‘Dark ships’ emerge from the shadows of the Nord Stream mystery | Hacker News Reader

‘Dark ships’ emerge from the shadows of the Nord Stream mystery

wired.com

It seems like it is common for military vessels to turn off their AIS regularly, presumably to hide their movements.

The USS Fitzgerald had its AIS turned off right outside of Tokyo, another busy shipping lane, when it collided with a container ship. [0]

Interestingly, the corresponding Wikipedia page of the collision is omits the AIS factor completely. [1]

[0] https://maritime-executive.com/article/fitzgerald-made-20-kn...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Fitzgerald_and_MV_ACX_Cr...

Yep. Military, coast guard are both often without AIS. Actually, I think the only times I’ve seen military vessels with AIS on has been during some courtesy visits to other countries. The AIS static data is often not super useful (I think I saw a carrier reporting itself as something like “Uswarship03”).

Fishing boats reputedly run without AIS as well to hide their (potentially illegal) activities.

Then there are obviously pleasure craft that are not required to have AIS. But at least in the southern Baltic, most seem to carry a transponder.

They can also spoof it, as the article suggests. Since it's rather suspicious when you suddenly turn off the transponder, I would certainly assume the sabotaging ship could have had a "cover story" in a nearby position.

> We have 38 specific algorithms that can detect military equipment

Just trying to imagine the real-time data feeds of Russian military gear deployments that Ukraine gets from NATO.

Russia has a long history of operating satellites and they have plenty of skilled software engineers as well. But I have a feeling it's hard to match the level of funding / ability brought to fore by the west.

Having a constant accurate picture of where counter-battery radar is, where SAM/AA-radars are deployed, etc could massively increase survivability of high-value vehicles like HIMARs and their limited set of aircraft.

Very few skilled software engineers work for Russia's military industry. In general the level of corruption in Russia is equal to an average African country and in military, where there's less visibility to the public, corruption is even higher. It's all about siphoning budget money into private pockets.

> In general the level of corruption in Russia is equal to an average African country

Painting with an awfully broad brush are we?

That's what an average is.

What is it?

Well, what brushstrokes would you define it with then?

If it's more nuanced, I'm really keen to learn.

The data supports it. Some African countries are more corrupt than Russia, and some less corrupt. But it's totally fair to say that Russia's degree of corruption would be typical for Africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

That proves the explosion was deliberate. But who did it, is something that every state head says they know but no one is talking.

It was Russia. Even toddlers know it was Russia, ffs. They just wanted out of the German gas supply contract. Ffs, they ran "winter is coming" ads on social media for a purpose. They've warned Europe they'd turn the gas off if they helped Ukraine. Where have you been living?

So why not just turn the tap off instead?

No it doesn't.

>>That proves the explosion was deliberate.

>No it doesn't.

No one denies that the explosions are an act of sabotage. How do you imagine non-deliberate explosions happening approximately at the same time and of such power as to cause seismic sensors to reliably detect them?

I personally believe that it was sabotage. But this doesn't prove it.

Video images (taken after the removal of the debris from the site) apparently show that at least one pipe was vertically driven into the ground over a length of about 50 meters. Provided that this rift seen in the video is not manufactured evidence, this seems to hint at an external force, probably applied at two separate points, something like mines.

Ah, sure. It could've been swamp gas from a weather balloon trapped in a thermal pocket, which has reflected the light from Venus.

The thing is, the prime suspect(s) of this operation have means to do this much more stealthily. Why send a 95 to 130 meter ship to do that?

I believe this is sabotage. I have no idea who did it and why, but saying "Hey, there are two ships, miles away from the site with transponders off. It's them!" is a bit of a stretch.

I am not saying that it's proven that the "dark" ship is responsible here. I am objecting to the opinion that blowing up NS/NS2 is somehow not an obvious act of sabotage.

With all the rhetoric from the US about not allowing NS2 using any means, I think that it's quite possible that charges were planted long before the explosions and were activated remotely.

> I am not saying that it's proven that the "dark" ship is responsible here. I am objecting to the opinion that blowing up NS/NS2 is somehow not an obvious act of sabotage.

