Ukraine

[WszystekPoTrochu]

Our news is reporting that the explosions were in International waters.

I meant exclusive economic zone. Baltic is too narrow to have any truly international waters.


map-NS2.png


One of main reasons that Nord Stream 2 did not start before the war, apart from Trump's sanctions, was a significant delay caused by Poland's dispute with Denmark on EEZ borders. The old gray zone issue was brought to light specifically to stall Nord Stream 2 construction in the exclusive economic zone near Bornholm. The Danes did not want the pipeline too close to the island, inside the well recognized territorial waters. Building it in Poland's EEZ was out of question, of course. Sweden, if I remember correctly, declined for their EEZ north of Bornholm due to potential ecological impact close to the shore. It was Danish EEZ or no option at all. Induced delays in paperwork turned out to have critical consequences.

[SKIP KILPATRICK]

Bull Pucky !! The vid I also posted shows Biden openly threatening that the US would stop Nord Two.

At this rate, you will never make it as an internationalist.

Try for once not to be a tool of the National Security State hyperpower.

(I responded harshly because I took exception to your personal attack.)

Drink some more weak tea!

[L.W. Baxter]

nordstream destruction makes sense as a nearly literal "drawing in of tentacles".

there is logical reason why despots tend to isolationism. it is isolation that keeps kim jong un alive.

[StevenBauer]

For a European, it's not easy trying to get into Putin's state of mind.

I thought you were in the UK? (Ducking, now )

[epoxyboy]

I have not claimed to have the kind of specialized knowledge you seemed to be claiming for yourself. Certainly, Biden has never publicly stated the goal of ending Nordstream 1, while you appeared to be saying both acts of sabotage achieved his 'stated goal.' What is your source for this claim? Or were you trying to communicate something different from what you appeared to claim? You said America had the means, the motive, and the stated goal. I argued based on the information available through public sources that both stated goal and motive did not explain why what happened pointed to America. I find it puzzling that you think what appears to be obvious based on what little information we have requires "a direct line into US covert ops and strategy." Please explain what I have said that would require such a thing. Are you under the impression that the fact that Nordstream 2 was never put into service is some kind of secret? Do you claim that the fact that Russia has stopped shipping gas through Nordstream 1 is knowledge I could only have gained through a direct line into US covert ops and strategy?

You attempted to ridicule what I said without answering any of my points. I believe that is because you cannot answer them. We don't know who blew up the pipelines, but your claims of 'motive and stated goal' pointing to America are just not well thought out.

John, you're overthinking this, and taking offence where none was intended. Again.
The comment I was originally replying to was that the idea of US involvement had been "discredited here" - I disagree with that rather definitive statement.
Right now, there isn't even information in the public domain about whether these pipelines have been exploded from the inside (pigs) or from the outside (deep sea divers, subs, or ROVs) - you don't know, I don't know, and anybody who might know isn't telling - so I fail to see how the idea can be so conclusively "discredited".
YOU were the one who raised Biden's comments as if they were some sort of gospel truth, and my response was yeah, well, maybe, what he says will happen (NS2) and what actually happens (bang!) are not necessarily the same thing - and without some sort of direct line into the murky world of covert ops, neither you or I would ever know one way or the other. At no point have I "claimed" anything in this regard - quite the opposite in fact.
To the best of my knowledge there is still an information vacuum, nobody knows anything for certain, but the US still indisputably has the means, god knows how many possible murky motivations, and therefore remains a plausible if unlikely culprit. Quite frankly anything to the contrary is idle speculation until some actual facts surface - no pun intended. Get off your high horse.

Edit - The stated goal was from Biden's own mouth, you want a possible motive? Follow the money.
https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...%20half%202022.

And here's Beau saying pretty much the same - many countries (including the US) have a possible motive, nobody knows whodunnit, and nothing can be ruled out as there is no information.


