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

It's only taken them a few days though. The fact that RU hasn't taken any new territory in months and UA has just started retaking it suggests the Russians are wearing out and UA is getting stronger.

RU economy is also being hammered by Western sanctions. They don't appear to be getting much help, whereas UA is getting loads of it. There doesn't seem to be any positive endgame for Putin in this unless something dramatic happens or the West loses its nerve; the most likely outcome now might be that he gets taken out by his own people.

This could be the turning of the tide, but it can equally be a shift in tactics from Russia. I'm not going to pretend to know which is closer to the truth.

If their new strategy is to start losing territory, they probably need to read Clausewitz again. But yeah, maybe it's some trap they're laying. Doubt it though, I think they're just losing now.

Well it's obviously not a "strategy" to lose territory, not directly, but if your supply lines are overstretched then it makes sense to yield some territory to bolster your supplies elsewhere. Seeing as we're talking about an area roughly equivalent to Hampshire (pulled out of my arse), it's not out of the question that Russia felt yielding such a small amount of territory is a viable option.

I'm just spitballing here. I have no idea what's happening on the ground, why the Russians are losing territory, I don't know how significant that territory is (cities or fields?), and that's because I have no source of reliable information. It's a propaganda war too, and both sides are playing this game. How do you know what to believe?

Sure, you can pull back for strategic reasons but they need to be offset against the propoganda value of how it looks to be losing territory. Being overextended would generally only happen right after a long offensive, not when you've been sitting in the same territory for months. Or you might try to shorten your line if you're running low on troops, but Russia is not typically known for running low on troops.

From what I heard, Zelensky has been pushing for an offensive for some time because he's afraid if the war remains a stalemate the high energy prices would cause the West to weaken. So it seems like they were planning this attack, they did it, and the Russians pretty much just melted away. I certainly don't think that means Zelensky will be marching into Moscow anytime soon, but if Russia keeps losing, the hope is that at some point their own people or oligarchy or military or all of the above will decide Putin has to go.

btw, if you're going to consume propaganda, consume both sides. The Russians are claiming that there are people fleeing the Ukrainian offensive because they fear Ukrainian repercussions, especially from Nazis. Basically they anticipate war crimes along the lines of ethnic cleansing. Some sources claim this has already started to happen.

Do I believe it? Not really. But it's equally as likely as anything else I'm reading about. Why believe one source but not another?

Yeah I did hear some Russian sympathizers were running for it. It's not their land, they picked the wrong side, is my first thought.

Other than that, do I believe the UA is having a successful offensive? Yes. Do I believe UA people are happy to be liberated? Also yes. I'd be surprised if they weren't, wouldn't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telegraph World News

Most likely the last 72 hours of warfare in Ukraine are going to be studied by generations of future military officers and historians. In summary, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have retaken over 2,500 sq km of Russian-occupied Ukraine.

---

How can anyone take this seriously? This is clearly hoping that people do not realise how small this area is. Fucking Hampshire. In 72 hours. And they're talking this up like it's the greatest military achievement since the Battle of Spion Kop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Yeah I did hear some Russian sympathizers were running for it. It's not their land, they picked the wrong side, is my first thought.

Other than that, do I believe the UA is having a successful offensive? Yes. Do I believe UA people are happy to be liberated? Also yes. I'd be surprised if they weren't, wouldn't you?

---

It's murky in the East of Ukraine. There are many people who would prefer Russia wins. There are also people who would prefer Ukraine wins. Some want liberating. Others don't. I don't know which of these two groups make up the majority.

I mean, it depends how you define "Ukrainian people". If by that you mean anyone living in Ukraine, then your assumption might be flawed. If you mean ethnic Ukrainians, then yes, of course they all want liberating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

How can anyone take this seriously? This is clearly hoping that people do not realise how small this area is. Fucking Hampshire. In 72 hours. And they're talking this up like it's the greatest military achievement since the Battle of Spion Kop.

---

The Telegraph. Well I wouldn't believe much of what they say about anything. Wasn't BloJo working for them at one point?

And yeah, it's not Hannibal crossing the Alps. It's impressive, but afaict it's a pretty standard offensive operation that succeeded mainly because it met weak resistance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's murky in the East of Ukraine.

---

It's historically part of Ukraine. There's ethic Russians living there because Russia owned Ukraine for much of its history. They might exist, but they are in the minority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine

(Didn't know Crimea was majority Russian)

The idea that the Russians are just liberating areas of the Donetsk that want to be Russian would have more weight if they had just invaded there and stopped. Seems more like a convenient excuse to me.


Meanwhile 12% of Edinburgh is etnically English, comparable to 14% Russians in Kherson province that Russia also invaded.