Then you completely misread the comment you originally responded to, and this entire thread is a waste of time. All they said was that the dark ship evidence does not prove sabotage. And you say the same thing, that the dark ship may or may not be responsible.

The thing is, the prime suspect(s) of this operation have means to do this much more stealthily.

Maybe they didn't expect to get caught. It seems we're assisting to a recalibration of what's possible in several fields.

Because passing merchant vessels attract less attention from ASW assets than submarines?

At a wild guess, there'd be multiple merchant vessels travelling past the point where the pipes were attacked. Who would notice if a group of divers happened to leave a ship as it transited?

And of course, those vessels could be flagged under many a convenient jurisdiction. Liberia used to have the world's largest merchant marine, theoretically.

Whereas if you go in with a submarine, and it gets detected in the vicinity, it's far harder to plausibly deny that your country wasn't involved.

TL;DR - you're assuming a submarine would be stealthier, but there's a lot of stealth to be had from hiding in the crowd.

Did you make that up on the spot or was it recycled?

Uncle Dave?

Man in Black.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TgSGylIw2A

That in turn were quoting usual explanations from the Blue Book Project era.

Exactly. I feel absolutely certain that it was sabotage. But the presence of unknown military ships doesn't prove it. That is very strong evidence but technically it could be a freak coincidence. The stronger proof is the condition of the pipes, obviously sabotaged. That's evidence strong enough to reasonably call "proof."

Also, a lot of explosives was used. A lot more than what would have destoyed the pipes. So not only were the pipes sabotaged, whoever did it wanted to make it obvious.

No, we don't know that. It might just have been easiest. It would be obvious anyway.

There have been stranger coincidences

This is correct; Circumstantial evidence, which is a clue, not a conclusion. We need to keep collecting information.

I think the obvious conclusion is a false flag operation, but again, all evidence is circumstantial.

Interesting topic indeed.

I think which ever perpetrator executed the operation to destroy the pipelines know about these ways of detecting objects using various satellite imagery (surface only) and try to avoid being detected.

Question: what about sub surface data? Which detect anomalies at ground level of the area. Question: who benefits?

Further more the inability of the various countries to work together is remarkable, at least in public. Trust no one?

When considering who might have done this, think about this quote:

"A people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.” – Hannah Arendt, 1978

In three short sentences, this is a complete description of Russia's disinformation goals, and has been their MO in the war they've been waging on the West for over a decade. If you're wondering why they would blow Nord Stream up, it's to make everyone suspicious of everyone else, sowing distrust and making everyone unable to believe in the foundations of the alliance. They didn't do it to frame one country. They did it with the intention of it remaining unsolved. This is the same reason Russian trolls spread conspiracy theories in social media circles. It's the same reason they say one thing and do another. They want everyone confused and therefore weak.

The only way to defeat this tactic to to make it known and to help the public learn to defend against it. This has got to be a priority in the West, but we're far more focused on the distraction of conventional war and not focused at all on the real danger in front of us.

Dark ships? If this was Russias doing, or the US, why not send submarines to do something like this?

I don’t buy it.

A rusty tanker or cargo ship with a dozen mercs and a ROV is probably way cheaper and has plausible deniability compared to a navy submarine.

Is it doable with submarines? What would you do, torpedo the pipes?

Assuming you want to plant charges, I've seen mini-subs attached to bigger submarines, but it was a movie (Red October), so no idea if that's really a thing.

Otherwise, what do you do? Can divers be deployed from a submarine?

There are subs specifically designed for these kind of special operations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter

Thank you, also to morsch and Michael, this is very interesting. Brings me memories of the Seaview TV series.

Also the BS-136 Orenburg, among others. Both Russia and America definitely have the capability.

http://www.hisutton.com/Belgorod-Class-Submarine.html

The guy makes these cutaway of the subs with MS Paint

http://www.hisutton.com/Spy%20Sub%20-%20Project%2010831%20Lo...

http://www.hisutton.com/Russian-Intervention-Underwater-Dron...

Video about seabed-warfare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H_tFKT9EXU

these are Russian subs / AUVs , very cool stuff.

Wow, this stuff is fascinating. And the guy really has some Paint chops.

