Has anyone good a decent summary of the likely series of events, ideally from a good source?
My understanding of it is very confused and the series of finger pointing exercises has left me baffled at who is likely to blame. I have followed along but it’s not at all clear to me who is to blame.
The U.S. blew a pipeline between Estonia and Finland, two NATO members? A pipeline that was going to carry LNG, a product the U.S. is a major exporter of?
I mean, look, this was the same logic hurled at Russia blowing up their pipeline. Like who would do such a thing? But apparently till Hirsch provided corroborating info that NATO did it, people totally believed Russia would shoot themselves in the foot. To the majority it was a "reasonable" explanation.
Anyhow, Russia can pump gas through this pipeline as well. Since it would hurt them, we might spite our own face.
> this was the same logic hurled at Russia blowing up their pipeline. Like who would do such a thing?
This was some peoples' logic. But it wasn't the compelling evidence. The motivations of individual Russian actors, instead, was germane. (The most compelling evidence points to Kyiv.)
> till Hirsch provided corroborating info that NATO did it
This is total nonsense. On one hand, we have various nations' official statements and open source intelligence. On the other hand, we have a dude with an anonymous source.
He's not a random dude. He's a renowned and one of our best investigative reporters who has uncovered government wrongdoing. He's got a pretty good record.
Wouldn't they have had more options and leverage had they just turned it off or refuse to supply it? What does sabotaging it do that gives Russia any more advantage?
If they can blame the US, it drives a wedge between the US and the gas consumers (Europe).
The pipe wasn't in use and wasn't likely to be used anytime soon, if ever. Russia only wins if Ukraine's allies give up. I can see Putin willing to trade a useless pipeline for a chance at dismembering the alliance.
The only other option that makes sense is Ukraine doing it. But it seems a high-risk strategy for low reward; at least publicly, there was no indication that Germany et al were begging Russia to turn the gas back on.
I've heard a theory that USA did it to get Germany to fully commit to supporting the war, didn't want Russia to have leverage, wanted Germany dependant on USA for gas. Then there's the comment from Biden that foreshadowed it. I'm not convinced on any theory personally though.
Kind of like how the narrative that Iraq does NOT have WMDs was also thoroughly debunked? [1] [2] As I'm sure you're aware, we remain in a state of information warfare. As a result of this, what you read in the media is borderline worthless. In this story it's impossible to know the truth, let alone debunk it, as next to nothing is truly falsifiable by you.
All you can really do is rely on your own logic, and try to remove as much bias as possible. In this case Russia spent billions of dollars constructing that pipeline, over more than a decade, overcoming countless hurdles to do so. And the whole time this was going on the US was constantly trying to interfere with its development, at times arbitrarily threatening Germany and Swiss companies with possible sanctions over it. Then Biden publicly and literally said, "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
The idea that Russia blew it up for basically any reason, let alone some hand-wavey notion that 'it might cause infighting' is really just not logical. Since Germany has tried to ween themselves off Russian gas, their economy has somewhat predictably began to suffer. Once the backbone of the EU, Germany has since collapsed into recession, inflation has been skyrocketing (20% on foodstuffs), and so on. Russia could have predicted most of these outcomes if Germany refused to take the gas, and expected to have tremendous leverage. At the minimum driving infighting as Germany pragmatists fight with US interests.
It's quite obvious from US military behavior during and after the invasion that the folks in charge genuinely believed Iraq had WMDs. Colin Powell was genuine, if misinformed. If that narrative was an information operation, it was an Iraqi information operation, and it backfired horribly.
The pipeline wasn't in use and there wasn't any indication that it would come into use anytime in the future. Germany already said - with Biden - that Nord Stream 2 was over. There was no real-world incentive for the US (or Ukraine, for that matter) to blow it up.
But it sure is pretty good fuel for people who already think the US is the Great Satan.
I'd encourage you to look at the findings of the "evidence" for the Iraq War. Not only was it overtly fabricated, it was just lazy and sloppy. Our high level informant in Saddam's government with first-hand knowledge of what was happening, was actually a taxi driver and thief with 0 knowledge of anything [1]. The mobile weapon's laboratories were completely standard run-of-the-mill weather balloon refilling stations. [2] The rock solid proof of Iraq trying to purchase 'yellowcake uranium', were poorly made forgeries. [3] Literally all of the "Irrefutable and Undeniable" evidence was fake and fabricated.
Nord Stream had just finished completion in September 2021. The US was able to 'convince' Scholtz to defer certification of it, but it was an untenable position. Rejecting Russian gas would entail Germany doing what it was ultimately compelled to do - tanking its own economy for the sake of US geopolitical interests while also buying US gas at an ultra-premium price. Blowing it up not only helped ensure Germany would not be 'tempted' into turning away from the US and would remain heavily dependent, but was also extremely profitable for the US, and a substantially damaging blow to Russia who had again spent literally a decade getting that pipeline up, to say nothing of the viable income stream once the flows started.
