10 ms·

Granted, it looks likely the Nord Stream pipeline attack was coordinated by the Ukrainian military Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/202

Granted, it looks likely the Nord Stream pipeline attack was coordinated by the Ukrainian military Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/...

alex_duf 3y ago
why does it looks like it was coordinated by the Ukrainian military, and hypothetically, would would Ukraine win by weakening gas supply to western Europe?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  These are the right questions to ask and given that a successful attack on EU infrastructure that got traced back to Ukraine would be an extremely risky thing to do for Ukraine I have my doubts about the likelihood of that scenario. It's within the realm of the possible but of course there are also false flag operations. I wonder if we'll ever know with certainty who did this short of someone spilling inside info, and I also wonder whether any of the participants in that raid are still alive. As for what Ukraine would win: hypothetically: they could cause Germany to stop relying on Russian gas a bit quicker. But there are other parties that stood a lot more to gain from this and 'qui bono' is an even better question, especially in the context of a false flag. The fact that the trail that was uncovered was a mile wide is in itself quite suspicious.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  It's not an unreasonable idea; the other major routes for Russian gas imports transit through Ukraine and Belarus (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-oil-and-gas-pipelines-from-Russia-credit-US-Energy-Information-Administration_fig2_268047847 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-oil-and-gas-pipel...). Nordstream was the only major one not within reasonable reach of Ukraine's normal armed forces. For obvious reasons, Ukraine doesn't want Europe paying Russia billions for natural gas right now. I'm dubious that the risk to European support is worth it for Ukraine; they're hardly the only ones with means, motive, and opportunity.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    And yet, the pipelines on Ukrainian soil remain unmolested. It's entirely possible though that there is a schism in the Ukrainian power structure that would insulate the politicians from over-eager military people.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      They control those, though. There's no need to preemptively strike against something you can turn off at will.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        And they haven't... but if they wanted to bomb them to create plausible deniability they have had plenty of opportunity. There are so many little factoids about this thing that it is very hard to make sense of it, for instance this little tidbit: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/28/russian-navy-vessel-seen-near-nord-stream-pipelines-days-before-blasts https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/28/russian-navy-v...
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        Yesh; Russians definitely also have means, motive, and opportunity. Barring some country coming out and admitting it, we may never know for certain.
- canadiantim 3y ago
  The Washington Post put out some investigative reporting detailing this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/...
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    It's very far away from anything that you could call proof. Read carefully: besides the title the whole article is full of disclaimers. Already on line two "say people familiar with planning" -> but not who those people are. Anonymity, 'people familiar with his role', that bit is repeated over and over. I'll reserve my skepticism until there is hard proof and even then: if it turns out that this was a rogue action how much weight should be attached to it? Does that rule out some invisible paymaster? Ukraine top government officials have denied involvement and knowledge of involvement and that's where it stands for now. The article would have been improved if it had said 'Allegedly' in the title, which given the thin sourcing is not a minor oversight.
jacquesm 3y ago
No, that's just one interpretation of the facts that we are relatively sure about. But nobody knows who the paymasters were. Note that there are still Ukrainians fighting on the Russian side and that 'the fog of war' is a thing.
- meeuwer 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That's an easy one: USA. But there is also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/... In case you weren't aware of it yet. It's a huge mess and with Putin, the US and the Ukraine all in play there are a whole slew of possible scenarios. Nothing short of a massive investigative effort will clear this up.
    - andreygrehov 3y ago
      Bright democratic countries are not interested in the investigation. The resolution failed to pass because it only received three votes in favor (Russia, China, and Brazil) and 12 abstentions.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        I think the general consensus is that they don't want this to become a distraction. Regardless of who did it it's a footnote and it doesn't change the fact that Russia started a war next door to the EU on a flimsy pretext and that's the thing that matters.
        andreygrehov 3y ago
        I kinda both agree and disagree with you. I agree that it won't change much in the grand scheme of things, but at the same time I disagree on the footnote part. If blowing up a natural gas pipeline is just a footnote, then it means the responsible parties can do all sorts of attacks and then later simply say: "well, it's just a distraction, let's forget about it and move on".
chess_buster 3y ago
No, it doesn't.
dontlaugh 3y ago
An interesting read on the topic https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...
- jacquesm 3y ago
  There has been a lot of criticism on Seymour Hersh's article. For instance: https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour...
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Hersh is... odd on the Ukraine topic. As of February of this year he was asserting "the Russians have yet to put any of their main forces in". https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1628898816953909251 https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1628898816953909251
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    In mnsho Hersh has lost the plot, a while ago.
chmod775 3y ago
As always, I'm going to assume it was done by the US until proven otherwise. Given their past underhanded treatment of allies, presumption of innocence is not something they deserve. In this case they were also one of the countries most strongly lobbying against the pipeline. I don't think it should exist either, so even though I "blame" the US for having blown it up, I think it's a good thing it happened. A democratic or diplomatic solution would have been nicer. So... thanks but not thanks?
- ben_w 3y ago
  I can easily believe any of the US, Russia, and Ukraine did it. The US because I agree with you about their history of playing such games; Russia because they are currently doing stupid things and blaming everyone else for it; and Ukraine because (while it would be really risky if they were found out) it has an obvious direct benefit of making it much harder for anyone in the EU to spend money on Russian gas even if they wanted to. There could be others, but I'm not sure who. China doesn't seem likely to be interested to me, but I could be wrong. North Korea seems like a chaos gremlin, but I don't think they have the capability. Greenpeace? :P
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Greenpeace is a new one. But the others all have motive means and opportunity to varying degrees. The one thing that is still most underdeveloped is how hard it really is to perform a feat like this.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      I hope the :P makes it clear I don't take the idea seriously…
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Yes, it was clear. But funny too. Note that the original cast of Greenpeace might not have been all against doing something like that. They started out as what today would be called eco-terrorists, and they had some pretty amazing capabilities for a group that small. Beware of intelligent and dedicated people. Their roots are in anti-war and anti-nuclear groups and over time their goals broadened. Today's Greenpeace is a gentle marketing club in comparison with how it all started. A turning point was the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, after that the nature of the organization changed considerably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior Ironically, it served as a wake-up call that something like Greenpeace is very much needed and was probably one of the biggest reasons people changed from 'neutral' to 'pro environment'. The French did not exactly do themselves a service with that action.
lawn 3y ago
By making this comment you want to shift blame away from Russia towards Ukraine, implying that Ukraine is somehow responsible for the uptick of hostile actions against EU and not Russia. Or in other words: you're being a useful idiot for Russia.
- verisimi 3y ago
  As opposed to being a useful idiot for the EU? Really, we are all so far removed from the geopolitical reality, who can say what is the truth of the matter? Please share your info/reasoning, if you think you have a special reason for thinking you have a better handle on it than others. In fact, this is really a general comment, that I direct at anyone who purports to know this or that.
  - pydry 3y ago
    The "Ukraine did it" story is just an American admission that their first cover story of "Russia did it to itself" was too absurd even for them. The only account that actually makes sense is still Seymour Hersh's - especially given the small matter of Biden's public threat and the motives.
    - canadiantim 3y ago
      I believe this is the real answer
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        2 hours for a full flip from one obviously guilty party to another... wow.
        canadiantim 3y ago
        I was correct in pointing out that it looks like Ukraine may have coordinated the attack, as substantiated by the WaPo article. I also believe that WaPo may be making Ukraine look like they've coordinated the attack in order to keep blame away from any US involvement. The most unlikely guilty party would of course be Russia, who has the most to lose in Nord Stream's sabotage.

