*** Official Putin Started Shootin' Thread ***

[OngBonga]

If Assange was a Russian agent he wouldn't have gone to the Ecuadorian embassy. He'd have gone to the Russian embassy. Or just left the UK and headed for Russia like Snowden did.

The difference between the two, primarily, is that Assange isn't American, didn't commit a crime in USA, arguably didn't commit a crime at all, while Snowden is an American who took secrets off a US govt computer.

idk about Snowden. I didn't like him running off to Russia when shit hit the fan. That was a huge red flag. Maybe he sincerely felt it was the safest country to flee too though, maybe Assange should have done that instead of running to the Ecuadorian embassy.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Snowden took secrets off a gov't computer makes it sound like espionage.

The fact that Snowden revealed what he took without being caught by the authorities tends to make his case look more authentic, IMO.
The fact that what he exposed was legit crimes committed by the US gov't against US citizens also lends to his authenticity, IMO.

Whether he was put up to it by the Russians or not makes no difference to the evidence he made public.
If the Russian plan was to root out American corruption, then fine. Thanks, Russia.

But the result was not that. The result was that the people who were being crimed against couldn't care less.
It was an epic backfire on any level if the intent was to expose US corruption and show the world how dumb we are, as well. The world already knew that.

The fact that it ended up showing politicians just how much their constituents don't fucking care how corrupt they are, because we've just accepted it as an unsolvable problem, couldn't have realistically been foreseen by anyone in advance, I think. If that was the plot you're suggesting Russia was up to, well... I don't think they're that smart or that effective. That's very big brain thinking and a huge brain gamble.

I mean.. what do I know? This is all speculation on my part.

[OngBonga]

Snowden took secrets off a gov't computer makes it sound like espionage.

If he's a Russian agent, it certainly is espionage. But that's a big "if". I really don't know, I just didn't like him running to Russia. Maybe he was just being smart and knew Russia couldn't be bullied into extraditing him though, idk.

No way Assange is a Russian agent though. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

[OngBonga]

This Nord Stream thing is interesting. The volume of people lapping up the "Russia did it" narrative, it shouldn't surprise me but it does. Biden literally said 7 months ago that if Russia invades Ukraine then he'll shut down Nord Stream. When asked how, he just said "I promise you we will do it".

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM

There is no evidence whatsoever that Russia is responsible, and very little motivation. USA on the other hand, they have documented motivation and will, they had ships in the area at the time, a Polish MP has thanked USA on Twitter, but still people say it's Putin.

It's absolutely absurd. It feels like people know that Russia didn't do it but don't want to be seen in any way to support Putin. Nobody wants to face the reality that there's more than one bad actor in this game of war chess. People are afraid of critical thinking. They just want the nice and easy "Putin bad, West good" narrative so they can sleep easy. Cowards.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I did not know about that. Very interesting.

[oskar]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/28/world/europe/russian-soldiers-phone-calls-ukraine.html

Some of this sounds like straight out of Come and See.

[OngBonga]

This is why I like Murray so much...

It is perfectly possible to see that both:
1) NATO's claim that Russia blew up its own pipeline is bullshit
2) Russia's claim to have held free and fair referenda in a war zone is bullshit


You don't have to believe the ludicrous propaganda from any shade of warmonger.

He doesn't pick sides. He simply observes.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's not the only pipeline in the area.

It's be at least morbidly funny if the Russians went out to pop someone else's line and accidentally popped their own.


I don't see any reason to rule out incompetence on either side of this, myself.

[OngBonga]

There are multiple factors at play here. In important one is that the attacks happened in NATO waters. For Russia to attack in such a location would be a huge risk, especially when you consider that they could attack the pipeline in their own waters instead.

Also, the existing pipelines run through Ukraine. So if the Nord Stream pipes are permanently out of service, that means Russia has no choice but to pay Ukraine transit fees if it wants to continue selling gas to Europe.

This is why it is absurd for Russia to do this. And equally absurd is the idea a state actor can accidentally blow up the wrong pipes four times. This isn't one single leak. There are four separate ruptures. The location is near a Danish island near Sweden, so it's not exactly in the middle of open ocean where it's easy to get lost. I'm not aware of any other gas pipelines in the vicinity of this island, though obviously I'm not particularly clued up on underwater pipelines of the Baltic Sea. I'm aware of pipelines running from Norway, and Russia might want to disrupt these because they supply the UK and mainland Europe. But if this was their intended target, they were in the wrong sea. Even the most incompetent navy isn't going to end up in the Baltic Sea when they want to be in the North Sea.

Everything points to USA. They said they'd do it, the incentive is there, it advances Western geopolitical agenda at the cost of Russia's, it makes absolutely no sense for Russia to do this and it makes complete sense for USA to do this.

[OngBonga]

There are pipelines in the same sea going from Norway to Germany, but these pipes are nowhere near the location of the Nord Stream leaks and go through the straight between Copenhagen and Malmo. The Russian Navy has a port in the Baltic Sea and regularly sails through it. They know these waters as well as anybody. There is absolutely no way they can intend to blow up the Europipe between Norway and Germany, and accidentally blow up the Nord Stream near Bournholm Island.

[OngBonga]

pipes.jpg

Black line is Nord Stream,
White line is Europipe,
Red mark is the approximate location of the leaks.

[OngBonga]

[CoccoBill]

Necroing again, but Snowden was on his way from Hong Kong to Latin America but got stuck at the Moscow airport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward...in_the_airport

[CoccoBill]

There is no evidence whatsoever that Russia is responsible, and very little motivation.