According to some experts it may have been done using mines and divers deployed from a sub. (The use of mines is apparently somewhat medieval in this context, as there are better methods for an experienced team.) Given the density of sensor networks in the area, you'd probably need a really quiet sub, something like the German Type 212 / 212A, including export models and license builds. I guess, the Russians have something similar. (Not an expert myself by any means.) So there is quite a number of candidates in the vicinity.

P.S.: With regard to these sensor networks, I guess, the "dark" surface vessels weren't big news for the military in the area.

The DSRV from the book and movie is real: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic-class_deep-submergenc...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_deck_shelter

The destruction was a message; back off or your internet cables, gas and oil pipelines will be destroyed. Why put any more resources into the message than is necessary for propaganda purposes?

nice submarine PR article for SpaceKnow

Nice "submarine" pun. :)

Not sure if I understood, but how is it a pun?

http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

What a ridiculous article. Kudos to WIRED for digging deep to let us know what the people who did this have to say about this mystery of mysteries.

Can't they just track the ships backwards in time to see wherever they left from? Or find the last time they used their transponders and see what they were flagged as?

I also don't really understand the practice of calling it a "mystery". Yes, after Biden threatened to unilaterally end the pipeline, and Blinken reiterated the threat, "someone" blew up the pipeline. But wait! Even more mysteriously the US (and allies) is the only party with a clear benefit from blowing up the pipeline. Yes, I wonder who could've done such a thing...

The potential downside for Russia to blow up the Nordstream pipelines is: it would require some investment to repair the pipeline in the event Russian-German relations would improve, Germany's security outlook on purchasing Russian gas would flip 180 degrees and there would be peace in Ukraine. In other words, pipeline or not, Russia won't be selling gas to Germany anytime soon, so there's really not a lot of downside to blowing up a useless pipeline. And it's easy to deny too, as you and others point out: why would Russia blow up their own pipeline?

Here's why: the upside for Russia is getting European NATO countries to point fingers at each other, accusing Poland or USA or Great Britain of (nearly) violating Denmark's territorial integrity. Creating distrust inside NATO is a pretty useful strategic result!

The line of 'why would Russia blow up their own pipeline' is terribly simple-minded.

You are forgetting that repairing the pipelines is not easy and longer they stay in sea water, less likely it can be done reliably due to corrosion. Also secretly blowing up a pipeline in effectively NATOs backwater is easier said than done for Russia (remember the Nordic countries blaming Russian subs for suspicious sonar readings?), meanwhile for UK/US it's much easier.

Are there not valves along the pipeline to seal off sections? I've done some small amount of work on above ground gas pipelines and I feel like the majority of the pipeline would be undamaged, assuming the valves were closed in a reasonable time.

I never heard about such valves in underwater pipelines. How would they be powered? It's possible that they could have reverse sumps, so water would flood only one section and the rest will be protected by residual pressure, but I do not know if NS/NS2 have anything like this.

This is incredible mental gymnastics.

Occam's razor provides a better explanation, the West did it because it handicaps a rival power.

You can call it mental gymnastics, but I just call it thinking. I notice you're not really engaging with the point, which is that yes, Russia attacked its own infrastructure, and that hurts their own interests, but the effects of the attack – 1) creating more uncertainty on the European energy market on the day a Norwegian pipeline opened; 2) creating a sense of insecurity in the states around the Baltic sea; and 3) creating distrust between NATO members – are all worth the price to the Russians, because they are losing their war. One moment we're discussing nuclear warfare and mutually assured destruction, and the next we're not considering Russia blowing up some of their own infrastructure. Compared to M.A.D., blowing up a pipeline seems like a pretty cheap deal if it would benefit the Russian war effort.

So, let's do some more thinking. What would USA have to benefit from attacking the pipeline between Russia and Germany? A higher price for their LNG, so more money from Europe (economically weakening their ally), and if it would come out that USA did it, it would lead to severe fractures in NATO — not at all to the USA's benefit. And how, if the USA did it, would it have increased Russia's inability to sell gas to Europe? The flow was already zero, with no prospect of it returning anytime soon, sabotage or not. According to you, the USA sabotaged an ally, at the risk of ending NATO, at almost no detriment to Russia, for some increased LNG sales money. That, I would call mental gymnastics.

