Jump to content

Nordstream pipeline sabotage?


HeyEng

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, torqued said:

On a serious note, you should check out the financials and board members for CSIS.

Try to look in the mirror and say "There is no bias or conflict of interest here" with a straight face.

  Just did, three times.  Besides momentarily thinking I saw Biggie Smalls in the background, nothing happened.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean Putin could have just blown up the Polish line that was just completed.  
By blowing his own he's severed his main artery of delivery to his #1 customer.  Bold move.

He’s likely not thinking in the same manner you would be. Things Putin would look for: justification for intensifying hostilities, painting NATO as an existential threat, and rallying his country against a common enemy to gain support. Look through that lens, and the russian line being attacked make way more sense as something beneficial to him.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify for you @BashiChuni. That post was getting long and fairly unwieldy and I didn't want the main point to be lost. I guess it was.

One of my other points was to say that there is a log jam of BS making its way through our collective system right now under the cover of "nuance" - in quotes. "Nuanced" positions on who is at fault in the Russia/Ukraine war fall squarely into that category.

It's become highly fashionable to stake out a "nuanced" position on some topic in the world. "Look at how smart my opinion is!" "Look ma, both sides of the issue!" All I can say is no shit, there are two sides to an issue - people are fighting, duh.

Take the Russian war in Ukraine as an example. "Nuance" has gotten some of us thinking that we are in the wrong on this one. "Nuance" gets us talking about the Gulf of Tonkin, COVID response, the Iran contra affair, Iraq '03, the moon landing, that the Earth is flat (which it is), etc, etc. Not all those topics, of course, but the point is that someone will always point to some instance in history where we probably fucked something up (or there's at least the perception that we did) and use it to score points presently. In short, the purpose of "nuance" is to place hand-cuffs on a given entity - in this case us. "As if" is my only response.

Always thinking of the world in terms of "nuance" and "shades of gray" are their own memes. The world is more black and white than most of us now-a-days probably think. Putin has absolutely no moral authority or legitimate reason for his adventure in Ukraine - how incompetent America is at home or abroad doesn't change that one iota. Putin started this war. He drew first blood. It's his war to end. Us backing down or being "fearful" of escalating is going to get us more of the same. He needs to be made to fear for his life. IMO, we don't need "nuanced" opinions coming from soldiers who might be called upon to fight a war that sprouts out of this current conflict. Just ask Putin's troops how their moral is doing. Or how their shit feels when it's moving in the wrong direction. Probably a lot worse than "pretty darn good."

"NATO expansion became an excuse post facto..." for Russian militarism and autocracy.

"The ability of countries to determine their own foreign policy and their alliances, is written into the UN Charter...written into the 1975 Helsinki act...written into the 1990 charter of Paris for a new Europe...written into the 1997 NATO-Russia founding act...Russia's signature is on every one of those documents. Moscow signed the UN Charter, it signed the Helsinki final act...signed the NATO-Russia founding act that places no limits on NATO expansion..." etc, etc. I've posted this before, but it contains a density of fact that really should be grasped by anyone wearing a uniform who might have a "nuanced" opinion on who is to blame for this current war.

I don't want to come across as saying that people shouldn't have nuanced opinions or that all stones shouldn't be overturned, so don't walk away with that message, either. I'm just saying that when you have very strong opinions, which are not based in fact (because in fact you don't know and will never know), there is another - unspoken - reason why you have that opinion, whether or not you admit it to yourself. I MFing guarantee you that no one getting shelled in Ukraine thinks of this as "nuanced".

Edited by ViperMan
Wrong video
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To piggyback on ViperMan, nuance is great and all, but some things are self evident, no nuance required:

- The American political system is better than Russia’s. Despite all our flaws, I’ll take a representative democracy over Putin’s kleptocracy every time. 
 

- The liberal world order (again, I’ll remind the less educated amongst us that “liberal” does not refer to US domestic politics here) established after WWII is better than an alternative where strong countries simply take what they want. The “establishment” that Putin and his apologists like to rail against has kept the peace for seven decades. Some of us have become so accustomed to that peace that it’s become hard to believe that it’s not just the de facto state of the world. It’s not. It takes a lot of work. 
 

- Invading a sovereign nation, no matter what cultural and ethnic ties you think you have, is wrong. That’s it. No need for discussion (or nuance). Respect for sovereignty is a key to peace in the modern world. It should be defended vigorously by anyone who doesn’t want to see the planet flattened by war. 
 

I could go on. Point being, there’s no gray area to hang out in here. No we aren’t perfect. Yes, we have our problems, some of them major. Despite all of that, we are objectively better than the alternative, regardless of which party is in power, regardless of our internal differences. Objectively. Better. Full stop. I choose to support OUR institutions, flawed though they may be, because it’s a far better option than operating in the wilderness of thought where the Russian and Chinese fact twisters want us. There are forces in this world that are true existential threats to our way of life. They are NOT your neighbor with the coexist bumper sticker (naive as he may be) or the Trump flag on his truck. They are not even Nancy Pelosi (who I guarantee you is FAR more of a free market advocate than Putin or Xi), or Mitch McConnell. It continuously blows my mind that some of us continue to point fingers at each other when there is no shit, painfully obvious evil rearing it’s head in the world with despots outright stating their desire to destroy western cultural values. It’s time to recognize what’s right in front of our faces, put our differences aside for a bit, and start pulling in the same direction. 

  • Like 11
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Prozac said:

To piggyback on ViperMan, nuance is great and all, but some things are self evident, no nuance required:

- The American political system is better than Russia’s. Despite all our flaws, I’ll take a representative democracy over Putin’s kleptocracy every time. 
 