Unless you consider it being a clear message that they can and will attack critical infrastructure of EU nations if they continue supporting Ukraine.

How exactly does the US benefit from this? Russia had already closed it up and EU is rushing to cut their dependence on RU oil and gas, which was US's motivation for closing it up in the first place.

[OngBonga]

How exactly does the US benefit from this?

Who do you think will be stepping in to sell shale gas to Europe? Within a year we'll be hearing news of a planned pipeline across the Atlantic.

Also, it benefits USA because it benefits Ukraine, an ally, at the cost of Russia, an enemy. USA have vested interests in the energy sector in Ukraine. If gas starts flowing through Ukraine pipes again, that's really good for Ukraine, and its investors.

I'm surprised I need to explain this last part.

[OngBonga]

Russia had already closed it up...

Temporarily. The Russians were using the pipe as leverage. By blowing up their own pipe, they are blowing up their own leverage. It makes no sense.

[Poopadoop]

Yep, it was someone in the West who did it, probably the US.

On the other hand, the West hasn't invaded another country and held "referendums" to force-annex bits of their territory.

[CoccoBill]

Who do you think will be stepping in to sell shale gas to Europe? Within a year we'll be hearing news of a planned pipeline across the Atlantic.

You don't think that if that was a proposition EU were interested in, it would have happened even without bombing the Nord Stream? Like I said, EU is already scrambling to get oil and gas from anyone other than Russia asap. Wouldn't it had made more sense to bomb it when it was actually in use and EU was still interested in using it?

Also, it benefits USA because it benefits Ukraine, an ally, at the cost of Russia, an enemy. USA have vested interests in the energy sector in Ukraine. If gas starts flowing through Ukraine pipes again, that's really good for Ukraine, and its investors.

Benefits Ukraine how exactly? Do you mean that Ukraine's aching to start selling gas to EU, but they aren't buying because of Nord Stream?

I'm surprised I need to explain this last part.

I think you have to explain a lot more.

Temporarily. The Russians were using the pipe as leverage. By blowing up their own pipe, they are blowing up their own leverage. It makes no sense.

Nord Streams are ~50/50 owned by Russian and German companies. There is no leverage if no one is buying Russian gas.

[OngBonga]

On the other hand, the West hasn't invaded another country and held "referendums" to force-annex bits of their territory.

Yeah? Russia didn't invade Iraq. There's another completely irrelevant bit if information.

Russia are being bad. That doesn't mean everything bad that happens must be Russia. And especially when it makes absolutely no sense for them to do what they're being accused of. And especially when America basically admitted it in advance.

idk why people are so blind on this matter. People are making up absurd reasons why Russia would do this while completely ignoring the logical reasons USA would do this. It's a clear demonstration of how brainwashed Western citizens are by our propaganda.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah? Russia didn't invade Iraq.

I just said it was probably the West that blew up the pipeline. But really I don't care, because either side would have no qualms about doing it if it was in their interests. It's not like "Oh Russia would never do anything THAT horrible. The West is soooo evil."

Also, I don't understand why you're devoting so much energy to this question when in the bigger picture of Russia invading the Ukraine and force-annexing its territory, and all the blood that's being spilled to get to that point, this is a pretty minor transgression.


Are people in the West swallowing propaganda? Probably. So what else is new? You act like it's only stupid people who live in the West who are wilfully blind to their governments' bad behaviour. How many Russian citizens believe they are defending the rights of Russians in Kherson from the Ukrainian SS Nazi brigade, or whatever bullshit justification they're using? You never call them fools, last I recall you were arguing "yeah there's Nazis in the UA."

Fuck me, if you can't see which side is holding the moral high ground in a war of invasion and conquest...

[OngBonga]

You don't think that if that was a proposition EU were interested in, it would have happened even without bombing the Nord Stream?

Money talks. Europe will buy whatever is cheaper. And it's absurd to think gas coming from America by ships is going to be cheaper than gas coming from Russia along pipes. An Atlantic pipeline isn't going to be finished anytime soon, only then will American gas be competitive.

Wouldn't it had made more sense to bomb it when it was actually in use and EU was still interested in using it?

Perhaps, but then again maybe it's a great deal more dangerous and environmentally risky to be blowing up a gas pipeline under pressure. The fact it's not in use makes it less serious an incident. There's still gas in there, but it's not under pressure.

Benefits Ukraine how exactly? Do you mean that Ukraine's aching to start selling gas to EU, but they aren't buying because of Nord Stream?

Transit fees. Dude come on, it's common knowledge that Russian gas, before Nord Stream, was going along pipelines that went through Ukraine. This is precisely why Nord Stream was built by Russia, so they could sell gas to Europe without having to pay transit fees to their enemy Ukraine. It gives Ukraine income and leverage. This was unacceptable for Russia, which is why they have invested many billions building two pipelines from Russia to Germany. Without Nord Stream, Russia can only send gas to Europe through the previous infrastructure, which means paying Ukraine transit fees.

With this in mind, do you understand why it is absurd for Russia to attack these pipes? They are giving up their own leverage and handing it to Ukraine.

Nord Streams are ~50/50 owned by Russian and German companies. There is no leverage if no one is buying Russian gas.

Russia were using Nord Stream as leverage. By that I man they had stopped sending gas to put pressure on the West. This only works if these pipes remain operational... the West won't cave into Russia's demands if they can't get the gas flowing through Nord Stream again.

