NATO Says Sabotage Behind Destruction Of Natural Gas Pipelines

[sanman]

Ok, let's assume that's the case, more to the point then of why would Russia do it? Why would they just damage a pipeline they were going to have to repair again in the future? If it was purely temporary, how is that different than just keeping it closed? None of it makes sense. 95% it was a western nation telling Germany to stay on the team, it simply makes the most sense. Germany is in an impossible situation. Their economy will simply not be able to manage this, period, full stop. The damage will be extremely long term at a minimum and will likely permanently impair their chemical and industrial chain.

Oh, he doesn't care what crap he spews out -- his grip on reality is less than zero -- and he doesn't care what kind of argument he makes to you.

Ah, poor Democrats --- good help is so hard to find -- can't even come up with any rational people to put for some semblance of rational argument. So they just keep desperately flinging feces like monkeys, hoping they'll get brownie points for effort. Don't take these people seriously, they're just idiots acting out their reflexed for idiocy.

 

[bave]

Columbia University economist on Bloomberg yesterday:

"The European economy is getting hammered by the sudden cutoff of energy. And now to make it definitive, the destruction of the Nord Stream Pipeline (which I would bet was a U.S. action, perhaps U.S. and Poland). That is speculation."

 

[Galactic Spin]

Ok, let's assume that's the case, more to the point then of why would Russia do it?

Burning it all down, a desperate move in the face of collosal failure. Ecoterrorism of perceived enemies. Escalation.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Oh, he doesn't care what crap he spews out -- his grip on reality is less than zero -- and he doesn't care what kind of argument he makes to you.

Ah, poor Democrats --- good help is so hard to find -- can't even come up with any rational people to put for some semblance of rational argument. So they just keep desperately flinging feces like monkeys, hoping they'll get brownie points for effort. Don't take these people seriously, they're just idiots acting out their reflexed for idiocy.

Stop your whining. And it's not just democrats making this argument. Its everyone outside of Russia and outside of your cult.

 

[bave]

Burning it all down, a desperate move in the face of collosal failure. Ecoterrorism of perceived enemies. Escalation.

1) They are already economically "burning it all down" just by shutting the pipe down. No need to blow it up. This isn't a scorched earth policy where you are denying it to the enemy, you are just denying it to yourself, perhaps, in the future.
2) Desperation? Ok, but why? I am so desperate I am just going to start blowing up random assets? Why not a refinery? Why not a chromium mine? Why not an airfield? Putin isn't insane.
3) Ecoterrorism? As you said, the amount of gas leaking out of it is limited to what was in the pressurized system. This isn't like the Macondo spill that just gushed forever. This has a finite quantity of release, worse case, throw a match in the offgas and let it flare.
4) Escalation? Of whom? Escalation of Putin against Putin?

The more you look at this the more it looks like the US/Poland as the Columbia professor said. It just makes a lot more sense. Occam's razor again. Jumping through hoops and twisting logic around backwards to make your scenario work isn't remotely the easiest answer. Keeping a flagging Germany on the team makes a lot more sense by *removing* their option. You literally just took a binary choice for Germany and took away the only other choice. Made it real easy for Germany to stay the course. That makes sense.

 

[Galactic Spin]

) They are already economically "burning it all down" just by shutting the pipe down.

Obviously that's dumb, as they could have turned it back on if Europe got desperate this winter and it caused them to cave somewhat.

I am tired of sifting through these stunted, half baked, poorly thought out points. It's too much Iike work. Have a good one.

 

[bave]

Obviously that's dumb, as they could have turned it back on if Europe got desperate this winter and it caused them to cave somewhat.

I am tired of sifting through these stunted, half baked, poorly thought out points. It's too much Iike work. Have a good one.

The "too much work" is making your theories have any sort of cohesiveness.

You just made my point though. Russia could have just turned on the pipes before had Germany folded, not that's not an option, so Germany has to stay on team NATO. Who does that benefit? Not Russia. So you have, yet again, unwittingly helped me out.

