|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On November 13 2023 05:41 zatic wrote:
To be clear, it was an honest question. You are a group I usually hold in regard when it comes to judging stories of international relevance. I find it genuinely puzzling that the same group I find myself usually agreeing with is so far off my own line of reasoning.
Of course, there is no proof out, otherwise we wouldn't have to question it. I personally found the evidence convincing enough back in June that any other explanation but Ukraine did it - in one way or another - seems just way too far off. Yet here I find people who claim there isn't any evidence at all. This doesn't usually happen to me on TL.
From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream_2 :
Gas deliveries ceased in September 2022 following the destruction of three of the pipe lines and sanctions linked to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.[11] As of February 2023, there is no conclusive evidence of who carried out the sabotage despite three separate investigations by Denmark, Germany, and Sweden.[12] In June 2023, The Washington Post reported that the United States had intelligence of an Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream, and in November 2023 reported that Roman Chervinsky, a colonel in Ukraine's Special Operations Forces, had coordinated the Nord Stream pipeline attack.[13][14]
On 6 June 2023, it was reported that a European ally had sent intelligence to the US, informing them that the Ukrainian military was plotting an attack on the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines, three months before the pipelines were attacked. According to the intelligence, the plan to attack the pipeline was “put on hold" and that Ukraine’s commander in chief, Valerii Zaluzhnyi "was put in charge" of the operation so that Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, could not be aware of it.[197][198] The Washington Post reported in November 2023 that Roman Chervinsky, a colonel in Ukraine's Special Operations Forces, had coordinated the Nord Stream pipeline attack.[199][200]
These are indicators of Ukraine performing it. I will agree to that. I will not agree to it being sufficient proof for me.
|
On November 13 2023 05:41 zatic wrote:
To be clear, it was an honest question. You are a group I usually hold in regard when it comes to judging stories of international relevance. I find it genuinely puzzling that the same group I find myself usually agreeing with is so far off my own line of reasoning.
Of course, there is no proof out, otherwise we wouldn't have to question it. I personally found the evidence convincing enough back in June that any other explanation but Ukraine did it - in one way or another - seems just way too far off. Yet here I find people who claim there isn't any evidence at all. This doesn't usually happen to me on TL.
At the end of the day, it really just comes down to how willing you are to automatically trust WP. I too have journalists and outlets I trust to be true, despite a lack of verifiable evidence in some of their stories, because they've previously done enough investigative journalism that ended up being true to make me trust them (I usually like to bring up Task & Purpose Youtube platform as my goto for this. A lot of their videos are, self admittedly, made with "insider information" that they can't share. But so far, they've never been caught "with their pants down" wrong, so I have yet to receive any reason to not trust them). WP, for me at least, is not one of those outlets. For others, it might be.
|
I think another reason for the difference of opinion might be Der Spiegel. It has low penetration in English speaking/other language media and thus doesn't really register as anything when publishing things. While if you normally follow news in German it is likely you would believe them as it is reputable in most cases.
|
On November 13 2023 05:41 zatic wrote:
To be clear, it was an honest question. You are a group I usually hold in regard when it comes to judging stories of international relevance. I find it genuinely puzzling that the same group I find myself usually agreeing with is so far off my own line of reasoning.
Of course, there is no proof out, otherwise we wouldn't have to question it. I personally found the evidence convincing enough back in June that any other explanation but Ukraine did it - in one way or another - seems just way too far off. Yet here I find people who claim there isn't any evidence at all. This doesn't usually happen to me on TL.
If a source claims that the US has launched a spy satellite capable of reading the licence plate of a car I would believe it.
If it was Russia or China instead in the article I would still believe it.
If it was the Democratic Republic of Congo I would absolutely not believe it. If the source was not anonymous but the entire joint chiefs of staff and the NASA director went on record that yes, Congo had indeed launched such a satellite. I would STILL be sceptical.
I would read the article (of course) but I would like some kind of explanation on how Congo went from flying Su-25s to having an advanced space program. Maybe their is a plausible explanation (a joint venture between Lockheed Martin, SpaceX and several mining corporations have launched a new low orbit survey satellite to map out Congo. In optimal conditions it could theoretically read a licence plate. For legal reasons it belongs to and is "operated" by Congo).
But if there is no explanation in the article I would be more inclined to believe that the US is lying through their teeth for some reasons.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
Just to add, I am not talking about just the recent WP article (I haven't read it yet) but the to me strange disconnect between what I find very convincing evidence published before and the claim that there doesn't exist any evidence at all.
|
On November 13 2023 05:41 zatic wrote:
To be clear, it was an honest question. You are a group I usually hold in regard when it comes to judging stories of international relevance. I find it genuinely puzzling that the same group I find myself usually agreeing with is so far off my own line of reasoning.
