Russia says UK navy blew up Nord Stream, London denies involvement

a reply to: alldaylong

So they could blame someone else.

What would they win since evidently no one believes Russia anyways?

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: alldaylong

So they could blame someone else.

What would they win since evidently no one believes Russia anyways?

Russian psyche is " Play The Victim "

They can't help themselves.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: gortex
Yeah let's wait for their evidence! Reading between the lines of your OP, it's clear though how that last sentence has to be interpreted.

I am still waiting on a logic explanation why Russia would hurt itself in that way. Maybe you can help me out?

By destroying the pipelines, Russia inflicts coercive pressure on EU/NATO to push for a resolution in Ukraine favorable to Russian interests, in return for Russian cooperation to quickly restore EU energy supplies.

Also, should its attempt at "energy extortion" fail (as it appears to be doing), by destroying the greater part of its delivery system, Russia can, conveniently, insulate itself from one of the most obvious routes for post-Ukrainian war reparations: forced oil and/or gas rations supplied at heavy market discounts.

If the pipelines are destroyed, they cannot be used to make Russia pay for its assault on Ukraine in the one thing Russia still has that is of any value; natural resources.

This would hold true whether Russia ultimately wins, loses, or negotiates a settlement in Ukraine.

But would be most crucial were Russia to be defeated; as the economic impact of heavy reparation demands would likely break the Russian economy (Warning to the world; Learn from the mistakes made following WWI!), and result in the collapse of the Russian government.




ETA:

The above also provides a good argument as to why it is very unlikely that neither European powers, nor the US, acting separately or in "concert" would have sabotaged those pipelines: it serves neither group, in the short term to deprive Europe of much needed energy.

And it makes it far more difficult for both powers to "punish" Russia, post-war (assuming Russia is defeated), for its transgressions.

I'm almost starting to think it was china that did the pipeline bombings to escalate the situation between russia and NATO, so we go to war and they can take advantage of the aftermath to become the sole superpower.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

By destroying the pipelines, Russia inflicts coercive pressure on EU/NATO to push for a resolution in Ukraine favorable to Russian interests, in return for Russian cooperation to quickly restore EU energy supplies.

They destroy their own pipelines to coerce other countries into finding a solution favorable to Russian interest? Wouldn't it be a lot quicker, cheaper and already done anyways to close the valves and say "# you EU/NATO you aint getting any gas since you also do not want it" and use that?
You do realize they already started throttling the gas and pipes were offline (or not even online yet) and you do understand that fixing those pipelines will be up to the Russians and take a lot of effort, time and money?

There's literally nothing to win for Russia destroying their own piplelines.

If the pipelines are destroyed, they cannot be used to make Russia pay for its assault on Ukraine in the one thing Russia still has that is of any value; natural resources.

There was less and less flow through the pipelines anyways. Germany and other EU countries openly said they do not want anymore gas and no oil at all, starting December 2022. That was the whole idea of sanctions. So you claim the Russians blew up their own pipe to do what exactly?

Not have to admit they give any gas but use it as a reason? That's not on alignment with what Russia did in terms of gas delivery and highly unlogic, since they only harmed themselves and put hardship on top of the sanctions they would not need to face otherwise.

And that's the problem I have with the narrative Russia did it to themselves. All it does is making it worse to come back to business after these sanctions vanish. The Russians have nothing to gain and they give a # about their "image", they openly say you aint getting gas if you don't want to.

No russian I know would use your logic to keep face, they would just tell you to # off. This is a tactic of the west, to make it appear "we want but can't".

a reply to: TDDAgain

Can countries even be insane?

You didn't answer my question, so I guess you think no countries are insane?

War is war, it never makes sense and what's there to win is up to the minds of those attacking. Just because it does not make sense to you or me, does not strengthen your opinion.

Clearly it does strengthen my opinion, let's be honest. Because my opinion of Russia was formed before the war started. And you're only talking about war. I'm talking about Russian politics long before the 2022 invasion the war that started in 2014.

Back in the dark days, women that knew their way around herbs and healing were called witches because of that logic too. And subsequently hunted down and burned.

In Europe, during the middle ages, they used to burn witches alive. Now in Russia they want to drown Ukrainian children and burn prisoners of war alive, because they say they are Satanic.

Your unscientific approach favoring a childish comparison over trying to find an actual answer. Holding onto a made up explanation instead of asking or allowing questions.

What are you referring too, what do you mean by childish comparison?

a reply to: TDDAgain

Those sanctions aren't going away until Putin is out of there. I would not in any way put it past Putin to damage his country intentionally. He is basically cutting off his nose to spite his face.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: Mantiss2021

By destroying the pipelines, Russia inflicts coercive pressure on EU/NATO to push for a resolution in Ukraine favorable to Russian interests, in return for Russian cooperation to quickly restore EU energy supplies.

