https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_en...
> It’s especially absurd that Russia was ever even considered a suspect.
So I don't see how it's absurd to suspect a repeat of the nearly exact same situation where the only common party is Russia.
The fact that you think it's absurd without looking into facts either makes you naive or worse.
Also, if you look at the two recent times the US accused Syria of chemical attacks, both turned out to be misinformation, as determined by the international body that investigates these things. Yet the first time it "happened" was called back to as evidence that they "did it" the second time, even though neither even occurred.
https://apnews.com/article/chemical-weapons-syria-archive-al...
So why blow things up, when you can just turn them off?
Maybe for show. By blowing them up, they demonstrate that they'll never be turned on again. What's that good for? It shows Russia's contempt for the cancellation of NS2, for business with the West in general, and for sanctions. Perhaps it's a muscular display of their power in the field of energy.
How can you show off, if you're going to deny that you did it? Well, it won't be the first time. There has been a number of murders by poisoning recently, just in the UK, that were pretty obviously Russia, that are denied by Russia. But the purpose of those murders was likely meant to intimidate - they needed to be obvious. So I recognize the MO.
I still think it's Biden, based on nothing at all. Except that he more-or-less promised he was going to.
These pipeline explosions ocurred in the "exclusive economic zones" of Sweden and Denmark respectively, so I understand. They are being extremely guarded about their investigation, refusing all requests to observe. Including from Germany, who are part owners. I think that's interesting, given that one early suggestion was that "Sweden done it".
Well the US is now on track to be the largest LNG supplier on earth.
The mere fact that you use "perhaps" and have to imagine an interpretation for what could or could not be regarded as a vague signal, tells us that it's not it.
You know, just by definition of what a "display" is.
That’s a misleading summary of their findings. The OPCW was prevented from conducting any on site investigations in Saraqib, meaning it could not conclusively prove the use of chemical weapons. That doesn’t make the claims ‘misinformation’. In Aleppo the claim was made by the Syrian government against rebels, not by the US government.
The Fact-Finding Mission wasn’t able to visit the site of the alleged incident or the hospital where injured victims were treated. It had to rely on data including interviews, hospital records and videos and photographs.
Its investigations and analysis “did not allow the FFM to establish whether or not chemicals were used as a weapon,” according to the report issued Friday.
And there is substantial confirmed evidence of the Syrian government using chemical weapons against its own people, such as at Ghouta amongst other places. [0]
[0] https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/1...
If Gazprom would simply turn off the gas and say f* off to the fines, they would signal to ask buyers that they are willing to disregard contracts for political reasons. This would significantly undermine confidence in doing business with them, and likely lower prices people would pay for their gas.
Or maybe those courts which could somehow force Russia to pay fines for turning off gas should force Russia to pay fines for invading Ukraine.
First, in Aug. Russia cuts NS1 to 20% citing supposed repairs: "Gazprom in July cut gas deliveries via NS1 to 20% of maximum capacity, citing turbine repair delays that it blamed on Western sanctions against Russia because of the war."
There, they say "oh hey but look you have NS2 so why don't you certify it".
Then, they turned it off completely:
"The state-controlled firm disclosed Friday flows on NS1 would be closed from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2 during scheduled maintenance on its only currently operating compressor at a key station, Portovaya CS."
Again, they say "well you can always use NS2". But when Europe didn't bite the bullet and surrender to their demands, they made it even more obvious that the only route for gas would be NS2, by blowing NS1.
If this was UK or US sabotage, they would have blown NS2 completely, while possibly leaving NS1 alone.
Links:
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/russias-gazprom-plans-3-day-...
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/russias-planned-shutdown-of-...
Except NS2 had also exploded.
Even if it didn't, can you explain the purpose of this all? What is there to be gained? NS1 had bigger capacity, which meant more money.
Except it didn't there was a single pipe of NS2 left untouched, if you think it was the US why did they leave a single pipe for Russia to use as leverage to certify NS2?.
More pedantic, but doesn't change my point.
They don't really influence the big politics. Not for the last 20 years or so, at least. Semibankirschina is long gone.
While I don't share the absolute certainty, I also think the most direct story/motivations would be for the USA (perhaps via some ally like the UK) to be behind this.
I don't think Russia can be entirely excluded though - perhaps for some internal political play - but it does seem to require more non-obvious motivations.
Please tell us more.
> It’s especially absurd that Russia was ever even considered a suspect.
Why?
I haven’t heard about this at the time or since. Do you have a source for this information?
> And oh, I don’t know seems pretty obvious that Russia has ZERO motive to blow up its own 10 billion dollar pipeline.
Russia is not a monolithic entity. For example if I were Putin I would fear that someone deposes me, then they makes peace with the West and they quickly resume the gas transit. By making it so the gas transit can’t be quickly resumed one also insures one’s self against such plans by lowering the possible reward of it.