People are arguing that Russia have destroyed their leverage. It makes absolutely no sense. I'm really surprised intelligent people like you and poop aren't seeing this.

[OngBonga]

Also, I don't understand why you're devoting so much energy to this question when in the bigger picture of Russia invading the Ukraine and force-annexing its territory, and all the blood that's being spilled to get to that point, this is a pretty minor transgression.

I guess because we agree. We tend to discuss the matters we disagree on.

How many Russian citizens believe they are defending the rights of Russians in Kherson from the Ukrainian SS Nazi brigade, or whatever bullshit justification they're using?

Lots.

You never call them fools

That's because I'm not talking to Russians who are parroting Russian propaganda.

last I recall you were arguing "yeah there's Nazis in the UA."

There are. Lots of them. Just because Russia are being cunts, doesn't mean Ukraine doesn't have a Nazi problem.

Fuck me, if you can't see which side is holding the moral high ground in a war of invasion and conquest...

NOBODY has the moral high ground here.

[OngBonga]

Leverage - we can sell you gas but we won't.

Not leverage - we can't sell you gas.

[Poopadoop]

That's because I'm not talking to Russians who are parroting Russian propaganda.

No-one here was parroting Western propaganda either. You just starting going off on one.

There are. Lots of them.

If you believe the Russian propaganda, yes.

NOBODY has the moral high ground here.

Wow. Just wow.

[Poopadoop]

When I criticise the UK gov't for valid reasons, you suggest I might be happier if I left. You don't seem to like the West much, so maybe you'd be happier if you moved to Russia.

[CoccoBill]

I'm not saying the US didn't do it. Let's face it, not one of us has any clue who did. I was merely challenging your position that RU had no motivation to do it. If they felt the EU were cutting ties with them anyway, it sent a clear message that they're willing and able to attack EU critical infra, so back off from supporting Ukraine.

It's ok to be critical Ong, you just should be equally critical of both sides.

[OngBonga]

No-one here was parroting Western propaganda either. You just starting going off on one.

Well cocco certainly seems to think Russia shot themselves in the face in an effort to do their enemy a massive favour. Maybe you didn't, maybe I'm just so used to you taking the "Russia bas" line that I assumed you were being sarcastic when you said someone in the West did it.

If you believe the Russian propaganda, yes.

I mean if you think the only people saying Ukraine has a Nazi problem is Russian media, then I have news for you...

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ar-ncna1290946

Wow. Just wow.

Just because Ukraine are defending their territory, doesn't mean they can do no wrong.

When I criticise the UK gov't for valid reasons, you suggest I might be happier if I left. You don't seem to like the West much, so maybe you'd be happier if you moved to Russia.

You're like the Twitter plonkers who go "waaa Russian bot" as soon as someone takes any position which runs counter to the West's narrative.

No I wouldn't be happier in Russia. You know why? I'm not from Russia. I don't speak Russian. I have no interest in going there. It's a piss poor analogy.

[OngBonga]

I was merely challenging your position that RU had no motivation to do it.

They don't have any motivation to do it. It's absurd to think that destroying the very pipelines that they built to bypass Ukraine makes any sense. What possible motivation is there? To stick two fingers up to Europe? They don't need to blow it up to do that, they can simply refuse to sell gas.

No Nord Stream is a huge loss for Russia and a huge gain for Ukraine. Thus, Russia are most certainly not motivated to destroy it. They paid for it. And guess who'll be fixing it?

It's ok to be critical Ong, you just should be equally critical of both sides.

I am. You won't hear me saying these referendums are fair. I think both sides are cunts.

[CoccoBill]

I am. You won't hear me saying these referendums are fair. I think both sides are cunts.

Dude, literally no one thinks they're fair. That's far less than the least you could do.

[OngBonga]

The irony is that they could have been fair. Not many people dispute that some regions in Eastern Ukraine would vote to be annexed by Russia if they had a free and fair referendum. It's just ludicrous to think that this is possible in a war zone.

Russia are also cunts for invading another country. Just like we're cunts when we meddle with the affairs of foreign countries for our own geopolitical aims.

[MadMojoMonkey]

As for who popped the pipe: What happened to that healthy skepticism, ong? What happened to, "be careful attributing to malice what can reasonably be explained by incompetence"

You act like Russian control and maintenance of the pipe is like 10,000 Putins running around doing exactly what Putin wants done.
That's not how Russia works. We've seen the equipment and training they offer their front line soldiers. We've seen widespread acts of protest in Russia including arson and murder against military recruitment agents. We've seen internal sabotage of Russian equipment over corruption for personal gains.

It's not beyond reason that some Russians decided to fuck the pipeline, either as an act of protest against the war or out of corruption for personal gain. We just don't know.

Until there's evidence of exactly how this happened, we can't really rule out anything.

[Poopadoop]

I mean if you think the only people saying Ukraine has a Nazi problem is Russian media, then I have news for you...

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ar-ncna1290946

Now the guy who thinks every news source in the West is a propaganda machine is quoting the US MSM. My head may explode from too much irony.

Just because Ukraine are defending their territory, doesn't mean they can do no wrong.

No-one's claiming 30 million Ukrainians are all saints. You know there's far right people in every country, don't you? Should we invade France because lePen won a lot of votes at the last election? Fucking Vichy cunts.

