Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 565

On August 26 2023 09:17 Nezgar wrote:
Unfortunately that thing is paywalled, so I cannot say what evidence they present this time.

DER SPIEGEL
The operation was aimed at "inflicting lasting damage to the functionality of the state and its facilities. In this sense, this is an attack on the internal security of the state." That's the legal language used by the examining magistrates at the German Federal Court of Justice in the investigation into unknown perpetrators that has been underway since then.

Unknown because – even though countless criminal investigators, intelligence agents and prosecutors from a dozen countries have been searching for those behind the act – it has not yet been determined who did it. Or why. The findings of the investigation thus far, much of them coming from German officials, are strictly confidential. Nothing is to reach the public. On orders from the Chancellery.

...

Officially, politicians and the Office of the Federal Prosecutor are still holding back with any conclusions. Currently, it is not possible to say "this was state-controlled by Ukraine," Federal Prosecutor Otte says. "As far as that is concerned, the investigation is ongoing, much of it still undercover."

Behind the scenes, though, you get clearer statements. Investigators from the BKA, the Federal Police and the Office of the Federal Prosecutor have few remaining doubts that a Ukrainian commando was responsible for blowing up the pipelines. A striking number of clues point to Ukraine, they say. They start with Valeri K., IP addresses of mails and phone calls, location data and numerous other, even clearer clues that have been kept secret so far. One top official says that far more is known than has been stated publicly. According to DER SPIEGEL's sources, investigators are certain that the saboteurs were in Ukraine before and after the attack. Indeed, the overall picture formed by the puzzles pieces of technical information has grown quite clear.

And the possible motives also seem clear to international security circles: The aim, they says, was to deprive Moscow of an important source of revenue for financing the war against Ukraine. And at the same time to deprive Putin once and for all of his most important instrument of blackmail against the German government.

But crucial questions remain unanswered. From how high up was the attack ordered and who knew about it? Was it an intelligence operation that the political leadership in Kyiv learned about only later? Or was it the product of a commando unit acting on its own? Or was it a military operation in which the Ukrainian General Staff was involved? Intelligence experts and security policy experts, however, consider it unlikely that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy was in on it: In cases of sabotage, the political leadership is often deliberately kept in the dark so that they can plausibly deny any knowledge later on. In early June, when the first indications of Kyiv's possible involvement came to light, Zelenskyy strongly denied it. "I am president and I give orders accordingly," he said. "Nothing of the sort has been done by Ukraine. I would never act in such a manner."

In any case, it is difficult terrain for the BKA, not only politically, but also in practical terms. The German criminal investigators cannot conduct investigations in Ukraine, and it isn't expected that Kyiv will provide much support. The German authorities have also shied away from submitting a request to Ukraine for legal assistance because doing so would require that they reveal what they know. That could provide Ukraine the opportunity to cover up any traces that may exist and to protect the people responsible. Asked whether there will be arrest warrants one day, an official familiar with the events replies: "We need a lot of patience."
...
The situation changed in March, when the New York Times, Germany's Die Zeit and Berlin-based public broadcaster RBB first reported on the evidence pointing to Ukraine. A little bit later, the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper also published its own investigative report. Soon after, Jens Plötner, an adviser to the chancellor, openly addressed the articles in a phone call with Andriy Yermak, one of President Vlodymyr Zelenskyy's closest confidants. The answer was clear: Yermak apparently assured the Germans that the Ukrainian government had not been involved in the plot and that no one from the security apparatus knew who was behind it.

Few in Berlin want to think right now about what action should be taken if the involvement of Ukrainian state agencies is proven. On the one hand, Germany couldn't simply brush off such a serious crime. But suspending support for Ukraine in its war against Russia also wouldn't be an option. "Everyone is shying away from the question of consequences," says one member of parliament with a party that is a member of the German government coalition.
...
But the perception among investigators is that the will to solve the case is not particularly pronounced in the capital. Politically, it is easier to live with what happened if it remains unclear who is behind the attacks. The process is not being hindered, but neither is there much support from the overarching government ministries. Meanwhile, it is clear to career-oriented ministry officials that there is no glory to be had with this case. If only because the culprits will likely never have to answer for their actions in Germany. Even if they could be identified, it's very unlikely they would be extradited.

So Berlin is looking away, and that is definitely being registered in agencies where staff is constantly in short supply and procedures have to be prioritized. All of which leads to the investigation falling down the priority list.

On August 26 2023 19:09 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:


Finally they are going to explain how a country with no naval projection of their own coast covertly executed an advanced underwater sabotage mission in another part of Europe.

Oh, just joking absolutely no information about the main thing people are sceptical about. 7 people rented a boat and this guy was in Ukraine before and after doesn't cut it.

The pipeline was blown between 42 and 78 m in multiple places. This places it firmly in deep dive territory. This means you need well trained operatives, a lot of time on site and/or highly specialised equipment or access to remotely operated vehicles. Of course in addition to whatever explosives you choose to use.
They have to acquire this fairly specific equipment and a suitable vessel, presumably in the EU which you are not citizens in, without a paper trail.
They have to do the operation without raising suspicion at moderate depths (and if I remember correctly visibility is notoriously poor in the baltic sea?).

If the puzzle of technical information has grown quite clear I for one would like to see a decent technical explanation of how they actually pulled it off and at least some proof to back it up.

On August 26 2023 18:19 Acrofales wrote:


This article is from June though. And I have to place a large question mark by the conclusions. I'll happily believe Ukraine had a plan to blow up Nordstream. It makes sense they'd have that and it makes sense they'd want to execute before the gas was cut off anyway. But they got warned not to do it, and held back. 3 months later, it happened anyway. If I were Russia, and knew Ukraine had this plan AND the west knew about this plan, then I'd absolutely use exactly that plan to blow up Nordstream. And by September the Russians had far more to gain from blowing it up than the Ukrainians did. Especially with minimal damage to Nordstream 2.

So I think we need more than "Ukraine had a plan to do it in June, we warned them not to do it and it happened 3 months later, therefore it's Ukraine".

On August 26 2023 18:47 pmp10 wrote:
A good article with a summary of recent Ukraine coverage in western press:
https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/ukraine-doesnt-need-armchair-generals
Predictably, prospect of a failed offensive is strengthening calls for freezing of the conflict.

On August 27 2023 17:33 Ardias wrote:

First of all, there was no chipping at Kharkov defences, that part of the front was quiet for months, hence Russian command moved combat forces to other areas, leaving thin green line of LDPR reservists there, and neglected the information about gathering Ukrainian forces there, which later led to collapse of the front.
In Kherson the main issue forcing a retreat was logistics hanging on two bridges being more and more damaged each day and potential destruction of the dam, which would cut off all Russian forces on the bridgehead.
Neither of these conditions apply to current situation.
Also some people who study how the war works in real life for a living tend to disagree with you:
https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/russian-fortifications-present-an-old-problem-for-ukraine/

On August 27 2023 22:39 Excludos wrote:


These maps are super interesting. Where do you find them?