Of course the energy situation has economic effects, but it's very far from not surviving the winter.
Most of the storage was filled when the pipeline was operational and pumping gas at full capacity (what did you think they were filling it with?). It was slowly filling with Russian gas for half a year.
Besides, gas storage is only a buffer to temporarily compensate for the difference between supply and consumption (typically in winter).
> but it's very far from not surviving the winter.
And then what? Pump Russian gas like crazy just like this year? Oh wait, they turned off the tap. Guess they'll have to make some kind of deal. Oh wait, someone blew up the pipeline!
I feel like people are overly focused on this winter, rather the next, when the storages are drained, and new pipelines aren't yet built.
Are you implying that LNG carriers are even remotely comparable in terms of economy and bandwidth to a pipeline from one's neighbor?
> The plan is to buy the gas from somewhere else than Russia
It's not really a "plan", it's just a desire. A "plan" involves thought through supply chain, logistics, economics and so on.
This "plan" also implies stopping the gas flow through Ukraine, which is a politically complicated situation.
> so far we're doing far better than the original predictions.
Specifically?
> Doesn't mean there won't be problems, but it's certainly not as terrible as expected.
But nothing has even started yet. There hasn't really even been a real deficit yet. And still some companies already had to shut down production, just cuz it was no longer sustainable.
Relax, they're going to be fine.
Exaggerating (very real) economic harm as an existential matter of survival is silly. Germany's survival is not in doubt.
The language "trouble surviving the winter" plainly suggests massive numbers of Germans freezing to death, which isn't going to happen. Even if I grant that this claim is talking about damage to the German economy (I don't) it is unlikely that the German economy will collapse during this winter. The economic ramifications will be felt for many years to come but there is no chance of Germany ceasing to exist this winter as claimed above.
> And let’s not forget that economic harm inflicted from abroad is precisely what gave rise to WWII.
Fear of that sort of scenario should mostly be focused on Russia, who are going to lose a war as Germany lost WW1, and will be looking for scapegoats. Besides Russia, I can think of other countries which have suffered far more economic damage due to this war than Germany. Particularly, the one that actually got invaded. Germany's economy is still strong and healthy compared to Ukraine's.
You are arguing semantics of specific words people use in informal internet conversations, which is pointless. There is absolutely nothing implying literal meaning of the word "surviving".
I, for example, always assumed that it meant the collapse of German industry, German cozy way of life, and likely German government.
Obviously people won't be actually dying - that would be completely fucking stupid. Worst case scenario they'll just start burning everything they can get their hands on.
Source?
I don't see that the linked article is supporting this particular statement. Namely it does not mention that Germany and Russia were in negotiations about resuming the gas transport before or around the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.
That being said I want to make sure that you don't feel like we are sealioning you.
I think there are more that I agree with you on this topic than what we would disagree on.
I think it is odd that everyone in the media immediately concluded that it must have been Russia with 100% conviction. It seems you also agree with this. (perhaps you would use stronger words than that)
I think we also agree that the USA and the UK had both the means and the motivation. I would also add that there are others with the means and perhaps the motivations. Not sure if you would agree with that.
You seems to be convinced that there were negotiations between Russia and Germany about the resumption of gas transport. I'm not so sure. I just haven't seen proof for it. But! I think it is a pretty safe assumption that there would have been such negotiations once Germany's economy starts to struggle during the winter. So on that we are just disagreeing on the details, not on the fundamentals. (At least that is how it seems to me, don't want to put words into your mouth.)
The fundamental disagreement seems to be in our conclusion. I see your reasoning and I agree that it is enough to warrant a suspicion. But I don't feel that it is enough with what is currently known to say for certain who did it. The tricky bit with logic based speculation is that others can do it too. Some other actor with the means and motivation might have also done the same speculation you just did and concluded that in the case of sabotage the USA and the UK will be blamed.
Not saying that that is what happened. All I am saying is that I don't know who did it. I think we don't know enough. It might come to light soon. It might not come to light during our lifetime. Who knows.
Who?
Do you have anything to support this other than your word here? I believe you of course, but its better to have some evidence or something.
Yes, that's a distinct possibility. The US and UK are tight, particularly with underwater stuff. They have a history of sharing submarine secrets with each other. Even reactor technology and screw/pumpjet design. That's some of the most secret stuff America and the UK have, and they share it with each other. It's fair to suspect that one may have consulted with the other before doing something like this.
Well if someone says it is “extremely obvious who did it” then it kinda does matter if they can then say who did it. The fact that miguelazo couldn’t name who did it indicates that perhaps it is less than extremely obvious who did it.
I agree that both the USA, and the UK has the means to covertly carry out such sabotage. I also agree that both has the motivation too. There are other countries with the means and motivation too.