Let me give you a little history lesson here to put this whole "UA Nazi" excuse in perspective. There once was a little man with a funny moustache whose country had recently been reduced in size, leaving many of their ethnic brethren living in what had become foreign territory. A major part of his argument for why he should be allowed to annex these territories was that these brethren were being cruelly mistreated by their new masters. He even went so far as to invade one of those countries in the end, which led to WWII. Seeing any parallels here? The "protecting ethnic Russians from Ukranians is not a new ploy.

Now, if Ukraine was saying "hey there's some ethnic Ukranians living in the (insert name of Russian province here), and Russian Stalinists are threatening them, so we have to invade Russia, and then had done it." that would be moral equivalence. Not just "some Ukrainians bad people = major country invading smaller neighbor in unprovoked attack," as you're disingenuously implying with this nonsense.

You're like the Twitter plonkers who go "waaa Russian bot" as soon as someone takes any position which runs counter to the West's narrative.

Apart from saying I agree with you on what probably happened, yeah, you got me pegged.

No I wouldn't be happier in Russia. You know why? I'm not from Russia. I don't speak Russian. I have no interest in going there. It's a piss poor analogy.

Right because it's about being able to pull the "go back to where you came from, foreigner," dogwhistle out. Sorry, I forgot.

[OngBonga]

What happened to that healthy skepticism, ong?

Healthy skepticism doesn't mean giving credit to absurd theories.

Nobody has demonstrated why Russia blowing up these pipes is not an absurd theory. Incompetence isn't cutting it. I've explained why it's ridiculous to think the Russian could have blown these pipes up by mistake. And given that there are four leaks, this is clearly not an accident.

Nobody has responded to the point about the attacks happening in NATO waters. Russia has never attacked NATO territory or infrastructure, because doing so is a massive geopolitical escalation. And they didn't need to attack on NATO territory, even if they wanted to put these pipes out of service. They could have chosen Russian waters. Or, if they wanted plausible deniability while not risking a massive escalation with NATO, they could have done this in Finnish or Swedish waters.

It's not beyond reason that some Russians decided to fuck the pipeline.

I don't think anybody believes this was caused by anyone other than a state actor, and by that we mean a navy. This is not something that anyone could do. So if by "some Russians" you mean ordinary, non-military citizens, then that's crazy. And if that's possible, then equally it could have been "some Moroccans".

...we can't really rule out anything.

You're a man of science. Of course we can rule out certain ideas. We can rule out anyone who doesn't have access to underwater explosives like depth charges. We can rule out anyone who doesn't have access to a ship.

What's more, if Russia did do this, we should be able to prove it, because they would have to sail there, and that isn't something you do in the Baltic Sea without being noticed. This is one reason people are insisting USA is responsible... they had ships in the region at the time. Even USA can't hide their navy from the rest of the world.

Even subs aren't going to go unnoticed in this sea, especially in NATO controlled waters.

[OngBonga]

btw, the fact NATO aren't threatening a direct military response to this is itself evidence that a NATO member is responsible. If NATO truly thought Russia, or any other non-NATO member, was responsible, then they would be threatening a direct military response.

Because this happened in Danish waters, a NATO member.

[CoccoBill]

Nobody has responded to the point about the attacks happening in NATO waters.

The leaks are all on international waters, 1 in Swedish economic zone and 2 in Danish. Not any any country's territorial waters. It in fact looks that they made absolutely sure to not do it in waters controlled directly by anyone.

What's more, if Russia did do this, we should be able to prove it, because they would have to sail there, and that isn't something you do in the Baltic Sea without being noticed. This is one reason people are insisting USA is responsible... they had ships in the region at the time. Even USA can't hide their navy from the rest of the world.

Even subs aren't going to go unnoticed in this sea, especially in NATO controlled waters.

The charges could have been remote controlled and planted months or even years ago, by submarines, or by unmanned vehicles. There are strict limits to how far sonars can detect vessels, especially small ones.

Devil's advocate: wouldn't it make sense to do something like this when the US were around and could be blamed for it, to create confusion distrust and fear in the EU. Kinda like Russia's doctrine has been for years, to sow confusion and mistrust. Outright unconditionally ruling out Russia as the culprit is naive, imo.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Healthy skepticism doesn't mean giving credit to absurd theories.

Healthy skepticism means not giving certainty to anything w/o evidence, as well.

Nobody has demonstrated why Russia blowing up these pipes is not an absurd theory. Incompetence isn't cutting it. I've explained why it's ridiculous to think the Russian could have blown these pipes up by mistake. And given that there are four leaks, this is clearly not an accident.

A lack of evidence isn't proof of anything.

Just 'cause we haven't imagined anything else doesn't mean something else didn't happen.

Nobody has responded to the point about the attacks happening in NATO waters. Russia has never attacked NATO territory or infrastructure, because doing so is a massive geopolitical escalation. And they didn't need to attack on NATO territory, even if they wanted to put these pipes out of service. They could have chosen Russian waters. Or, if they wanted plausible deniability while not risking a massive escalation with NATO, they could have done this in Finnish or Swedish waters.

A lack of evidence isn't proof of anything.

I don't think anybody believes this was caused by anyone other than a state actor, and by that we mean a navy. This is not something that anyone could do. So if by "some Russians" you mean ordinary, non-military citizens, then that's crazy. And if that's possible, then equally it could have been "some Moroccans".

What we believe has no bearing on the reality. We have no evidence to verify our beliefs.
They're more like suspicions, IMO.

What we suspect is easier to talk about than what we believe. There's no evidence to support any actual belief, so there's no rational reason to believe any of the speculations.