Of course, there is no proof out, otherwise we wouldn't have to question it. I personally found the evidence convincing enough back in June that any other explanation but Ukraine did it - in one way or another - seems just way too far off. Yet here I find people who claim there isn't any evidence at all. This doesn't usually happen to me on TL. I think its resistance to the idea that Ukraine, in a very vulnerable position, decides to attack their allies critical infrastructure for marginal gains.
If I remember right NS 1 was already not delivering gas or delivering a lot less at the time, Yes it could cost Russia some income, and prevent the EU from moving back to Russian gas. But weight that up against the danger of loss of public support and the West reducing aid in response just makes the notion that Ukraine actively did it so baffling.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
Oh of course. It was a terrible idea to put plans for it in motion, and a huge mistake that the operation went through. It puts both Ukraine and Germany in an incredibly awkward spot where both would like to just unmake or forget the attack.
But you also have to look at the timeline. In September 22 we didn't know yet that the winter would be mild. We did not know that Germany would manage to get their LGN infrastructure up in record time. Russia made no secret out of their plan of using gas and a freezing Europe as a weapon, including ads running this very scenario by Gazprom. Germany was not yet as establishes as a key Ukraine supporter as it is over a year later. An onlooker could very well worry that Germany would fold and trade conciliations to Russia for gas. Russia certainly thought so.
It was terrible judgement by whoever did it to go through with the operation, but the overall picture looked different 18 months ago.
|
On November 13 2023 06:29 zatic wrote:
Oh of course. It was a terrible idea to put plans for it in motion, and a huge mistake that the operation went through. It puts both Ukraine and Germany in an incredibly awkward spot where both would like to just unmake or forget the attack.
But you also have to look at the timeline. In September 22 we didn't know yet that the winter would be mild. We did not know that Germany would manage to get their LGN infrastructure up in record time. Russia made no secret out of their plan of using gas and a freezing Europe as a weapon, including ads running this very scenario by Gazprom. Germany was not yet as establishes as a key Ukraine supporter as it is over a year later. An onlooker could very well worry that Germany would fold and trade conciliations to Russia for gas. Russia certainly thought so.
It was terrible judgement by whoever did it to go through with the operation, but the overall picture looked different 18 months ago.
You realize that you have just described the reasoning for Russia blowing the pipeline and blaming it on Ukraine?
Most people assume Ukraine is pretty YOLO about blowing things up we just don't think they had even close to the capability to do it.
|
United States44203 Posts
I read, and quoted in this topic many months ago, sources that argued that Russia would face steep financial penalties for any breach of their contractually agreed supply of gas to Germany. That would render the freeze Western Europe plan an own goal.
By destroying the pipeline Russia could claim force majeure, allowing them to cut the supply without having to pay damages. That still seems to me to be the most likely explanation. We have the country that openly planned to leverage fuel supplies in winter to control Western Europe. When their fuel supply to Western Europe got interfered my default suspicion is that it was the country that said it would do it and stood the most to gain.
I also don’t see any argument that explains why this pipeline if it was Ukraine. Ukraine has a number of above ground pipelines crossing its territory. It could easily have sabotaged any of those and yet hasn’t done so. If one wants to argue that Ukraine wanted to destroy gas pipelines then first one must explain why Ukraine isn’t destroying gas pipelines that it could destroy at any time.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
All of that makes very very little sense KwarK, and you know it.
Russia has no interest in freezing Europe. They have an interest in threatening to freeze Europe to strong arm them into stopping support for Ukraine. That would be quite literally like calling in a bomb threat after you have already exploded the bomb.
Russia had already stopped supply of gas through NS1, and had already demanded lifting of sanctions to resume the flow. This had already happened in August, it's not a hypothetical, and Russia apparently wasn't afraid enough of any purely theoretical financial penalties to do it.
It also wouldn't explain why NS2, which was never in operation, was bombed.
I don't think I have to explain to you why Ukraine turning turning any other pipeline, whether through Ukraine or elsewhere off while Germany can be fully supplied by NS1+2 makes no sense at all. After all that was the whole reason for NS.
|
United States44203 Posts
You’re gonna have to run “they had no interest in doing X, only in threatening to do X to get concessions” past me again.