Pete

[ERGR]

We'll send divers down to inspect when it's safe to dive. I expect the Danish will do the same in their zone. Then we'll know more.
/Erik

[ERGR]

This is a police investigation of a suspected sabotage, anticipated to involve foreign powers. It's handled according to routines.
/Erik

[WszystekPoTrochu]

We'll send divers down to inspect when it's safe to dive. I expect the Danish will do the same in their zone. Then we'll know more.
/Erik

I'd say pictures will be very interesting, but given it's Baltic you won't see much even if they decided to publish any

[WszystekPoTrochu]

A handful of numbers:

6 countries (DE, DK, CZ, AUT, SE, FR) reintroduced border control on internal Schengen borders;
Gas prices spiked 20% in the first 24h after Nord Stream sabotage;
Nord Stream 1&2 cost in total 10 times more than a Yamal II, crossing Ukraine and Poland and providing same throughput, would;
There are 4, not 3 as previously reported, leaks from the pipes.
4 globally significant currencies (USD,EUR,GBP,CHF) are now exchangeable on almost exact 1:1:1:1 rate
So far, 4 percent of children born in Poland in 2022 are Ukrainian.

[mizzenman]

Russia is considering sanctions on Naftogas, the company that delivers gas through Ukraine to Europe. That would increase prices even more

[heimlaga]

As soon as the Nord stream pipe blev up all known or suspected pro-Putin propagandists reacted immediarely and unanonimously by blaming USA.

For the last 80 years or so it has been a fairly good rule of thumb that when Kremlin-leaning "media" are that quick to react to an unexpected occurance and all say the same thing they do do because they were briefed on how to react before it actually happened. Which implies that those in power in Kremlin were involved.

It is very probable that Swedish and Danish military intelligence know more than they tell. For instance information recorded by hydrophone surveillance.

Anyway Putin is by far the one with most to gain from theese explosions. Blowing up one's own disused gas pipes is a very good excercise for blowing up someone elses very vital gas pipes. Doing it in international water very close to someone elses territorial water is a way of showing that "we can blow up whatever we want" without commiting an actual act of war against that country.
It also scares those who rely on other gas pumped through other pipelines on the seafloor.

Sounds typical Russian if you ask me or almost all defence experts in the Nordic countries. They say there are strong indications that the Russians are behind it but at the moment noone can tell.

However this isn't much of a threat in the harch reality. Europe tries to rid itself of Russian gas anyway ad Russia had already pretty much shut off Nord Stream and has been flaring off the gas in Trångsund instead. Just as well that they blew up the damned thing so we got rid of it.

[heimlaga]

By the way I wouldn't be too surprized if the Russians keep pumping gas through the broken pipeling throughout the coming winter. In part to put pressure on the whole world as a methane leak on this scale is a serious threat to the environment. In part as an insult against Europe.

[WszystekPoTrochu]

methane leak on this scale is a serious threat to the environment

It is estimated that the just the methane that already was inside the pipes and will definitely leak to the atmosphere equals as a greenhouse gas to four months of Denmark's CO2 emissions.

[gypsie]

Australian gas will now be worth a lot more.

The only fly in that ointment is it would require one to put the words 'Australian' and 'Submarines' into the same sentence. And we just don't that anymore.

[Gerarddm]

Logic insists that the US is not a prime suspect, and Putin is.

Now if somebody starts sabotaging Russian pipelines in Eastern Europe and Asia, then a whole different set of possible actors starts to appear.

[Osborne Russell]

By the way I wouldn't be too surprized if the Russians keep pumping gas through the broken pipeling throughout the coming winter. In part to put pressure on the whole world as a methane leak on this scale is a serious threat to the environment. In part as an insult against Europe.

A fart gun? WMD.

[WszystekPoTrochu]

It has been rumored weeks ago that Poland did an abnormal purchase of potassium iodide. The ministry then responded, that they're only doing standard refresh of held stock for firemen. Now they admitted to have bought extra stock and distributed it to fire stations. "In case of need arising", as they put it to avoid using no-no words, the iodide is to be distributed from fire stations to schools and then the general population.

In very related news, orcs in Transnistria conducted military maneuvers in radiation suits and trained decontamination procedures.

[sandtown]

The question is, how do we get out of this mess . . . ?

https://thebulletin.org/2022/09/war-...Peace_09292022

[birlinn]

The question is, how do we get out of this mess . . . ?

https://thebulletin.org/2022/09/war-...Peace_09292022

All I can come up with is keep on until Putin pops his clogs.