You're a man of science. Of course we can rule out certain ideas. We can rule out anyone who doesn't have access to underwater explosives like depth charges. We can rule out anyone who doesn't have access to a ship.

I haven't seen any evidence of underwater explosives or depth charges. Have you?
I've seen evidence of underwater explosions... that would happen if the pipe ruptures, even if no explosive was used. Pipes under pressure can explode. Whether any facts are available to rule out either, IDK. I'm open to see them.

What's more, if Russia did do this, we should be able to prove it, because they would have to sail there, and that isn't something you do in the Baltic Sea without being noticed. This is one reason people are insisting USA is responsible... they had ships in the region at the time. Even USA can't hide their navy from the rest of the world.

Even subs aren't going to go unnoticed in this sea, especially in NATO controlled waters.

I mean.. you're assuming this had to be done from the outside of the pipe, on location, and that whatever explosives arrived in recent times.
Do you have any evidence to back up those assumptions?

[OngBonga]

The leaks are all on international waters, 1 in Swedish economic zone and 2 in Danish. Not any any country's territorial waters. It in fact looks that they made absolutely sure to not do it in waters controlled directly by anyone.

This isn't what I was reading, although I don't recall seeing any accurate location mentioned either. It's possible I've taken the term "Danish waters" out of context though. So OK I'll withdraw this aspect of my argument. Wikipedia is saying all the leaks are indeed in the Economic Zones of Denmark and Sweden.

There's 4 leaks, btw, 2 in Danish waters.

The charges could have been remote controlled and planted months or even years ago, by submarines, or by unmanned vehicles.

Also worth noting from Wikipedia is that according to CNN, Russian ships and subs were seen in the general vicinity in the days before the incident, something I previously wasn't aware of.

Ok. So with this I'll accept that Russia in theory could have done it, and it wasn't necessarily in NATO territory.

So now all we're lacking is legitimate motivation for Russia to do this, especially given the incident is being welcomed by Russia's enemies. Which comes as no surprise because it benefits Ukraine, not Russia. The only benefit Russia gets from this is panic in the markets in Germany, but is that worth giving their prime enemy - Ukraine - leverage?

It still makes absolutely no sense. I'm going to need to hear a proper motivation for this before I get back on the fence.

[OngBonga]

Healthy skepticism means not giving certainty to anything w/o evidence, as well.

Please don't confuse my high confidence with certainty.

A lack of evidence isn't proof of anything.

Again, I'm not claiming proof. I'm claiming that it makes a lot more sense for USA to do this than Russia.

A lot.

I haven't seen any evidence of underwater explosives or depth charges. Have you?

Yes. The Swedish and Danish governments recorded seismic signatures. They are being very careful about what they say regarding who they suspect. All they are saying is that they were explosions and that it wasn't an accident.

I'm making the leap to depth charges, largely because I'm not clued up when it comes to underwater explosives. idk if all underwater explosives are depth charges.

I mean.. you're assuming this had to be done from the outside of the pipe, on location, and that whatever explosives arrived in recent times.

The explosives might not have been placed recently and could have been detonated remotely, I've acknowledged that in my reply to cocco.

[OngBonga]

I mean we don't seem to be talking about Biden promising they would shut down Nord Stream if Russia invaded Ukraine.

If that isn't the most compelling piece of evidence, idk what to say.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah I think you guys are reaching a bit on this one.

Not that that makes Ong being a habitual Putin apologist any less annoying.

[CoccoBill]

I mean we don't seem to be talking about Biden promising they would shut down Nord Stream if Russia invaded Ukraine.

If that isn't the most compelling piece of evidence, idk what to say.

When he said that Germany was buying most of it's natural gas through it. Their intention, as far as I can tell, was to stop that to cut their energy dependence on Russia, and that had been already established before the explosions. Why bomb them now?

Also tbf, I need some more tinfoil to believe that the US would bomb a pipeline on the Baltic to get more gas sales. Without a shadow of a doubt they'd be on the shortlist for imports anyway. I don't claim to know if the US even had a surplus of gas they'd be that desperate to get rid of, I'd wager no.

[CoccoBill]

Also, it is a convenient distraction from the annexation.

[Poopadoop]

Also tbf, I need some more tinfoil to believe that the US would bomb a pipeline on the Baltic to get more gas sales.

They invaded a country to get more oil once iirc. Don't think bombing a pipeline is out of the playbook.

Also, it is a convenient distraction from the annexation.

There you have a point.

[OngBonga]

When he said that Germany was buying most of it's natural gas through it. Their intention, as far as I can tell, was to stop that to cut their energy dependence on Russia, and that had been already established before the explosions. Why bomb them now?

I feel there's a distinct lack of knowledge as to what "leverage" means.

If Putin has functional pipes sitting idle, he has leverage.

If Putin has scrap metal at the bottom of the sea, he does not have leverage.

Putin was using the pipes as leverage. He stopped the gas flowing but kept them operational because he is trying to strongarm Germany. Without the pipes he can't strongarm them.

Also tbf, I need some more tinfoil to believe that the US would bomb a pipeline on the Baltic to get more gas sales.

This is only half of their motivation, if it's even that much. The real bonus from this is when Putin does start selling gas to Europe again, he has to pay Ukraine transit fees for the gas to flow through their territory. That's more important to USA than shale gas sales, at least in the short term. Ukraine now have leverage over Russia.

Which, again, is precisely why it's absurd for Russia to do this.

