6 ms·

While the Seymour Hersh story seems unbelievable to me, so does the initial explanation that was being thrown around, that Russia did this as sabotage, e.g., ht

While the Seymour Hersh story seems unbelievable to me, so does the initial explanation that was being thrown around, that Russia did this as sabotage, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/28/nord-stream-russia-methane-leak-baltic-sea/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/28/nord-stream-.... The utter stupidity of that idea is along the sames lines as rhetoric, also present in OP, that Russia "weaponized" its gas pipelines. (To use that language, nearly anything can be a "weapon.") I'm going to just go out on a limb here and say that I won't take seriously anything that doesn't immediately address how insane those initial accusations, of Russian sabotage of its own pipelines, were.

macintux 4y ago
The idea that Russia would use it as a reminder that they could sabotage other pipelines doesn’t seem so far-fetched.
- notinfuriated 4y ago
  Extremely far-fetched, you'd have to convince me that the Russian government and military are full of total morons. Building a pipeline is not cheap, not in money or time or bureaucratic effort. It's easier to just stop supplying the gas if you want to make an obvious threat.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    > Extremely far-fetched, you'd have to convince me that the Russian government and military are full of total morons. They launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine while denying they were doing so and failed at every one of their military objectives while causing their economy to collapse due to the massive worldwide sanctions. What other evidence could you require?
    - smcl 4y ago
      Exactly. Putin started an incredibly expensive war that could prove to be financially ruinous for Russia, I don't know why we're supposed to believe he wouldn't be so careless about a pipeline that wasn't even operational at the time. I'm not claiming to know who did this, but I don't think we can say it couldn't possibly be Russia
- ed25519FUUU 4y ago
  Can you name a single other instance in history where a country at war significantly damaged its ability to raise money for the war to “send a message”? What exactly is the message? The US didn’t think Russia had a submersible and some C4 and now they do?
  - tomohawk 4y ago
    In WWI, Germany attacked France, it's largest trading partner.
    - zosima 4y ago
      Germany declared war on Russia which was allied with France. And Germany did not declare war on any of those countries out of will, but due to an alliance with the Austro-Hungarian empire. The situation is not even remotely comparable.
      - smcl 4y ago
        So ... Germany declared war on Russia knowing it would involve fighting France then. Not sure how this changes things unless the alliance was a secret
        9dev 4y ago
        As parent said, Germany didn’t declare war willingly, they had no choice but supporting the alliance. You cannot just change sides in war as it suits you.
        int_19h 4y ago
        For starters, Germany declared war on Russia five days before Austria-Hungary did. But even if it were otherwise, they still had a choice whether to honor their obligations or not. Furthermore, there's substantial evidence that Germany - or rather, some German factions - was very specifically pressuring Austria into a war, precisely so that it could then be "joined": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#The_German_%22Blank_Cheque%22_(1%E2%80%936_July) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#The_German_%22Blan...
- pydry 4y ago
  It is ridiculously far fetched. It was extremely expensive asset and provided a source of leverage. This is why the US publicly hated on the pipeline.
reducesuffering 4y ago
Russia has already demonstrated they will blow up their own pipelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_en... You keep using strong words like "utter stupidity" and "insane" without being aware of recent Russian history...
- notinfuriated 4y ago
  > Russia dismisses the accusations, claiming the charges could be set by terrorists. The pipelines were eventually fixed.
  - reducesuffering 4y ago
    Russia dismisses the accusations, claiming they are not going to invade Ukraine. https://www.rt.com/russia/540121-russia-denies-plans-invade-ukraine/ https://www.rt.com/russia/540121-russia-denies-plans-invade-... Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov: “We have repeatedly said that the movement of our armed forces on our own territory should be of no concern to anyone. Russia poses no threat to anyone.”
    - notinfuriated 4y ago
      > Russia dismisses the accusations, claiming they are not going to invade Ukraine. What's your point? That the Russian gov't is capable of lying, therefore they blew up the pipelines? What if I said that the US lied about weapons of mass destruction, therefore the US must have blown up the pipelines? It seems like a non-sequitur. State governments can deceive, especially about their plans for war. That said, I'm not supporting Russia in this war, nor Ukraine. So I'm not going to participate any further in this other debate about the war that you appear to want to have.
aredox 4y ago
One of the pipelines is still undamaged. Why would the US be this sloppy?
- mrtksn 4y ago
  Why wouldn't be sloppy? Remember the Afghanistan pull out? The US is capable of screw ups. Unless of course people were falling down from planes and busses with kids and women were droned tactically?
- manimino 4y ago
  No opinion on whether the US did it. But Hersh's essay indicates there were last-minute changes to the detonation method. That adds risk, which could have manifested as failure of some detonations.
  - aredox 4y ago
    Then the explosive charges are still there, and Danemark and Germany can recover them.
HybridCurve 4y ago
>The utter stupidity of that idea is along the sames lines as rhetoric, also present in OP, that Russia "weaponized" its gas pipelines Cutting off energy a nation's energy supply in violation of an established trade agreement, as a response to an escalating conflict between nations, is economic warfare. The term "weaponized" is used correctly in this sense and the author was not engaging in hyperbole. Modern hybridized warfare is fought across a number of spaces: legal, political, economic, ecological, informational, 'cyber', etc, etc. We no longer have the luxury of believing the warfare only involves weapons with purely kinetic effects. This is not the way Russia conducts war anymore nor has it been for the last few decades if not more. Conventional military action is always the last resort or the culminating event in modern campaigns. >I'm going to just go out on a limb here and say that I won't take seriously anything that doesn't immediately address how insane those initial accusations, of Russian sabotage of its own pipelines, were. Can you honestly justify any actions that Russia has taken openly over the last few years as sane? Countries run by viscous autocrats who have consolidated power often make decisions which suit their personal interests more than the those of the nation. Many in Europe and the US have made the mistake of assessing Putin's strategies as being 'Russia's strategy' and therefore unlikely because it would be bad for Russia. When in fact Putin's strategies serve him just fine because he doesn't give a shit about Russians.
postingawayonhn 4y ago
Somebody destroyed them and there is a limited nber of candidates who would have both the motive and means to do so.
kornhole 4y ago
Part of the credibility of either account lies in the source. The source of one is a highly awarded investigative journalist legend with a history of verifying his anonymous sources in government and never published anything false TMK. The other account comes from a publication owned by a billionaire contractor to the department of defense.

