12 ms·
> 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”, whi
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 agoApparently 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 agoDepends 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 agoHow 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 ago100kg 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 agoAs 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 agoWell, 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 ago51% 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 agoThe 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 agoPlease 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 agoIt 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?