[CoccoBill]

Why do you think EU is ever buying Russian oil or gas again, wether it's on offer or not? They're literally scrambling to replace it with just about anything. Germany is already *gasp* postponing closing down nuclear plants due to this kerfuffle.

[CoccoBill]

They invaded a country to get more oil once iirc. Don't think bombing a pipeline is out of the playbook.

Fair enough, I wouldn't blink an eye if they had done that in Libya or some other shithole [mandatory sarcasm disclaimer]. I would still think northern Europe would be OOB.

[Poopadoop]

Is the pipeline actually dead? As in, there's been no gas going through it because of the war? Sorry I've been too busy watching the UK implode to pay much attention to the bigger world.

[CoccoBill]

Is the pipeline actually dead? As in, there's been no gas going through it because of the war? Sorry I've been too busy watching the UK implode to pay much attention to the bigger world.

The full capacity of Nord Stream 1 was 170 cubic meters per second, since like June it had been running at 20 m3/s at max, occasionally down "for maintenance" or running at 10m3/s. So in effect it had been down for months.

[OngBonga]

Why do you think EU is ever buying Russian oil or gas again, wether it's on offer or not?

Why do you think anyone will care in ten years? We've been buying gas off Russia after they annexed Crimea. When it comes to money, people are fickle, and that includes countries. The UK sells weapons to Saudi Arabia for Christ's sake.

They're literally scrambling to replace it with just about anything.

And if they succeed, if they pay more for gas to "stick it to Russia", then we're no longer economically competitive when compared with China, who will be more than happy to buy Russia's gas.

Sticking it to Russia will come at a huge economic cost to both the West and to Russia, but it hurts us more if Russia are still able to sell their gas. And they will.

[Poopadoop]

Was this the same pipeline that Russia "shut down for maintenance" then? In that case, yeah whatever, I may be coming around to the idea that someone named Igor "accidentally" blew it up in several places.

I have heard too the West is scrambling to buy its gas from other places, so destroying the pipline could be a different message whoever did it. Either the West ("you're fucked Putin we're never buying your gas again") or the Russians ("look, a dead cat"). Dunno. Not sure why I should care either tbh.

Is there a reason why it matters who did it and why in the bigger scheme of things, apart from giving Ong a chance to troll people? (the first part of that q. is serious, not the second)

[Poopadoop]

Ong, the world price of gas has gone up precisely because Russia has nowhere to sell it. The Chinese can't make up for all the sales Russia used to have to Europe. Russia is burning gas off because they don't have customers anymore and they don't have capacity to store it.

[OngBonga]

Was this the same pipeline that Russia "shut down for maintenance" then?

Yes. This is Russia using their leverage. When the pipe is no longer operational, that leverage is gone, handed over to Ukraine.

Is there a reason why it matters who did it and why in the bigger scheme of things, apart from giving Ong a chance to troll people? (the first part of that q. is serious, not the second)

I wish you didn't take my comments personally. I'm not trying to troll anyone here, this isn't Twitter and you guys are not randoms.

I take the positions I do because I don't trust Western geopolitics any more than I trust Russia's.

Does it matter who did it? Probably not. I mean, is Russia actually going to retaliate against USA in an actual serious way? I doubt it.

("you're fucked Putin we're never buying your gas again")

This isn't the its purpose. The intention, as I see it, is to ensure future gas sales to Europe go through Ukraine. And if that happens, Ukraine can cut off Russian income at will.

Leverage.

[OngBonga]

The Chinese can't make up for all the sales Russia used to have to Europe.

Only because the pipeline infrastructure isn't in place. China has the appetite for it, just not the means to receive it in the quantity Europe does. That's gonna change, they're already expanding the pipeline network from Siberia to China.

Russia has customers. Pipeline capacity is the problem.

[CoccoBill]

You do realize you're giving reasons why Russia wouldn't care about Nord Stream 1, half owned by Germany? The building of Nord Stream 2 had already been canceled.

[OngBonga]

You do realize you're giving reasons why Russia wouldn't care about Nord Stream 1, half owned by Germany? The building of Nord Stream 2 had already been canceled.

They care about Nord Stream for as long as Europe is a potential customer. And they remain a potential customer. Just because Russia are attempting to balance their export markets, doesn't mean they actually want to cut off Europe. And just because Europe is very anti-Russian at this moment in time, doesn't mean they won't buy their gas in a few years.

There's a lot more to it than just gas. Russia and China have something of an unofficial alliance at the moment, but that won't develop into a formal alliance because Russia will not accept being subservient to a partner. At some point in the future, Russia will want improved relations with the West, probably around the time their relationship with China begins to break down.

Nord Stream 2 is completed, it just hasn't entered service yet.

[OngBonga]

The biggest problem between Russia and China is likely going to be Eastern Russia, including Vladivostok. This region of Russia was historically China, and Chinese immigration is happening at such a pace that it's estimated by 2030 the Chinese will have a majority in this region. That spells trouble for their relationship. China will want that land back, especially if it is majority Chinese people. And Russia will not be willing to give up their only year round ice-free port on the Pacific.

This is less than a decade away, it's the not-too-distant future. Russia is getting weaker while China gets stronger. And if China becomes stronger than USA, then it may well be in our interests to be friends with Russia instead of enemies to ensure the geopolitical balance of power doesn't swing decisively in China's favour.

[CoccoBill]

They care about Nord Stream for as long as Europe is a potential customer.

My point exactly, I don't think they're a potential customer at least as long as Putin is on power. He has been using his leverage since the early summer, and has it changed EU's stance regarding Ukraine?

