7 ms·

> What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears to be based on a single, unnamed source "with direct knowledge of the operational planning". W

> What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears to be based on a single, unnamed source "with direct knowledge of the operational planning". Why is that weird? Assuming this is true, there would be rather many people with such knowledge. One of them may feel the need to talk. Would you expect such a source to be named? Also, I find it a lot easier to imagine why the US would want to do this, than why Russia or Germany would want to do this.

hef19898 4y ago
You can easily imagine any of the Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine (with some local help) or even Finland, Swede or Norway doing the deed. Or, since the pipelines are well known and not difficult to reach, basically everyone with access to explosives, a boat a divers with explosives skills. None of which is particularly hard to come by.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  At that moment in the war, even Putin had a lot of strong motivations -- lock out the option of bringing Nord Stream back online and close to door on de-escalation. As a side-benefit, the possibility of driving a wedge into NATO. I also found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713402 interesting. Who knows.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Well, someone did it. If somebody knows who, they are not telling. Without sources, everything is specilation at best, consiracy theory BS or propaganda at worst. Personally, I don't even believe half of what is reported with connection to the war in Ukraine.
    - thwayunion 4y ago
      Agreed. One of those situations where everyone wants to blame everyone else for a "terrible" thing that happened, but at the same time don't really GAF because all sides were okay with finalizing a clean break between Europe and Russia for a variety of domestic and IR reasons anyways.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        Now I picture a virtual waiting line of covert divers and motivated activists in front of the pipelines waiting for their turn to try it. And being pissed someone else was first! Maybe they have a class reunion of sorts ten years from now!
        bee_rider 4y ago
        A dozen divers of the joint US-Russia-Ukraine-Germany “diplomacy simplification strike force” show up only to find the wreckage of the pipeline. Floating nearby, the telltale calling-card, a globe emblazoned on a white flag… Greenpeace!
        hef19898 4y ago
        >> joint US-Russia-Ukraine-Germany “diplomacy simplification strike force” Thank you so much for this, makes me start the day in such a better mood!!!
  - Laaas 4y ago
    Why do you think Putin is against de-escalation? The post you links to proposes a not very sensible argument: We are talking about _nation states_. The law isn't as black and white, Gazprom would not pay any fines put on it by a court of the enemy. Even if they were to pay fines put on them, why would this in any way reduce fines? Even if it were to reduce the fines, why would that be worth more than two pipelines there were full of methane? It sounds very implausible.
    - _djo_ 4y ago
      International contract arbitration wouldn't be handled by 'a court of the enemy', but by a neutral venue mutually agreed to in the contract signing, perhaps hosted by the World Bank, International Chamber of Commerce, or similar. Gazprom would have to abide by it once relations are normalised, or find other countries unwilling to trust it when signing future contracts.
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    Putin was already effectively doing that, by demanding payment in rubles and making weird terms. If Putin wanted to shut down Nordstream, he'd just stop sending gas. What was Europe going to do, sanction him more? I can see the US doing it as they've been vocal opponents to nordstream since its inception, I can see Ukraine wanting to do it although I doubt they'd have the resources, might also have been some other rogue European faction wanting out from under Putin's thumb.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > If Putin wanted to shut down Nordstream, he'd just stop sending gas. Permanently shutting it down significantly constrains options for anyone who might seize power in Russia next.
    - VintageCool 4y ago
      The "Putin did it" hypothesis was that he did it to prevent internal replacement. Suppose that some Russian rival wanted to replace him. They could kill or imprison Putin, end the war in Ukraine, restart the gas pipelines, and have a lot of gas money from Europe to distribute to supporters. Destroying the pipelines removed the potential reward for an internal rival to replace him.