Quote:

---

Didn't know Crimea was majority Russian.

---

Again, murky. The Russians put Russians there over a long period of time to displace the ethnic Tatars so they could eventually win a referendum. Long term planning, and they've been trying to do the same in Donetsk. I really don't know if they've got enough there to win a referendum, I doubt it otherwise it likely would have already happened. Maybe pulling the war trigger was premature, should have waited until the Russians did have a majority in the Eastern regions.

Arguing somewhere is "historically Ukraine" is kinda ridiculous though. Ukraine didn't exist as a sovereign state until 1990.

I mean, if you're saying Donetsk is "historically Ukrainian" and should therefore remain in Ukraine, then the same argument can be used to point out that Ukraine is "historically Russian".

Ong, I wouldn't make too much of a journalist fluffing things by using a unit of measurement that embellishes.

That said, from what I'm seeing, it's laughable that the Russian's are claiming that this is a strategic retreat. Scores of intact tanks, APCs, ammo caches, etc have been captured.

And to give more shape to the picture, Putin is being openly criticized in Russia. That is significant.

That all might be true, but you're presumably getting that from Western media sources.

Controlling the narrative is what the media does, whether it's our media or Russia's.

How is Putin going to exit here and make it look like a success?

idk but if he holds any territory on the Black Sea that's a success, especially if it's a port.

Russian TV is not sounding very optimistic these days:

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/s...70513909022720

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/s...10989149605888

It might not quite be at level of an exasperated Walter Cronkite saying "I thought we were winning this war." after the Tet offensive in Vietnam, but it's getting there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I mean, if you're saying Donetsk is "historically Ukrainian" and should therefore remain in Ukraine, then the same argument can be used to point out that Ukraine is "historically Russian".

---

By that logic, Scotland is "historically English." You see how weird that sounds?

If instead you define a nation as having a unique language and culture, Soviet Russia was made up of about a dozen different nations (15 separate SSRs in the Soviet Union), and Ukraine used to be one of them. Donetsk was in the Ukrainian SSR, so apparently the Russians assumed it was Ukranian too.

It's not the same though. England is a distinctly different region to Scotland.

Scotland is, however, historically British, even if they leave the UK.

Maybe it is the same. Ukraine is distinct from Russia (not the Soviet Union though).

Still nice advances for Ukraine over the past days. Looks like various fronts of the Russian push are falling apart. Though they could be pulling back to regroup... that's not as likely. Russia had scheduled referendum votes in those regions to take place days after they were retaken by Ukraine. It doesn't *feel* like a strategic withdrawal on Russia's part, given that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

That all might be true, but you're presumably getting that from Western media sources.

Controlling the narrative is what the media does, whether it's our media or Russia's.

---

I do read some western media on this, but mostly I keep up on telegrams, some independent conflict journalists, and the Eastern Border podcast. I don't actively read pro Russian sources, but the latter, while pro Ukraine, routinely cites pro Russian sources.

Ong observation: has an odd array of subjects on which he is confident and those for which he inexplicably clings to agnosticism

I mean if you have confidence in the independence of the journalists you're reading, fair enough.

They're still at it...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62884668

Quote:

---

Ukraine war: We've retaken 6,000 sq km from Russia, says Zelensky

---

It's a big English county now. A 46m x 46m square. That's like at least three Isles of Wight.

Ong's got a point, but downplaying that Ukraine is making progress is weird.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fcf8_DtX...g&name=900x900

What am I missing here? Russia already had Crimea, but the rest of that pink area is Russian territory gains in the last five months, no?

Ukraine are certainly making progress, I'm not intending to downplay that, my intention is to point out that the media are exaggerating the gains and using metrics that are deliberately intended to mislead.

I mean this is kinda part of the problem with propaganda. You can't criticise western propaganda without it coming across as supporting Russia or "downplaying" Ukrainian advances. I'm "downplaying" it simply because our media are "uplaying" it, to make a word up on the spot. If you want to discuss this subject, you have two options - "downplay" Ukrainian advances, or be sucked in by our propaganda.

Off on a tangent somewhat, while slightly relevant, I remember once watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, and the question was something along the lines of "Which ocean has an area of approximately 1 million square miles?", with four options - Pacific, Atlantic, Indian or Arctic.

The square root of a million is 1000, so this actually isn't very big. Clearly it's the Arctic. But the guy didn't know and asked the audience. The majority went for the Pacific, and the Arctic was the answer with the lowest number of votes. People just don't understand that a million square miles isn't very big, instead they think it's a huge area.