And now, again, add on top of this years of us trying to stop the pipeline's construction, and then eventually going so absurdly far as to publicly threaten to blow it up. I view the world probabilistically, so I will happily agree there's some chance that somehow the US was not responsible, but I think that chance is very close to zero.
Hmm... You know, just like the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea, the Baltic has some natural pinch-points, with bridges across them, where access to the Atlantic Ocean could easily be restricted...
EDIT: Yes, I'm aware of the legal details. For purposes of symbolism, intrusive surveillance (of maritime activity), and saber-rattling, those details hardly matter. I'll even speculate that no respected international judges nor squeaky-clean lawyers signed off on the "external activity" that damaged the undersea pipeline and cables near Finland.
But unlike the Black Sea, there’s no legal contract that gives any of the states the power that Turkey has: Block warships from entering and leaving. Even the Black Sea is open for civilian shipping from and to Russia, including Russian flagged merchant vessels.
Now, in time of war, Denmark and Sweden would control the entrance to the Baltic Sea, and Finnland and Estonia could make it hard for the Russian fleet to leave the port of St. Petersburg, but for now neither state is at war with Russia, the international shipping lanes remain open, even for Russian military and spy vessels.
There is no bridge (/set of bridges) that completely cuts off the Baltic Sea--the Øresund is a bridge-tunnel, so the shipping lanes are completely unencumbered by bridges.
Although like the Black Sea, there is a corresponding treaty governing the the straits as an international waterway.
Yes, indeed. And Russia violated the Treaty and now there's war in Ukraine. But it upheld the treaty regarding the Dardanelles strait, probably because Turkey is a NATO member and war with the NATO is really not something anyone wants, inlcuding Russia and the NATO.
So in the Baltic sea, there's essentially two options: Either respect the treaties and keep the shipping lanes open or violate it and risk war with Russia. Until now, no critical infrastructure was attacked (the nord stream pipelines were out of use when they were blown up), so a less aggressive posturer seemed reasonable. Maybe that'll change now.
Apart from that, the Dardanelles are 1.2km wide at the narrow point, the Gulf of Finland is 70km wide - blocking that is essentially impossible unless you go for a naval blockade and attack civilian ships.
Because there are a number of internal actors who would have benefited from doing so. For example, if Putin had felt threatened by someone trying to overthrow him, and negotiate an end to sanctions (and the Ukraine war), it might make sense to sabotage Nordstream and reduce the potential financial benefits from the coup.
In short, while it might not make sense for "Russia to blow up its own pipeline", it would make sense for 'certain Russians to blow up a pipeline owned by other Russians'.
They destroyed their own economy for no good reason, why wouldn't they blow up their own pipeline too? Very little makes sense with regards to Russia's belligerent actions.
All things considered? Their economy is doing much better than the majority of Europe. [1] Austria = 0.4, Canada = 1.7, France = 0.8, Germany = (-0.3), Sweden (-0.5), Switzerland 0.8, Italy = 1.1, etc. The overall growth rate in Europe is 0.6. Russia is at 1.5%. And Wiki is somewhat outdated. Their 2nd quarter growth has been published, and it's now up to 4.9%.
IMO we're currently looking at a major inflection point in history, yet so many have no idea of what's happening. In the USSR there were two major state newspapers, pravda (meaning truth) and novosti (meaning news). A USSR era joke was, "Why do we have two newspapers, truth and news? Well that's because there's no truth in the news, and no news in the truth."
I added the "all things considered" because someone would inevitably come along and suggest that they could be doing better had they not invaded. It's much harder to disagree with the statement I made while also still making the point I wanted to make.
But yeah, I agree with you. Russia's economy is looking very robust right now when compared to many major European economies.
The fact is the Ruble has been in steady decline. https://www.google.com/search?q=price+of+ruble Hit the "Max" tab. If that isn't what destroying their economy looks like, then maybe you need to take a another look.
The data on Wiki is from the IMF. [1] Incidentally it's also outdated there. The recent changes continue to trend in the same direction. They're reporting Russia's growth as 2.2% while Germany's down to -0.5%. Interestingly Russia is now growing even faster than the US as well.
It's definitely true that Russia's currency is currently weakening, but the reason this is a threat is not because that in and of itself, but rather knock-on effects. A big one is inflation. And Russia is absolutely seeing rapidly increasing inflation right now [2], but it remains to see if that starts hitting threatening levels.
In the current state of the world I think putting your money in any currency is absurdly risky, with very little hope for meaningful returns. It's the reason even US treasuries are paying out such high interest rates. As always, it seems the only real hedge is "real" things - precious metals, real estate, and so on.