alex_duf 3y ago

why does it looks like it was coordinated by the Ukrainian military, and hypothetically, would would Ukraine win by weakening gas supply to western Europe?

jacquesm 3y ago
These are the right questions to ask and given that a successful attack on EU infrastructure that got traced back to Ukraine would be an extremely risky thing to do for Ukraine I have my doubts about the likelihood of that scenario. It's within the realm of the possible but of course there are also false flag operations. I wonder if we'll ever know with certainty who did this short of someone spilling inside info, and I also wonder whether any of the participants in that raid are still alive. As for what Ukraine would win: hypothetically: they could cause Germany to stop relying on Russian gas a bit quicker. But there are other parties that stood a lot more to gain from this and 'qui bono' is an even better question, especially in the context of a false flag. The fact that the trail that was uncovered was a mile wide is in itself quite suspicious.
ceejayoz 3y ago
It's not an unreasonable idea; the other major routes for Russian gas imports transit through Ukraine and Belarus (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-oil-and-gas-pipelines-from-Russia-credit-US-Energy-Information-Administration_fig2_268047847 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-oil-and-gas-pipel...). Nordstream was the only major one not within reasonable reach of Ukraine's normal armed forces. For obvious reasons, Ukraine doesn't want Europe paying Russia billions for natural gas right now. I'm dubious that the risk to European support is worth it for Ukraine; they're hardly the only ones with means, motive, and opportunity.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  And yet, the pipelines on Ukrainian soil remain unmolested. It's entirely possible though that there is a schism in the Ukrainian power structure that would insulate the politicians from over-eager military people.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    They control those, though. There's no need to preemptively strike against something you can turn off at will.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      And they haven't... but if they wanted to bomb them to create plausible deniability they have had plenty of opportunity. There are so many little factoids about this thing that it is very hard to make sense of it, for instance this little tidbit: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/28/russian-navy-vessel-seen-near-nord-stream-pipelines-days-before-blasts https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/28/russian-navy-v...
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        Yesh; Russians definitely also have means, motive, and opportunity. Barring some country coming out and admitting it, we may never know for certain.
canadiantim 3y ago
The Washington Post put out some investigative reporting detailing this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/...
- jacquesm 3y ago
  It's very far away from anything that you could call proof. Read carefully: besides the title the whole article is full of disclaimers. Already on line two "say people familiar with planning" -> but not who those people are. Anonymity, 'people familiar with his role', that bit is repeated over and over. I'll reserve my skepticism until there is hard proof and even then: if it turns out that this was a rogue action how much weight should be attached to it? Does that rule out some invisible paymaster? Ukraine top government officials have denied involvement and knowledge of involvement and that's where it stands for now. The article would have been improved if it had said 'Allegedly' in the title, which given the thin sourcing is not a minor oversight.

