America just blew up Russia's gas pipeline, and admitted it.

a reply to: MidnightWatcher

Because Russia would benefit by blowing their own oil pipelines which benefited German's industries & Europe's cheaper Energy.




Sure Makes sense.

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

Because Russia would benefit by blowing their own oil pipelines which benefited German's industries & Europe's cheaper Energy.

Sure Makes sense.

I'm guessing it was either simple russian incompetence or a russian tantrum that Europeans were planning on making russia pay reparations through the pipeline and otherwise no longer want any russian gas, but we don't have any evidence either way yet.


Are you forgetting that Germany has plenty of idle coal and nuke plants?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2


He thinks radar can see underwater.

originally posted by: MidnightWatcher

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

Because Russia would benefit by blowing their own oil pipelines which benefited German's industries & Europe's cheaper Energy.

Sure Makes sense.

I'm guessing it was either simple russian incompetence or a russian tantrum that Europeans were planning on making russia pay reparations through the pipeline and otherwise no longer want any russian gas, but we don't have any evidence either way yet.


Are you forgetting that Germany has plenty of idle coal and nuke plants?

Peter Zeihan, petroleum industry and geopolitical expert claims the attack was most likely US or Poland. Zeihan's biggest consulting clients? The US State Department and DoD. Russia has nothing to gain from blowing up their main bargaining chip. remember for the past 10 years the US neocons have been screaming to prevent Nordstream 2? Remember the "F*ck the EU" hot mic moment?

Russia has been very successful at keeping Turkey in its orbit to divide NATO. Nordstream represented a chance to undermine Germany's support for Ukraine. Only the US had anything to gain, and the US admin has barely shed crocodile tears over a peacetime attack on neutral infrastructure.

Helicopters on radar aren't a smoking gun, they function poorly under 200ft of water. They are however equipped for sub hunting and Special Forces operations which would have zero difficulty with such an operation. Hell, maybe they were just around to shoot video for Sleepy Joe to watch while his Depends are being changed.

Where did Ukraine get the intelligence to attempt to assassinate Dugin and murder his daugher last month? Dugin pioneered the idea that Russia must defeat globalism or die. His predictions from 2012 of Russia seeking alliances with China and India to break apart a unipolar world are happening now. The rules have changed, civilian infrastructure has been declared a viable target. I suspect you'll see 'accidents' start to occur in undersea internet cables and possibly worse very soon as Russia retaliates.

originally posted by: SentientBunnySuit


Believing that Russia blew up the pipeline they own and can turn off for free from their own territory at any time, and that directly contributed to the 40% of Russia's GDP that comes from energy exports during a costly war seems to necessitate either a level of neocon globalist koolade consumption that would be fatal to anyone still capable of critical thought, or something beyond stupid, some hitherto undiscovered 'advanced stupid.'

While the other point was good, I gotta say, this one is better. If Putin wanted the other 2 pipelines shut down he could just cite "technical problems" or "threat of attack", and shut them down. No need to actually destroy them. And then they would still be around for after the war is over.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

And how could helicopters do that, and what "radar data"?

Source, please?

They probably couldn't directly, but they could drop something into the water that could. Like a sea drone?

Also there those things called "depth charges" what they use to destroy submarines. A helicopter can carry those and drop them from above the water.

originally posted by: MidnightWatcher
a reply to: Oldcarpy2


He thinks radar can see underwater.

He seems to think the only way to attack an underwater pipeline is to attack it from in the water.

originally posted by: SentientBunnySuit

Peter Zeihan, petroleum industry and geopolitical expert claims the attack was most likely US or Poland. Zeihan's biggest consulting clients? The US State Department and DoD.

Ah, so the opinion of a media personality.

Does this media personality have any evidence?

Russia has been very successful at keeping Turkey in its orbit to devide NATO.

The same Turkey that won't let russian ships pass and has been telling russia to leave Ukraine?

