Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajross | Hacker News Reader

It's upsetting that so many here want to take a genuine (and very scary) international crisis and use it to flog their own personal peeves.

Needless to say, "German energy policy of the last two decades" and "Let's Invade Ukraine and Blackmail Europe!" are different decisions, and subject to different analysis. You can have reasonable opinions about both, but if your opposition to Russian adventurism and brinksmanship[1] is grounded only on your support for the German nuclear industry, I think you're not helping the discourse.

[1] It's looking increasingly likely that they blew up Nordstream, which is dangerously close to an act of war against other nuclear powers.

View on HN

There is of course nuance required, but it's already acknowledged inside and out of Germany that the dependency on Russian gas / nordstream had an effect in bankrolling the aggression against Ukraine. Zelenskyy himself addressed the Bundestag and said as much.

> Why is this possible? When we told you that Nord Stream was a weapon and a preparation for a great war, we heard in response that it was an economy after all. Economy. Economy. But it was cement for a new wall. [1]

[1] https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/promova-prezidenta-ukra...

> "German energy policy of the last two decades" and "Let's Invade Ukraine and Blackmail Europe!"

There is a good argument that those two are related. Energy is a weapon of war for russia, and it works best when there is a dependency on it. A lot of money flows towards increasing that dependency, including towards advocacy groups with irrational stance against nuclear.

What's the advantage of blowing up a pipeline over simply shutting the valve when you control the valve AND supply?

Removing the incentive for your own power structure to knife you in the back to get the gas pipe turned back on.

I think they have special "camps" and unfortunate mundane accidents such as inopportune tripping hazards next to open 10th floor windows and landlubbers swimming in open ocean for that.

Show everybody that you can to it on other pipelines while doing it only on a currently useless one (I answer the question by giving one possible advantage, I have no opinion on the real cause at the moment)

There is little value in crazy showing crazy can do crazy things. We know crazy can do crazy. It like Kim, jung-un --it does not have to show us it is willing to lob a nuke, we know it would lob one if if needed to for self-preservation. These are rational actors, their reasoning might be foreign to us and operate differently, but they act within their own rational frameworks.

> There is little value in crazy showing crazy can do crazy things

There can be some strategical value in some situation to be perceived as crazy.

> These are rational actors

Probably but it's not 100% guaranteed

As a show of force I will destroy one of my own battalions. Watch out world: I could do the same to yours!

Exactly. Except for Intelligence agencies, we do not know who did it. However, the media consensus is that the enemy did self sabotage to show us they can do bad things? We know they very well can do bad things. They do not have to prove it.

Hell, GWBush was an inch away from approving tactical nuke use in Afghanistan but ultimately talked out of it and opted for the MOAB, but now a cornered rat thinking about it is now crazy? Does that mean GWB was crazy too?

Honest question. How did you get to the logical conclusion that Russia is the most likely party that bombed Nordstream?

To me it's completely obvious - Poland and its 50 million citizens depend on the Norway->Poland gas pipeline for having any gas this winter at all. Blowing up Nordstream is clearly a signal from Russia that if we don't stop pushing back on Ukraine, then that pipeline is next to go. That's how I read it anyway.

I don't agree with your assessment but I upvoted you anyway. Not sure why you were downvoted.

To me, it's completely obvious the truth is the exact opposite. I feel like only someone who is no longer thinking rationally can claim that Russia would blow up their own pipeline and make it impossible, even after hostilities cease (yes, they will cease one day, they always do... or are you still hostile to Germany?), to get billions and billions of easy Euro flowing down on its coffers.

If you know history you should understand that a "small" even like this, in a highly volatile situation like we have now, could easily trigger an irrational war no one can win to start. I would think that Putin knows that very well, so it's not imaginable to me that he would risk.

Could someone who feels so strongly against Russia, given all the news we're being fed daily in the West, actually want NATO to enter this conflict directly to finally "destroy" the enemy (which seems to be the only thing that will make Putin give up on Ukraine's East)?? I feel like, given responses like yours, that's exactly what's going on. You believe Putin is so murderous that he would just blow up one of his country's main sources of income, which he supported (against American strong opposition) for so many years, just "to send a signal" he will blow up Poland's main source of energy if the West doesn't back off... I can totally see someone who believes that also believes the only acceptable thing to do right now is to start a full scale war against Russia.... which would be so disastrous to humanity that, once we look back before that happened, we will wish we had just had the balls to freaking sit down with the Devil himself and have a talk and resolve our issues if that would've prevented Armagedon.