Russia is a pariah state, sanctioned and with more sanctions coming. Yes, the sanctions are working - they take time, and the fall of the ruble absolutely shows this. The ruble has done nothing but drop over time. The Euro and the Dollar fluctuate but are not in the shitter like the ruble is. The more war that russia wants to wage, the lower their currency will fall and the rest of the civilized world turns their back to russia. And nobody should believe that russia's growth is "2.2%" when they lie about everything and anything, including the state of their economy.
Again, the figures are coming from the IMF, who not only assess the figures independently, but also offer their own independent projections as well. And a weak currency is not an inherent problem. For net exporters it's a benefit. It means that right now Russia is getting more ruble for every ounce of oil they sell, yet the buyers aren't paying anymore for it. Win win for everybody. If those inflows don't create real problems, like inflation, then the low exchange rate is just driving wealth generation and economic growth. This is why export heavy places like China go out of their way to weaken their currency.
As for pariah, the main countries trying to "isolate" Russia are the US and the usual suspects. And "we" make up less than 15% of the world. It's why we carried out the equivalent of a nuclear economic attack with the sanctions, yet here we are, a year later, debating minutia when looking at the impact.
The ruble peaked in 2008 at 0.043USD, and this week it was at 0.009, and you're trying to tell me this is a good thing? lol, quit huffing Putin's farts.
Right, now look at economic data that directly influence things like quality of life, or economic stability of the country, and compare between 2008 and today. You'll find that things are better to a degree that cannot really be overstated. For instance real wages are up to a somewhat ridiculous degree, home ownership rates are substantially up (now higher than 90%!), and so on.
This [1] page is a data orgy for any sort of economic indicator that might interest you. The one thing to be careful about is to ensure you're using real (inflation adjusted) values and PPP adjusted values. A dollar goes much further in Russia whether buying tanks or tacos, so doing something like comparing nominal GDP values is misleading. It's like how a guy earning $70k in Bodunk is, in practice, earning dramatically more than a guy earning $70k in San Francisco. Even though the nominal figures are identical, $70k goes much further in Bodunk than San Francisco. Same thing, often to an even more extreme degree, between countries.
>For instance real wages are up to a somewhat ridiculous degree, home ownership rates are substantially up (now higher than 90%!), and so on.
lol, everyone with half a brain ran from Russia as soon as they could, and they aren't coming back if they can avoid it. And the ruble will continue to sink lower and lower. There's no reason to think it wouldn't and no matter how you try to spin it, that's not a good thing for Russia's economy.
In 2008, there were 68 million employed persons. Today there are 74 million. In 2008 there was a population of 142 million, today it's 146 million. Even their fertility rate is up, after much focus on it. In 2008 it was 1.456, today it's 1.825 [1]. Still far too low, especially for a country with so much land, but this is a struggle all developed nations are currently facing and, by that standard, 1.825 is better than average.
These are simply data. The spin is how the media takes one single data point, and disingenuously frames is as a core targeted effect. The sanctions are certainly having an impact, but in terms of the desired outcome - the destabilization or collapse of Russia - they have been a complete failure. Instead the primary consequence of our actions has been to split the world in 2, almost certainly to our own detriment.
You work hard to serve Putin. Lies are all that Russia has. There is no reason to believe any numbers that Russia supplies about their economy. They lie about literally everything. It's easier than having actual prosperity.
You know you can take a stroll around e.g. Moscow anytime you like? Search YouTube for something like "Прогулка по Москве". That means 'taking a walk around Moscow'. Change москве to Санкт-Петербург for St. Petersburg. Here's [1] a video from a couple of months ago in Petersburg at the tail end of summer. Here's [2] one from literally 2 hours ago in Moscow. That would've been at around 7pm, and in 13C Fall weather, so not the most enticing, but it also gives an interesting perspective IMO.
Russia is the new enemy, or the old one I suppose. We've always been at war with Eastasia after all, right? Perhaps a more appropriate reference would be, "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
Up to you. Personally before deciding to hate something or somebody as much as you seemingly do, based on the words of others, I'd like to ensure that what they're saying is at least true. Otherwise, you risk just becoming a hate fueled tool, literally no different than Germany circa 1935.
I'm certain you've exposed yourself to a quite impressive volume of Irrefutable and Undeniable [1] information. The problem in society is people not learning from the past. What happened yesterday is happening today, and will happen again tomorrow.
Russia doing awful shit and getting sanctioned for it is nothing new. It happened yesterday, is happening today, and will continue to happen so long as they are a mafia state that uses violence to achieve their wrong goals.
So which super-power would you hold up as a model of integrity that Russia ought strive to emulate? The one upon which you are basing your standards of acceptable behavior?
Any one except the thuggish lying mafia state of Russia. It's really not difficult to be better than Russia. Maybe if you get rid of Putin and get rid of the mafia bullshit you'll have a brighter future.