Just because Russia are attempting to balance their export markets, doesn't mean they actually want to cut off Europe. And just because Europe is very anti-Russian at this moment in time, doesn't mean they won't buy their gas in a few years.

I'm sure Putin expected the war to be over in 3 days, for Zelensky to flee, Ukraine to topple over and the West to mumble in its beard, but none of that happened. They'd love nothing more than to keep selling gas to Europe.

There's a lot more to it than just gas. Russia and China have something of an unofficial alliance at the moment, but that won't develop into a formal alliance because Russia will not accept being subservient to a partner. At some point in the future, Russia will want improved relations with the West, probably around the time their relationship with China begins to break down.

The relationship with China is already at "it's complicated", China wants to have a trade relationship with the EU, where the Ukraine war is seen as detrimental, but their goals are aligned with Russia to challenge US's geopolitical position. They've been trying to remain neutral but are more and more openly speaking against the war. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia will try to initiate peace negotiations now after the annexations.

[OngBonga]

My point exactly, I don't think they're a potential customer at least as long as Putin is on power.

I'd probably be inclined to agree here, though with less confidence you have. It depends if Germany are able to source alternatives, and what the economic costs of the alternatives are.

The relationship with China is already at "it's complicated", China wants to have a trade relationship with the EU, where the Ukraine war is seen as detrimental, but their goals are aligned with Russia to challenge US's geopolitical position. They've been trying to remain neutral but are more and more openly speaking against the war. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia will try to initiate peace negotiations now after the annexations.

I think this is an accurate analysis. China wants geopolitical balance and sees Russia as an ally in this regard, but they also don't want to burn bridges with USA and the West. China's expansionist ambitions are limited to historical territory claims, and their military posturing revolves around securing their trade routes. While problematic for the West, it's tolerable so long as they don't invade Taiwan. The economic relationship between the West and China is too beneficial for all parties.

But at the same time, China won't be bullied, and if they want to buy Russian gas, they won't be told by USA that they can't. China is very energy hungry, so they will continue to play both sides to their advantage until that position becomes untenable. When that happens, I suspect it's Russia that suffers, not the West, but time will tell.

[OngBonga]

This has just been uploaded to YouTube...



40 minutes and I haven't watched it yet, just about to, so no idea if it's a good analysis, but this channel (RealLifeLore) does usually upload quality content, even if the narrator is an annoying American.

CaspianReport is better than this channel and also worth looking at for geopolitical analysis.

[OngBonga]

It's 20 mins longer than it should be and it was made before the recent Nord Stream attacks and the annexation of Ukrainian territory, so despite it being posted just an hour ago it's already dated lol

Still, worth watching for an insight into Germany's energy dependence on Russia. And it further supports the idea that Russia were using Nord Stream to strongarm Germany into concessions, rather than outright cut them off.

[CoccoBill]

Still, worth watching for an insight into Germany's energy dependence on Russia. And it further supports the idea that Russia were using Nord Stream to strongarm Germany into concessions, rather than outright cut them off.

I'll have a look but before that circle back to this:

[Putin]has been using his leverage since the early summer, and has it changed EU's stance regarding Ukraine?

Russia closing down Nord Stream 1 since August was already them going all-in, using the maximum leverage they had regarding their energy supply. It had no effect, Germany or the EU hasn't budged. There is no more leverage left for them to use. Blowing up the pipes would create if not outright terror, at least tension and confusion in the west, divert attention from the annexations, send a message that these actions are now on the table and will continue if EU keeps supporting Ukraine, and could just be seen as scorched earth policy that they have a history of using. Germany had paid for half of the pipe and Russia wasn't getting money from it.

Now, I'm not saying Russia did it, but I would say it's definitely a possibility. If within the next couple weeks we see sudden explosions in eg. Norway's gas pipelines or let's say the Baltic Sea data cables, I'm gonna be quite confident in saying yep, Russia.

[OngBonga]

It had no effect, Germany or the EU hasn't budged.

I think you're missing an important point here. It takes time. It's a matter of time before either Germany caves in or Russia runs out of money. It's a game of geopolitical chicken.

There is no more leverage left for them to use

There was, but there certainly isn't now.

Blowing up the pipes would create if not outright terror, at least tension and confusion in the west, divert attention from the annexations, send a message that these actions are now on the table and will continue if EU keeps supporting Ukraine, and could just be seen as scorched earth policy that they have a history of using.

I guess. But it's still handing leverage to Ukraine. For Putin to be responsible, he has to believe that Europe as a market is lost. And I don't believe that's the case. Time will tell, because if there comes a time in the near future where large amounts of gas flow from Russia to Germany via Ukraine, then that is strong evidence that Russia did not do this, since they are now having to pay their mortal enemy transit fees, and it also demonstrates the market wasn't lost.

There's no reason for Putin to believe the market is lost. He's still selling gas to Germany, or at least was when that video linked above was made, if not when it was uploaded. It's just nowhere near on the scale that it was.

Germany had paid for half of the pipe and Russia wasn't getting money from it.

idk the ins and outs of the funding and the complications of there being two separate projects, and can't be bothered to read up on that boring shit, what I do know is Gazprom is the majority shareholder, so I'm not sure that Germany did pay for half of it. Maybe they did though, maybe there's lots of Germans on the board on Gazprom.

Now, I'm not saying Russia did it, but I would say it's definitely a possibility.

I'm still not seeing it as any more than the small possibility that Putin has gone insane.