If our media wanted to be somewhat sincere, then they would give the reader a comparison. If Ukraine had taken an area the size of Texas, you can absolutely guarantee that the American media would be keen to use Texas as a point of reference. But when it's a small area they neglect to say "downtown New York" or whatever is accurate, because that would make the reader realise it's not a very big gain. Propaganda.

All good points. I appreciate the perspective.

I guess the point to me is that Ukraine is able to make advances at all.

Until February/March, we all thought that Russia's military was 2nd only to the US.

Then we watch the Russian invasion of Ukraine fail to capture Kiev. We watched the Russian invasion struggle to advance to claim what territory they have claimed. And now we see Ukraine reclaiming some of that territory.

It's fair to say the media bias is intentionally skewed. It is.

It's also not trivial that any nation but the US is able to push back a Russian assault / land grab... even a bit.


I suspect that Russian military is actually much stronger, but the deep historical ties to Ukraine is playing hell on Russian morale for boots on the ground. That's just speculation, though. I find it hard to believe that the whole world was so so wrong about the Russian military capability. Doesn't mean I'm right.

Putin's top general after he watched the pins all moving on the war map.

https://twitter.com/tweet4anna/statu...33850937880576

It doesn't surprise me all that much, I mean they're fighting for their territory while the Russians are a long way from home and battling with the morality of their actions. Morale amongst Ukrainians will be far, far higher than the Russians, and morale is a huge asset in long drawn out wars. The invaders' supply lines become more and more strained the longer the war drags on.

As for the Russian army, they're obviously holding back from their full capabilities, because this isn't a nuclear war, and you would think they have awesome conventional weapons too, but when it comes to boots on the ground warfare, as an invading force, Russia is not an elite military force. We're learning that right now for sure. I expect China will face exactly the same problem if they ever attempt to invade Taiwan.

Even USA isn't necessarily capable of invading every country on the planet. You have to subjugate the population, but if the population isn't afraid to die to protect their freedom then it's not possible to subjugate them. It becomes an impossible war to win, unless you're willing to commit outright genocide of an entire population.

Nah, haven't you heard? When the US invades, it's to BRING the freedom.
You see... the US is the only place on Earth with freedom. And other people don't even know how bad they have it, not being free and all.

Like, here's some examples:
You think you're free, but if you get sick, you go to the doctor and they heal you, but they don't charge you any money.
Don't you see how persecuted you are?

Here's another one:
You live a nice life, outside of a prison. Whereas in the US, you can have free room and board if you just commit nonviolent crimes.
Don't you see how persecuted you are?

Once you let us give you freedom, you'll see how great it is.

America, fuck yeah!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LasrD6SZkZk

You can go to prison in pretty much every country for nonviolent crimes. Try mortgage fraud, or grand theft auto, or manufacturing crack cocaine, or being a proper journalist.

People have been getting arrested in the UK for protesting the monarchy during the period of mourning. Not sure if they'll go to jail, probably not, but technically you can go to jail in Scotland (but not England or Wales) for "breach of the peace", which is what they charged the guy with who heckled Prince Andrew.

Fun fact - nonce is a slang term in the UK for a paedophile, and is an acronym of "not on normal communal exercise" which is another way of saying "don't let him mix with the other inmates or he'll get murdered".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You can go to prison in pretty much every country for nonviolent crimes. Try mortgage fraud, or grand theft auto, or manufacturing crack cocaine, or being a proper journalist.

People have been getting arrested in the UK for protesting the monarchy during the period of mourning. Not sure if they'll go to jail, probably not, but technically you can go to jail in Scotland (but not England or Wales) for "breach of the peace", which is what they charged the guy with who heckled Prince Andrew.

---

But when YOU do it, it's inhumane injustice and a violation of human rights.
When the US does it, it's pure freedom, baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Fun fact - nonce is a slang term in the UK for a paedophile, and is an acronym of "not on normal communal exercise" which is another way of saying "don't let him mix with the other inmates or he'll get murdered".

---

I did not know that.

I don't really hear the word nonce in the US. Not sure if it's a UK thing, or just me not being social enough.

It's a British word, though I think the Aussies use it too, probably some other commonwealth countries. If the word was ever used as an acronym for prison use in a given country, chances are it's going to leak into common language.

In case it's not obvious, that was the word thrown at Prince Andrew by the heckler. It's funny that our police seem to take more action against people who call Andrew a nonce, than they ever have against Andrew for being a nonce.

I saw that clip and I was sure he said "nonce," but now I look for it again I can only find this one where he called him a "sick old man." Is this a different one and they sanitised the other one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X77advsLnTM

Yeah I'm sure I watched a clip and heard "nonce" but I can't be fucked trawling through old tweets trying to find it. That one you've linked is the Daily Mail, I'll give them less credit than a random Twitter user.