[johnw]

John, you're overthinking this, and taking offence where none was intended. Again.
The comment I was originally replying to was that the idea of US involvement had been "discredited here" - I disagree with that rather definitive statement.
Right now, there isn't even information in the public domain about whether these pipelines have been exploded from the inside (pigs) or from the outside (deep sea divers, subs, or ROVs) - you don't know, I don't know, and anybody who might know isn't telling - so I fail to see how the idea can be so conclusively "discredited".
YOU were the one who raised Biden's comments as if they were some sort of gospel truth, and my response was yeah, well, maybe, what he says will happen (NS2) and what actually happens (bang!) are not necessarily the same thing - and without some sort of direct line into the murky world of covert ops, neither you or I would ever know one way or the other. At no point have I "claimed" anything in this regard - quite the opposite in fact.
To the best of my knowledge there is still an information vacuum, nobody knows anything for certain, but the US still indisputably has the means, god knows how many possible murky motivations, and therefore remains a plausible if unlikely culprit. Quite frankly anything to the contrary is idle speculation until some actual facts surface - no pun intended. Get off your high horse.

Edit - The stated goal was from Biden's own mouth, you want a possible motive? Follow the money.
https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...%20half%202022.

And here's Beau saying pretty much the same - many countries (including the US) have a possible motive, nobody knows whodunnit, and nothing can be ruled out as there is no information.


Pete

More sneering, still no substance. Of course we don't know whodunnit, as I've previously stated on this thread. But if we're going to be trying to figure it out, isn't it important to base our speculation on actual facts? Is pointing out that your statement was not well thought out a 'high horse' offence?

You make this claim:

YOU were the one who raised Biden's comments as if they were some sort of gospel truth

And I'm sure you knew when you wrote it that what you were saying isn't true. I pointed out that Biden's stated goal had been achieved because Nordstream 2 was never put into use, and he never said anything about putting an end to Nordstream 1. Rather than address what I've said, you claim I could somehow only know this with access to the murky world of spec ops.

At no point have I used the word 'discredited,' which you seem so fond of. My objection, as I'm sure you are aware, is not that the US couldn't have blown up the pipeline, nor that I have proof they didn't, it's that your claims of motive and stated goal really don't hold up. You still haven't responded to what I've actually said, only to your caricature of what I've said.

As to your link, it's nice to hear that Europe will be able to get more LNG than previously thought, but I'm not at all sure they have the facilities to absorb the gas. You seem to think this goes to motive, but how? Are you claiming Biden has a financial interest in selling more American LNG? That seems far-fetched. It looks like the US is doing its best to support an ally. How sinister!

[Canoez]

Occam's razor. Pretty sharp.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-ne...ear-sabotaged/

[sandtown]

By a large margin, Americans want more diplomacy to end the war, and they think the US is not doing enough to make it happen.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/20...ar-in-ukraine/

[Keith Wilson]

By a large margin, Americans want more diplomacy to end the war, and they think the US is not doing enough to make it happen.

Sure. And they'd also like lower gas prices and no more lower back pain and for it not to rain this weekend.

So precisely how will 'more diplomacy' get Mr Putin to give up his ambitions of conquest? I'd be very pleased if someone could figure out a way to do that, but holding my breath seems inadvisable.

[L.W. Baxter]

By a large margin, Americans want more diplomacy to end the war, and they think the US is not doing enough to make it happen.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/20...ar-in-ukraine/

what would a reasonable peace settlement look like, sandtown.

what should be conceded to putin for his aggression. what would you like to reward him with.

and what part of that reward does the u.s. control.

and is there anything, anything at all, that you would insist on from the russian side.

[sandtown]

what would a reasonable peace settlement look like, sandtown. .

Check out post just above from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists . . .

And it looks pretty unseemly for some of ya to be so eager to fight to the last Ukrainian . .

Whatever peace emerges should be approved by the people of Ukraine - and the US Blob should not block it,

as they appear to have done. (see Responsible Statecraft)

[sandtown]

And by the way, Vets For Peace saw all this coming over eight years ago . .

three US administrations have been sleep-walking to war ever since.