Let’s say we find a woman beaten to death and her phone is full of texts from a guy threatening to beat her to death if she didn’t date him. To me it’s like you’re saying that the guy who sent those texts is the one guy we can rule out because clearly he wanted her alive so that she could date him. They said they were going to freeze Europe as leverage. Then someone tried to freeze Europe.
Ukraine still hasn’t touched any of the other pipelines. If the argument is that Ukraine wanted to interfere with Russia’s gas sales then we need to find an explanation for why Ukraine isn’t interfering with Russian gas sales. I’m not seeing the motive for them to sabotage the single hardest pipeline to get to and not, for example, just openly cancel the transit agreements as is their prerogative.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
Well I still don't buy that you are arguing in good faith since I know you are smarter than this. But why don't you address the rest of my post.
Russia had already stopped gas through NS1.
Why was NS2 bombed?
|
The woman that rented Andromeda is a double Ukrainian and Russian citizen. She was involved in rigging the Crimean referendum back in 2014 and was seen in Russia last year. Why would Ukraine employ an apparent Russian asset in its plot? The perpetrators had forged Ukrainian passports. If you're forging documents, why use something that frames your own country? Wouldn't using fake Russian documents make more sense? Not to mention the fact that Russia was aware of the plot through the Discord leak.
While it's possible that Ukraine did something monumentally stupid, despite the fact that the EU had already vowed to decouple from Russian energy exports before the attack took place, I find the circumstances of the whole attack very odd and the attack itself suspiciously beneficial to Russia.
NS2 was merely damaged. Conveniently, one of the pipes was untouched, and Russia immediately said it can stop it's blackmail if the sanctions are lifted.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On November 13 2023 07:54 maybenexttime wrote:
The woman that rented Andromeda is a double Ukrainian and Russian citizen. She was involved in rigging the Crimean referendum back in 2014 and was seen in Russia last year. Why would Ukraine employ an apparent Russian asset in its plot? The perpetrators had forged Ukrainian passports. If you're forging documents, why use something that frames your own country? Wouldn't using fake Russian documents make more sense? Not to mention the fact that Russia was aware of the plot through the Discord leak.
While it's possible that Ukraine did something monumentally stupid, despite the fact that the EU had already vowed to decouple from Russian energy exports before the attack took place, I find the circumstances of the whole attack very odd and the attack itself suspiciously beneficial to Russia.
This is outdated information. The company that rented the Andromeda was not in fact owned by her.
They did not forge Ukrainian passports, but Romanian ones.
The discord leak was after the attack.
NS2 only being lightly damaged is also outdated. Both pipelines are catastrophically damaged.
I agree that the circumstances are very odd. For months I followed a reasoning similar to what KwarK is arguing. But it just doesn't add up with Russia. And when all the evidence keeps pointing to Ukraine it's difficult for me to imagine a different scenario.
|
United States44203 Posts
On November 13 2023 07:49 zatic wrote:
Well I still don't buy that you are arguing in good faith since I know you are smarter than this. But why don't you address the rest of my post.
Russia had already stopped gas through NS1.
Why was NS2 bombed?
Was NS2 not the alternate route to NS1?
Russia didn’t openly refuse to supply gas, they had a pretext. Russia claimed they couldn’t deliver on NS1 due to a missing turbine which was stuck in Canada due to sanctions. That pretext doesn’t apply to NS2. With NS2 intact they were in breach of contract and liable for consequential damages.
Why was NS2 bombed by Ukraine (as opposed to the hundred easier ways to cut off gas transit)?
|
On November 13 2023 07:57 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2023 07:54 maybenexttime wrote:
The woman that rented Andromeda is a double Ukrainian and Russian citizen. She was involved in rigging the Crimean referendum back in 2014 and was seen in Russia last year. Why would Ukraine employ an apparent Russian asset in its plot? The perpetrators had forged Ukrainian passports. If you're forging documents, why use something that frames your own country? Wouldn't using fake Russian documents make more sense? Not to mention the fact that Russia was aware of the plot through the Discord leak.
While it's possible that Ukraine did something monumentally stupid, despite the fact that the EU had already vowed to decouple from Russian energy exports before the attack took place, I find the circumstances of the whole attack very odd and the attack itself suspiciously beneficial to Russia. This is outdated information. The company that rented the Andromeda was not in fact owned by her.
How is this outdated? It was reported by RTL and n-tv in July 2023. The summary on Wikipedia doesn't mention any new developments in that area.
They did not forge Ukrainian passports, but Romanian ones.
Some news reports say the fake documents were Ukrainian while others say they were Romanian and Bulgarian. Is there any official report on that?