I was just wondering if that tweet was sent for "re-education."

What's the thinking behind the anti-monarchy people being arrested? Is it because they need pre-approval to protest in the UK? It's a bit tasteless to protest now, but I'd always defend their right to protest.

If they were arrested and then released without charge after a little time, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume the police are arresting these people for their own safety and nothing more. This is somewhat justifiable . But charging people with a crime? Hauling them up in front of a judge and fining them or even jailing them? No, that's isn't good.

What we're seeing isn't nearly as tasteless as the "God hates faggots" brigade who protest funerals of civilians. I appreciate that's USA, not UK, but they are allowed to protest because we don't reserve the right to protest only to those who have main stream views, neither USA nor UK.

Devolution plays a role here too. Scotland is more fascist than England/Wales. People are still being arrested in England, but I believe the guy in Scotland is being charged with breach of the peace, which is a criminal offence in Scotland with a potential jail sentence. Breach of the peace is a subjective and minor crime, for that to potentially carry a custodial sentence is ludicrous.

Edward Snowden has been granted Russian citizenship. I'm torn between thinking Putin is now a champion of free speech (at least against other countries' governments), and that Snowden was a Russian asset all along.

I saw that. I just read it as sticking it to the US. Russia does not extradite Russian citizens, IIRC. So it's basically a "No, we will never give him to you."

Snowden in interviews has basically said that he's certain the KGB or whoever it is these days is always watching him, listening to his every word, etc. He doesn't believed he's even allowed into a room that isn't bugged.

He's chosen his prison. It's a different one than a US prison, but he's not really free, either.


Which is kinda BS that all he did was expose lies and corruption and the people he exposed it to, the targets of the bad actions, didn't even give a shit. The fact that he exposed all that and people were like, "yeah? so what? We all knew they're corrupt MF's. What do you want us to do?"

And not long after... we get Trump as POTUS.
coincidence?
I mean... IDK... maybe. What do I know about people and why they do such crazy shit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Snowden in interviews has basically said that he's certain the KGB or whoever it is these days is always watching him, listening to his every word, etc. He doesn't believed he's even allowed into a room that isn't bugged.

---

I'm not really up on his status there. Is he under some kind of house arrest? How do they control which rooms he can go into?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

He's chosen his prison. It's a different one than a US prison, but he's not really free, either.

---

I'm sure they're keeping an eye on him. I'm less sure they weren't paying him all along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Which is kinda BS that all he did was expose lies and corruption and the people he exposed it to, the targets of the bad actions, didn't even give a shit. The fact that he exposed all that and people were like, "yeah? so what? We all knew they're corrupt MF's. What do you want us to do?"

And not long after... we get Trump as POTUS.
coincidence?
I mean... IDK... maybe. What do I know about people and why they do such crazy shit?

---

This is my question. Clearly Russia had a vested interest in the US having a shit president for four years at least. Snowden's revelations may have helped that happen. Was the impetus his own desire to be a whistleblower hero, or did Vlad the Insaner grease his palm.

Keep in mind we have no way of knowing how he's ACTUALLY living in Russia. He could be living in a dacha surrounded by skank hoes for all we know.

I really like Julian Assange and believe him to be a true hero of free speech and journalism, but there's something about Snowden I've never felt comfortable with. I suspect he's a Russian agent, and I'm the kind of guy who tries to give these kind of people the benefit of the doubt.

Not that I'm in the know or anything. I could be wrong and Snowden is legit too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I really like Julian Assange and believe him to be a true hero of free speech and journalism, but there's something about Snowden I've never felt comfortable with. I suspect he's a Russian agent, and I'm the kind of guy who tries to give these kind of people the benefit of the doubt.

Not that I'm in the know or anything. I could be wrong and Snowden is legit too.

---

Funny, I have the opposite read.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

I did not know about that. Very interesting.

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.

This is why I like Murray so much...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig Murray

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.

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.

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.

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.

Attachment 1240

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdxoojeU...jpg&name=small

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocco

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdxoojeU...jpg&name=small

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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

---

I think you have to explain a lot more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocco

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

You never call them fools

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Not leverage - we can't sell you gas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

There are. Lots of them.

---

If you believe the Russian propaganda, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

NOBODY has the moral high ground here.

---

Wow. Just wow.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Wow. Just wow.

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocco

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

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.

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

...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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocco

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

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

---

Please don't confuse my high confidence with certainty.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Also, it is a convenient distraction from the annexation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Also, it is a convenient distraction from the annexation.

---

There you have a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocco

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocco

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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)