The question I asked wasn't a gotcha, it was an effort to let you realize your own cognitive dissonance - reflected in your inability to answer the question. In other words, if you saw only the behaviors of countries, but without any names associated, would you still judge them the same way? The answer is clearly no.
The irrational level of hate and disdain for a country you know seemingly nothing about is not natural. It's a mixture of endless propaganda, and likely being 'surrounded' (so much as the digital world counts) by other people who also support and encourage such hatred. Again the state of society today is much like a mirror into Germany 1935.
You have no idea what I know about Russia, so do not claim to know that. This is over. Enjoy your declining economy, and your shitty mafia country. FUCK RUSSIA.
Well we can only infer about each other based upon the words of the other, right? You've inferred that I'm apparently an agent of Russia sent to propagandize you in some obscure thread nobody else will ever read. Quite the ego you have there! And I've made my inferences as well. It was an interesting chat and I learned a lot. Thanks.
One theory is that it allows the Russian company that was supposed to deliver gas to Europe to get out of paying fines for not delivering enough gas - they'd blame it on force majeure. They were intentionally limiting gas deliveries to pressure Europe out of helping Ukraine, and this was a way to blame it on someone else.
> it allows the Russian company that was supposed to deliver gas to Europe to get out of paying fines for not delivering enough gas
I think the evidence favors either Russia or Ukraine having destroyed the pipeline. But this isn't a great reason. Russia straight up stole the airplanes its domestic airlines leased. It could simply refuse to pay the fines, too.
> Russia straight up stole the airplanes its domestic airlines leased. It could simply refuse to pay the fines, too.
Well, the planes already were in Russia, foreign lenders can't seize them. But fines for non-delivery can still be taken in by seizing assets of the Russian companies in Western countries. Our legal systems unfortunately don't allow wholesale seizure of everything Russia, so it needs an actual contract violation for a seizure order to be upheld.
> the planes already were in Russia, foreign lenders can't seize them. But fines for non-delivery can still be taken in by seizing assets of the Russian companies in Western countries.
You can do the same thing to compensate the owners of the planes.
No. You can't go and seize a random oligarch's assets to compensate the lenders of airplanes, and Aeroflot takes great care to avoid airspace where Western sanctions could hit them - the exception being Turkey, but they won't do anything that endangers their sort-of "neutrality".
Are you talking about the Nord Stream pipeline blown up last year?
Because this specific pipeline has nothing to do with Russia. The opposite, it connects Finland to the Baltic States which have a pipeline with Poland and then the rest of Europe...
So if Russia is indeed blowing up pipelines blowing up Balticconnector would make perfect sense.
The Ukraine situation needs a lot more than just the US to chip in. The US can win the war in short order - I saw reports of a carrier sent towards Israel within hours of that attack.
But Europe needs to sort out its bickering too, then maintain it. It’s a European problem, it hurts Europe and depending on the US is a problematic way of maintaining themselves.
The entire Western nations. NATO was founded as a deterrent to Russia, and yet we let Russia run rampant after the fall of the USSR: countless "interventions" that were nothing more but thinly disguised massacres (and drove all Eastern European nations to beg NATO for accession), cyber criminality and cyber warfare, propaganda efforts so immense that they shifted politics in the US, UK and a lot of Continental European countries massively towards the far-right, the 2014 Ukraine invasion, supporting the war criminal Assad in Syria, destabilizing half of Africa to the tune that Europe and Turkey got to deal with millions of refugees, the Ukraine invasion, the destruction of North Stream, dealing weapons with Iran and North Korea...
Just how much more are we willing to tolerate? When will we finally respond to all of that in an appropriate manner?
(I know, this was a rhetoric question, the answer is: likely never as no one but the US has actually taken care of their military, and the US want to focus on China for good reasons)
> The US can win the war in short order - I saw reports of a carrier sent towards Israel within hours of that attack.
Yeah, if they're willing to glass Palestine?! Anything that should not devolve into a massacre will involve infantry warfare in just about the most hostile environment since probably Vietnam and take months - the Israelis are preparing for that, and I hope they're successful. The US carrier, I think, is for now purely a signal towards anyone else to stay the f..k out of Israel.
> But Europe needs to sort out its bickering too, then maintain it. It’s a European problem, it hurts Europe and depending on the US is a problematic way of maintaining themselves.
Agreed (especially given that it's very well possible that the Republicans win in 2024), but that will take time that a lot of the crises in the current polycrisis don't have - and it's not made easier by Hungary and now Slovakia being governed by Kremlin puppets.
Not sure what you're asking for? Military aid to Ukraine from EU+UK is about the same as that from the US, which seems fair given that they have comparable area and population. And if you include non-military aid the EU is providing far more than the US.
Sure, Hungary's recent block of an EU help package is bad, and the EU is in need of some reforms (like those suggested last month by a Franco-German group). A joint EU military would also be nice. But those are more important in topics like immigration, in military matters you can always form a coalition of the willing (which so far seems to be working well).