Veterans Oppose U.S. Troop Deployments near Ukraine

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Military Escalation Could Lead to Nuclear War with Russia
Saint Louis. The deployment of U.S. troops to Poland and the Baltics is causing alarm among U.S. military veterans, who fear that ratcheting up military tensions near conflicted Ukraine could lead to a war between the U.S. and Russia, two nuclear-armed powers. Veterans For Peace is warning against further escalation of the conflict.

“Wars are all too easy to start, even by accident, but they are very hard to stop,” said Michael McPhearson, Executive Director of Veterans For Peace.* “It is time for cooler heads to prevail, and for honest diplomacy leading to a just and nonviolent outcome for the Ukrainian people.”

The veterans are reacting to a decision by the Obama administration to send US troops to Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as the crisis in Ukraine heats up and Russia conducts military exercises on its border with Ukraine.

Only six hundred U.S. troops are being deployed at this time. But NATO's top military commander, U.S. General Philip M. Breedlove, said a 4,500-member American combat brigade from Fort Hood, Texas could be deployed to Europe.

The first contingent of U.S. troops to arrive in Poland last week were 150 soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team based in Vicenza, Italy. The 173rd Airborne is a rapid response team that played a key role in the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and saw major combat in Afghanistan.

“ Ukraine is not a member of NATO but that could change if the U.S. has its way,” said Michael Prysner, a member of the Board of Directors of Veterans For Peace who participated in the invasion of Iraq with the 173rd Airborne Brigade. “The U.S. media is portraying Russia as the aggressor in Ukraine, while ignoring the major role the U.S. government has played in overthrowing the elected government of Ukraine and installing a government more to its liking.”

“Clearly the U.S. government has a dog in this fight,” said Gerry Condon, Vice President of Veterans For Peace. “The State Department was involved in February's regime change in Ukraine and the CIA Director made a 'secret' visit there two weeks ago, followed by Vice President Joe Biden last week. Billions of U.S. tax dollars are being promised to prop up a shaky government that came to power via a violent coup. And now U.S. troops are being deployed to the region.

"Some political forces in the U.S. are irresponsibly pressing President Obama to be more aggressive with Russia," said Condon. "Veterans who have experienced the horror and futility of war have a different message for the president: scale down the rhetoric and pursue a diplomatic outcome.

“Veterans For Peace understands that Russia has reason to feel threatened by aggressive NATO expansion right up to its borders,” said Condon. “Even so, we urge Russia also to take steps to ease tensions and avoid war.”

In a statement released today, Veterans For Peace called for diplomacy and a nonviolent resolution to the crisis in Ukraine:
“We will work to understand the varying interests of different national groups and regions within Ukraine, and encourage a nonviolent, diplomatic outcome to this dangerous crisis.
“Washington and its European allies ought to reverse course and turn Ukraine into a field of cooperation with Russia through a jointly supported bailout devoid of geopolitical motivation.
“Good relations with both Russia and the European Union are in the best interests of all the Ukrainian people. A just and peaceful resolution that averts the threat of war is in the interests of all the world's people.”
#####
* Veterans For Peace is a 28-year-old U.S. based nonprofit educational organization with chapters in over 100 US cities and several international chapters. VFP members include veterans of World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as non-veteran allies. The mission of Veterans For Peace is to abolish war as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy.

[L.W. Baxter]

Check out post just above from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists . . .

And it looks pretty unseemly for some of ya to be so eager to fight to the last Ukrainian . .

Whatever peace emerges should be approved by the people of Ukraine - and the US Blob should not block it,

as they appear to have done. (see Responsible Statecraft)

that the u.s. "blob" blocked a peaceful resolution remains your bald and unproven assertion.

as for the link, yeah, i read it. lots of, "i think". well, i think, too.

this is about the most substantive section. i like the bolded bit. i snorted out loud:

The most complex and painful questions involve territory, and they will require the most extended discussion. Here, February 24, 2022 may serve as a starting point. But suppose the humanitarian issues and the military and economic security problems listed above were resolved. In that case, both countries may be open to discussion of compromises for dealing with the two countries’ territorial tensions.