macintux 4y ago

The idea that Russia would use it as a reminder that they could sabotage other pipelines doesn’t seem so far-fetched.

notinfuriated 4y ago
Extremely far-fetched, you'd have to convince me that the Russian government and military are full of total morons. Building a pipeline is not cheap, not in money or time or bureaucratic effort. It's easier to just stop supplying the gas if you want to make an obvious threat.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  > Extremely far-fetched, you'd have to convince me that the Russian government and military are full of total morons. They launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine while denying they were doing so and failed at every one of their military objectives while causing their economy to collapse due to the massive worldwide sanctions. What other evidence could you require?
  - smcl 4y ago
    Exactly. Putin started an incredibly expensive war that could prove to be financially ruinous for Russia, I don't know why we're supposed to believe he wouldn't be so careless about a pipeline that wasn't even operational at the time. I'm not claiming to know who did this, but I don't think we can say it couldn't possibly be Russia
ed25519FUUU 4y ago
Can you name a single other instance in history where a country at war significantly damaged its ability to raise money for the war to “send a message”? What exactly is the message? The US didn’t think Russia had a submersible and some C4 and now they do?
- tomohawk 4y ago
  In WWI, Germany attacked France, it's largest trading partner.
  - zosima 4y ago
    Germany declared war on Russia which was allied with France. And Germany did not declare war on any of those countries out of will, but due to an alliance with the Austro-Hungarian empire. The situation is not even remotely comparable.
    - smcl 4y ago
      So ... Germany declared war on Russia knowing it would involve fighting France then. Not sure how this changes things unless the alliance was a secret
      - 9dev 4y ago
        As parent said, Germany didn’t declare war willingly, they had no choice but supporting the alliance. You cannot just change sides in war as it suits you.
        int_19h 4y ago
        For starters, Germany declared war on Russia five days before Austria-Hungary did. But even if it were otherwise, they still had a choice whether to honor their obligations or not. Furthermore, there's substantial evidence that Germany - or rather, some German factions - was very specifically pressuring Austria into a war, precisely so that it could then be "joined": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#The_German_%22Blank_Cheque%22_(1%E2%80%936_July) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#The_German_%22Blan...
pydry 4y ago
It is ridiculously far fetched. It was extremely expensive asset and provided a source of leverage. This is why the US publicly hated on the pipeline.