Ukraine might be Europe's problem, but it's the US's opportunity. The US is clearly interested in hurting their arch-enemy, and the Ukraine war is the most cost-effective way to do so that has existed in decades.
As far as swinging against Russia: I'm not so sure that'd work. We can ensure that Russia keeps losing manpower, equipment and political capital against Ukraine. Maybe we could break the stalemate by establishing air superiority, though that might cost more Western lives than people are comfortable with. But that's about the extend of it.
Sure, we could drive German tanks into Moscow. But all that's going to do is galvanize the Russian people against the West, and cause Russian military to fall back and dig in in the rest of the country. There's a reason people say you can't win a land war against Russia: the country is about half the size of Africa. Even just the European part is half the size of the US. It's incredibly hard to occupy, and historically most invaders failed at keeping supply lines intact.
> Sure, we could drive German tanks into Moscow. But all that's going to do is galvanize the Russian people against the West, and cause Russian military to fall back and dig in in the rest of the country.
As much as I'd love to see the Ukrainian flag fly on the Kremlin and Putin dragged in front of an international tribunal: No notable voice I'm aware of is calling for / advocating for Ukraine to actually march onto Russian territory beyond quick skirmishes (such as the daring raid on the Belgorod fuel depot), and all Western weapons come with the official requirement that they not be used on Russian soil (for the Taurus, the reported reason why Scholz is holding it up is because he wants the manufacturer to geo-fence it).
"Who else" would not hold up in a court of law, you need evidence. Besides, remember "Iraq has WMDs", better go into the next war with actual evidence.
Where are you? I, too, have friends on both sides of the aisle, and the general take is a single large tranche of weapons may be better than the current drip feed. (Bay Area, New York and Wyoming.)
I only see opposition from the far left (New York, Bay Area) and right (Wyoming). (Not saying all opposition is extremists only. Just that it's where I see people fixate on opposing aid.)
I have, across the entire political spectrum. Here in Germany, you'll find supporters of more arms deliveries in all parties but the far-right AfD and the tankie parts of the Left Party. In fact, there is a lot of outrage at Chancellor Scholz from both the Conservative opposition and notable members of the government coalition for continuing to resist delivery of Taurus missiles that Ukraine could use to blow up the Kerch bridge once and for all.
That’s certainly a position one could take. In that context but also in the spirit of the original question, I wonder if the people in question think Europe is even capable of providing the amount of support that’s needed and if they would like to see Ukraine fall if Europe (in the absence of the US) proves incapable of delivering the aid Ukraine needs to defend itself.
It’s hard for me to wrap my head around an isolationist mindset that wants to ignore invasions happening in Europe (go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line, why don’t you?) but I also wonder if these people take the US’s NATO obligations at all seriously, and if they’ve thought more than one move ahead. I’m not demanding you speak for these people, of course.
> I wonder if the people in question think Europe is even capable of providing the amount of support that’s needed
For what it's worth, we aren't. Our militaries, including the French and British, have been severely dismantled post-USSR and what remained was refocused on fighting jihadists in deserts after 9/11 and the followup conflicts. Most people thought that the days of an actual legit tank and artillery battle were long gone.
> and if they would like to see Ukraine fall if Europe (in the absence of the US) proves incapable of delivering the aid Ukraine needs to defend itself
At least for Americans with such thoughts: some of them see no problem at all for the US in such a scenario. They only care about their perspective, and since there is no way that refugees from that war or Russian war planes and ICBMs end up in Northern America, why should they care, especially when the threat of China is looming?
As for the "why should they care," I think the fact that we're bound by treaty to defend the Baltics and Scandinavian countries in the event of an attack, and they already perceive themselves as threatened, is a pretty obvious reason. But not obvious to everyone.
I mean, I don't share the isolationist urge in the case of Ukraine at all, so I'm asking these questions to understand what other people are thinking. I get that a large part of it is just not caring.
91 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 120 ms ] thread> Putin: Russia can still supply gas via Nord Stream 2 as one line intact
https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-putin-nord-stream-idU...
My understanding of it is very confused and the series of finger pointing exercises has left me baffled at who is likely to blame. I have followed along but it’s not at all clear to me who is to blame.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/investigating-th...
See e.g. https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/nord-stream-explosion... (German)
1. The US said they would do it, then did it 2. Ukraine did it, because most European intelligence agencies believe this to be true.
The U.S. blew a pipeline between Estonia and Finland, two NATO members? A pipeline that was going to carry LNG, a product the U.S. is a major exporter of?
Anyhow, Russia can pump gas through this pipeline as well. Since it would hurt them, we might spite our own face.
This was some peoples' logic. But it wasn't the compelling evidence. The motivations of individual Russian actors, instead, was germane. (The most compelling evidence points to Kyiv.)
