But making holes in these pipes doesn't come with any reasonable explanation, as far as I can tell. The most probably explanation I can come up with, is NATO and/or allies doing the attacks themselves in order to justify an invasion of Russia to "stop the attacks on foreign soil", but that's borderline conspiracy theory, so not even sure I want to go there.
I guess I'm hoping it's Russia, but I find it far-fetched to believe, because what possible reason could they have for doing so? Demonstrating capabilities? Also feels weak... But then again, Russia is not exactly acting with reason at the moment, so I guess anything is possible.
I know you're not trying to go there, but even this hypothetical doesn't make any sense. The attacks are on Russian-owned pipelines in international waters, there's nothing for NATO to defend. Furthermore, if NATO wanted to do a false flag, it would make more sense to blow up Chernobyl, since Russia has previously threatened it and NATO has historically emphasized that attacks that spread nuclear fallout over NATO countries are grounds for article 5.
To be clear, I don't see a clear benefit for any of the major players here; even the suggestions that it's Putin strike me as wishful thinking. Something strange is going on.
Beyond state level actors you need to consider everything from Russia’s Gasprom having pending lawsuits this helps with to 3rd party gas suppliers benefiting from increasing sales at extreme gas prices. Stock speculators could be located anywhere and benefit from knowing about such attacks ahead of time. Even something as odd as a fringe environmental group could be behind it.
At best depending on how difficult such an attack is you can somewhat narrow things down.
It will make the pro-Russian arguments sound better, if people are scared.
Before, the protesters wanted to force the government to open NS2 and end the gas crisis. Now there is no alternative.
But blowing them up means that people get worried again. The worries about having enough gas to last the winter increases. Russia wants a fearful Europe, not a determined one. This plays right into their hands, and it doesn't really matter whether people know it was them. They are waging a proxy war with NATO through the Ukraine. And the fact that they are also threatening nuclear weapons just confirms their strategy in regards to Europe. They want a Europe that is afraid of Russia.
But they could have. That's what having an alternative means!
Putin was recently, explicitly, fishing for concessions in return for gas through those pipelines.
And people in Germany - a minority, for sure, but still - were demonstrating in the streets, demanding that Germany should make those concessions for gas.
Yes, Putin wants a fearful Europe, and he already had it. Now he has a Europe that's got nothing to lose, gas-wise, for the winter.
This is getting to me. How can people be so blind? IMO, believing that Putin blew up his own pipeline rather than Norway's which just opened (it's very close, if you can reach one you can reach the other), is the same as believing the rebels in Douma used chemical weapons on themselves. If they had them, wouldn't they use it on the enemy instead?
In Douma, people claiming a false flag self-attack had to contend with the fact that the area was surrounded, in fact it fell by the next day. I kept arguing with them, wouldn't it be very easy to catch the false flaggers in the act?
And with the accusation you're making now that Russia did it (which is also a false flag accusation), it happened in Danish and Swedish waters. Near Bornholm. Those Baltic islands are of great strategic importance (much to the inhabitants' annoyance), so you can bet the shallow sea is full of listening equipment, and that spy satellites track every fricking seabird. Yet they missed a Russian sabotage operation?
Also, if Russia wanted an excuse for mobilization etc, why didn't he blow up the pipeline in his own waters, or at least closer to it? Then he could at least claim to be attacked! It would be a disastrously expensive manufactured casus belli, but at least it would have been that. This is instead, if you assume Russia did it, playing right into the US's hands! They've hated that pipeline for years!
And people in Germany - a minority, for sure, but still - were demonstrating in the streets, demanding that Germany should make those concessions for gas.
Yet they missed a Russian sabotage operation?
And with the accusation you're making now that Russia did it (which is also a false flag accusation), it happened in Danish and Swedish waters.
I'm explicitly saying they would have been in on it.
The attacks happened in the exclusive economic zone, which are not typically called international waters. Countries keep close track of their exclusive economic zones, even if they DON'T happen to be strategically important straits, which the sea between Bornholm and Poland absolutely is.