territorial tensions!

and then, the summary, the picture of mealy mouthed wishful thinking and unearned assertion:

It is hard to believe in the possibility of such a prospect. Even the possibility of compromise may not be easy to accept. But remember that back in January, the possibility of a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine was just as difficult to imagine. The political will of elites in both countries has been enough to extend the war for more than half a year and very quickly convince the citizens of Ukraine and Russia of the possibility of a military victory over each other. I think that the same political will is quite capable of helping the same people regain hope for peace.

no mention of what the u.s. should, or can do, about it.

the immediate pressure the u.s. can bring to bear is on the ukraine, demanding concessions from ukraine as a price for continued aid. if that's what you want, say it. pick a side.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Well, it seems to me that people who say that NATO “caused the war in Ukraine” are most unlikely to be persuaded by the rest of us, because confirmation bias works that way.

For the rest of us, the problem of « ending the war » is that political leaders don’t like to admit to mistakes. We have just seen Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng here in Britain doubling down on a position which is obviously untenable, and that is on a fairly rumbustious parliamentary democracy with a free press. And they haven’t even killed anyone yet.

Putin made a mistake and clearly he dare not back down from it, so the Ukrainians are going to have to throw the Russians out. When that eventually happens, there will be a coup in Russia and a peace settlement will be possible.

[George Jung]

I like AC-B's plan better than yours, sandtown. But - and I would think this obvious - an 'end to the war' is easy - all Putin has to do is pay reparations/rebuild Ukraine, and get the hell out of their country. Easy.

That said - you do sound exactly like a ruskie troll, campaigning for capitulation by the West, and Ukraine.

[heimlaga]

The question is, how do we get out of this mess . . . ?

https://thebulletin.org/2022/09/war-...Peace_09292022

There are two ways:

1. Let putin gain something from this mess. He can pretend to be a great war leader at home while mass murdering the popolation in conquered areas. When that is done he can attack again and conquer some more land and then some more. Putin will die one day but why change a winning concept so a new leader of the same sort will take over and keep conquering. Around year 2100 will will be out of it and all of mainland Europe will be a war torn Russian occupied graveyard....but we will be out of it. At least the lucky few who were deported to Siberia instead of murdered and a few surviving traitors.

2. Give the Russian army a thorough beating in Ukraine. With rising desperation in Kremlin the war is more or less bound to spill over to other countries bordering Russia but by then the Russian army will be weakened and possible to fight off without too much damage done. In a worst case scenario we might get a nuclear bomb or two on some European capital but in the end the millions of dead Russian cannonfodder will count and Putin and his gang will be shot by rebelling Russians and democracy will prevail in Russia too.
Then we can make peace with what remains of the Russian people. Russians will be good neighbours once they break out of their bad habits of not thinking themselves and trusting the czar. Around year 2032 we will be out of it and most of the European population will still be alive and neither refugees nor deported.

I am opting for the quick and not so bloody option. Number 2.
Du you like number 1 better?

[sandtown]

That said - you do sound exactly like a ruskie troll, campaigning for capitulation by the West, and Ukraine.

So sixty percent of the American people are Rooskie (sic) trolls ???

And you misspelled that word "ruskie" wrongly - my misspelling is more better.

[epoxyboy]

Sorry, editing this on a tablet, my responses are embedded in the quote.
1/2

More sneering, still no substance. Of course we don't know whodunnit, as I've previously stated on this thread. But if we're going to be trying to figure it out, isn't it important to base our speculation on actual facts?


** I'm pretty sure that is what I have been saying all along. The corollary to that is that in the absence of facts, it is a logical fallacy to conclusively rule out any possibility.**






Is pointing out that your statement was not well thought out a 'high horse' offence?


