3 ms·

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EeP_ZZbBIl4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EeP_ZZbBIl4 I like this analysis, where it was probably Russia, although we may never k

by jemmyw 4y ago

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EeP_ZZbBIl4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EeP_ZZbBIl4 I like this analysis, where it was probably Russia, although we may never know, but it's actually more harmful to Russia if we have these conspiracy theories going around the perpetrator/cause. They want people to be panicked by their hybrid warfare and instead the West is largely ignoring it.

flangola7 4y ago
Wouldn't that count as an act of war against NATO? If that's actually what happened, nobody would admit because the endgame is catastrophically bad.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  Yeah, exactly, that’s what my paraphrased comment was about.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  When you consider the other things that have been going on it would be but Russia is going to make sure they have a chain of deniability. Would the West go to war over something that doesn't cause mass public outage and they can't pin on Russia with a high degree of certainty? I doubt it. Actually whoever did it it seems like the best course of action for Europe is to not talk about it. Russia, USA, Ukrainian terrorists it doesn't really matter.
- ianburrell 4y ago
  I’m not sure that Nord Stream attack would count as attack against NATO member since the explosions were in international waters. OTOH, the pipeline ends in Germany and is owned by multinational group. But nobody was killed. I think it isn’t enough to require NATO response. It could be used if NATO wanted to escalate but it would be weak reason. But would be good propaganda. Which means that if the US knew, they would probably announce it.
faeriechangling 4y ago
Well on the side of the Americans doing it, we have a reputable western journalist citing their anonymous sources saying it was the Americans and Norwegians, the Americans in the past having actively vowed to stop Nordstream 2 if Russia invaded Ukraine, and the Americans have the abundantly clear motive of kneecapping the Russian economy, while increasing the value of their own oil exports. On the side of the Russians doing it - the Russians total lack of motive proves it was them. Blowing up your own pipeline is so incredibly stupid and self defeating that people will always doubt you did it, making it the perfect false flag attack! Imagine how inspired the Russians are to support this war now that a piece of inanimate infrastructure blew up with a heavily indirect impact on their day to day lives! Plus the Germans will suspect America because of the Russians total lack of motive.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > Well on the side of the Americans doing it, we have a reputable western journalist citing their anonymous sources saying it was the Americans and Norwegians, the Americans in the past having actively vowed to stop Nordstream 2 if Russia invaded Ukraine, and the Americans have the abundantly clear motive of kneecapping the Russian economy, while increasing the value of their own oil exports. On one hand, we have a story with no real evidence in anyway shape or form, that gets key facts about the players involved completely wrong from someone who used to be credible. Wherever Hersh got his story doesn't seem to know a lot about reality.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  The reputable western journalist has given exactly the same amount of evidence as game theory: zero. Yes the US had reasons for disliking this pipeline. But I would forward that blowing it up at that time would be a dumb move. They were kneecapping the Russian economy anyway AND getting lucrative LNG business from Europe. The downside to being caught seems to outweigh the gain of doing it in such an ostentatious way. Plus the US didn't need to blow it up to achieve the same goals. They have so many diplomatic levers. I don't think German politicians give any credence to it being the Americans. So it could be the US, but only if they were really stupid. I guess Russia doesn't have a monopoly on stupid.
- 4y ago
throwawaylinux 4y ago
He said at the start of that video he discussed his belief about the probability of Russia attacking was covered in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido > They want people to be panicked by their hybrid warfare Why? People were already panicking about Russia (rolling through Western Europe, using nukes, etc). The argument in the video I linked is not very convincing to me at all. Nobody was ever under any doubt that Russia could bomb some unguarded infrastructure near its border. And he just handwaves the idea that the US could have carried an operation to sabotage the pipeline as a "clandestine activity" (i.e., making it look like an accident) just by hacking it or something. It's a Hollywood analysis of "hackers". Why even fight Russia at all, why not just hack all their military, factories, refineries, communications, and power plants? It might be a fun exercise in simplistic game theory type analysis but taking that and using it to assign Russia as the most likely culprit seems like astounding hubris and naivety.

by jemmyw 4y ago

flangola7 4y ago

Wouldn't that count as an act of war against NATO? If that's actually what happened, nobody would admit because the endgame is catastrophically bad.