jacquesm 3y ago

No, that's just one interpretation of the facts that we are relatively sure about. But nobody knows who the paymasters were. Note that there are still Ukrainians fighting on the Russian side and that 'the fog of war' is a thing.

meeuwer 3y ago
[flagged]
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That's an easy one: USA. But there is also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/... In case you weren't aware of it yet. It's a huge mess and with Putin, the US and the Ukraine all in play there are a whole slew of possible scenarios. Nothing short of a massive investigative effort will clear this up.
  - andreygrehov 3y ago
    Bright democratic countries are not interested in the investigation. The resolution failed to pass because it only received three votes in favor (Russia, China, and Brazil) and 12 abstentions.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      I think the general consensus is that they don't want this to become a distraction. Regardless of who did it it's a footnote and it doesn't change the fact that Russia started a war next door to the EU on a flimsy pretext and that's the thing that matters.
      - andreygrehov 3y ago
        I kinda both agree and disagree with you. I agree that it won't change much in the grand scheme of things, but at the same time I disagree on the footnote part. If blowing up a natural gas pipeline is just a footnote, then it means the responsible parties can do all sorts of attacks and then later simply say: "well, it's just a distraction, let's forget about it and move on".

chess_buster 3y ago

No, it doesn't.

dontlaugh 3y ago

An interesting read on the topic https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...

jacquesm 3y ago
There has been a lot of criticism on Seymour Hersh's article. For instance: https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour...
ceejayoz 3y ago
Hersh is... odd on the Ukraine topic. As of February of this year he was asserting "the Russians have yet to put any of their main forces in". https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1628898816953909251 https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1628898816953909251
- jacquesm 3y ago
  In mnsho Hersh has lost the plot, a while ago.

chmod775 3y ago

As always, I'm going to assume it was done by the US until proven otherwise. Given their past underhanded treatment of allies, presumption of innocence is not something they deserve. In this case they were also one of the countries most strongly lobbying against the pipeline. I don't think it should exist either, so even though I "blame" the US for having blown it up, I think it's a good thing it happened. A democratic or diplomatic solution would have been nicer. So... thanks but not thanks?

ben_w 3y ago
I can easily believe any of the US, Russia, and Ukraine did it. The US because I agree with you about their history of playing such games; Russia because they are currently doing stupid things and blaming everyone else for it; and Ukraine because (while it would be really risky if they were found out) it has an obvious direct benefit of making it much harder for anyone in the EU to spend money on Russian gas even if they wanted to. There could be others, but I'm not sure who. China doesn't seem likely to be interested to me, but I could be wrong. North Korea seems like a chaos gremlin, but I don't think they have the capability. Greenpeace? :P
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Greenpeace is a new one. But the others all have motive means and opportunity to varying degrees. The one thing that is still most underdeveloped is how hard it really is to perform a feat like this.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I hope the :P makes it clear I don't take the idea seriously…
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Yes, it was clear. But funny too. Note that the original cast of Greenpeace might not have been all against doing something like that. They started out as what today would be called eco-terrorists, and they had some pretty amazing capabilities for a group that small. Beware of intelligent and dedicated people. Their roots are in anti-war and anti-nuclear groups and over time their goals broadened. Today's Greenpeace is a gentle marketing club in comparison with how it all started. A turning point was the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, after that the nature of the organization changed considerably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior Ironically, it served as a wake-up call that something like Greenpeace is very much needed and was probably one of the biggest reasons people changed from 'neutral' to 'pro environment'. The French did not exactly do themselves a service with that action.

lawn 3y ago

By making this comment you want to shift blame away from Russia towards Ukraine, implying that Ukraine is somehow responsible for the uptick of hostile actions against EU and not Russia. Or in other words: you're being a useful idiot for Russia.

verisimi 3y ago
As opposed to being a useful idiot for the EU? Really, we are all so far removed from the geopolitical reality, who can say what is the truth of the matter? Please share your info/reasoning, if you think you have a special reason for thinking you have a better handle on it than others. In fact, this is really a general comment, that I direct at anyone who purports to know this or that.
- pydry 3y ago
  The "Ukraine did it" story is just an American admission that their first cover story of "Russia did it to itself" was too absurd even for them. The only account that actually makes sense is still Seymour Hersh's - especially given the small matter of Biden's public threat and the motives.
  - canadiantim 3y ago
    I believe this is the real answer
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      2 hours for a full flip from one obviously guilty party to another... wow.
      - canadiantim 3y ago
        I was correct in pointing out that it looks like Ukraine may have coordinated the attack, as substantiated by the WaPo article. I also believe that WaPo may be making Ukraine look like they've coordinated the attack in order to keep blame away from any US involvement. The most unlikely guilty party would of course be Russia, who has the most to lose in Nord Stream's sabotage.