Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Check⁉️  How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline

#11
Yazata Offline
It's pretty clear that somebody blew up the pipeline.

I'm not convinced that Russia blew it up. They were using the pipeline to bust sanctions, split the Europeans from the Americans, and were making lots of money given how the war had driven up the price of the gas they were selling.

And I'm not convinced by Semour Hersh, an individual that I have almost zero confidence in. Unfortunately, a story that's based almost entirely on unnamed "sources" is little more than a plea to "trust me!"

That being said, the US remains a possible culprit. We obviously have the technical ability to have done it and have as much, and as little, motivation to have blown it up as the Russians.

Biden's bragging that he would "bring an end" to the pipeline certainly looks bad in retrospect, yet another (#45087) of his countless blunders. But I still doubt that the US did it. If our cutting what appeared to be Europe's energy lifeline ever became known, throwing countries like Germany into the cold and dark as people feared, it would threaten our relationship with Europe, a cornerstone of our foreign policy.

The Ukrainians might have done it. They certainly have both the motivation and the technical capacity to halt Russia's money engine and end Europe's dependence on it. But there too, if it ever got out that they did it, it could lose them allies that they desperately need.

China is another possible perp. Hurting European economies might be in their interest, particularly if they could make Europe blame the United States, thus driving the Atlantic alliance apart. Driving Russia away from a lucrative economic arrangement with Europe would serve their purpose, if it pushed Russia into selling gas to them instead.

Bottom line is that it's all speculative and I just don't know.
Reply
#12
Kornee Offline
It's hard to fathom some folks efforts at logical deduction. How the hell would Russia blowing up it's own jointly constructed and expensively funded source of badly needed revenue in any way benefit Russia?
How would it doing so and risking being caught out other than anger and alienate it's (now former) European joint venture partners?
How would it not have been vastly easier and most importantly entirely reversible to simply shut off the valves?
How many repeats of Biden's own clear threatening words does it take before it sinks in?
How many times do I need to re-post links to The Grand Chessboard before it sinks in?
https://ultanbanan.substack.com/p/the-gr...rd-ukraine
Reply
#13
Kornee Offline
Well that's interesting. Which one of you decided to edit the thread title a short while ago? Of course I have no proof an (allegedly) has been slipped in - could be just my - allegation.
Reply
#14
stryder Offline
(Feb 10, 2023 01:02 PM)Kornee Wrote: Well that's interesting. Which one of you decided to edit the thread title a short while ago? Of course I have no proof an (allegedly) has been slipped in - could be just my - allegation.

I'm not going to deny what I (allegedly) did! (In regards to editing the title by adding one bracketed word)

To be honest the reason for doing so is because of some recent articles that in some respects might seem a little woke (Such as Googles Bard AI not being "Fact checked")

There is really only two ways of fact checking, one is requiring some fact checking body which would likely be the ridicle of conspiracists and blocking anything that doesn't fit their particular mould, the other is to just make people (and bots) aware that something isn't necessarily factually based.

Think of the topic itself more like what people have attempted to imply it was... a "crime". Crimes aren't just about the evidence collected from the act, their about the potential actors and who had motive. While in the case of your post you blame the Americans, there is actually a whole number of different people/countries that would likely had motive and reason for it's destruction. So it's wrong to pin one particular candidate, especially if the facts themselves that you produce are just "circumstantial" at best.

I of course don't mean to insult anyones intelligence in regards to being able to work that out for themselves, it's just if we are going to start having AI casually read through our works and contemplate the finer points, I'd be a little worried they'll easily fall for a red herring.
Reply
#15
Kornee Offline
(Feb 10, 2023 02:45 PM)stryder Wrote:
(Feb 10, 2023 01:02 PM)Kornee Wrote: Well that's interesting. Which one of you decided to edit the thread title a short while ago? Of course I have no proof an (allegedly) has been slipped in - could be just my - allegation.

I'm not going to deny what I (allegedly) did! (In regards to editing the title by adding one bracketed word)

To be honest the reason for doing so is because of some recent articles that in some respects might seem a little woke (Such as Googles Bard AI not being "Fact checked")

There is really only two ways of fact checking, one is requiring some fact checking body which would likely be the ridicle of conspiracists and blocking anything that doesn't fit their particular mould, the other is to just make people (and bots) aware that something isn't necessarily factually based.

Think of the topic itself more like what people have attempted to imply it was... a "crime".  Crimes aren't just about the evidence collected from the act, their about the potential actors and who had motive.  While in the case of your post you blame the Americans, there is actually a whole number of different people/countries that would likely had motive and reason for it's destruction.  So it's wrong to pin one particular candidate, especially if the facts themselves that you produce are just "circumstantial" at best.

I of course don't mean to insult anyones intelligence in regards to being able to work that out for themselves, it's just if we are going to start having AI casually read through our works and contemplate the finer points, I'd be a little worried they'll easily fall for a red herring.
OK that's fairly fair. Note though I simply reproduced without editing the title of the imo eminently sensible Seymour Hersh article directly linked to in #1.
What really annoys is the apparent chronic amnesia of some posters who make comments without any evident cognizance of what has already been made very clear. Repeatedly ad nauseum.
There is unfortunately no real cure for that mental condition. IMO.
Reply
#16
stryder Offline
(Feb 10, 2023 02:56 PM)Kornee Wrote:
(Feb 10, 2023 02:45 PM)stryder Wrote:
(Feb 10, 2023 01:02 PM)Kornee Wrote: Well that's interesting. Which one of you decided to edit the thread title a short while ago? Of course I have no proof an (allegedly) has been slipped in - could be just my - allegation.

