3 ms·
Yes the OP article and this whole argument seems like whitewash to me - a ragtag team of Ukrainian divers on a vacation charter yatch that doesn't even have son
by jacknews 2y ago
Yes the OP article and this whole argument seems like whitewash to me - a ragtag team of Ukrainian divers on a vacation charter yatch that doesn't even have sonar... planting 4 large explosives precicesly, at 80m depths?
nope
Any criminology surely starts with motive, and then means and opportunity. Who had a motive to destroy these pipelines? Who had the means?
Could it be America, who would cut off Russia as a supplier to Europe, and step in to replace them, given their ample fracking supplies looking for a market? And who certainly have the means for such an operation. Out of all the suspects, America certainly had most to gain, and most capability.
- nradov 2y agoJust because the charter yacht didn't come equipped with sonar doesn't mean that the dive team didn't have sonar. You can literally rent a complete side-scan sonar system in a box and carry it onboard with you. Some of my friends do this hunting for lost shipwrecks to dive.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jacknews 2y agoyes, coulda. But why not just rent a boat with sonar, in good shape, with safe dive platform, etc. Only one culprit ticks all the boxes from a crimonology pov, and none of the others really make much sense. Why, really, would Ukraine destroy the pipeline (not exactly the best way to make friends in Europe), and honestly, could they even? They were busy with much closer-to-home issues. Why would Russia destroy it? They were already in complete control, and the sabotage lost their ability to re-open supplies and therefore any negotiation leverage. Germany? Hardly. It's America. Who also crowed the loudest pointing the finger at Russia, at the time. Only America has such blatant chutzpah.