The US has literally blown up Russian pipelines in the past to prevent influence in Europe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r...

Very doubtful this is some sort of 8d chess game by the Russians.

That cause for that event is not undisputed, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage.

You still haven't explained why you think it's doubtful Russia would use sabotage in this way. This is what their entire modus operandi, just think of the various Polonium-210 and Novichok operations. You can't dispute that people are suspecting USA of having done it, does that not harm cohesion inside NATO?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido

Mental gymnastics? It’s what Russia is best known for. Applying Occam’s razor brings you precisely to the conclusion that it was Russia.

It also means that a Putin replacement can’t easily put things back how they were.

The side of this that is most opaque is the Russian one.

*it was never going to be easy, but it’s harder now.

Why stop there? Maybe Martians blew it as now humans are pointing fingers at each other which is a pretty useful strategic result.

Pretty sure Russia exists but Martians do not. That’s a reason to stop there.

That’s just what the Martians would like you to believe. Try doing your own research.

To your first point: when the cargo ship Arctic Sea disappeared in the late 2000s, people were asking similar questions about why it couldn’t just be found by looking at satellite images. I heard someone smart on the radio say that using a satellite to find a missing ship in open water is like using a pair of binoculars to find a set of car keys in a field.

How does the US benefit?

Russia had already shut down the pipeline and proven to be unreliable partner, and facing heavy sanctions.

It's not like the US needed the pipeline destroyed in order to be in the position to supply LNG to Europe.

Are you serious? The NS/NS2 pipelines were a constant temptation for Germany and a good leverage for Russia. Before the pipelines got blown up we have seen quite sizable protests in Germany with demands to open NS2 and find some compromise with Russia.

By physically removing capability to transport gas from Russia to Germany, US not only secures fat margins for several years (at the very least until new LNG sources become available), but also significantly reduces probability of Germany acting independently in the near term, even if energy situation becomes critical. Don't forget that the gas storage numbers do not show the whole picture. A lot of energy-intensive industry got shut down and will not reopen in the near future.

Sizeable protests? That’s a slight overstatement.

Russia lost 99% of leverage the moment they attacked Ukraine. And they lost remaining 1% the moment the weaponized energy.

Germany was dumb, but it’s not that dumb to enter any agreement with Russia for any foreseeable future. It’s literarily like going back to loan shark for extra money, after they broke your legs last week.

Tens of thousands (24k by some estimates) is quite sizable in my book and it was long before cold weather and full economic impact of the high prices. The inflation issue is #1 in internal politics for many countries, add recession and job losses caused by raising energy prices on top of that and you can see environment prime for toppling governments. With rising populism everywhere the simple solution of using NS/NS2 for at least several years in exchange for not supporting Ukraine too much could be quite dangerous for the existing establishment.

>weaponized energy

I always find it amusing how Russia gets blamed for "weaponization", while US/Europe continuously use their control over technology and financial system as a weapon.

> And they lost remaining 1% the moment the weaponized energy.

What? Who weaponized energy?

Do you think that Russia should have conducted business as usual after 300 billion in foreign oil reserves were seized?

You don't have to like Russia, but you can at least be honest.

If the pipeline was shut off it could presumably be turned back on. If the pipeline was blown up that changes things. At a time when much of the world is looking toward China and Russia instead of the US, Europe has been forced to be more dependent on the US.

This completely ignores:

1) The PR disaster that would ensue if the US were caught doing this

2) The fact that the US does this sort of thing with submarines, not ships.

Whereas: we have Vladmir Putin who is looking at would be assassins who have a nice, ready-made source of cash if they take him out simply by turning the pipeline back on. And Putin will suffer neither PR nor diplomatic repercussions for blowing up the pipeline.

>The PR disaster that would ensue if the US were caught doing this

Ha-ha, let's take a look how much of "PR disaster" was direct spying on European "allied" leaders. Europe simply swallowed it without much trouble. With NS/NS2 we have a much better field for deniability. Simply say that any evidence is a Russian conspiracy or false flag.

Spying between allies is not uncommon and is even tacitly allowed because it increases trust between partners.

Sure, I am confident the US will react in the same way to Germany or France intelligence services tapping their president.