 

[sanman]

Stop your whining. And it's not just democrats making this argument. Its everyone outside of Russia and outside of your cult.

Give me a list of who's saying that. Just the Whitehouse and its shills. Look at what Blinken himself is saying -- he's openly calling this incident a "Tremendous Opportunity" -- doesn't sound unhappy or dismayed at all. The United States, perhaps through one of its proxies, has directly attacked key infrastructure of the world's largest nuclear power. That's the reason why Putin is deploying major nuclear assets right now. Experts are saying this is the closest the world has gotten to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Oh, but you don't care, right? Only people with sense do.

 

[Fledermaus]

Ok, let's assume that's the case, more to the point then of why would Russia do it? Why would they just damage a pipeline they were going to have to repair again in the future? If it was purely temporary, how is that different than just keeping it closed? None of it makes sense. 95% it was a western nation telling Germany to stay on the team, it simply makes the most sense. Germany is in an impossible situation. Their economy will simply not be able to manage this, period, full stop. The damage will be extremely long term at a minimum and will likely permanently impair their chemical and industrial chain.

Casus belli for whoever they wish.

 

[Piner]

Give me a list of who's saying that. Just the Whitehouse and its shills. Look at what Blinken himself is saying -- he's openly calling this incident a "Tremendous Opportunity" -- doesn't sound unhappy or dismayed at all. The United States, perhaps through one of its proxies, has directly attacked key infrastructure of the world's largest nuclear power. That's the reason why Putin is deploying major nuclear assets right now. Experts are saying this is the closest the world has gotten to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Oh, but you don't care, right? Only people with sense do.

Maybe provide the full quote you dishonest shill.

What we’ve been doing – and we’ve also been working on this together for many, many weeks as we saw the Russian aggression in Ukraine and as we saw the ongoing weaponization of energy by Russia – is to work very closely with European partners as well as countries around the world to make sure that there is enough energy on world markets. And so we’ve significantly increased our production as well as making available to Europe liquefied natural gas. And we’re now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe to help compensate for any gas or oil that it’s losing as a result of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

We’ve worked to release oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to make sure as well that there is oil on the markets and to help keep prices down. We’ve engaged with the European Union and established months ago a task force to work directly with Europe on ways to decrease demand to help get through the winter, as well as to pursue additional supply and to find ways to speed up the transition to renewables even as we’re getting through this challenging period. So all of that work is ongoing.

My own sense – and I mentioned this the other day – is, look, there’s a lot of hard work to do to make sure that countries and partners get through the winter. Europe itself has taken very significant steps to both decrease demand but also look at ways to pursue the transition to renewables at the same time. And ultimately this is also a tremendous opportunity. It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs. That’s very significant and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come, but meanwhile, we’re determined to do everything we possibly can to make sure that the consequences of all of this are not borne by citizens in our countries or, for that matter, around the world.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Russia had complete power to turn off the pipeline. https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-switches-off-gas-pipeline-citing-maintenance

Why would Russia blow up a pipeline that it could just turn off, and afford the US a "tremendous opportunity?"

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Did anyone consider Russia did this in order to blame the US? It's exactly the type of thing Putin would do. He's been blaming Ukraine for the war since day one and we all know it's Putin's war.

Why would he blow up something when blowing it up hurts him and Russia, and helps the US?

 

[roguenuke]

Why would he blow up something when blowing it up hurts him and Russia, and helps the US?

It doesn't help the US at all. But the publicity and chance to blame the US, to spread more false info helps Russia. Plus, if Putin is on the verge of losing control of Russia, this is easily within his personality, to take some sort of petty action to make it harder for those who take over to negotiate, a "if I can't have it, no one will" action.

 

[bave]

Casus belli for whoever they wish.

The Russians already have more cause of action than they would ever possibly need, they didn't need to blow up their brand new 5 year to build pipeline to accomplish it.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Confused — your article says that the pipes run from Russia to Germany.

