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

originally posted by: Nickn3
If the UK is guilty, which of the many PM’s get credit for giving the order? Tremendous plausible deniability.

Liz Truss was Prime Minister from 6 September 2022 to 25 October 2022 , Nordstream was September 26 so she was in the big seat.

originally posted by: gortex

originally posted by: Nickn3
If the UK is guilty, which of the many PM’s get credit for giving the order? Tremendous plausible deniability.

Liz Truss was Prime Minister from 6 September 2022 to 25 October 2022 , Nordstream was September 26 so she was in the big seat.

Shortest PM ever at Downey.

Gave the order and ran?

Just sayin...

a reply to: nickyw

This argument would be valid if the EU, including UK, would not have stated they don't want the Russian gas. But they did and would not pull gas from it anyways. And when the Russians took them by their own word, they screamed "energy war".

So from that perspective, we could argue UK / EU has nothing to loose sabotaging them. As it would further the narrative if they can blame it on Russia to wage that "energy war".

originally posted by: TDDAgain
it's more beneficial to Russia to blow up their own equipment.

There's plenty of examples in history of people blowing up their own equipment when they think someone else might take control of it.

a reply to: gortex

Fairly sure that Truss had other priorities at the time.

Like outlasting a lettuce?

Which she failed to do.

a reply to: MykeNukem

Doubt it.

A lot.

a reply to: camain

I am not making any claims who it was. Just like you I weight up who benefits and the answer for me is that it does not make sense Russia did it. Obviously from the amount of replies I received, a lot just have settled their mind: Russia was it.

Honestly it would make a lot more sense the US government did it, since Biden announced that "Nord Stream" will be no more. I love it how most in this thread just ignore all that and be like "But Russia is insane/has something to gain". Full cognitive dissonance in favor of the official narrative. People, use your heads.

a reply to: gortex

Russia seems to say a lot these days.

None of which seems to be very credible.

a reply to: Cutepants
What you describe btw, it's called scorched Earth tactics.

There was zero (0) danger that the pipeline would have been taken over control since it's useless if Russia does not inject gas into it. If you use that as your argument, you need to explain how you can justify the stance that Russia was at danger having the already useless pipeline overtaken.

Circular logic emerges.

a reply to: andy06shake
If that's your argument:

Yet it took weeks for them to make that accusation while the MSM and the western governments literally minutes after the ordeal already started blaming Putin like it was fact.

a reply to: TDDAgain

Yea, I'm pretty analytical. I am very much pro Ukraine, they are fighting for their homeland, and I support that, but at the same time, I know war is hell, global politics is hell, and each country will do their own best interest based on weighing the factors for a given situation. In this situation, I would say the balance tips in UK favor, as realistically, Russia would not shut out its own gas unless they can't make enough and they want to ship it for more elsewhere.

Camain

a reply to: TDDAgain

Your argument makes no sense at all, because Russia could simple stop putting gas into the pipeline, if they wanted to prevent the pipeline from transporting gas. Use your head, please.

And absolutely yes, what I describe is called scorched earth. Russia famously used that during WWII.

Russia's pipeline was in danger of being overtaken because it lies in between many countries that don't support Russia. A lot of this war is about pipelines actually, Russia wants to control the supply of gas to Europe and Europe wants gas.

a reply to: TDDAgain

No "if" about it.

Russia tell porky pies aka military exercise turning into all-out invasion.

As to Russia's accusation, well it might be nice to see some actual tangible evidence to back up their claim.

Just as it would also be nice to see our own nations produce evidence of Russia's complicity in the act of terrorism.

The UK is not in the wrong postcode all the same or invading their neighbors under the guise of false pretense.

Nor is the UK threatening nuclear war because the cant do the conventional sorts.

a reply to: camain

I am for Ukrainians because like you said it's their homeland and they are the ones being invaded. First and foremost.

But then I also acknowledge that the situation isn't as easy explained as the MSM tries to. I am not claiming NAZI fighters under Ukraine or any other theory. My whole focus lies on US and NATO dealings in the Ukraine and that Putin was cornered and he was audible about the consequences.

And while I do not greet the consequences and while they are not justified because every country should be able to align to whomever they want, NATO in this case, there's this darn history making things complicated. Putin warned, the West literally ignored him and suddenly the wests eye skin folds back and wide eyes open "OMG Putin did what he announced and we ignored".

We had a similar situation in early 2000s with Poland and US wanting to deploy nuclear capable missile "shield" into Poland. Out of fairness and playing devils advocate I have to ask what the US would do to Mexico or Canada, should the same thing happen there, but with Russia setting up labs, bases and making them BRICS members.

And that is mistaken for being pro Russia all the time here, because I refuse to join the chants mindlessly, like many others do so quickly. Why is it not possible for most to acknowledge all this and take a step back, instead most need themselves put onto a side, a drawer and a label and want to do that to other's too.

That's a form of extremism too. If nothing but partisan stance counts, logic and conversation is lost.

a reply to: Cutepants

Your argument makes no sense at all, because Russia could simple stop putting gas into the pipeline, if they wanted to prevent the pipeline from transporting gas. Use your head, please.

Um, that's what I said and what Russia did. So yes, indeed, why would Russia blow up their own pipeline? Your only answer is like "because insane".

The cognitive dissonance is staggering!!!

Russia's pipeline was in danger of being overtaken because it lies in between many countries that don't support Russia. A lot of this war is about pipelines actually, Russia wants to control the supply of gas to Europe and Europe wants gas.

Evidence for that please and then after you delivered that, you please explain to me how the pipeline is a danger to Russia if they can decide on their own homeland to inject gas or not. That is, if you are interested in a honest back and forth.

a reply to: andy06shake

This thread is about Russia accusing UK. Let's look at Russias evidence instead of prematurely making up minds, shall we? If the west is so civilized and Russia isn't, then we have to even more show this by giving them a fair trial, despite all the other ongoings.

Sadly you and others are mixing up everything into one basket, because you were told so by MSM.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: camain

I am for Ukrainians because like you said it's their homeland and they are the ones being invaded. First and foremost.

But then I also acknowledge that the situation isn't as easy explained as the MSM tries to. I am not claiming NAZI fighters under Ukraine or any other theory. My whole focus lies on US and NATO dealings in the Ukraine and that Putin was cornered and he was audible about the consequences.

You only want to tell half of the lie, not the whole lie. That makes you feel like a good person. And you're surprised when people call you a liar.

a reply to: TDDAgain

Um, that's what I said and what Russia did. So yes, indeed, why would Russia blow up their own pipeline? Your only answer is like "because insane".

Did you forget to read my first post in this thread? I clearly said that Russia's reason was to prevent anyone else from using the pipeline.

a reply to: TDDAgain

Insanity is a personal trait.

Not always.

A situation or state of affairs can be classed as " insanity "

a reply to: Cutepants

Did you forget to read my first post in this thread? I clearly said that Russia's reason was to prevent anyone else from using the pipeline.

And I asked you for any evidence of this danger, ball is in your court to deliver.

Again, who was about to use the pipeline and from where to put what through?