> till Hirsch provided corroborating info that NATO did it
This is total nonsense. On one hand, we have various nations' official statements and open source intelligence. On the other hand, we have a dude with an anonymous source.
From the Vietnam and Iraq wars. He went off the deep end recently [1][2].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/22/allega...
[2] https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/02/10/hersh-nord-stream-sab...
Of course it is. Hirsch is a well-known Kremlin puppet.
I doubt he's an intentional Russian puppet, but he's probably being fed bullshit by one.
https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour...
Russia benefits from infighting among the allies of Ukraine. That gives them a pretty big incentive.
The pipe wasn't in use and wasn't likely to be used anytime soon, if ever. Russia only wins if Ukraine's allies give up. I can see Putin willing to trade a useless pipeline for a chance at dismembering the alliance.
The only other option that makes sense is Ukraine doing it. But it seems a high-risk strategy for low reward; at least publicly, there was no indication that Germany et al were begging Russia to turn the gas back on.
All you can really do is rely on your own logic, and try to remove as much bias as possible. In this case Russia spent billions of dollars constructing that pipeline, over more than a decade, overcoming countless hurdles to do so. And the whole time this was going on the US was constantly trying to interfere with its development, at times arbitrarily threatening Germany and Swiss companies with possible sanctions over it. Then Biden publicly and literally said, "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
The idea that Russia blew it up for basically any reason, let alone some hand-wavey notion that 'it might cause infighting' is really just not logical. Since Germany has tried to ween themselves off Russian gas, their economy has somewhat predictably began to suffer. Once the backbone of the EU, Germany has since collapsed into recession, inflation has been skyrocketing (20% on foodstuffs), and so on. Russia could have predicted most of these outcomes if Germany refused to take the gas, and expected to have tremendous leverage. At the minimum driving infighting as Germany pragmatists fight with US interests.
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u...
[2] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...
The pipeline wasn't in use and there wasn't any indication that it would come into use anytime in the future. Germany already said - with Biden - that Nord Stream 2 was over. There was no real-world incentive for the US (or Ukraine, for that matter) to blow it up.
But it sure is pretty good fuel for people who already think the US is the Great Satan.
Nord Stream had just finished completion in September 2021. The US was able to 'convince' Scholtz to defer certification of it, but it was an untenable position. Rejecting Russian gas would entail Germany doing what it was ultimately compelled to do - tanking its own economy for the sake of US geopolitical interests while also buying US gas at an ultra-premium price. Blowing it up not only helped ensure Germany would not be 'tempted' into turning away from the US and would remain heavily dependent, but was also extremely profitable for the US, and a substantially damaging blow to Russia who had again spent literally a decade getting that pipeline up, to say nothing of the viable income stream once the flows started.
And now, again, add on top of this years of us trying to stop the pipeline's construction, and then eventually going so absurdly far as to publicly threaten to blow it up. I view the world probabilistically, so I will happily agree there's some chance that somehow the US was not responsible, but I think that chance is very close to zero.
---
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Iraqi_mobile_we...
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries
EDIT: Yes, I'm aware of the legal details. For purposes of symbolism, intrusive surveillance (of maritime activity), and saber-rattling, those details hardly matter. I'll even speculate that no respected international judges nor squeaky-clean lawyers signed off on the "external activity" that damaged the undersea pipeline and cables near Finland.
Now, in time of war, Denmark and Sweden would control the entrance to the Baltic Sea, and Finnland and Estonia could make it hard for the Russian fleet to leave the port of St. Petersburg, but for now neither state is at war with Russia, the international shipping lanes remain open, even for Russian military and spy vessels.
Although like the Black Sea, there is a corresponding treaty governing the the straits as an international waterway.
So I've heard. I've also heard of a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity, and signed by Russia.
So in the Baltic sea, there's essentially two options: Either respect the treaties and keep the shipping lanes open or violate it and risk war with Russia. Until now, no critical infrastructure was attacked (the nord stream pipelines were out of use when they were blown up), so a less aggressive posturer seemed reasonable. Maybe that'll change now.
Apart from that, the Dardanelles are 1.2km wide at the narrow point, the Gulf of Finland is 70km wide - blocking that is essentially impossible unless you go for a naval blockade and attack civilian ships.
In short, while it might not make sense for "Russia to blow up its own pipeline", it would make sense for 'certain Russians to blow up a pipeline owned by other Russians'.
IMO we're currently looking at a major inflection point in history, yet so many have no idea of what's happening. In the USSR there were two major state newspapers, pravda (meaning truth) and novosti (meaning news). A USSR era joke was, "Why do we have two newspapers, truth and news? Well that's because there's no truth in the news, and no news in the truth."
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_...
But yeah, I agree with you. Russia's economy is looking very robust right now when compared to many major European economies.
