Sure, just look at this discussion where the majority opinion is that the US or some other western nation did this. This is gold for all the Orbans and Salvinis in europe to change popular opinion.
See, the US wants us to freeze and pay enormous sums for their LNG. Lets go back to our russian friends with their cheap oil and gas. Who cares about those corrupt Ukrainians anyway.
That is right now far more important for Russia than some temporary shutdown of a pipeline that is not in use anyway.
For me the main indicator is that this is a reckless, desperate and somewhat stupid move. The US is none of that things while Russia...
I see: A false flag by Russia, followed by coordinated propaganda, to convince certain European nations that they just got fucked by US. This then results in a change in popular opinion which forces German government to sit down with Russia and beg for forgiveness.
If RF managed to send special forces in that highly monitored and shallow stretch of waters there will inevitably be forensic evidence. How was it done and what clues remain as to how it was done. Can this be sourced then, right to Russia? So there is the competence issue, and subsequent evidence issue. Not to mention, hey, Russia now is at war with NATO. Something that they are clearly, desperately, trying to avoid.
Second, I honestly don't think this propaganda reaches a majority of the targeted nation's population. (Same for our propaganda). There is basically a usual suspects demographic in any society that eats this stuff up. They are not influential, in general. Sometimes, like in the past 2 decades, excesses of the ruling class effective inflate the number of people who flip to a counter-narrative and it can be a force. Is that the situation in Germany?
Next, you and I disagree about the degree in which "popular opinion" has any influence in immediate and short term strategic decision making by governments. Are Germans going to follow the example of Iranians and revolt in the streets? I just don't see it.
(Long term, sure. Public opinion matters.)
~
"the US wants us to freeze and pay enormous sums for their LNG."
Btw, this is not what US wants. It's not the money. We print that shit since our CB is blessed by heaven so we can print without consequence ... until we lose global power.
No. US wants the EU dependent on energy flows that are subject to the famous "Anglo-Saxons". That would keep EU in line.
The only consequence would be some contradicting statements: We didnt do it, but here is evidence that the US,UK..... spiced up with a video of some CoD game footage showing scuba divers.
Thats the other part of the cui bono argument. What happens if you get caught? That would be pretty devastating for the US who tries to hold this coalition together through the coming winter but for Russia its nothing. There will always be enough doubt, that they themselves created, for them to continue unabated.
I can see some baltic or polish actor doing this but 2:1 my money is on Russia.There have been some suggestions in this thread that the pipelines might be completely destroyed. In that case I would have to reevaluate my position. But it seems to me, that would be a rather fragile pipeline if any wrong anchoring or earthquake could destroy it.
No. US wants the EU dependent on energy flows that are subject to the famous "Anglo-Saxons". That would keep EU in line.
Russia now is at war with NATO. Something that they are clearly, desperately, trying to avoid.
Additionally, the assumption that Germany would declare war on Russia unilaterally over something like this is flawed. Sure, if this were a verifiable and identifiable attack on German territory, maybe. To suggest that any attack on international infrastructure in international waters with no mechanism for identifying the actor is intended to do anything other than instill fear is mistaken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania (not state property)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/19150508...
> This is not an act of war with Germany.
It can be construed as such, but certainly not by Germany. They are not strong enough to make a stink about it. Powerful states can take offense at the smallest thing. Weaker nations put up with lots of shit. (Is not, for example, what is done to Russia economic warfare? Do you see them declaring war? No. Because they are weaker.)
So boundary of what constitute an act of war is somewhat fuzzy not completely crisp.
> This happened in international waters.
Yes, and NATO waters.
> The pipeline is already shut down. This does not affect Germany's gas supply, as they were already receiving no gas from Nordstream
Addressed multiple times in this thread. Options closed. Decision trees altered. Game theory.
p.s.
A nice map to go with this thread. The remaining functional gas pipelines from Russia to Germany both go through Poland and Ukraine. Both Poland and Ukraine have 'difficult' relations with Germany and 'hostile' relations with Russia.
There is no such thing as NATO waters, only the territorial waters of NATO members, who must choose to invoke Article 5.
I had the same thought regarding passengers as you when posting that item, so your point is well taken. It was in the sense of it doesn't have to be state property: anything that ultimately is deemed a malicious act directed at a nation.
Especially when the person who gave the orders (e.g. Putin) interests may not be the same as the countries interests.
'Russia destroys its own pipeline so as to cause fracture in the alliance.' Not sure how is that supposed to work! Care to explain?
Also, would Russia blowing this constitute an act of war on Germany by Russia? Is that like Putin saying "we don't have enough on our plate. Lets go to war with Germany"?
Russia is the -loser- here. Why is this not clear?