Semaphor 4y ago
Yeah, exactly, that’s what my paraphrased comment was about.
jemmyw 4y ago
When you consider the other things that have been going on it would be but Russia is going to make sure they have a chain of deniability. Would the West go to war over something that doesn't cause mass public outage and they can't pin on Russia with a high degree of certainty? I doubt it. Actually whoever did it it seems like the best course of action for Europe is to not talk about it. Russia, USA, Ukrainian terrorists it doesn't really matter.
ianburrell 4y ago
I’m not sure that Nord Stream attack would count as attack against NATO member since the explosions were in international waters. OTOH, the pipeline ends in Germany and is owned by multinational group. But nobody was killed. I think it isn’t enough to require NATO response. It could be used if NATO wanted to escalate but it would be weak reason. But would be good propaganda. Which means that if the US knew, they would probably announce it.

faeriechangling 4y ago

Well on the side of the Americans doing it, we have a reputable western journalist citing their anonymous sources saying it was the Americans and Norwegians, the Americans in the past having actively vowed to stop Nordstream 2 if Russia invaded Ukraine, and the Americans have the abundantly clear motive of kneecapping the Russian economy, while increasing the value of their own oil exports. On the side of the Russians doing it - the Russians total lack of motive proves it was them. Blowing up your own pipeline is so incredibly stupid and self defeating that people will always doubt you did it, making it the perfect false flag attack! Imagine how inspired the Russians are to support this war now that a piece of inanimate infrastructure blew up with a heavily indirect impact on their day to day lives! Plus the Germans will suspect America because of the Russians total lack of motive.

_kbh_ 4y ago
> Well on the side of the Americans doing it, we have a reputable western journalist citing their anonymous sources saying it was the Americans and Norwegians, the Americans in the past having actively vowed to stop Nordstream 2 if Russia invaded Ukraine, and the Americans have the abundantly clear motive of kneecapping the Russian economy, while increasing the value of their own oil exports. On one hand, we have a story with no real evidence in anyway shape or form, that gets key facts about the players involved completely wrong from someone who used to be credible. Wherever Hersh got his story doesn't seem to know a lot about reality.
jemmyw 4y ago
The reputable western journalist has given exactly the same amount of evidence as game theory: zero. Yes the US had reasons for disliking this pipeline. But I would forward that blowing it up at that time would be a dumb move. They were kneecapping the Russian economy anyway AND getting lucrative LNG business from Europe. The downside to being caught seems to outweigh the gain of doing it in such an ostentatious way. Plus the US didn't need to blow it up to achieve the same goals. They have so many diplomatic levers. I don't think German politicians give any credence to it being the Americans. So it could be the US, but only if they were really stupid. I guess Russia doesn't have a monopoly on stupid.
4y ago

throwawaylinux 4y ago

He said at the start of that video he discussed his belief about the probability of Russia attacking was covered in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido > They want people to be panicked by their hybrid warfare Why? People were already panicking about Russia (rolling through Western Europe, using nukes, etc). The argument in the video I linked is not very convincing to me at all. Nobody was ever under any doubt that Russia could bomb some unguarded infrastructure near its border. And he just handwaves the idea that the US could have carried an operation to sabotage the pipeline as a "clandestine activity" (i.e., making it look like an accident) just by hacking it or something. It's a Hollywood analysis of "hackers". Why even fight Russia at all, why not just hack all their military, factories, refineries, communications, and power plants? It might be a fun exercise in simplistic game theory type analysis but taking that and using it to assign Russia as the most likely culprit seems like astounding hubris and naivety.