      - landemva 4y ago
        > Suppose that some Russian rival Putin's rivals make Putin look soft. If they do take power, they will end the conflict quickly and definitively.
        archagon 4y ago
        There is no mechanism by which the war can be ended quickly and definitively without global murder-suicide. (Aside from Russia leaving, of course.)
        throwA29B 4y ago
        Huh? Indiscriminate bombing US-style will do that in a flash. Heck leveling Kiev will do that too. Could be done in a day.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    this is silly - no-one blows up their own assets. This pipeline was hard-won for Russia, they would not destroy it
- yencabulator 4y ago
  > even Finland, Swede[n] No, one cannot easily imagine long-term neutral countries interfering in a foreign war like this.
- impossiblefork 4y ago
  The Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, Sweden and so on, all understand that they have duties to Germany due to their EU membership and further understand that they are dependent on the German economy and that any action of this kind, which jeopardises the German economy, jeopardises also them. Thus you cannot easily imagine any of the Baltic states, Finland or Sweden doing the deed. Norway is conceivable-- but they're not really all that active in the Baltic sea, Ukraine is conceivable-- but it isn't actually super easy to do what was done. Blowing up the pipeline would have been easy, but there were several bombs, and they were, as I understand it, quite big, and this would be removal of resources from things closer to the fighting. Norway is difficult for political reasons though-- would they really screw over their neighbouring countries in the EU? Thus all these countries are all unlikely choices.
indymike 4y ago
> Why is that weird? Assuming this is true, there would be rather many people with such knowledge. One of them may feel the need to talk. The level of detail about the operation is basically, some divers from the US Navy attached bombs to the pipeline during a military drill that were detonated with magical sonobouy signals according to some professor who said that might work. Another red flag: The vast majority of the article was about a political narrative, which really is focused around hurting Russia, and not who is benefited by the destruction of the pipeline. The US government does not own our energy industry and is often at odds with the gas and oil industry here, and this article assumes a level of integration that does not exist in the US political system.
- jdhn 4y ago
  >and not who is benefited by the destruction of the pipeline. The article itself said that Norway would benefit from the destruction of the pipe line.
  - indymike 4y ago
    > The article itself said that Norway would benefit from the destruction of the pipe line. This does not make the article more credible, in fact, it detaches the beneficiary one more degree from the actor.
    - lenkite 4y ago
      You can check the increase in energy exports from the US and Norway after the Nordstream sabotage yourself..
  - jeltz 4y ago
    Wouldn't that imply that Norway did it?
- cycomanic 4y ago
  > Another red flag: The vast majority of the article was about a political narrative, which really is focused around hurting Russia, and not who is benefited by the destruction of the pipeline. The US government does not own our energy industry and is often at odds with the gas and oil industry here, and this article assumes a level of integration that does not exist in the US political system. I am not really qualified to judge on the verity of the article, but the statement that's there is no strong "integration" between the US government and the gas and oil industry (and other ones for that matter) is absurd. The US fought wars over access to cheap oil (Gulf war 1) has put extremely lucrative deals for their own oil companies into place after forcing regime change (gulf war 2), has highest officials transition to highest jobs in industry (Cheney), has shown multiple times that it will use intelligence apperatus for industry advantages (the spying scandal in Germany, airbus vs boring contracts...). Many (most) US military operations over the last 30 years can be directly attributed to economic motivations.
tlear 4y ago
Because without a collaboration of some sort this reads like a planted story. Source with this degree of knowledge would have no issue providing lots of things that could be confirmed through other means. Documents, names, precise dates and times. Who was in charge of this on Norwegian side? On CIA side.. when and where did they meat etc etc etc

