Hacker News Reader

Comment by guerrilla | Hacker News Reader

The point would depend on who did it. If it was the US, then it was to keep their promise to shut down NS1/2 but after Germany had topped up[1][2]. If it was Russia, then the point is to increase prices by creating volatility through insecurity and to make a threat (they have other pipelines like Yamal that are still running.[3]) If it was some other gas-exporting country (seems unlikely), then likewise, to spike prices.

1. https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662

2. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/europe-is...

3. https://www.planete-energies.com/en/medias/infographics/gas-...

View on HN

I would think the US would be more subtle than two simultaneous leaks. That looks like an actor who doesn’t care about being identified.

Why would the US care if they were seen as doing it when they already announced that they were going to do it[1]?

1. https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662

This would probably be helped by some kind of citation, or at least an explanation of what is meant here.

It is linked above. https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662

It is a tweet posted in February 7th by ABC News:

Pres. Biden: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

Reporter: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"

Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."

They clearly meant via the use of either sanctions or other political / legal means, which is exactly what happened because Nord Stream 2 never opened.

I think that's far from clear, verging on very naive. They spent the existence of both pipelines trying doing exactly what you described but could not stop them. Clearly they meant bomb it. And, no, I'm not saying they did. As my other comment indicates Russiais just as if not more likelythe culprit.

It is was very naive why did no one take it literally when he first said it? Back then it was very clear what he meant.

> I would think the US would be more subtle than two simultaneous leaks.

There are three leaks.

> That looks like an actor who doesn’t care about being identified.

I don't see anyone being identified, do you?

My bet is on some sort of deniable operation from either Ukraine, or one of the other former soviet countries with a bone to pick against Russia. It's not like Russia isn't shy in waving around how much an asset the pipeline is to them.

Or like an actor who likes to be misidentified. There's one player in the global propaganda game who has completely given up convincing anyone of their positions, they've gone all in on the fallback strategy of making noone trust anyone. They wouldn't care if a false flag operation fails to really convince antibody, just casting doubt would already be good enough.

Well it’s not hard to connect the dots so why be subtle? If Russia knows it wasn’t Russia, it sure as hell wasn’t Germany. Who else is there that would have the desire and the means?

Why forget the obvious, Ukraine?

They already showed they are capable of doing terrorist actions on Russian territory while keeping silent about it. Baltic pipeline would be a children play for them, since an army can't protect it.

Their enemy will not be able to sell gas to Europe without going through what is left of Ukraine. Since Poland stopped Jamal, they can basically dictate transit price and let Russia finance their army.

> Why forget the obvious, Ukraine?

Because Ukraine has no submarines and they don't have access to the Baltic Sea even if they had any?

Some people are claiming somebody could have dived to it. I don't know if that is the case, but I would assume Ukraine would be capable of sending a couple people who know how to dive a few countries over. They also likely have plenty of explosives.

There is quite a bit of risk involved in a covert operation like this for Ukraine. Let's just imagine they sent a special ops team covertly into Denmark (onto the island of Bornholm which is mostly reached by airplane or ferry) and planted some explosives on the pipeline in a secret dive operation.

There are quite a bit of scenarios in which this could go terribly wrong or be successfully attributed after the facts.

The paramount Ukrainian reliance on western support to have any chance to win this war makes me think that the risk/reward ratio for this operation would make it super unlikely that Ukraine would consider doing this.

Odd that this is downvoted. I do wonder what possible methods could have been use to undertake this. Are there underwater drones that are capable? Could a small private boat have just gotten into position about the pipeline and dropped the explosive?

It’s downvoted because it repeats Rashist propaganda - there were no terrorist attacks by Ukraine.

> They already showed they are capable of doing terrorist actions on Russian territory while keeping silent about it. Baltic pipeline would be a children play for them, since an army can't protect it.

So far Ukraine has only hit legitimate military targets within Russia, unlike Russia who repeatedly uses it acts of terror, rape, genocide and torture as a active part of its war machine. It's a large stretch to call what Ukraine has done 'terrorist actions'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com