> The PR disaster that would ensue if the US were caught doing this

Why would the US care about a PR disaster? It's not like Europe has any choice in the matter at this point.

> Whereas: we have Vladmir Putin who is looking at would be assassins who have a nice, ready-made source of cash if they take him out simply by turning the pipeline back on. And Putin will suffer neither PR nor diplomatic repercussions for blowing up the pipeline.

What?

> Why would the US care about a PR disaster? It's not like Europe has any choice in the matter at this point.

Because the will of the allied sanction group is strongly dependent upon PR? The EU nations are a fractious group on the best of days. One of the reasons why the support for Ukraine and sanctions for Russia were so swift was the fact that Biden played the PR and intelligence game perfectly.

> What?

What part of my statement is not clear? Putin is worried about assassins. Taking out Putin and taking over Russia can be converted to cash very quickly by turning the pipeline back on even before sanctions get lifted. Blowing up the pipeline prevents any would be assassins from making use of it later. Putin will suffer neither PR backlash (he controls the Russian media) nor diplomatic backlash (he has already been isolated) for blowing up the pipeline.

And I note that you completely ignored the point that the US would do this with subs (and this was what they could do 30+ years ago). See: Blind Man's Bluff--https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mans-Bluff-Submarine-Espionage/...

I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you but since you insist on me addressing the subs thing it's worth pointing out that the ships mentioned in the article were just present in the days ahead of the leaks and there is no concrete evidence they were the attackers.

But we can ask the same about Russia: how do they benefit? If there is any benefit to Russia then I'm not seeing it, beyond some vague and essentially meaningless chest-beating. And the pipeline was valuable to Russia, even when turned off, as it was a reasonably effective piece of leverage that's now just gone.

I'd be surprised if the US was involved because the thing could backfire massively it were to come out they were behind it, and it's just not worth the risk. But Russia is not really an "obvious" suspect either IMO. My best guess is that it's an irrational act from an irrational regime (Putin) as a kind of "fuck you".

It might help factions within Russia, or hurt factions within Russia. Not everything is about benefit for the country; in fact many things aren't. For example: continuing the war in Ukraine is beneficial to Vlad, or at least he must think it is to continue it over admitting defeat and withdrawing.

I can imagine Vlad or a faction aligned with him thinking this severs the ability for someone else displacing him to just turn on the taps, retreat out of Ukraine, and say "lol, whoops, our bad".

So the benefit may be to factions within Russia, even if it's detrimental to Russian economic capabilities.

Russia had long term contracts to support gas to many European countries. They stopped supplying gas, meaning the other parties on those contracts can sue them for many billions of dollars. But if the pipeline is destroyed it's not Russia's fault - no need to pay.

The fact that out of 4 pipes 3 were destroyed and one was left impact IMHO strongly points to Russia doing it - any other country would destroy all 4.

There is absolutely no need to blow pipelines for that. Pipelines which were paid in half by Russia. Russia was successfully limiting gas supplies by citing "technical" issues, which were likely to continue until some solution for political. Have you heard about any countries suing Russia for that?

The "technical" issues they cited wouldn't stand in court, especially when experts from the western companies that produced and installed the equipment testify that they are made up and/or trivial to fix.

Practically every country that has it's gas cut off is preparing to sue.

During the summer the price of gas on the European exchanges was often over $2000 for 1000 cubic meters. The long term contracts signed years ago had the price fixed around $200. Russia was losing a ton of money everyday these pipes were pumping gas. On top of that these deliveries were decreasing the global demand for gas - lowering the price Russia could sell gas outside of contract. There was a huge pressure from the top in GasProm to find a way out of those contracts.

Russia doesn’t need to benefit. The sabotage just needs to influence or weaken some Russian obliarch subject to Putin’s whims.

Are you sure Russian military didn't travel all the way down the Baltic Strait, past the competing norwegian pipeline, and blow up their own pipelines?

It’s only a mystery to those willingly blind, for fear “their side” did a bad thing and not the enemy.

Its Covid lab leak theory reloaded. There is one plausible theory that Occam Razors well but is inconvenient, and competing convoluted ones. This will only further decrease trust in the media and governments, „you can’t fool all the people all the time“.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com