Nordstream pipeline sabotage?

[Biff_T]

[Bigred]

2 hours ago, Prosuper said:

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.  

I’d argue the Russians are actually pretty good at the gray zone stuff because they use people who want to do it, plus the Russians are good at being sneaky. It’s the full frontal, conscript-manned war that we are watching Russia implode upon. 

[DirkDiggler]

16 hours ago, Prosuper said:

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.  

  The corruption and rot that's publicly manifested itself in the Russian Armed Forces over the last several months does not extend to every facet of their military.  If you talk to our sub guys they'll tell you that Russia has very proficient and technologically advanced undersea capabilities.  Sure, they've had many more submarine incidents over the years than the US (Kursk being the latest big one, though that happened prior to Putin's reforms) but they also didn't have Hyman Rickover.  The deepest depth of the Nordstream pipeline lies around 110 meters; something like this is easily within Russia's capabilities.  

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, DirkDiggler said:

  The corruption and rot that's publicly manifested itself in the Russian Armed Forces over the last several months does not extend to every facet of their military.  If you talk to our sub guys they'll tell you that Russia has very proficient and technologically advanced undersea capabilities.  Sure, they've had many more submarine incidents over the years than the US (Kursk being the latest big one, though that happened prior to Putin's reforms) but they also didn't have Hyman Rickover.  The deepest depth of the Nordstream pipeline lies around 110 meters; something like this is easily within Russia's capabilities.  

There is zero incentive to say your "near peer" potential enemy has capabilities less than yours.  I'm not saying underestimate them but history has proven we routinely over-estimate our enemies.  Conundrum.  

[Standby]

1 hour ago, uhhello said:

I'm not saying underestimate them but history has proven we routinely over-estimate our enemies.  

The Koreans, VC, Cubans, Taliban, and al-Qaeda may disagree with you there…

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, Standby said:

The Koreans, VC, Cubans, Taliban, and al-Qaeda may disagree with you there…

None of those were a match militarily. It was in the diplomacy where it broke down. 

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

None of those were a match militarily. It was in the diplomacy where it broke down. 

Sort of yes and no. War is politics by other means. Where those opponents excelled was unconventional/irregular warfare. Nuclear arms and clandestine operations to destroy pipelines are both UW/IW in nature. We fought and won the physical space but those opponents all realized the battle was actually cultural and fought over the information space. They ultimately were correct. 

Koreans are an interesting example because since the late 90s, nK has been all in on UW as an asymmetric offset to US/sK military power. They have a robust SOF capability and are funneling almost all of their cash reserves into strategic nuclear deterrence. 

It's pretty common-sense strategy that the economically weaker your state is, the more you're going to invest into UW because the cost to maintain a standing Army is much higher than the cost to investing in spies, assassin's, SOF, whatever. 

We know Russia has a standup UW game. We know that because they were caught miffing up several high profile assassinations over the last decade and they are associated with dozens more where a lack of evidence has made it hard to pin. That carries a theme from the Cold War where Russia invested highly in HUMINT operations and clandestine operations. Putin is an ex-KGB agent so it's kind of easy to see where his preference might be investments in those machines. 

[uhhello]

4 hours ago, Standby said:

The Koreans, VC, Cubans, Taliban, and al-Qaeda may disagree with you there…

One maybe two of those were conventional force on force "wars".  The rest were lost mostly due to political hamstrings.  Generally speaking.  Russia is displaying its incompetence for the world to see.  Do you really think specialized portions of their military systems are better than what's being displayed?  Possibly.  Highly unlikely.  

[FLEA]

Just now, uhhello said:

One maybe two of those were conventional force on force "wars".  The rest were lost mostly due to political hamstrings.  Generally speaking.  Russia is displaying its incompetence for the world to see.  Do you really think specialized portions of their military systems are better than what's being displayed?  Possibly.  Highly unlikely.  

I think it's a massive assumption to think otherwise and assumptions entail risk. So while you are fine to make that assumption strategically it needs to be calculated, supported by extensive data (not casual relationships) and a risk assessment should accompany it in case the assumption is wrong. Assumptions are a neccessary part of strategy but it is important they are treated correctly. 

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

I think it's a massive assumption to think otherwise and assumptions entail risk. So while you are fine to make that assumption strategically it needs to be calculated, supported by extensive data (not casual relationships) and a risk assessment should accompany it in case the assumption is wrong. Assumptions are a neccessary part of strategy but it is important they are treated correctly. 

I'm with you on it's advantageous to overestimate your enemy.  I was just stating the recent history of conventional warfare experience.  

[DirkDiggler]

9 hours ago, uhhello said:

There is zero incentive to say your "near peer" potential enemy has capabilities less than yours.  I'm not saying underestimate them but history has proven we routinely over-estimate our enemies.  Conundrum.  

That’s a fair point, and if the discussions I’m referencing had been with some O-6 or higher pushing an official narrative to drive funding I’d have taken things with a bit more skepticism. 
  As it was, the gentleman I had personally talked to on this topic was an XO on a fast attack boat who’d been playing sub games with the Russkies for over a decade.  One guy’s opinion.