I'm not going to deny what I (allegedly) did! (In regards to editing the title by adding one bracketed word)

To be honest the reason for doing so is because of some recent articles that in some respects might seem a little woke (Such as Googles Bard AI not being "Fact checked")

There is really only two ways of fact checking, one is requiring some fact checking body which would likely be the ridicle of conspiracists and blocking anything that doesn't fit their particular mould, the other is to just make people (and bots) aware that something isn't necessarily factually based.

Think of the topic itself more like what people have attempted to imply it was... a "crime".  Crimes aren't just about the evidence collected from the act, their about the potential actors and who had motive.  While in the case of your post you blame the Americans, there is actually a whole number of different people/countries that would likely had motive and reason for it's destruction.  So it's wrong to pin one particular candidate, especially if the facts themselves that you produce are just "circumstantial" at best.

I of course don't mean to insult anyones intelligence in regards to being able to work that out for themselves, it's just if we are going to start having AI casually read through our works and contemplate the finer points, I'd be a little worried they'll easily fall for a red herring.
OK that's fairly fair. Note though I simply reproduced without editing the title of the imo eminently sensible Seymour Hersh article directly linked to in #1.
What really annoys is the apparent chronic amnesia of some posters who make comments without any evident cognizance of what has already been made very clear. Repeatedly ad nauseum.
There is unfortunately no real cure for that mental condition. IMO.
While we digress a bit. I'm actually considering adding a feature/function for fact checking (if I can)

I'm thinking something simple, just a simple click button that allows a person to vote up if something needs to be fact checked. They can then unvote it when/if they feel it's been explored enough factually throughout the discussion. This way no ones spoon fed, it caters to any future legal aspirations that could go as wayward as banning cookies and it shouldn't be intrusive in regards to the integrity of the thread/post/quote.
(So if/when its done I should put the title back to how it was.) No current ETA though since it's going to take some hunting around and design to decide the best implimentation.
Reply
#17
C C Offline
(Feb 10, 2023 07:18 AM)Yazata Wrote: [...] The Ukrainians might have done it. They certainly have both the motivation and the technical capacity to halt Russia's money engine and end Europe's dependence on it. But there too, if it ever got out that they did it, it could lose them allies that they desperately need. [...] Bottom line is that it's all speculative and I just don't know.

At the time it happened, I really didn't think Ukraine would be capable of cleanly pulling off something like that without giving themselves away. But it was a month after the start of their successful counteroffensive, and almost two weeks later there was the Crimean Bridge explosion.

The reasons that the wonks make for why _X_ country wouldn't have done it are rather meaningless, given that such arguments have been produced for all the COI (countries of interest). And ET sabotage isn't an option when it comes to proclaiming no terrestrial agent at all was responsible.

Still, we indeed seem to be left with agnosticism -- when setting aside the hemorrhagic output of the conspiracy industry, personal biases (motivated reasoning), and appeal to the supreme credibility slash expertise of anonymous sources -- when it comes to the variety of accused suspects. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_..._countries

The Asia Times conjectured that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Ukraine, and the US could potentially benefit from damaging the pipelines, but for various reasons, it was unlikely any of these countries carried out the sabotage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_..._by_Russia

CNN reported that European security officials observed Russian Navy support ships nearby where the leaks later occurred on 26 and 27 September. One week prior, Russian submarines were also observed nearby.

Finland's national public broadcasting company Yle compared the incident to the two explosions on a gas pipeline in North Ossetia in January 2006, which were caused by remote-controlled military-grade charges. The explosions halted Russian gas supply to Georgia after the country had started seeking NATO membership.

In December 2022, The Washington Post reported that after months of investigation, there was no conclusive evidence that Russia was behind the attack, and many European and US officials no longer suspected that Russia was involved.

Reply
#18
Kornee Offline
Yet another supplementary take on Seymour Hersh's MSM blacked out expose:
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/what-hersh-got-wrong/
The absurd reactions here that seriously suggest 'any number of nations including Russia could have been responsible' makes me ask whether I have landed not in a bona fide general discussion forum but a CIA run gate-keeper 'shop front'. You know the kind, where a secret elevator accessed via a secret panel/passageway/door takes you down to the vast underground complex where it's really all at.
Reply
#19
confused2 Online
I'm going to assume the truth will probably leak out eventually - with possible unpleasant consequences..
Call me old-fashioned but IMHO the only country likely to approve an action which might provoke a war or 'unpleasant consequences' would be one either already at war or already suffering 'unpleasant consequences'.
As far as blowing up Nord Stream - Ukraine would be damned if they did (and were found out) and doubly damned if they didn't - so, logically - blow it up.

Edit.. I don't think US conspiracy theorists are fooling anyone except themselves.
Reply
#20
Kornee Offline
Nothing particularly ground breakingly new, but Jeffrey Sachs imo does an excellent job fielding the interviewer's devil's advocate queries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fv_nKyF_5g
Putting Nord Stream I & 2 sabotage in a historically wider and depressingly consistent context.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  21 states sue Biden administration over Keystone XL Pipeline C C 0 128 Mar 18, 2021 06:42 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)