Russia makes money from Nordstream, and Russia opposes the new Norway pipeline because it costs them money. The US/Europe benefit from the Norway pipeline. Biden said that Russia invades Ukraine, they will lose the Nordsteam pipeline. So, naturally, the suspect is Russia which would naturally want to hurt itself by blowing up the pipeline it makes money from, which means more gas has to be piped or delivered by other means, like the Norway pipeline (which benefits the US and others, and hurts Russia). Blinken of the US says the destruction of the Nordstream Pipeline presents a tremendous opportunity for the US - but apparently, Russia and Putin are so stupid, they thought blowing up their own pipeline, which they could shut off, and did shut off, anytime they wanted to, in order to provide the US a tremendous opportunity and fulfill Biden's promise for him..... It's not like Russia "really got us" by destroying their own pipeline, FFS. They didn't gain a damn thing. SMH.

 

[bave]

It doesn't help the US at all. But the publicity and chance to blame the US, to spread more false info helps Russia. Plus, if Putin is on the verge of losing control of Russia, this is easily within his personality, to take some sort of petty action to make it harder for those who take over to negotiate, a "if I can't have it, no one will" action.

It doesn't help the US per se, but it does help the alliance. Don't delude yourself, Germany was having an internal debate about staying the course on Ukraine. Prior to this Germany was faced with the question of economical existential questions, now that question has been answered and they are just screwed, but out of options. Further, even if Germany knew we did it, what the F are they going to do about it? Not a damned thing.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

The Russians already have more cause of action than they would ever possibly need, they didn't need to blow up their brand new 5 year to build pipeline to accomplish it.

Casus belli requires there to be a clear perpetrator. The idea this is a false flag set by Russia so they could create a cause to go to war seems really really thin. I mean, Russia isn't going to go to war against the US, unless they are backed into a corner and have no way out (in which case, it's mutually assured destruction).

I think we can be quite sure that if a Republican was President, the Democrat supporters here would not be engaging in these mental gymnastics, and they would have some skepticism about US foreign policy. For some reason, the media has Democrats convinced that Democrats are "good guys." I have to hand it to the Democrat political machine. They sure as shit are dismantling the Republicans. Unless some people wake up soon, we really will be a one-party system, and not just a two-party party system that may as well be a one-party system.

 

[bave]

Casus belli requires there to be a clear perpetrator. The idea this is a false flag set by Russia so they could create a cause to go to war seems really really thin. I mean, Russia isn't going to go to war against the US, unless they are backed into a corner and have no way out (in which case, it's mutually assured destruction).

I think we can be quite sure that if a Republican was President, the Democrat supporters here would not be engaging in these mental gymnastics, and they would have some skepticism about US foreign policy. For some reason, the media has Democrats convinced that Democrats are "good guys." I have to hand it to the Democrat political machine. They sure as shit are dismantling the Republicans. Unless some people wake up soon, we really will be a one-party system, and not just a two-party party system that may as well be a one-party system.

My point is that Russia doesn't need casus belli from the pipeline, they have it with the sanctions and overt and covert operations in a military conflict.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

It doesn't help the US at all. But the publicity and chance to blame the US, to spread more false info helps Russia. Plus, if Putin is on the verge of losing control of Russia, this is easily within his personality, to take some sort of petty action to make it harder for those who take over to negotiate, a "if I can't have it, no one will" action.

That is complete nonsense. It clearly helps the US. Tony Blinken even said so. And, this isn't about public relations and spreading "false info." This is global economics, and destroying two pipelines that Russia controlled and which had willing and eager customers to the tune of many billions of dollars of sales, doesn't help Russia at all, and they haven't shown any convincing proof that the US actually did it, just as the West has not shown any convincing proof that Russia actually did it. We don't have the proof of the act - all we have is motives and opportunity - and there is no good reason so far advanced why Russia would destroy two brand new pipelines which it had absolute power to shut off and gain the advantage of depriving Germany of its gas without destroying it.

It's not "if I can't have it, no one will" -- because Russia didn't have to let anyone else use it even without destroying it.