If within the next couple weeks we see sudden explosions in eg. Norway's gas pipelines or let's say the Baltic Sea data cables, I'm gonna be quite confident in saying yep, Russia.

I'd be fairly confident saying that Russia blew up the Norway pipe and USA blew up the Nord Stream pipe.

[OngBonga]

I mean, it makes no sense for USA to attack the Norway pipes, that's for sure. That would be an attack on just Germany, not Russia. Blowing up the Nord Stream is still an attack on Germany, but it seems to me that USA considers that acceptable collateral damage, perhaps even punishment for remaining dependant on Russian gas despite Trump's warnings years ago. While other nations have slowly done what they can to decrease dependence on Russia, Germany helped finance the Nord Stream 2 project. They had this coming.

[CoccoBill]

https://www.nord-stream.com/about-us/

Gazprom owns 51% of the shares.

Imagine what would happen to US-EU relations if it turned out US did this? Are you sure, even if they wanted to, that they'd take the risk? On a pipe that's effectively not in use anyway. Is it important enough for the US to risk relations with the EU? The US has done more than their fair share of dick moves over the years, but when have they sabotaged an ally?

[OngBonga]

Ok so they technically have a majority but it's negligible when it comes to costs. Fair enough.

Imagine what would happen to US-EU relations if it turned out US did this?

Perhaps this is why USA isn't openly admitting it, and why it's convenient to blame Russia.

Are you sure, even if they wanted to, that they'd take the risk?

USA does what it likes. It does not fear consequences from Germany or the EU. They control the world's economy, you can't sanction USA without sanctioning yourself. Germany is incapable of challenging USA militarily, and the EU doesn't have a united military nor would individual member states necessarily care to back any EU retaliation.

but when have they sabotaged an ally?

That's a very good question and one that nobody is going to be answer without putting on a tin foil hat. They've not admitted to such an act of hostility against an ally that I'm aware of, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, and nor would I be surprised if it turned out such an incident has happened in the past.

But even if this is unprecedented, the bigger picture is that Germany are de facto supporting the Putin regime and therefore it's tenuous to call them a true ally.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ukrainian gains in territory continue to be steady. It's a fraction of what has been taken, but the reclaiming of land has been steady for a while, now.

It's somewhat weird to see. Putin doesn't appear to have left many units to defend the places Russia overran.
Hasn't he ever played Risk? SMH.

A lot of speculation about Russia using nukes again. A lot of people saying the US would nuke them back. Again... utter nonsense. If your hillbilly neighbor stars doing crimes in their rusted out shitbucket, you don't go after them with a similarly rusted out shitbucket. You go after them with modern munitions that aren't decades obsolete.

People seriously do not understand that military science hasn't just stagnated for the past 50 years?
C'mon, people.

[boost]

Yeah, obliterating cities is how you won wars 70 years ago.

As for Putin's strategic failures, turns out Russia's conventional military is a paper tiger and it also appears that Putin believed it was a real tiger at the end of the leash. To mix metaphors, he saw three of his game pieces where there were only one or two, he saw cannons where he only had soldiers.

[CoccoBill]

Seems like the US attacked Denmark again.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ackout-dr-says

[OngBonga]

Don't link to paywall sites please, it's rude.

[OngBonga]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsl...ut/ar-AA12N3j3

I mean it's hard to think what geopolitical motive there is for USA or anyone to cut power to an island populated by 40k people.

It's interesting Sweden are providing energy for this island, not Denmark. But I still can't really think what purpose severing the cable serves, especially since it takes a day to get back online. Maybe there's some infrastructure on this island we're not aware of? Who knows. Seems like small cheese compared to the Nord Stream incident.

[OngBonga]

Oh and we established that the Nord Stream attack was in international waters, not Danish waters, so even if USA did it, which they did, it's not an attack on Denmark. It is an attack on Germany though as well as Russia obviously.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ukraine retakes Kherson. The Russian retreat that everyone supposed was some ruse or bluff seems to have been just a retreat.

Chatter that Putin annexed Kherson, and therefore Kherson is Russia. Now Putin has abandoned Russian territory to be overrun by foreign powers.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/st...81876815106048

Dugin is the guy who's daughter was assassinated a couple months ago. Speculation at the time was that the hit may have been intended for Dugin himself.

IDK much else about him, but he's got some balls to call out Putin as failing to protect and defend Russia and Russian people.
Fine line between brave and stupid, sometimes.

[OngBonga]

Dugin is the guy who's daughter was assassinated

I'm sorry I can't stop myself, this one really bugs me.

*whose

If Russia are annexing territory and then abandoning it when the Ukrainians launch a counteroffensive, if that's really happening, that's as concrete proof you get that the tide really has turned. That's as disastrous as it gets for Russia from a propaganda point of view. The other regions that wanted to be part of Russia and now are part of Russia will now be asking if they can actually rely on Russia to protect them. They'll lose the trust of the people they need the trust of more than anyone else... those who live in the disputed territories.

If Russia lose this war Putin is surely finished.

[oskar]

It's devastating for russian propaganda. Their story was that Kherson held a totally real and democratic vote that had 90% of its citizens vote in favor of russian annexation, and those are the pictures after the liberation by Ukrainian forces:

https://twitter.com/cnni/status/1591...Z_8Ytrtiga7qNg
https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/...Z_8Ytrtiga7qNg

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm sorry I can't stop myself, this one really bugs me.

*whose

I know better. It's just a typo.

Thanks.