> If you know history you should understand that a "small" even like this, in a highly volatile situation like we have now, could easily trigger an irrational war no one can win to start. I would think that Putin knows that very well

Isn't the very existence of a ground war in Ukraine clear evidence that Putin does not "know that very well"? Your point seems to be "Putin clearly won't escalate because he already escalated". That seems poorly grounded.

And in any case the logic seems generic anyway; you can make that argument about literally any theory about "Who Blew Up Nordstream?". If you think Putin is risk-averse, why do you think western governments aren't? You really think Biden is going rogue over this but you... trust Putin to be a steady hand at the tiller?

Russia made it clear since the 1990's that if Ukraine ever tried to go the NATO way, they would intervene... this war was a long time coming.

Now, you can't compare invading Ukraine, right on Russia's backyard, with invading or attacking a NATO country (or its supplies in this case, which has the same effect).

My argument was not the Biden did it :D is that really what you read from what I wrote?? My argument is that someone in the West (or just on Ukraine's side), not thinking rationally anymore, may have been responsible. That's the only thing that fits with all we know so far - lots of people in the West see Putin as the new Hitler... would you do everything in your power to stop Hitler if you were in a position you believed you could?

If you believe only a Government has the capability to do such thing... then it's not so difficult to find one that would be "desperate" enough. Ukraine itself seems to be the one who would most benefit from NATO entering the war, right? But would they really risk getting caught and losing the trust of NATO? I don't know, but when your country is half in ruins you may not think straight anymore.

I mean, the problem here is that you basically assumed what my position is and then argued against it, but it isn't based on anything that I have said so far.

The only point I want to address is that I really don't believe Putin is acting rationally in this war. Nothing he has done has been rational. If he cared about the billions of euro flowing through those pipes, he simply wouldn't have attacked Ukraine in the first place. Judging him by what he's done in the past is pointless - he has congratulated and praised Zelensky when he was elected, now suddenly the guy is a fascist neo-nazi? Putin has military objectives and he won't stop until he achieves them. I wouldn't support an all our NATO Vs Russia war, but I do think that Putin shouldn't be allowed to annex parts of Ukraine just because he wants to - because yes, as a Polish man that triggers a very deep response, response that tells me that at some point, maybe not now but at some point, he will come and just declare that portions of Poland are now Russian. The comparison to Germany isn't really relevant here because Germany isn't attacking its neighbours currently like Russia is - but if it was I'd feel the same for very similar reasons.

If you claim that Putin isn’t rational then you can claim that he is liable to do anything and everything since his actions don’t make sense. Hence the obvious question: why would one theory be more likely than any other?

You yourself haven’t given any rational reasons for your original theory.

Trying to scare EU/NATO to back off or a country of 50 million people will go without gas this winter isn't a rational theory? Seems like a very clear thing to threaten in this situation.

>>Hence the obvious question: why would one theory be more likely than any other?

Well, I mean, some theories are obviously more likely than others - it's more likely that Russia blew it up than that Japan blew it up, right?

No, it isn’t a rational theory. Because the only elaboration you have given is that you are a worried Polish person.

Putin has already given quite brazen warnings like “remember that we have nukes”. And yet he would covertly sabotage Russia’s own pipeline? What kind of a limp-wristed warning is that?

> Well, I mean, some theories are obviously more likely than others - it's more likely that Russia blew it up than that Japan blew it up, right?

Yes, a country on the other side of the planet probably had nothing to do with this. Well said! Probably not Fiji either.

Any more brilliant counters?

Alternatively there are countries that are closer to the Baltic Sea which are both not Russia and Japan… as well as countries that have geopolitical interests in that general area.

Reminding about nukes doesn't work. The only outcome is being reminded by US that Russia will not survive consequences of using them. Nobody takes that as a serious treat.

Now pipes being blown up in a somewhat deniable way is treat, because that's something that can realistically happen without Moscow being nuked in the process.