** How is the above not "well thought out"? Where is the error in my thinking?**






You make this claim:
And I'm sure you knew when you wrote it that what you were saying isn't true. I pointed out that Biden's stated goal had been achieved because Nordstream 2 was never put into use, and he never said anything about putting an end to Nordstream 1. Rather than address what I've said, you claim I could somehow only know this with access to the murky world of spec ops


*I have claimed nothing. However, refer to the second part of Biden's statement, where he is extremely circumspect about how the pipeline might be shut down. There seems to be an assumption on your part that the sanction induced shutdown is the endgame.
Maybe it is, maybe it wasn't. I don't know, but again, without some facts, it is not possible to rule anything out. It's not like the US has never engaged in a bit of creative sabotage before, is it?
Note that (again) I'm not saying the US did this, I'm saying that the information to rule that possibility out does not exist in the public domain yet.
I alluded to the fact that the president doesn't always tell the whole truth, and that if something covert has gone down, you and I will be the last people to hear about it - but you seem pretty hellbent on misinterpreting what I've actually written - as you've done, again, above.**






At no point have I used the word 'discredited,' which you seem so fond of.


**At no point have I said you did :-)
For the second or third time, I was referring to an earlier post by another forum member who stated the theory of US involvement had been discredited (his word). You piled on halfway through on ongoing discussion, and decided that things were being attributed to you? If you read back through the whole transaction, not just the part you've dipped your toe into, and you'll see the truth of this.

Edit - I've done your homework for you #5120. This is what I was responding to:

Yeah. I do believe your 'theory' has already been discredited in this thread.

**


My objection, as I'm sure you are aware, is not that the US couldn't have blown up the pipeline, nor that I have proof they didn't, it's that your claims of motive and stated goal really don't hold up. You still haven't responded to what I've actually said, only to your caricature of what I've said.


**I've responded above about how open ended Biden's statement actually is, my opinion that you have chosen to interpret his statement in a certain way, and my opinion that the facts do not exist to rule out other possibilities that you seem to have discounted.**




As to your link,

[epoxyboy]

Continued

As to your link, it's nice to hear that Europe will be able to get more LNG than previously thought, but I'm not at all sure they have the facilities to absorb the gas.


** The situation today is unlikely to be the situation in a few months. You may have a different opinion on that, but I expect Germany is now extremely motivated to turn that capacity limitation around.**






You seem to think this goes to motive, but how? Are you claiming Biden has a financial interest in selling more American LNG?


**Biden personally? No, any stockholding notwithstanding. America Incorporated - hell yes. Hundred of Billions of dollars of additional long-term business going forward, now with a cast iron assurance that Russia can no longer disrupt the situation by flicking a compressor back on. 100% I think this is possible motivation - why on earth don't you?**






That seems far-fetched.


**That seems like extremely good business to have. A guaranteed buyer for your nation's LNG producers for the foreseeable future, in a constrained market with rising prices. Russia was selling about 400 million Euro of gas to the EU daily, before this fiasco kicked off. Now they can't, even if they wanted to. Ka-ching!
And yes, I do realise that there are other pipelines, and that the EU isn't completely off the Russian tit yet.**






It looks like the US is doing its best to support an ally.


**The US is doing a fabulous job of supporting Ukraine, and as noted above, will now get a not insubstantial economic boost in the process of helping Germany out of a tight spot.**






How sinister!
**Your words, not mine. What was that you said about sneering?**

Pete

[ERGR]

I strongly suspect that NATO and Swedish intelligence know the location of every ship in the area at the time before the explosions. When the method has been inspected they'll know much more. We tend to blame everything that doesn't follow Western logic on Russia, not without justification. A speculation that follows our logic is that Russia has tried to create a force majeur to avoid fines for not delivering gas. If that's the case, the merits will be tried by the arbitration court in the contract. We'll just have to wait.
/Erik

[L.W. Baxter]

i can't help but notice that neither acb nor heimlaga make any mention whatsoever of the united states of america! how dare they ignore our central and essential part in causing--and resolving--every conflict!

that ukraine appears to be winning is a great and unexpected luxury for "the west". what would this conversation look like if russia had swept into kiev and occupied most or all of ukraine? the choices afforded would be much harder, and more awful. particularly so for ukrainians, of course, but also for all those in proximity to russia.

the reality is, had they not defended themselves so boldly and capably, ukraine was a goner. nato was not going to repel the invasion of ukraine.

and of the major global players, the least affected would have been...the u.s.. though republicans might well have made alliance with russia, and rejection of nato, a plank in their platform.