Helicopters on radar aren't a smoking gun, they function poorly under 200ft of water. They are however equipped for sub hunting and Special Forces operations which would have zero difficulty with such an operation. Hell, maybe they were just around to shoot video for Sleepy Joe to watch while his Depends are being changed.

Correct, helicopters and radar aren't evidence of anything.

So why did you try using them as 'evidence'?

Where did Ukraine get the intelligence to attempt to assassinate Dugin and murder his daugher last month?

Have any evidence that they did?

Or was it the russian group that claimed credit?

Do you have evidence Russia did it that hasn't come from a paid Soros mouthpiece? (I already know the answer to this one, it's "No.") Follow the incentives not the propaganda. The only evidence that exists rests with the US operators who were there. They won't talk until their unauthorized book deals drop in a few years.

Joe Biden is NOT America. Joe is a front person for the Soros/Obama/Cliton cartel...do not confuse criminals with Americans.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit


Did I ever accuse russia of blowing up the pipeline?

I'm waiting for evidence.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Whether Putin decides to commit virtual (and likely, literal) nation and personal suicide by launching any kind of nuclear attack is a decision entirely up to him.

To try and blame Biden, the US, NATO, the EU, or any person or political entity other than Putin is blatant and obvious propagandistic misdirection.

It is no more valid, or acceptable, than a domestic abuser attempting to blame his victim for causing the assault.


And those who would act as apologists for such reprehensible behavior are, or should be, accountable for their actions.


If invasion of a sovereign nation cannot go unanswered by resistance, if freedom and self-determination are of so little valued that a life on one's knees is preferred to facing the mere threat (and make no mistake, it as yet, only a threat) of nuclear terrorism,


Then of what value, or meaning, is an "election"?


ETA:

Bombers? Putin really things that bombers, even nuclear armed bombers, are going to be seriously any kind of threat? Those old birds are under constant surveillance. Their every movement tracked, most likely in real-time. And they will be plucked out of the sky the moment they cross into Ukrainian air space.

This isn't 1950 any more.

It’s also disingenuous to not put blame on the USA and numerous other countries for forming acoalition of countries and putting military bases right next to the Russian border boxing Russia in and placing an ever present threat to that country.
You will probably say some Ad hominem attack like:

“ you are a Putin lover and Putin apologist “
“ you must be a Nazi”
And my favorite “ Facist” which is hilarious because the definition of that word is what the US govt and our Tech companies are right now but I digress.

You aren’t looking at the history and totality of this geo-political landscape. It’s not so black and white.
Putin is mean and bad!
America good!
Comin man it’s way more complicated then that!

Great article below. Keep an open mind
“Mind like parachute. Best when open”
-ancient Chinese proverb

link

Russian leaders and several Western policy experts were warning more than two decades ago that NATO expansion would turn out badly—ending in a new cold war with Russia at best, and a hot one at worst. Obviously, they were not “echoing” Putin or anyone else. George Kennan, the intellectual architect of America’s containment policy during the Cold War, perceptively warned in a May 2, 1998 New York Times interview what NATO’s move eastward would set in motion. “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” he stated. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake.”

One can readily imagine how Americans would react if Russia, China, India, or another peer competitor admitted countries from Central America and the Caribbean to a security alliance that it led—and then sought to add Canada as an official or de facto military ally. It is highly probable that the United States would have responded by going to war years ago. Yet even though Ukraine has an importance to Russia comparable to Canada’s importance to the United States, our leaders expected Moscow to respond passively to the growing encroachment.

a reply to: Brassmonkey


"It’s also disingenuous to not put blame on the USA and numerous other countries forming and coalition of countries and putting military bases right next to the Russian border boxing Russia in and placing an ever present threat to that country"




Have any evidence of the absurd russian propaganda that NATO built bases in Ukraine?

Perhaps russia should stop the land grabbing neighbor invasions if russia wants better relations with it's neighbors?

originally posted by: MidnightWatcher
a reply to: SentientBunnySuit


Did I ever accuse russia of blowing up the pipeline?

