Nord Stream

[Falco Underhill]

Yeah, and Hunter Biden’s laptop was really just "Russian disinformation," too.

[temporal1]

Yeah, and Hunter Biden’s laptop was really just "Russian disinformation," too.

We can be comforted to have a top military strategist/historian/economist present to interpret+explain Putin’s motivations and limitations.

[RZehr]

It just doesn't make sense to me that Russia would bother with it. It is so much easier to simply keep the valve off. Additionally, take a look on a map at where the leaks are. They are in a place that is much, much, less convenient for Russia to do it than for the West. I think the motivations given that would point to Russia are pretty weak. Russia loses all leverage that these gas lines offer. Pending further information, I'm not at all convinced that Russia did it. For me, that leaves number 2 or 3 as the likely culprits.

- With Germany seemingly not wanting to fight, the USA could be removing the option of Russian gas from Germany in order to take that off Germanys war calculation. Showing Germany that they will not under any circumstances benefit from Russian gas, so don't even try to stay in Russias good graces. With winter coming on, Europe is going to need gas, and could lose there resolve in the face of a cold winter.
- The US can make more gas sales.
- The US for years has opposed and sanctioned these pipelines.
- Biden openly warned that if Russia attacked Ukraine, that the US would keep the pipelines from being used.
- Flip the script, and lets say that the US was piping gas to Germany, and there was sabotage near Russia. And that the Russian President had promised that they would stop the pipeline if the US sent arms to Ukraine. Would we believe Russia did it? Or would we think that it made sense that the US did it?

So what exactly are the logical reasons that would motivate Russia to do this? And are they really, on a level, unbiased playing field, more probable than other possibilities?

If Russia just turns off the tap then Gazprom is potentially liable for billions and billions of dollars in damages and penalties due to contract violations since they have signed contracts for the delivery of gas to various western energy companies (this is mostly Russian companies selling gas to western companies, not country to country transactions). Damages that could be recovered by seizure of Gazprom and Russian assets in the west.

On the other hand, if the pipeline just turns itself off due to sabotage then sorry, nothing can be done.

Blowing up the pipeline not only shuts off the tap without liability for damages, but it makes Germany or whoever spend enormous sums of money to repair the damages.

As for evidence? The Russian Navy does frequently operate in that area. This came out yesterday:

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine ... on-1747387

Russian navy support ships were reportedly spotted near the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines before they were ruptured by explosions. The claims come as Moscow has again denied involvement in the suspected sabotage, instead blaming the U.S.

Citing Western intelligence officials, CNN said that the alleged presence of Russian vessels was being investigated as a cause of underwater explosions in the Baltic Sea, as Moscow faces accusations that it's trying to manipulate energy flows to hurt Europe.

However, three U.S. officials said to CNN that America had no clear explanation for the explosions on Monday, which caused three separate and simultaneous leaks in the two pipelines that link Russia with Germany. On Thursday, Sweden said it found a fourth leak.

Denmark and Sweden are investigating what caused the explosion, but it could take up to two weeks to approach the site of the explosions due to pressure in the pipes, CNN said.

A Danish military official said that Russian vessels regularly operated in the area and had stepped up their activities there to test Western awareness, but this did not mean in itself that Moscow was responsible for the suspected attacks.

That doesn't mean Russia is responsible. But they do have both motive and means.

I just don’t find the argument of contract integrity compelling.
Gazprom as a non-state entity being concerned about a legal contract? If that’s the premise, then why would the Russian state bother sabotaging a private company?
If the Russian state is essentially one and the same as Gazprom, we know that Russia is certainly not particularly concerned about contracts and international law.
Private business Gazprom was worried about contracts while simultaneously saying that Russia blew it up out of concern for getting out of contracts? Breaking business contracts are the least of sanctioned and war-faring Russias concerns.
That is pretty contorted, given other parties far more straight forward motivations for shutting it down.

If Russia did it, I’ll wait to hear more compelling reasons to come forward.

[ken_sylvania]

It just doesn't make sense to me that Russia would bother with it. It is so much easier to simply keep the valve off. Additionally, take a look on a map at where the leaks are. They are in a place that is much, much, less convenient for Russia to do it than for the West. I think the motivations given that would point to Russia are pretty weak. Russia loses all leverage that these gas lines offer. Pending further information, I'm not at all convinced that Russia did it. For me, that leaves number 2 or 3 as the likely culprits.

- With Germany seemingly not wanting to fight, the USA could be removing the option of Russian gas from Germany in order to take that off Germanys war calculation. Showing Germany that they will not under any circumstances benefit from Russian gas, so don't even try to stay in Russias good graces. With winter coming on, Europe is going to need gas, and could lose there resolve in the face of a cold winter.
- The US can make more gas sales.
- The US for years has opposed and sanctioned these pipelines.
- Biden openly warned that if Russia attacked Ukraine, that the US would keep the pipelines from being used.
- Flip the script, and lets say that the US was piping gas to Germany, and there was sabotage near Russia. And that the Russian President had promised that they would stop the pipeline if the US sent arms to Ukraine. Would we believe Russia did it? Or would we think that it made sense that the US did it?