- The liberal world order (again, I’ll remind the less educated amongst us that “liberal” does not refer to US domestic politics here) established after WWII is better than an alternative where strong countries simply take what they want. The “establishment” that Putin and his apologists like to rail against has kept the peace for seven decades. Some of us have become so accustomed to that peace that it’s become hard to believe that it’s not just the de facto state of the world. It’s not. It takes a lot of work. 
 

- Invading a sovereign nation, no matter what cultural and ethnic ties you think you have, is wrong. That’s it. No need for discussion (or nuance). Respect for sovereignty is a key to peace in the modern world. It should be defended vigorously by anyone who doesn’t want to see the planet flattened by war. 
 

I could go on. Point being, there’s no gray area to hang out in here. No we aren’t perfect. Yes, we have our problems, some of them major. Despite all of that, we are objectively better than the alternative, regardless of which party is in power, regardless of our internal differences. Objectively. Better. Full stop. I choose to support OUR institutions, flawed though they may be, because it’s a far better option than operating in the wilderness of thought where the Russian and Chinese fact twisters want us. There are forces in this world that are true existential threats to our way of life. They are NOT your neighbor with the coexist bumper sticker (naive as he may be) or the Trump flag on his truck. They are not even Nancy Pelosi (who I guarantee you is FAR more of a free market advocate than Putin or Xi), or Mitch McConnell. It continuously blows my mind that some of us continue to point fingers at each other when there is no shit, painfully obvious evil rearing it’s head in the world with despots outright stating their desire to destroy western cultural values. It’s time to recognize what’s right in front of our faces, put our differences aside for a bit, and start pulling in the same direction. 

And what the fuck does this diatribe on pro-American democracy have to do with blowing a pipeline?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Prozac said:

To piggyback on ViperMan, nuance is great and all, but some things are self evident, no nuance required:

- The American political system is better than Russia’s.

- The liberal world order (again, I’ll remind the less educated amongst us that “liberal” does not refer to US domestic politics here) established after WWII is better than an alternative where strong countries simply take what they want.

- Invading a sovereign nation, no matter what cultural and ethnic ties you think you have, is wrong.

Haven't followed every post, but is anyone actually arguing against these points?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is silly. Why blow up a pipeline that you can simply sanction into irrelevance? NS2 was dead the moment the Russians crossed the border into Ukraine. No explosives needed. 

 

It seems to me that everyone is looking at everything from an international perspective, but I think this is a domestic matter, just like the annexation.

 

Putin doesn't expect anyone to honor the annexation vote, nor did he expect NS2 to ever function. But the NS2 allows him to blame the West for something, and blowing up a doomed pipeline doesn't cost much.

 

The annexation allows Russia to frame their draft as a defense of the Homeland instead of a "special operation" against Ukraine. That's a very big difference in public perception.

 

Externally the propaganda of tyrannical governments seems absurd, but internally it often works. Just look at North Korea and Iran.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

 

 

The annexation allows Russia to frame their draft as a defense of the Homeland instead of a "special operation" against Ukraine. That's a very big difference in public perception.

 

 

Additionally, within the last couple of weeks Putin updated Russian nuclear doctrine to now include territorial defense. Interesting timing on that little update.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Additionally, within the last couple of weeks Putin updated Russian nuclear doctrine to now include territorial defense. Interesting timing on that little update.

I hope he launches a nuke.  Let's just get the next big war over with already.   We've got pronouns to police and this guy's shenanigans are stealing the spotlight.  

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how folks think the US has nothing to gain from being the largest provider of natural gas to western Europe. Thanks for giving us a cold winter guys. 


That’s because you are a web bot that only copies and pastes spam about “economics” and can’t think critically about geopolitics and the narrative gain Russia potentially gets and the US potentially loses from this.
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

 


That’s because you are a web bot that only copies and pastes spam about “economics” and can’t think critically about geopolitics and the narrative gain Russia potentially gets and the US potentially loses from this.

 

wow-damn.gif.aedaf95fbf3e44a4bc32c526d695cc5f.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Random Guy said:

I like how folks think the US has nothing to gain from being the largest provider of natural gas to western Europe. Thanks for giving us a cold winter guys. 

Also…LOTS of grumbling from the European populations about energy prices. Lots of very public demonstrations (not covered by western media) of European citizens demanding their governments lift sanctions against Russia. 
 

killing the pipeline forces these countries to hold the line against Russia w nato. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Biff_T said:

I hope he launches a nuke.  Let's just get the next big war over with already.   We've got pronouns to police and this guy's shenanigans are stealing the spotlight.  

I laughed but the thought of that happening is terrifying. Based on Brandon/Austin/Miley’s handling of Afghanistan, I have zero confidence that things would go well for us in a blunt and escalatory conflict. The fact that Austin and Milley haven’t resigned is an embarrassment. 

  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know who attacked the Nord Stream Pipe Line, We know how they attacked the Nord Stream Pipeline and we know why they attacked the Nord Stream pipline...those are facts.

Currently responses are being "discussed and wargamed."

There WILL be a response.  What the response is and whether or not that response is ever publicized has yet to be determined.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the attack on the pipeline was a successful operation it tells me it was not performed by the Russians. Has the Russian military done anything successfully in modern history unless they are using brute strength and overwhelming numbers against their enemies.  I question their abilities to maintain their nuclear arsenal as witnessed by the shape of their ground forces. Also, I wonder if this is Russia's last stand, their demographics are in the toilet, WW2 has them still hurting from losing 80% of the men born in the 1920's.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

We as in the U.S. government and our allies.  There is a LOT going on behind the scenes right now.

It'll probably be a few decades before the general public has a clear idea of the American involvement in this conflict. That's a good thing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...