Nordsteam1 contract without any legal repercussions. What you say is plausible. It’s also plausible Russia wanted this. I don’t know the truth of the matter. I don’t believe the U.S. decided that adding more energy uncertainty was a good thing just before the onset of winter. That doesn’t make any political sense to me and it’s not like Biden could reasonably expect that doing this could boost his political power or prospects.
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    The part you are missing is that Russia has many other pipelines to send oil/gas to Europe. This was only one.
- hui-zheng 4y ago
  > I think it is unreasonable to believe that the U.S. attacked the energy sources of NATO allies as they scrambled to get enough energy before the onset of winter. You haven't read enough history of mankind, I think.
  - syzarian 4y ago
    It’s clearly reasonable to believe that a major power would attack energy supplies against an adversary. It is not reasonable to believe that just before winter a major power attacks the energy supplies that its essential allies need. Especially when that major power desires a unified political and military response to said adversary. It defies common sense and logic to think the U.S. did this. Of course, there are lots of examples of countries doing things that defy common sense and logic.
jacknews 4y ago
Right, Russia already controlled the pipeline, by controlling the supply of gas, why destroy it? IMHO it was a clear signal from the US to Europe that there's a new Daddy when it comes to gas; Russian gas is no longer available, and is never coming back, you buy our fracking gas from now on.

erentz 4y ago

It would be very counter to the suggested goals of the US for it to demolish just 3 of the 4 pipelines. Leaving one of the brand new, larger pipelines untouched. A pipeline that had just been completed but the activation of which had been put on hold due to the start of the war. Only so that Russia could turn around after the event and offer to jointly activate this new pipeline with Germany. An act that had Germany capitulated would be a major political win for Russia, and blow to the suggested US goals.

anonporridge 4y ago
This is potentially the best counter argument I've seen so far. Do you have a source with stats that suggest that certifying the new line faster would have increased the total flow potential more than the other 3 combined?
jacknews 4y ago
Perhaps the explosives misfired. Or they're still there waiting to be triggered. It makes no sense for Russia to destroy infrastructure that delivers it's own products. It makes every sense for US to cripple Russian gas supply to Europe in the future, to be replaced by abundant US fracking gas. US has long bemoaned Europe's 'dependence' on Russian gas (or maybe 'independence' from US-controlled oil/gas). Now the US holds the leash again.

syzarian 4y ago

Shortly before the explosions Russia had shut down Nordstream1 for “maintenance”. This was believed at the time to be an attempt to squeeze gas supplies in Europe in retaliation for sanctions and helping Ukraine. By September 2022 Nordsteam1 was operating at 20%. I think part of the issue for Russia is that contracts specified payment in euros but Russia was blocked out of SWIFT. This effectively meant Russia wasn’t paid for gas it delivered. If the pipes were inoperative then the contracts were void. Germany had already decertified Nordstream2 by this time. I think it is unreasonable to believe that the U.S. attacked the energy sources of NATO allies as they scrambled to get enough energy before the onset of winter. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/22/european-gas-prices-surge-as-russia-announces-nord-stream-1-shutdown.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/22/european-gas-prices-surge-as...

anonporridge 4y ago
Shutting them down for maintenance means you have leverage because you can return the flow. Irreparably destroying the pipelines means you destroy the leverage Russia might have been able to use over Germany and others. > I think it is unreasonable to believe that the U.S. attacked the energy sources of NATO allies as they scrambled to get enough energy before the onset of winter. Why? Physically cutting off the flow of gas from Russia has been a hug boon to US LNG business. It's had the effect of decreasing their energy reliance on Russia and increasing their reliance on the US. That's not necessarily a bad thing in the long run, as this war has demonstrated. It also gives European elites an out to avoid pressure from their common folk to make a deal with Russia as things get cold. Harder to do that when they can theoretically just flip a switch to return the gas flow and resolve the pain.
- syzarian 4y ago
  As stated it got Russia out of the Nordsteam1 contract without any legal repercussions. What you say is plausible. It’s also plausible Russia wanted this. I don’t know the truth of the matter. I don’t believe the U.S. decided that adding more energy uncertainty was a good thing just before the onset of winter. That doesn’t make any political sense to me and it’s not like Biden could reasonably expect that doing this could boost his political power or prospects.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  The part you are missing is that Russia has many other pipelines to send oil/gas to Europe. This was only one.
hui-zheng 4y ago
> I think it is unreasonable to believe that the U.S. attacked the energy sources of NATO allies as they scrambled to get enough energy before the onset of winter. You haven't read enough history of mankind, I think.
- syzarian 4y ago
  It’s clearly reasonable to believe that a major power would attack energy supplies against an adversary. It is not reasonable to believe that just before winter a major power attacks the energy supplies that its essential allies need. Especially when that major power desires a unified political and military response to said adversary. It defies common sense and logic to think the U.S. did this. Of course, there are lots of examples of countries doing things that defy common sense and logic.

jacknews 4y ago

Right, Russia already controlled the pipeline, by controlling the supply of gas, why destroy it? IMHO it was a clear signal from the US to Europe that there's a new Daddy when it comes to gas; Russian gas is no longer available, and is never coming back, you buy our fracking gas from now on.