So what exactly are the logical reasons that would motivate Russia to do this? And are they really, on a level, unbiased playing field, more probable than other possibilities?

If Russia just turns off the tap then Gazprom is potentially liable for billions and billions of dollars in damages and penalties due to contract violations since they have signed contracts for the delivery of gas to various western energy companies (this is mostly Russian companies selling gas to western companies, not country to country transactions). Damages that could be recovered by seizure of Gazprom and Russian assets in the west.

On the other hand, if the pipeline just turns itself off due to sabotage then sorry, nothing can be done.

Blowing up the pipeline not only shuts off the tap without liability for damages, but it makes Germany or whoever spend enormous sums of money to repair the damages.

As for evidence? The Russian Navy does frequently operate in that area. This came out yesterday:

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine ... on-1747387

Russian navy support ships were reportedly spotted near the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines before they were ruptured by explosions. The claims come as Moscow has again denied involvement in the suspected sabotage, instead blaming the U.S.

Citing Western intelligence officials, CNN said that the alleged presence of Russian vessels was being investigated as a cause of underwater explosions in the Baltic Sea, as Moscow faces accusations that it's trying to manipulate energy flows to hurt Europe.

However, three U.S. officials said to CNN that America had no clear explanation for the explosions on Monday, which caused three separate and simultaneous leaks in the two pipelines that link Russia with Germany. On Thursday, Sweden said it found a fourth leak.

Denmark and Sweden are investigating what caused the explosion, but it could take up to two weeks to approach the site of the explosions due to pressure in the pipes, CNN said.

A Danish military official said that Russian vessels regularly operated in the area and had stepped up their activities there to test Western awareness, but this did not mean in itself that Moscow was responsible for the suspected attacks.

That doesn't mean Russia is responsible. But they do have both motive and means.

I just don’t find the argument of contract integrity compelling.
Gazprom as a non-state entity being concerned about a legal contract? If that’s the premise, then why would the Russian state bother sabotaging a private company?
If the Russian state is essentially one and the same as Gazprom, we know that Russia is certainly not particularly concerned about contracts and international law.
Private business Gazprom was worried about contracts while simultaneously saying that Russia blew it up out of concern for getting out of contracts? Breaking business contracts are the least of sanctioned and war-faring Russias concerns.
That is pretty contorted, given other parties far more straight forward motivations for shutting it down.

If Russia did it, I’ll wait to hear more compelling reasons to come forward.

Also interesting to consider that if the European countries want to stop buying Russian gas they're going to have to figure out a way to be relieved of their contractual obligation to purchase it.

[HondurasKeiser]

I’ll wait to hear more compelling reasons to come forward.

This probably seems like the wisest of options. Instead of pontificating about things we could never actually know; perhaps the wisest course might be to sit tight and allow the truth to come to the light as it surely will. It seems easy to blame Russia on this one and all the bien pensants want us to take as axiomatic that this was a Russian sabotage. I think though that after years of seeing the bien pensants’ hot takes being proven wrong or even lies, RZehr’s wait-and-see approach seems the most prudent

[temporal1]

I’ll wait to hear more compelling reasons to come forward.

This probably seems like the wisest of options.
Instead of pontificating about things we could never actually know; perhaps the wisest course might be to sit tight and allow the truth to come to the light as it surely will. It seems easy to blame Russia on this one and all the bien pensants want us to take as axiomatic that this was a Russian sabotage.

I think though that after years of seeing the bien pensants’ hot takes being proven wrong or even lies,
RZehr’s wait-and-see approach seems the most prudent.

In the least, you’ve rattled PeterG’s cage, that’s something.
Altho, upon further checking, it seems he’s been lurking, not posting .. since January! Hey, PeterG!


.. continued prayers for this mess in Ukraine, and for the world as we know it.

[Ken]

I’ll wait to hear more compelling reasons to come forward.

This probably seems like the wisest of options. Instead of pontificating about things we could never actually know; perhaps the wisest course might be to sit tight and allow the truth to come to the light as it surely will. It seems easy to blame Russia on this one and all the bien pensants want us to take as axiomatic that this was a Russian sabotage. I think though that after years of seeing the bien pensants’ hot takes being proven wrong or even lies, RZehr’s wait-and-see approach seems the most prudent

Now where is the fun in that!

If we don't discuss anything until the final answers are all revealed, that will limit most of the discussion here including even the religious discussions.

[barnhart]

Even more fun, attach it to domestic culture war somehow. Give me a day with cable news/talk radio to make sure I get the alignment right.

[steve-in-kville]

I find it interesting how misinformation, disinformation, half-truths and cover stories, (when introduced early enough), are excepted as hard truths... only for the actual truth to be revealed later on and it's considered propaganda or conspiracy.

The wonders of human communication!

[Josh]

I find it interesting how misinformation, disinformation, half-truths and cover stories, (when introduced early enough), are excepted as hard truths... only for the actual truth to be revealed later on and it's considered propaganda or conspiracy.

The wonders of human communication!

It's been a while since "the actual truth" has been revealed about much of anything. There is precious little except propaganda and half-truths in the "official" news these days.