6 ms·

In Nord Stream attack, US officials use proxy media to blame proxy Ukraine

13 points by miguelazo 4y ago

miguelazo 4y ago
> With the story that Russia blew up its own pipelines no longer tenable, the Times’ new narrative asks us to believe that some unnamed “pro-Ukraine group”, which “did not appear to be working for military or intelligence services” somehow managed to obtain the unique capability to plant multiple explosives on a heavily sealed pipeline at the bottom of the Baltic Sea.
- Gibbon1 4y ago
  Apparently planting explosives on an underwater pipeline requires Manhattan project levels of resources. My opinion: People don't seem to understand how war works.
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    Depends on the depth of the pipeline. Your average scuba enthusiast is certainly not going to pull it off. And acquiring/transporting that quantity of explosives to the sites is also well beyond the means of the amateurs currently being offered up as a distraction.
    - brokenmachine 4y ago
      How much quantity did they use?
      - miguelazo 4y ago
        >Reports from seismologists based in Denmark and Sweden suggest that sizeable explosions on the order of 100 kilograms of TNT occurred in both incidents. https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88062 https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88062
        brokenmachine 4y ago
        100kg isn't that much to transport on a boat. Getting it down to that depth and actually locating the pipeline is the part that seems more difficult to me.
    - Gibbon1 4y ago
      As I said, you don't understand what war is. This is what countries do when there is a war. There is utterly nothing illegal or immoral about blowing those pipelines up.
      - miguelazo 4y ago
        Well, perhaps I am not as expert as yourself in the conduct of war, but last time I checked deliberately blowing up an ally's energy infrastructure wasn't a best practice.
        Gibbon1 4y ago
        51% of the pipelines are owned by Russia which is waging war against Ukraine. Which makes them a completely fair target. That they were successfully destroyed may make you unhappy because you favor Russia. But such as it is.
- vba616 4y ago
  The pipeline, despite being valuable for its purpose, was a hostage for Russia, and there can't be any reasonable doubt who destroyed it and why. "Harry Temple: All right, pop quiz. Airport, gunman with one hostage. He's using her for cover; he's almost to a plane. You're a hundred feet away. Jack?"
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    Please explain how a pipeline owned by a consortium of European partners and Gazprom, that was (very) mutually beneficial to Europe and Russia, was a "hostage for Russia"? Maybe it had something to do with the US, which has been trying to sell more LNG to Europe? https://peoplesworld.org/article/pipeline-ploy-how-u-s-natural-gas-interests-are-fueling-the-ukraine-crisis/ https://peoplesworld.org/article/pipeline-ploy-how-u-s-natur...
    - vba616 4y ago
      It was a conflict of interest for some in Europe between helping Ukraine and securing their energy supply. The pipeline provided an incentive to hold back regarding Russia. Someone made the judgement that it was better to take the risk of doing without the pipeline than let it affect policy. And do it covertly so as not to have a public controversy. I can't guess exactly who was involved, but likely some combination of NATO members at some level, probably including the US. US LNG seems like an important factor in judging the risk - you would want to be confident in the possibility of replacing the gas supply. It seems like with hindsight, the calculations that people wouldn't freeze to death en masse were correct, doesn't it? What is unclear?
Arnt 4y ago
"Unique capability to plant multiple explosives", WTF. I don't have a lot of friends, but I know someone who dives and someone else who can blow things up. Bringing the two together doesn't sound unique to my ears. And adding "heavily sealed" doesn't changed it, what does that even mean? That they used concrete and steel to build the pipeline? Neither material is rare.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  LOL. Perhaps you don't understand this because you don't dive yourself, but there's a very big difference between your PADI Open Water diver buddy's dives and the 70-90 meter depth estimated for the blasts. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/30/nord-stream-blasts-size-equal-to-large-amount-of-explosive-un-told https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/30/nord-stream...
  - Arnt 4y ago
    I'm Norwegian and my buddy works with robots. But let's disregard that; Norwegians are just 0.06% of the world and your point is probably about the typical case, not about rare exceptions. I think your real point is that deep diving skills and robots are extremely rare, perhaps except some pockets such as Norway. You might be right... but my basic assumption would be that the same skills and equipment are easy to find in every port large enough to have a construction industry for undersea pipelines etc.
    - p1peridine 4y ago
      Om jeg forstår deg rett.. Du som er Nordmann kjenner vel kanskje til at vi måtte hente eksperthjelp fra noen karer nede i USA før vi kunne begynne å bore olje. Ingen Nordmann dykket den gangen, vi måtte ha hjelp. Ved å følge din logikk burde de jo vært Norske, siden slike folk visstnok er enkle å finne? Det samme dypdykket jeg refererer til her endte også i dødsfall av en eller flere av de Amerikanerne som turte det dykket her nede i Norsk sjø, på grunn av en ulykke. Uansett, med tanke på Nord Stream, vi snakker om en sabotasje-operasjon med eksplosiver under vann. Slikt man ofte ser i klisjè action-filmer, men som (nesten) aldri skjer i virkeligheten. Mener ikke å si at noe av det du skriver er feil i teorien - tror bare muligens du undervurderer skalaen på en slik operasjon. Det er åpenbart en godt planlagt militær operasjon.

