4 ms·
If this turns out to be right --and we don't have conclusive evidence, but this would upset the current narrative. Why would Russia be an idiot to shoot itself
by mc32 4y ago
If this turns out to be right --and we don't have conclusive evidence, but this would upset the current narrative. Why would Russia be an idiot to shoot itself in the foot (cui bono) and blow up their leverage; though in international affairs the unimaginable is possible, so yeah they may have done it to themselves -though to outsiders it would seem illogical
If true though, it would be as big as the Gulf of Tonkin incident [as in it was us in pursuit of our own interest]
- selimthegrim 4y agoRussia would be an idiot to start a war with Ukr…oh wait a minute
- mc32 4y agoRobbing a bank is stupid... and people do it. But one usually does not use one's own check to write the hold-up note. Sure, it happens, but not typically.
- kibwen 4y agoThe Gulf of Tonkin involved the US claiming that a US ship was fired upon as a pretense to declare war in retaliation. The idea here is that the US blew up a Russian pipeline in order to... what? Declare war on Russia in retaliation for Russia's own pipeline being destroyed? This makes no sense unless you're accusing Russia of blowing up the pipeline.
- LarryMullins 4y agoFor completeness, the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident was two alleged incidents. One of them probably happened and the other almost certainly didn't (admitted by Robert McNamara years later.) The first incident, the one that probably happened, was insufficient casus belli for LBJ and then conveniently for the war hawks the second incident, which never actually happened, sealed the deal two days later. McNamara's tacit admission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k
- Tepix 4y agoBlowing up the pipeline is an act of war.
- kibwen 4y agoPlease be precise. Who, exactly, are you alleging blew up the pipeline in order to declare war on whom? And then the elephant in the room: nobody declared war on anybody in the wake of this, so how is the possible justification for a war that did not happen being used as evidence that this event was designed to incite a war?
- Tepix 4y agoFrom TFA: The CIA argued that whatever was done, it would have to be covert. Everyone involved understood the stakes. “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack were traceable to the United States, “It’s an act of war.”