The discord leak was after the attack.
I vaguely remembered that he started posting much earlier than it was found out. According to Wiki he started posting stuff in December 2022, so you're right.
NS2 only being damaged is also outdated. Both pipelines are catastrophically damaged.
From what I've read, NS1 and NS2 consist of two lines each. In the case of NS2, only one line was damaged. Do you have a source that claims NS2 was destroyed beyond repair?
|
On November 13 2023 07:41 KwarK wrote:
Ukraine still hasn’t touched any of the other pipelines. If the argument is that Ukraine wanted to interfere with Russia’s gas sales then we need to find an explanation for why Ukraine isn’t interfering with Russian gas sales. I’m not seeing the motive for them to sabotage the single hardest pipeline to get to and not, for example, just openly cancel the transit agreements as is their prerogative.
According to Ukrtransgaz in 2011, Ukraine alone will lose natural gas transit fees of up to $720 million per year from Nord Stream 1.
According to the Naftogaz chairman in 2019, Ukraine will lose $3 billion per year of natural gas transit fees from Nord Stream 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream_1#Economic_aspects
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On November 13 2023 08:14 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2023 07:57 zatic wrote:On November 13 2023 07:54 maybenexttime wrote:
The woman that rented Andromeda is a double Ukrainian and Russian citizen. She was involved in rigging the Crimean referendum back in 2014 and was seen in Russia last year. Why would Ukraine employ an apparent Russian asset in its plot? The perpetrators had forged Ukrainian passports. If you're forging documents, why use something that frames your own country? Wouldn't using fake Russian documents make more sense? Not to mention the fact that Russia was aware of the plot through the Discord leak.
While it's possible that Ukraine did something monumentally stupid, despite the fact that the EU had already vowed to decouple from Russian energy exports before the attack took place, I find the circumstances of the whole attack very odd and the attack itself suspiciously beneficial to Russia. This is outdated information. The company that rented the Andromeda was not in fact owned by her. How is this outdated? It was reported by RTL and n-tv in July 2023. The summary on Wikipedia doesn't mention any new developments in that area. Some news reports say the fake documents were Ukrainian while others say they were Romanian and Bulgarian. Is there any official report on that? I vaguely remembered that he started posting much earlier than it was found out. According to Wiki he started posting stuff in December 2022, so you're right. Show nested quote +NS2 only being damaged is also outdated. Both pipelines are catastrophically damaged. From what I've read, NS1 and NS2 consist of two lines each. In the case of NS2, only one line was damaged. Do you have a source that claims NS2 was destroyed beyond repair?
There is next to no official statement on this, and maybe never will. None of the countries involved but Russia have an interest in the truth actually coming out. All there is is reporting by media. And we are back to who to trust.
I am fairly skeptical with most media. But a number of the highest regarded papers in Germany have reported on it, and they all find traces that lead in the same direction.
Much of that reporting is in German, but lots is also translated. I can find this somewhat recent article which I have linked here before:
https://www.zeit.de/politik/2023-09/nord-stream-pipelines-attack-anniversary-english/komplettansicht
This article, and most I have read, are very careful in their attribution of the attack on Ukraine, and stress over and over that there is no proof yet and all they have is leads.
Again, I personally find the reporting convincing enough. I can also understand that someone else might not find it convincing, or not enough or not enough yet. But that would be different from claiming that evidence doesn't exist at all, or that all the evidence doesn't matter because Russia did it anyway.
|
United States44203 Posts
On November 13 2023 08:28 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2023 07:41 KwarK wrote:
Ukraine still hasn’t touched any of the other pipelines. If the argument is that Ukraine wanted to interfere with Russia’s gas sales then we need to find an explanation for why Ukraine isn’t interfering with Russian gas sales. I’m not seeing the motive for them to sabotage the single hardest pipeline to get to and not, for example, just openly cancel the transit agreements as is their prerogative. Show nested quote +According to Ukrtransgaz in 2011, Ukraine alone will lose natural gas transit fees of up to $720 million per year from Nord Stream 1.
According to the Naftogaz chairman in 2019, Ukraine will lose $3 billion per year of natural gas transit fees from Nord Stream 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream_1#Economic_aspects
But there was no gas going through Nord Stream 2 and so no loss of revenue. Russia had already throttled NS1 and wasn’t using NS2. The hypothetical loss of transit fees is assuming a hypothetical level of transit that wasn’t happening.
|
Not to mention the transit fees are rather small compared to the financial aid provided by the West. They'd have to be really stupid to risk that for some minimal gain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