13 points by miguelazo 4y ago

> With the story that Russia blew up its own pipelines no longer tenable, the Times’ new narrative asks us to believe that some unnamed “pro-Ukraine group”, which “did not appear to be working for military or intelligence services” somehow managed to obtain the unique capability to plant multiple explosives on a heavily sealed pipeline at the bottom of the Baltic Sea.

Gibbon1 4y ago
Apparently planting explosives on an underwater pipeline requires Manhattan project levels of resources. My opinion: People don't seem to understand how war works.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  Depends on the depth of the pipeline. Your average scuba enthusiast is certainly not going to pull it off. And acquiring/transporting that quantity of explosives to the sites is also well beyond the means of the amateurs currently being offered up as a distraction.
  - brokenmachine 4y ago
    How much quantity did they use?
    - miguelazo 4y ago
      >Reports from seismologists based in Denmark and Sweden suggest that sizeable explosions on the order of 100 kilograms of TNT occurred in both incidents. https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88062 https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88062
      - brokenmachine 4y ago
        100kg isn't that much to transport on a boat. Getting it down to that depth and actually locating the pipeline is the part that seems more difficult to me.
  - Gibbon1 4y ago
    As I said, you don't understand what war is. This is what countries do when there is a war. There is utterly nothing illegal or immoral about blowing those pipelines up.
    - miguelazo 4y ago
      Well, perhaps I am not as expert as yourself in the conduct of war, but last time I checked deliberately blowing up an ally's energy infrastructure wasn't a best practice.
      - Gibbon1 4y ago
        51% of the pipelines are owned by Russia which is waging war against Ukraine. Which makes them a completely fair target. That they were successfully destroyed may make you unhappy because you favor Russia. But such as it is.
vba616 4y ago
The pipeline, despite being valuable for its purpose, was a hostage for Russia, and there can't be any reasonable doubt who destroyed it and why. "Harry Temple: All right, pop quiz. Airport, gunman with one hostage. He's using her for cover; he's almost to a plane. You're a hundred feet away. Jack?"
- miguelazo 4y ago
  Please explain how a pipeline owned by a consortium of European partners and Gazprom, that was (very) mutually beneficial to Europe and Russia, was a "hostage for Russia"? Maybe it had something to do with the US, which has been trying to sell more LNG to Europe? https://peoplesworld.org/article/pipeline-ploy-how-u-s-natural-gas-interests-are-fueling-the-ukraine-crisis/ https://peoplesworld.org/article/pipeline-ploy-how-u-s-natur...
  - vba616 4y ago
    It was a conflict of interest for some in Europe between helping Ukraine and securing their energy supply. The pipeline provided an incentive to hold back regarding Russia. Someone made the judgement that it was better to take the risk of doing without the pipeline than let it affect policy. And do it covertly so as not to have a public controversy. I can't guess exactly who was involved, but likely some combination of NATO members at some level, probably including the US. US LNG seems like an important factor in judging the risk - you would want to be confident in the possibility of replacing the gas supply. It seems like with hindsight, the calculations that people wouldn't freeze to death en masse were correct, doesn't it? What is unclear?

Arnt 4y ago

"Unique capability to plant multiple explosives", WTF. I don't have a lot of friends, but I know someone who dives and someone else who can blow things up. Bringing the two together doesn't sound unique to my ears. And adding "heavily sealed" doesn't changed it, what does that even mean? That they used concrete and steel to build the pipeline? Neither material is rare.

miguelazo 4y ago
LOL. Perhaps you don't understand this because you don't dive yourself, but there's a very big difference between your PADI Open Water diver buddy's dives and the 70-90 meter depth estimated for the blasts. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/30/nord-stream-blasts-size-equal-to-large-amount-of-explosive-un-told https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/30/nord-stream...
- Arnt 4y ago
  I'm Norwegian and my buddy works with robots. But let's disregard that; Norwegians are just 0.06% of the world and your point is probably about the typical case, not about rare exceptions. I think your real point is that deep diving skills and robots are extremely rare, perhaps except some pockets such as Norway. You might be right... but my basic assumption would be that the same skills and equipment are easy to find in every port large enough to have a construction industry for undersea pipelines etc.
  - p1peridine 4y ago
    Om jeg forstår deg rett.. Du som er Nordmann kjenner vel kanskje til at vi måtte hente eksperthjelp fra noen karer nede i USA før vi kunne begynne å bore olje. Ingen Nordmann dykket den gangen, vi måtte ha hjelp. Ved å følge din logikk burde de jo vært Norske, siden slike folk visstnok er enkle å finne? Det samme dypdykket jeg refererer til her endte også i dødsfall av en eller flere av de Amerikanerne som turte det dykket her nede i Norsk sjø, på grunn av en ulykke. Uansett, med tanke på Nord Stream, vi snakker om en sabotasje-operasjon med eksplosiver under vann. Slikt man ofte ser i klisjè action-filmer, men som (nesten) aldri skjer i virkeligheten. Mener ikke å si at noe av det du skriver er feil i teorien - tror bare muligens du undervurderer skalaen på en slik operasjon. Det er åpenbart en godt planlagt militær operasjon.