The economy of Europe will recover, Russia's will not. The price of the Euro is very stable and increasing. https://www.google.com/search?q=price+of+euro
Germany, France, and the UK all have larger economies than Russia. Germany was 2x that of Russia's and is far smaller in geographic area.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/268173/countries-with-th...
>The overall growth rate in Europe is 0.6. Russia is at 1.5%.
According to who?? Putin? I guess if you're hitting rock bottom, there's no place to go but up?
Thanks but I'll put my money in Euros before I put it into Rubles.
It's definitely true that Russia's currency is currently weakening, but the reason this is a threat is not because that in and of itself, but rather knock-on effects. A big one is inflation. And Russia is absolutely seeing rapidly increasing inflation right now [2], but it remains to see if that starts hitting threatening levels.
In the current state of the world I think putting your money in any currency is absurdly risky, with very little hope for meaningful returns. It's the reason even US treasuries are paying out such high interest rates. As always, it seems the only real hedge is "real" things - precious metals, real estate, and so on.
[1] - https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/...
[2] - https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/inflation-cpi
As for pariah, the main countries trying to "isolate" Russia are the US and the usual suspects. And "we" make up less than 15% of the world. It's why we carried out the equivalent of a nuclear economic attack with the sanctions, yet here we are, a year later, debating minutia when looking at the impact.
This [1] page is a data orgy for any sort of economic indicator that might interest you. The one thing to be careful about is to ensure you're using real (inflation adjusted) values and PPP adjusted values. A dollar goes much further in Russia whether buying tanks or tacos, so doing something like comparing nominal GDP values is misleading. It's like how a guy earning $70k in Bodunk is, in practice, earning dramatically more than a guy earning $70k in San Francisco. Even though the nominal figures are identical, $70k goes much further in Bodunk than San Francisco. Same thing, often to an even more extreme degree, between countries.
[1] - https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/home-ownership-rate
lol, everyone with half a brain ran from Russia as soon as they could, and they aren't coming back if they can avoid it. And the ruble will continue to sink lower and lower. There's no reason to think it wouldn't and no matter how you try to spin it, that's not a good thing for Russia's economy.
In 2008, there were 68 million employed persons. Today there are 74 million. In 2008 there was a population of 142 million, today it's 146 million. Even their fertility rate is up, after much focus on it. In 2008 it was 1.456, today it's 1.825 [1]. Still far too low, especially for a country with so much land, but this is a struggle all developed nations are currently facing and, by that standard, 1.825 is better than average.
These are simply data. The spin is how the media takes one single data point, and disingenuously frames is as a core targeted effect. The sanctions are certainly having an impact, but in terms of the desired outcome - the destabilization or collapse of Russia - they have been a complete failure. Instead the primary consequence of our actions has been to split the world in 2, almost certainly to our own detriment.
[1] - https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/fertility-r...
Russia is the new enemy, or the old one I suppose. We've always been at war with Eastasia after all, right? Perhaps a more appropriate reference would be, "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZuoXU6y5sY
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_yIkGFzKeU
No thanks, I never, ever would do that, because FUCK RUSSIA.
FUCK RUSSIA.
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u...
The irrational level of hate and disdain for a country you know seemingly nothing about is not natural. It's a mixture of endless propaganda, and likely being 'surrounded' (so much as the digital world counts) by other people who also support and encourage such hatred. Again the state of society today is much like a mirror into Germany 1935.
до свидания камрад
I think the evidence favors either Russia or Ukraine having destroyed the pipeline. But this isn't a great reason. Russia straight up stole the airplanes its domestic airlines leased. It could simply refuse to pay the fines, too.
Well, the planes already were in Russia, foreign lenders can't seize them. But fines for non-delivery can still be taken in by seizing assets of the Russian companies in Western countries. Our legal systems unfortunately don't allow wholesale seizure of everything Russia, so it needs an actual contract violation for a seizure order to be upheld.
You can do the same thing to compensate the owners of the planes.
You said "assets of the Russian companies." I'd curtail that to assets of the Russian state. Aeroflot is state owned. (It's why Aeroflot settled [1].)
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/aircraft-...
Because this specific pipeline has nothing to do with Russia. The opposite, it connects Finland to the Baltic States which have a pipeline with Poland and then the rest of Europe...
So if Russia is indeed blowing up pipelines blowing up Balticconnector would make perfect sense.
https://www.businessinsider.com/nord-stream-mystery-minerva-...
The Ukraine situation needs a lot more than just the US to chip in. The US can win the war in short order - I saw reports of a carrier sent towards Israel within hours of that attack. But Europe needs to sort out its bickering too, then maintain it. It’s a European problem, it hurts Europe and depending on the US is a problematic way of maintaining themselves.