They destroy their own pipelines to coerce other countries into finding a solution favorable to Russian interest? Wouldn't it be a lot quicker, cheaper and already done anyways to close the valves and say "# you EU/NATO you aint getting any gas since you also do not want it" and use that?

it was already not being used so the companies running it were losing money so russia could sacrifice it without any harm to themselves while gaining a tool for propaganda.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
British terrorist scum.

You got stars for that?!!!!!!

a reply to: Cutepants
Since a country can not be insane, yes I do think no country is or can be insane. Insanity is a personal trait.

I also differ between governments and citizens when I speak about countries. Here, I was talking about Russian government obviously.

If the UK is guilty, which of the many PM’s get credit for giving the order? Tremendous plausible deniability.

a reply to: TDDAgain

Europe isn't Russia's only market.

Taps that have been "turned off", and not destroyed, can be "turned on" once again; even if at the point of a gun.



"He who can destroy a thing, controls that thing."



Win, lose, or draw, once the war is over, if those pipelines were still functional they could be used against Russia, either directly via, coercive reparation demands, or indirectly via "green energy" pressure reducing demand and forcing price reductions.


Blowing those pipelines when it happened, how it happened, makes both short-term, and long-term economic sense for Russia, more so than for anyone else.

Especially from the POV of the Russian government, with its view from a strategic, long-term standpoint.

And let's us not forget the possible implications of all those Russian energy executives who "bought the farm" earlier this year. Just a coincidence?

Or just a clean-up of "loose ends" (and possible witnesses) by Putin's government agents?

a reply to: TDDAgain

I'll play devils advocate here. So theoretically, Britian has alot to gain with Nord Stream being shut down. Here is the reason why. It's North Sea and Brent Crude is expensive to get out. So they actually need the price up to justify them opening rigs back up and pulling oil again. like at $70+ per barrel. That way they can make a profit. If they can shut down russia supplying the EU, then the EU can switch to the existing pipelines that are going across the channel. Its beneficial for those pipes in conjunction with Finland, Sweden, and Norway pumping to EU, as it grows the European Shangin zone.

SO to answer the question. is it plausible that UK did it. Yes, did they do it, I'd like to see evidence.

As far as Crimea, its the same, could they have assisted Ukraine, Yes, did they, Show me the proof.

Camain

a reply to: Nickn3

Very big "if".

Where is the evidence, apart from Russia says so?

Obviously, if any such order was given, it would be the present PM.

What would the UK benefit from a drone attack?

Pretty sure if we were responsible there'd be quite a few capital ships on the bottom of the sea.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Nickn3
Pretty sure if we were responsible there'd be quite a few capital ships on the bottom of the sea.

You think Russia would sink your ships?

Current PM? Who is the PM this week?

a reply to: MykeNukem

No. Where did I say that? I meant the Russian ships that were attacked, obviously?

It's Rishi Sunak.

Well, it was last time I looked, but these days, who knows?

a reply to: TDDAgain

the same arguments apply to both UK and Norway who are having t ramp up extraction to cover the shortfall from Russia and both are taking the of their own peoples dying from hypothermia...

the UK has ramped up production to fill Europe's storage at the risk of leaving itself short of gas for the power stations over winter that in turn risks rolling blackouts and tha places the UK at the mercy of the EU and for the UK a France who might threaten to turn off the power in exchanged for untrammelled fishing rights in UK waters. there are issues within issues here..

this alongside the mild weather is already causing issues in the UK with a glut of gas from the ramped up production which forced british gas to reopen the rough storage facility that'll swallow 1bn cubic meters of the excess gas.. thats before we mention all the LNG boats sitting around waiting, all gas that needs filtering to be useful..

in this neither UK or Norway benefit.. nor while it remains so mild do the LNG exporters..

a reply to: Mantiss2021
I just can't help to disagree. Sure EU isn't the only market, I was not stating anything different.

Win, lose, or draw, once the war is over, if those pipelines were still functional they could be used against Russia, either directly via, coercive reparation demands, or indirectly via "green energy" pressure reducing demand and forcing price reductions.

They would still earn money with it, no matter how hard you try to claim it's more beneficial to Russia to blow up their own equipment. They already proved they will go so far and throttle the limit, again, there is no valid logic reason to destroy them.

You all make the mistake of equating western style politics and leazyness with Russian mindset. They don't need or want to save face like a western country would, using the blown up pipelines as a kind of excuse "we wan't but can't". That's not how Russians operate in my experience.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: Cutepants
Since a country can not be insane, yes I do think no country is or can be insane. Insanity is a personal trait.

That's interesting. Do you think a group of people who are not a country can be insane? Or can only one person at a time be insane? What makes you think insanity is a personal trait?

I also differ between governments and citizens when I speak about countries. Here, I was talking about Russian government obviously.

And do you think neither of those can be insane? Or one, or both?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem

No. Where did I say that? I meant the Russian ships that were attacked, obviously?

It's Rishi Sunak.

Well, it was last time I looked, but these days, who knows?

I know what you meant.