> maybe Ukranians? Poles? Idk
That last one. That hits it on the head. The correct answer given the publicly available information is that we do not know. We should say that more often. It is a sign of strength, not of weakness.
But in any case, of course we don't know. But we should attempt to find what is and isn't a reasonable explanation, and what may be most reasonable.
This is growing in the telling.
Could be submarine but why not divers?
I don’t know or care, but the number of bots that appeared after this happened makes it seem more like a Russian coverup than an American one.
You notice that when Russia turned off the gas before, they never said, "because we want to screw you", but instead cited maintanance. If they could just turn off the tap without reason and contracts be damned, why would they do that?
Russia cited maintenance when turning off NS1 because they probably had maintenance to do that was difficult in a war zone. Also, NS1 traverses Ukraine, and they had previously accused Ukraine of siphoning.
It’s in Russia’s interest to make its gas delivery reliable— that’s how you keep Europe dependent. The US wanted to end that dependence and ramp up US LNG market share. https://peoplesworld.org/article/pipeline-ploy-how-u-s-natur...
Why would Russia want to even get out of those contracts? If Europe is willing to pay, they will gladly supply gas, as they have done for many many decades. Even at the peak of the cold war, they were reliably supplying gas to Western Germany for example. It is very lucrative for them. And in any case, why do contracts between Russia and Europe even matter at this point. Any party can just do whatever they want.
There is no point is "sending a message", it's very obvious that it is possible to blow up an underwater pipeline. Anyone worth sending a message to would have already known its possible.
The obvious real motivation here is to prevent any negotiation over re-opening the pipeline.
Then explain why Russia had already cut off the supply of gas for clearly spurious reasons. And why Russia has used shutting off gas as an economic weapon before, including against Georgia and Ukraine in the past.
I’m not convinced Gazprom would’ve done this to get out of penalties, but your statement is incorrect. Contracts still matter because this isn’t an all out existential war where nothing else matters. Relations will have to normalise at some point, and Gazprom is still selling to other countries and can’t show itself to them as an unreliable partner that doesn’t care about delivery contracts.
Sending a message is not just about demonstrating the capability, as you’ve focused on, but showing the willingness to actually do it.
Whats the point of turning off the gas as leverage if it *stays off*? That would be no leverage at all.
Showing that just switching away from Russia as a supplier is not enough to be safe, since they could just hit that one just as easily.
As mentioned elsewhere in this discussion Russia blew up the Georgian pipeline transporting gas between the two countries once before.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/18/ukraine-miss...
I don't think you're seeing things in perspective and the scale of the events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVbEoZXhCrM
You probably haven't seen this because the mainstream never shows it when talking about the pipeline sabotage.
But really, the question isn’t if we could or would, but if we did. Those are majorly different questions.
There are many ways to not allow the usage of the pipeline - politics, sanctions, etc.
But you had to nail it down to pipe blowing.
It was a smart thing to do by Russia - it keeps ruble look strong. We'll see how long they can keep it up. Maybe in future we'll even read about it in books how to avoid currency depreciation.
And pressure Germany into what exactly? Think this one through. How does removing the possibility of re-opening the pipeline pressure Germany into anything from the point of view of the Russians?
What Russia would want to pressure Germany into is "stop your sanctions and we will sell you gas". A possibility removed by blowing up the pipeline.
The "Russia blew up the pipeline" idea makes absolutely no sense. And if there was any evidence to support it, you know that the whole of Western media would be shouting it from every rooftop.
But instead we have silence, and concerns over "national security"
Indeed. With every day that goes by without NATO publicly publishing proof of Russia being the culprit, Russian responsibility seems less likely. If Russia did it, going public with that proof would be great for America/NATO and harmful to Russia.
Harmful to Russia?
Do you realize they're invading a country and stealing land? There's no more harm for Russia, they did it to themselves.
The countries that align with Russia have already done, the neutral ones don't care.
When Russia closed the pipe, it rippled through the market, and made EU pay more for the LNG.
When they blew the pipe GAS PRICES SPIKED 30%: https://www.cityam.com/gas-prices-spike-30-per-cent-amid-nor...
If that's not pressuring the market, I don't know what it is. On top of the increased pressure, they managed to make EU pay even more - on a WAR THAT RUSSIA NEEDS TO END ASAP.
> But instead we have silence, and concerns over "national security"
What good would it be to let everyone know Russia did it? Get people questioning: if this is an act of war? Why are we allowing Russia to attack our infrastructure? What will they attack next?
No one wants to go to war with Russia.
Plus, Russia will deny this anyway, like they denied the attack on the flight MH17, even after evidence proved it was done by Russia - we already knew it was them, but only now there was a verdict - since 2014 this has been investigated.