The entire Western nations. NATO was founded as a deterrent to Russia, and yet we let Russia run rampant after the fall of the USSR: countless "interventions" that were nothing more but thinly disguised massacres (and drove all Eastern European nations to beg NATO for accession), cyber criminality and cyber warfare, propaganda efforts so immense that they shifted politics in the US, UK and a lot of Continental European countries massively towards the far-right, the 2014 Ukraine invasion, supporting the war criminal Assad in Syria, destabilizing half of Africa to the tune that Europe and Turkey got to deal with millions of refugees, the Ukraine invasion, the destruction of North Stream, dealing weapons with Iran and North Korea...
Just how much more are we willing to tolerate? When will we finally respond to all of that in an appropriate manner?
(I know, this was a rhetoric question, the answer is: likely never as no one but the US has actually taken care of their military, and the US want to focus on China for good reasons)
> The US can win the war in short order - I saw reports of a carrier sent towards Israel within hours of that attack.
Yeah, if they're willing to glass Palestine?! Anything that should not devolve into a massacre will involve infantry warfare in just about the most hostile environment since probably Vietnam and take months - the Israelis are preparing for that, and I hope they're successful. The US carrier, I think, is for now purely a signal towards anyone else to stay the f..k out of Israel.
> But Europe needs to sort out its bickering too, then maintain it. It’s a European problem, it hurts Europe and depending on the US is a problematic way of maintaining themselves.
Agreed (especially given that it's very well possible that the Republicans win in 2024), but that will take time that a lot of the crises in the current polycrisis don't have - and it's not made easier by Hungary and now Slovakia being governed by Kremlin puppets.
Sure, Hungary's recent block of an EU help package is bad, and the EU is in need of some reforms (like those suggested last month by a Franco-German group). A joint EU military would also be nice. But those are more important in topics like immigration, in military matters you can always form a coalition of the willing (which so far seems to be working well).
It’s primarily a European problem but the world as a whole needs to address it and show that the methods used by Russia will not be tolerated.
Until 2022 Russia was clearly shown that their actions were ok, frowned upon but tolerated.
It seems we are in a holding pattern now, and the west could swing it if it really wanted to.
As far as swinging against Russia: I'm not so sure that'd work. We can ensure that Russia keeps losing manpower, equipment and political capital against Ukraine. Maybe we could break the stalemate by establishing air superiority, though that might cost more Western lives than people are comfortable with. But that's about the extend of it.
Sure, we could drive German tanks into Moscow. But all that's going to do is galvanize the Russian people against the West, and cause Russian military to fall back and dig in in the rest of the country. There's a reason people say you can't win a land war against Russia: the country is about half the size of Africa. Even just the European part is half the size of the US. It's incredibly hard to occupy, and historically most invaders failed at keeping supply lines intact.
As much as I'd love to see the Ukrainian flag fly on the Kremlin and Putin dragged in front of an international tribunal: No notable voice I'm aware of is calling for / advocating for Ukraine to actually march onto Russian territory beyond quick skirmishes (such as the daring raid on the Belgorod fuel depot), and all Western weapons come with the official requirement that they not be used on Russian soil (for the Taurus, the reported reason why Scholz is holding it up is because he wants the manufacturer to geo-fence it).
I've never met a real human with this take.
And I have friends on both sides of the aisle, sat staunchly in their respective parties.
Where are you? I, too, have friends on both sides of the aisle, and the general take is a single large tranche of weapons may be better than the current drip feed. (Bay Area, New York and Wyoming.)
I only see opposition from the far left (New York, Bay Area) and right (Wyoming). (Not saying all opposition is extremists only. Just that it's where I see people fixate on opposing aid.)
I have, across the entire political spectrum. Here in Germany, you'll find supporters of more arms deliveries in all parties but the far-right AfD and the tankie parts of the Left Party. In fact, there is a lot of outrage at Chancellor Scholz from both the Conservative opposition and notable members of the government coalition for continuing to resist delivery of Taurus missiles that Ukraine could use to blow up the Kerch bridge once and for all.
It’s hard for me to wrap my head around an isolationist mindset that wants to ignore invasions happening in Europe (go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line, why don’t you?) but I also wonder if these people take the US’s NATO obligations at all seriously, and if they’ve thought more than one move ahead. I’m not demanding you speak for these people, of course.
For what it's worth, we aren't. Our militaries, including the French and British, have been severely dismantled post-USSR and what remained was refocused on fighting jihadists in deserts after 9/11 and the followup conflicts. Most people thought that the days of an actual legit tank and artillery battle were long gone.
> and if they would like to see Ukraine fall if Europe (in the absence of the US) proves incapable of delivering the aid Ukraine needs to defend itself
At least for Americans with such thoughts: some of them see no problem at all for the US in such a scenario. They only care about their perspective, and since there is no way that refugees from that war or Russian war planes and ICBMs end up in Northern America, why should they care, especially when the threat of China is looming?
I mean, I don't share the isolationist urge in the case of Ukraine at all, so I'm asking these questions to understand what other people are thinking. I get that a large part of it is just not caring.