I'm waiting for evidence.

You'll be waiting a long time. Governments lie. Incentives don't.

originally posted by: SentientBunnySuit

originally posted by: MidnightWatcher
a reply to: SentientBunnySuit


Did I ever accuse russia of blowing up the pipeline?

I'm waiting for evidence.

You'll be waiting a long time. Governments lie. Incentives don't.

Perhaps russia should participate in the investigation instead of making evidence free propaganda accusations then.

What sort of statement from Russia would you believe if they did?

originally posted by: MidnightWatcher
a reply to: Brassmonkey


"It’s also disingenuous to not put blame on the USA and numerous other countries forming and coalition of countries and putting military bases right next to the Russian border boxing Russia in and placing an ever present threat to that country"




Have any evidence of the absurd russian propaganda that NATO built bases in Ukraine?

Perhaps russia should stop the land grabbing neighbor invasions if russia wants better relations with it's neighborsdin?

Why is Russia invading? Because they don’t want Ukraine to be in NATO and have US military bases on their border. Russia needs Ukraine to not be in NATO. Do you think if Russia tried to get Canada in a Russian alliance of 16 countries called RATO and then that would mean Russia had military bases 10 miles from Buffalo do you think we would invade Canada first? You Dan right we would

[

originally posted by: SentientBunnySuit
What sort of statement from Russia would you believe if they did?

None.

But I would believe actual evidence.

originally posted by: Brassmonkey

originally posted by: Brassmonkey

originally posted by: MidnightWatcher
a reply to: Brassmonkey


"It’s also disingenuous to not put blame on the USA and numerous other countries forming and coalition of countries and putting military bases right next to the Russian border boxing Russia in and placing an ever present threat to that country"




Have any evidence of the absurd russian propaganda that NATO built bases in Ukraine?

Perhaps russia should stop the land grabbing neighbor invasions if russia wants better relations with it's neighborsdin?

Why is Russia invading? Because they don’t want Ukraine to be in NATO and have US military bases on their border. Russia needs Ukraine to not be in NATO. Do you think if Russia tried to get Canada in a Russian alliance of 16 countries called RATO and then that would mean Russia had military bases 10 miles from Buffalo do you think we would invade Canada first? You Dam right we would

I thought it was the US funded nazi bio weapon labs?

Perhaps russia would have fewer enemies on it's borders if russia stopped with the land grabbing neighbor invading?

But no, we wouldn't invade Canada any more than we invaded cuba and venezuela.

originally posted by: MidnightWatcher

originally posted by: Brassmonkey

originally posted by: Brassmonkey

originally posted by: MidnightWatcher
a reply to: Brassmonkey


"It’s also disingenuous to not put blame on the USA and numerous other countries forming and coalition of countries and putting military bases right next to the Russian border boxing Russia in and placing an ever present threat to that country"




Have any evidence of the absurd russian propaganda that NATO built bases in Ukraine?

Perhaps russia should stop the land grabbing neighbor invasions if russia wants better relations with it's neighborsdin?

Why is Russia invading? Because they don’t want Ukraine to be in NATO and have US military bases on their border. Russia needs Ukraine to not be in NATO. Do you think if Russia tried to get Canada in a Russian alliance of 16 countries called RATO and then that would mean Russia had military bases 10 miles from Buffalo do you think we would invade Canada first? You Dam right we would

I thought it was the US funded nazi bio weapon labs?

Perhaps russia would have fewer enemies on it's borders if russia stopped with the land grabbing neighbor invading?

But no, we wouldn't invade Canada any more than we invaded cuba and venezuela.

I didn’t say anything about Nazi bio weapons labs in Ukraine but nice StrawMan argument…..lol

So back to the topic of the thread

Why would Russia blow up their pipeline that gives them leverage over Germany and Europe and is highly profitable?
Doesn’t make sense in any game theory.