Russia being a culprit here is so unthinkable for you probably because you vastly overestimate value of pipelines being affected. NS2 was never going to deliver gas, NS1 was turned off, likely forever. And hey, Yamal is still there, unaffected, if Russia actually will want to sell anything to Europe instead of China.

> Reminding about nukes doesn't work. The only outcome is being reminded by US that Russia will not survive consequences of using them. Nobody takes that as a serious treat.

The world would not survive the consequences of a full-scale nuclear war. It is still rational to fear nuclear war because hasty decisions could still bring it about.

> Russia being a culprit here is so unthinkable for you probably because you vastly overestimate value of pipelines being affected. NS2 was never going to deliver gas, NS1 was turned off, likely forever. And hey, Yamal is still there, unaffected, if Russia actually will want to sell anything to Europe instead of China.

So it is unthinkable to me because I overestimate the value of the affected pipelines. So Putin wanted to send a strong message by sabotaging useless infrastructure.

A light bulb has gone off and I can see things clearly...?

Refer to my other comment about blowing up a Russian ghost town to “send a message”. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33026408

> Nobody takes that as a serious treat.

You misunderstood the threat (probably because news are always distorting things and people tend to believe uncritically in times of war). Putin's threat is very clear: he will use tactical nukes ("small" scale ones) to defend "Russia" against aggression... by annexing part of Ukraine, he gets the excuse he needed to use them against Ukrainian forces... that's why the Kremlin keeps pointing out to their "nuclear doctrine" which states that Russia may use nukes in self-defense. The annexation makes total sense when you understand that.

People claiming the threats are directed at western Europe countries are misinformed or trying to generate panic intentionally. If that was the actual threat, you would be right, it wouldn't be a serious one... but the one he actually meant is very close to becoming a reality... just wait a few weeks and you'll see it... specially in case Ukraine continues imparting serious losses on Russian forces. There's approximately zero chance Russia will just go away from the territories it occupies now.

>>No, it isn’t a rational theory.

Again, I don't really see why. What's so irrational about threatening enormous economical and societal consequences in a situation like this? Surely it's a credible threat? Is it just the fact that I'm Polish that bothers you about it, because you maybe think I can't keep a straight head about it?

>>What kind of a limp-wristed warning is that?|

The same one as poisoning your critics with unique poison that only Russia could have and then denying any responsibility, I guess? Sends a message, which is the main point.

>>Any more brilliant counters?

Do you think we can have this discussion without you being sarcastic?

Classic scare tactic. Station your troops on someone else’s border and suicide them. That sends the message that friendly fire can become invasion fire.

Makes perfect sense.

I mean, those pipes were clearly not going to be used anytime soon. It's not like they blew up anything that was actively making them any money, nor did they sacrefice their own troops to do this like you compare to. It's a good target because it sends a message but it's pretty useless otherwise.

Compare it to blowing up a ghost town near Finland, then.

No one would be scared of a military managing to destroy something on their own soil.

In fact, a better theory for you would be to claim that Russia did it in order to make it look like sabotage from the EU/America. Just a propaganda exercise since the pipeline is “useless” to them right now in any case. But you are clearly so desperate that you just go for the first cartoonish theory that you can come up with.

>> But you are clearly so desperate that you just go for the first cartoonish theory that you can come up with.

That is very uncalled for. I really feel like this is a direct threat to Poland, but obviously I'm talking about it from a perspective of a Pole. Maybe if you live elsewhere you just don't feel that way - but I don't see any reason to describe this theory as "cartoonish".

>>No one would be scared of a military managing to destroy something on their own soil.

Yeah, except that pipeline wasn't destroyed on Russia's own soil, was it?

I would say Ukraine destroyed it. They are, at this moment, the only ones with a benefit in having Europe unable to received Russian gas any more. It's either Ukraine or the US which has popcorn in the microwave at this war by proxy which bleeds Russia of resources down to nothing. My 2c

It could also simply be an unintended accident:

https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html

Ah yes, this is straight from Sun Tzu. Attack thyself. /s

Quite honestly, if a bank robber goes into a bank and shoots himself into his foot, saying: 'now imagine what I could do to you' - I'd be pretty impressed!

Related, an article in the WaPo about this behavior: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com