US intelligence works closely with the UK and Germany. If it was the US it was with Germany's knowledge and approval.
That's an example that they're both able and willing to manipulate German politics and keep Germany in the dark about it. They would probably have needed Sweden's and Denmark's cooperation, but again there is recent history they are very willing to give the US whatever covert assistance they ask for.
As far as I can tell, the publicly released Snowden docs show no such thing.
Also, I'm not sure how you go from mere spying to "able and willing to manipulate German politics".
Maybe he thinks things will be okay if his new annexations come to a relative peace and have grudging acceptance from Europe like they did with Crimea. I doubt it, but…
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-uniper-mul...
They're illegally invading a country and committing warcrimes, why would a fine be the red line, if they went ahead with the invasion I'm pretty sure they can say "no" to a western fine
My big worry is that a NATO country is responsible. I actually don’t know what happens if some NATO nations view these strikes as aggression and refuse to defend the responsible party.
It's true that we don't have yet a smoking gun or direct admission. But it walks like Russia, it quacks like Russia, so any speculation to the contrary seems pointless.
I do admit there's a certain cold war-esque mystery in debating it here in HN, but just wanted to point out what's obvious for people living close to the events.
Your geographical proximity means nothing. I happen to live in the country that makes IMMENSE profits from not competing with Russian gas from those pipelines, and I still am not buying the false flag theory.
I also don't see why Russian sabotage would be a false flag attack. I don't think they are seriously trying to pin it on anyone else.
Anyway I probably shouldn't have replied as I don't see any point in debating the obvious. I'll then just eat my hat later if I need to change my understanding of the modus operandi of some country in the European arena.
Are you really saying Germany is a hesitant ally
US or any other allied country would only risk losing support, there's barely any upside with Germany already committed to non-Russian gas imports.
This can actually destroy the Germany's economy-- destroy, and if that goes down, so does ours (i.e. Sweden's). The EU would be done as a project achieving any kind of regional independence, a second rate power for ever. Industrial competitiveness, once lost, stays lost.
I'd go as far as to say, that if Germany's energy situation actually destroys its industry in the way that can possibly happen, then the Ukraine war is small potatoes, strategically.
Did Russia have Germany begging for gas and ready to do anything to have them 'fix' the thing they were pretending was broken to make them suffer without their gas?
Was the West foolishly refusing to buy cheap energy that Russia was happy to supply?
Was the west taking the recent war and Russia mucking around with the gas supply as a signal to accelerate their renewable transition and end all relience on Russian gas?
Were the western voters angry, who were they angry at, what would they do as a result?
If you can't agree on the above you'll not agree about who benefits from this either.
Doesn't mean the US did it, but if you look at a map and try to figure out how the Russians would have gotten there undetected and did the damage and slipped out undetected again, well it's just not credible. And Europe certainly wouldn't put themselves in an even more precarious position that they already are. So Occam's Razor applies.
I would consider the motivations of all actors and not just in the interest of the nation states.
Yes, Putin has done those before. So have others. But it has never before happened that 10 billion euro infrastructure, which was used explicitly as leverage (Putin said he would turn on the gas as soon as Germany asked for it, and some Germans were protesting in the street, demanding exactly that), was sacrificed as part of a false flag attack. You're not only talking 4d chess here, you're talking a queen sacrifice in 4d chess.
I do not know the contracts between Russia and the EU countries. Once there is no pipe, you cannot tell Russia stopped delivering gas, but they just could not, even they wanted. Little time ago there was a big discussion about a turbine, that made supply difficult. I do not know to which extent that could help Russia. Maybe somebody has more idea/information about it.
But I don't think some political party would have the means for such operation.
Anyone else selling Europe Gas (or Power). That includes chunks of the middle east and north Africa as well as Norway and Belgium
Anyone Buying Russian gas (China)
Anyone competing with European Industrial Goods (the USA)
Also, it's entirely possible this was just an accident.