hef19898 4y ago

You can easily imagine any of the Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine (with some local help) or even Finland, Swede or Norway doing the deed. Or, since the pipelines are well known and not difficult to reach, basically everyone with access to explosives, a boat a divers with explosives skills. None of which is particularly hard to come by.

thwayunion 4y ago
At that moment in the war, even Putin had a lot of strong motivations -- lock out the option of bringing Nord Stream back online and close to door on de-escalation. As a side-benefit, the possibility of driving a wedge into NATO. I also found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713402 interesting. Who knows.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Well, someone did it. If somebody knows who, they are not telling. Without sources, everything is specilation at best, consiracy theory BS or propaganda at worst. Personally, I don't even believe half of what is reported with connection to the war in Ukraine.
  - thwayunion 4y ago
    Agreed. One of those situations where everyone wants to blame everyone else for a "terrible" thing that happened, but at the same time don't really GAF because all sides were okay with finalizing a clean break between Europe and Russia for a variety of domestic and IR reasons anyways.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      Now I picture a virtual waiting line of covert divers and motivated activists in front of the pipelines waiting for their turn to try it. And being pissed someone else was first! Maybe they have a class reunion of sorts ten years from now!
      - bee_rider 4y ago
        A dozen divers of the joint US-Russia-Ukraine-Germany “diplomacy simplification strike force” show up only to find the wreckage of the pipeline. Floating nearby, the telltale calling-card, a globe emblazoned on a white flag… Greenpeace!
        hef19898 4y ago
        >> joint US-Russia-Ukraine-Germany “diplomacy simplification strike force” Thank you so much for this, makes me start the day in such a better mood!!!
- Laaas 4y ago
  Why do you think Putin is against de-escalation? The post you links to proposes a not very sensible argument: We are talking about _nation states_. The law isn't as black and white, Gazprom would not pay any fines put on it by a court of the enemy. Even if they were to pay fines put on them, why would this in any way reduce fines? Even if it were to reduce the fines, why would that be worth more than two pipelines there were full of methane? It sounds very implausible.
  - _djo_ 4y ago
    International contract arbitration wouldn't be handled by 'a court of the enemy', but by a neutral venue mutually agreed to in the contract signing, perhaps hosted by the World Bank, International Chamber of Commerce, or similar. Gazprom would have to abide by it once relations are normalised, or find other countries unwilling to trust it when signing future contracts.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Putin was already effectively doing that, by demanding payment in rubles and making weird terms. If Putin wanted to shut down Nordstream, he'd just stop sending gas. What was Europe going to do, sanction him more? I can see the US doing it as they've been vocal opponents to nordstream since its inception, I can see Ukraine wanting to do it although I doubt they'd have the resources, might also have been some other rogue European faction wanting out from under Putin's thumb.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > If Putin wanted to shut down Nordstream, he'd just stop sending gas. Permanently shutting it down significantly constrains options for anyone who might seize power in Russia next.
  - VintageCool 4y ago
    The "Putin did it" hypothesis was that he did it to prevent internal replacement. Suppose that some Russian rival wanted to replace him. They could kill or imprison Putin, end the war in Ukraine, restart the gas pipelines, and have a lot of gas money from Europe to distribute to supporters. Destroying the pipelines removed the potential reward for an internal rival to replace him.
    - landemva 4y ago
      > Suppose that some Russian rival Putin's rivals make Putin look soft. If they do take power, they will end the conflict quickly and definitively.
      - archagon 4y ago
        There is no mechanism by which the war can be ended quickly and definitively without global murder-suicide. (Aside from Russia leaving, of course.)
        throwA29B 4y ago
        Huh? Indiscriminate bombing US-style will do that in a flash. Heck leveling Kiev will do that too. Could be done in a day.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  this is silly - no-one blows up their own assets. This pipeline was hard-won for Russia, they would not destroy it
yencabulator 4y ago
> even Finland, Swede[n] No, one cannot easily imagine long-term neutral countries interfering in a foreign war like this.
impossiblefork 4y ago
The Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, Sweden and so on, all understand that they have duties to Germany due to their EU membership and further understand that they are dependent on the German economy and that any action of this kind, which jeopardises the German economy, jeopardises also them. Thus you cannot easily imagine any of the Baltic states, Finland or Sweden doing the deed. Norway is conceivable-- but they're not really all that active in the Baltic sea, Ukraine is conceivable-- but it isn't actually super easy to do what was done. Blowing up the pipeline would have been easy, but there were several bombs, and they were, as I understand it, quite big, and this would be removal of resources from things closer to the fighting. Norway is difficult for political reasons though-- would they really screw over their neighbouring countries in the EU? Thus all these countries are all unlikely choices.

indymike 4y ago

> Why is that weird? Assuming this is true, there would be rather many people with such knowledge. One of them may feel the need to talk. The level of detail about the operation is basically, some divers from the US Navy attached bombs to the pipeline during a military drill that were detonated with magical sonobouy signals according to some professor who said that might work. Another red flag: The vast majority of the article was about a political narrative, which really is focused around hurting Russia, and not who is benefited by the destruction of the pipeline. The US government does not own our energy industry and is often at odds with the gas and oil industry here, and this article assumes a level of integration that does not exist in the US political system.

jdhn 4y ago
>and not who is benefited by the destruction of the pipeline. The article itself said that Norway would benefit from the destruction of the pipe line.
- indymike 4y ago
  > The article itself said that Norway would benefit from the destruction of the pipe line. This does not make the article more credible, in fact, it detaches the beneficiary one more degree from the actor.
  - lenkite 4y ago
    You can check the increase in energy exports from the US and Norway after the Nordstream sabotage yourself..
- jeltz 4y ago
  Wouldn't that imply that Norway did it?
cycomanic 4y ago
> Another red flag: The vast majority of the article was about a political narrative, which really is focused around hurting Russia, and not who is benefited by the destruction of the pipeline. The US government does not own our energy industry and is often at odds with the gas and oil industry here, and this article assumes a level of integration that does not exist in the US political system. I am not really qualified to judge on the verity of the article, but the statement that's there is no strong "integration" between the US government and the gas and oil industry (and other ones for that matter) is absurd. The US fought wars over access to cheap oil (Gulf war 1) has put extremely lucrative deals for their own oil companies into place after forcing regime change (gulf war 2), has highest officials transition to highest jobs in industry (Cheney), has shown multiple times that it will use intelligence apperatus for industry advantages (the spying scandal in Germany, airbus vs boring contracts...). Many (most) US military operations over the last 30 years can be directly attributed to economic motivations.

tlear 4y ago

Because without a collaboration of some sort this reads like a planted story. Source with this degree of knowledge would have no issue providing lots of things that could be confirmed through other means. Documents, names, precise dates and times. Who was in charge of this on Norwegian side? On CIA side.. when and where did they meat etc etc etc