reducesuffering 4y ago

Russia has already demonstrated they will blow up their own pipelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_en... You keep using strong words like "utter stupidity" and "insane" without being aware of recent Russian history...

notinfuriated 4y ago
> Russia dismisses the accusations, claiming the charges could be set by terrorists. The pipelines were eventually fixed.
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  Russia dismisses the accusations, claiming they are not going to invade Ukraine. https://www.rt.com/russia/540121-russia-denies-plans-invade-ukraine/ https://www.rt.com/russia/540121-russia-denies-plans-invade-... Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov: “We have repeatedly said that the movement of our armed forces on our own territory should be of no concern to anyone. Russia poses no threat to anyone.”
  - notinfuriated 4y ago
    > Russia dismisses the accusations, claiming they are not going to invade Ukraine. What's your point? That the Russian gov't is capable of lying, therefore they blew up the pipelines? What if I said that the US lied about weapons of mass destruction, therefore the US must have blown up the pipelines? It seems like a non-sequitur. State governments can deceive, especially about their plans for war. That said, I'm not supporting Russia in this war, nor Ukraine. So I'm not going to participate any further in this other debate about the war that you appear to want to have.

aredox 4y ago

One of the pipelines is still undamaged. Why would the US be this sloppy?

mrtksn 4y ago
Why wouldn't be sloppy? Remember the Afghanistan pull out? The US is capable of screw ups. Unless of course people were falling down from planes and busses with kids and women were droned tactically?
manimino 4y ago
No opinion on whether the US did it. But Hersh's essay indicates there were last-minute changes to the detonation method. That adds risk, which could have manifested as failure of some detonations.
- aredox 4y ago
  Then the explosive charges are still there, and Danemark and Germany can recover them.

HybridCurve 4y ago

>The utter stupidity of that idea is along the sames lines as rhetoric, also present in OP, that Russia "weaponized" its gas pipelines Cutting off energy a nation's energy supply in violation of an established trade agreement, as a response to an escalating conflict between nations, is economic warfare. The term "weaponized" is used correctly in this sense and the author was not engaging in hyperbole. Modern hybridized warfare is fought across a number of spaces: legal, political, economic, ecological, informational, 'cyber', etc, etc. We no longer have the luxury of believing the warfare only involves weapons with purely kinetic effects. This is not the way Russia conducts war anymore nor has it been for the last few decades if not more. Conventional military action is always the last resort or the culminating event in modern campaigns. >I'm going to just go out on a limb here and say that I won't take seriously anything that doesn't immediately address how insane those initial accusations, of Russian sabotage of its own pipelines, were. Can you honestly justify any actions that Russia has taken openly over the last few years as sane? Countries run by viscous autocrats who have consolidated power often make decisions which suit their personal interests more than the those of the nation. Many in Europe and the US have made the mistake of assessing Putin's strategies as being 'Russia's strategy' and therefore unlikely because it would be bad for Russia. When in fact Putin's strategies serve him just fine because he doesn't give a shit about Russians.

postingawayonhn 4y ago

Somebody destroyed them and there is a limited nber of candidates who would have both the motive and means to do so.

kornhole 4y ago

Part of the credibility of either account lies in the source. The source of one is a highly awarded investigative journalist legend with a history of verifying his anonymous sources in government and never published anything false TMK. The other account comes from a publication owned by a billionaire contractor to the department of defense.