 

[roguenuke]

It doesn't help the US per se, but it does help the alliance. Don't delude yourself, Germany was having an internal debate about staying the course on Ukraine. Prior to this Germany was faced with the question of economical existential questions, now that question has been answered and they are just screwed, but out of options. Further, even if Germany knew we did it, what the F are they going to do about it? Not a damned thing.

No, it doesn't. That pipeline has been shutdown for over 6 months now. There was little chance it would be brought back online, especially with the current situation of Ukraine pushing Russia back. That situation leads to a higher level of leverage over more reasonable Russian "leaders" who could potentially overwhelm Putin, take him out of power to do so and stop the invasion he initiated.

 

[roguenuke]

That is complete nonsense. It clearly helps the US. Tony Blinken even said so. And, this isn't about public relations and spreading "false info." This is global economics, and destroying two pipelines that Russia controlled and which had willing and eager customers to the tune of many billions of dollars of sales, doesn't help Russia at all, and they haven't shown any convincing proof that the US actually did it, just as the West has not shown any convincing proof that Russia actually did it. We don't have the proof of the act - all we have is motives and opportunity - and there is no good reason so far advanced why Russia would destroy two brand new pipelines which it had absolute power to shut off and gain the advantage of depriving Germany of its gas without destroying it.

It's not "if I can't have it, no one will" -- because Russia didn't have to let anyone else use it even without destroying it.

Yes, it is about that. False info spreading is a major part of Putin's plan, operation.

He did not have willing and eager customers at this time.

Russia has higher motive, or more precisely, Putin has higher motive. You are assuming that Putin and Russia as a whole, all Russian leaders or potential leaders are in agreement. This just isn't true.

 

[CaughtInThe]

None of the Putin support and Russia support surprises me. Hell, the same people were conned by a public and well-known old con man from New York City. How could they not be conned by Putin and Russia? They're just not savvy.

 

[bave]

No, it doesn't. That pipeline has been shutdown for over 6 months now. There was little chance it would be brought back online, especially with the current situation of Ukraine pushing Russia back. That situation leads to a higher level of leverage over more reasonable Russian "leaders" who could potentially overwhelm Putin, take him out of power to do so and stop the invasion he initiated.

Then why not blow up the far more easily accessible pipelines in Ukraine? The difference is the Nord's feed Germany and Germany's industrial economy is collapsing. I don't even follow the logic, Putin blew up his own underwater pipeline to discourage an internal coup? That just doesn't make a lot of sense. Again, Occam's Razor. What makes the most sense? Putin blew up his own pipeline in order to blame someone else as an act of war (which he already has), he blew up his own pipeline to dissuade an internal coup, or a Western ally trying to keep Germany on the team and take away the temptation to cut a deal with Russia to resume gas supplies to save their economy now and forever while at the same time destroying a long term strategic asset of their enemy?

Sounds like C to me.

 

[yankintx]

Tucker eh?

I understand why your so pro Russian now

 

[roguenuke]

Then why not blow up the far more easily accessible pipelines in Ukraine? The difference is the Nord's feed Germany and Germany's industrial economy is collapsing. I don't even follow the logic, Putin blew up his own underwater pipeline to discourage an internal coup? That just doesn't make a lot of sense. Again, Occam's Razor. What makes the most sense? Putin blew up his own pipeline in order to blame someone else as an act of war (which he already has), he blew up his own pipeline to dissuade an internal coup, or a Western ally trying to keep Germany on the team and take away the temptation to cut a deal with Russia to resume gas supplies to save their economy now and forever while at the same time destroying a long term strategic asset of their enemy?

Sounds like C to me.

They are fighting in Ukraine and it is not more accessible. Additionally, if the plan is to blame it on the US, other countries, it makes much more sense to blow up a part that is accessible to many more people, countries.

Putin blowing up the pipeline for multiple reasons that do fit his personality and how he operates, supports his plans makes more sense. Is it possible that another, radical group did it? Yes. Is it likely that it is US or NATO allies? No.