Or there may not be a direct benefit: hackers (interference with control systems seems much more likely to cause multiple leaks like this) may have done this by either by accident, maliciously, or as part of some ransom plot.
This list is actually sort of everyone...
So Putin would benefit in that situation.
Also the aspect that it reminds the whole of NATO how fragile their infrastruture is for the upcoming winter. It doesn't matter how big your navy is I can get 4x deep dive special forces in a recreational boat and freeze everyone to death. I think the first explosions were actually when they opened the Poland-Norway gas line.
Same goes for intercontinental undersea communication cables. You would probably take out most of the world's finance/trading systems for weeks/months by destroying a handful of transcontinental cables.
It's a power display for fear abroad and for getting all the potential dissidents back in line.
I am very curious if this keeps escalating at what point is a NATO member gonna claim that article 5 has been breached.
I thought about it, too. But even this hypothesis has a weak point: the Yamal pipeline is still working well. So this is a moot point: if the generals or whoever decide to kill Putin and takeover, they will be able to resume sending the gas through Yamal immediately.
People in the West have misunderstood Russia for centuries. The misunderstanding comes from the fact that for the majority of Russians nationalist feelings of being powerful and feared are more important that economic prosperity. Add to this the widespread idea and a very strong feeling of national superiority (in everything, from culture, to science, to drinking etc - they believe they are simply better than everyone else and they have been engaging in such successful propaganda even people in many other countries actually believe this). Then, everyone is told, "having a strong leader" is in Russian nature. This is bull**, but there is some truth in Russians an masse thinking real democracy is a western ploy to make them weaker so they not just accept dictatorship. They cheer it (unless it happens to draft them into its wars).
In addition while they are so superior, it is horribly unfair OTHERS are having it better than them. When those others are far away, they are able to grudgingly accept it, but when countries that were under their occupation(therefore people in those countries were lesser, inferior to them) like Poland achieve economic success(with democracy too!) they think it is not just unfair, but against all the laws of nature. However from the average Russian point of view, Poland is Poland, it is another nation, but Ukraine... they thought about Ukraine as basically the same as them. Ukraine being democratic and successful is precisely so offensive and unacceptable to them because it shows their idea of how to govern themselves and what to believe has been broken for a very long time. It is extremely dangerous for their leaders for the exact same reason. Ukraine shows what Russia could've been.
In addition to the above, just like 150 years ago with Poland. The Russian state can't accept the existence of Ukrainians as a separate nation They say it openly. They advocate a genocide of another nation openly and the majority of the population supports it.
Why are they so blood-thirsty, one may ask? It is very hard for any normal human with no knowledge of Russian history to understand this, but it is important to understand the mere idea of today's Russia is broken. Russia as it has been for hundreds of years and as it is today is a collection of various national groups. Not just in the Caucasus, but almost everywhere else too. Those other groups outside Moscow are all being exploited. Sure they are being sold an idea of being Russian, but when the time comes, is Putin sending people from Moscow to die? No.Not really. So having one of those national groups (Ukrainians) achieve success outside "mother" Russia (with democracy no less!) is even that much worse.
It is not just propaganda that "made Russians bad", it is their entire lifetimes in a broken system. The truth is, as I mentioned before, this is not new. Russia has to experience change similar to what Germany went through after WW2 (well except abolition for all but top level Nazis, but that discussion is for another time). But for that change to happen Germany had to loose a war completely. I fear the same has to happen for Russia before they can change. The first step in getting there is for people in the West to understand how Russians in their mass think. Of course there are many Russians that disagree, but they are in minority, and they have to watch very carefully what they say out loud.
Social media and instant news turned people into complete fanatics, if you can't take any criticism and accept that your propaganda is as bad as their we're fucked
So that's not what whataboutism is and it's ridiculous how much of an overused thought terminating cliché it has become.