[uhhello]

8 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

That’s a fair point, and if the discussions I’m referencing had been with some O-6 or higher pushing an official narrative to drive funding I’d have taken things with a bit more skepticism. 
  As it was, the gentleman I had personally talked to on this topic was an XO on a fast attack boat who’d been playing sub games with the Russkies for over a decade.  One guy’s opinion.

Bart Mancuso? 

[DirkDiggler]

26 minutes ago, uhhello said:

Bart Mancuso? 

Lol.  Tom Clancy had already promoted him to CO by the time we read about him.

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, DirkDiggler said:

Lol.  Tom Clancy had already promoted him to CO by the time we read about him.

But you could argue that he acted Ramius's XO on Red October...😉 

[StoleIt]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

But you could argue that he acted Ramius's XO on Red October...😉 

A rumored excerpt from Ramius's FITREP report on Mancuso as told by some CIA analyst who wrote a book with terrible conclusions: "Ah, the Captain seems to think you're some kind of... cowboy."

[Prosuper]

22 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

Lol.  Tom Clancy had already promoted him to CO by the time we read about him.

In Clancy's book The Cardinal of the Kremlin, he promoted me from SSgt to SMSgt, then I was crewing C-137's. He came out to the jet for research on how the 89th carried out routine trips to Moscow and why we always stopped in Helsinki in the late 80's. 

[Lord Ratner]

On 10/4/2022 at 10:59 PM, ClearedHot said:

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.

Care to elaborate? Or are you simply professing faith in the US intelligence apparatus?

[ClearedHot]

30 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Care to elaborate? Or are you simply professing faith in the US intelligence apparatus?

More than faith, can't elaborate.

[gearhog]

Just a few minutes ago. How difficult is it to say "Russia did it?" Thought I'd share and watch the belief perseverance taken to the absurd.

https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-nordstream-germany-sweden/sweden-blocks-joint-investigation-on-pipeline-leaks-spiegel-idINL8N31F2B7

 

[Lord Ratner]

8 minutes ago, torqued said:

Just a few minutes ago. How difficult is it to say "Russia did it?" Thought I'd share and watch the belief perseverance taken to the absurd.

https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-nordstream-germany-sweden/sweden-blocks-joint-investigation-on-pipeline-leaks-spiegel-idINL8N31F2B7

 

It's all rather fascinating. I still think there's a pretty decent chance Russia did it, but I'm more open to Western actors being responsible.

Here's something I didn't know until recently, though it is obvious once you hear it. The destruction of these (any) pipelines have a pretty devastating effect on the Russian ability to raise money, primarily because the production capacity that feeds these pipelines cannot be easily diverted to other transportation methods. So if the pipeline goes down, that region of energy production goes dormant, with the associated income. Can't just sell it to India or China, since the pipeline was the only method of transportation.

 

Not the case with oil, which is very transportable.

 

That puts a clearer incentive on Western involvement, though it still doesn't answer the question of why blow it up when you can just sanction it into oblivion? Those pipelines can only deliver to Europe, so if Europe says "no," the pipeline is effectively dead anyways, including the associated production.

 

Now, counter point, of Sweden is using Intel in the investigation, the results could give away sources and methods that are still quite engaged in the conflict. So I don't think this article is as damning as you want it to be.

Edited October 14, 2022 by Lord Ratner

[gearhog]

9 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's all rather fascinating. I still think there's a pretty decent chance Russia did it, but I'm more open to Western actors being responsible.

Here's something I didn't know until recently, though it is obvious once you hear it. The destruction of these (any) pipelines have a pretty devastating effect on the Russian ability to raise money, primarily because the production capacity that feeds these pipelines cannot be easily diverted to other transportation methods. So if the pipeline goes down, that region of energy production goes dormant, with the associated income. Can't just sell it to India or China, since the pipeline was the only method of transportation.

 

Not the case with oil, which is very transportable.

 

That puts a clearer incentive on Western involvement, though it still doesn't answer the question of why blow it up when you can just sanction it into oblivion? Those pipelines can only deliver to Europe, so if Europe says "no," the pipeline is effectively dead anyways, including the associated production.

 

Now, counter point, of Sweden is using Intel in the investigation, the results could give away sources and methods that are still quite engaged in the conflict. So I don't think this article is as damning as you want it to be.

That was my point in the first reply. Sanctions are not etched in stone. As the political winds shift (and they are), sanctions can easily be lifted. The German government, and likely other EU nations, were feeling immense pressure to ease restrictions from the populace. However, permanent physical destruction completely eliminates that option. There's now nothing to protest.

In addition, the brand new Baltic Pipe that I posted about on the first page, was a huge beneficiary of the sabotage. It was opened on the same day Nordstream was destroyed.

It crosses over the Nordstream and delivers natural gas exactly to where?

Sweden. That's not to say that they did it. I realize the article doesn't prove anything, but it adds new information. I believe a report could easily be prepared that doesn't reveal sources and methods, but strangely, they want to withhold all findings. All I want to know is who is intentionally being deceptive. Be it Russia, EU nations acting in concert, or NATO, this was pretty shady operation of consequence.

 

[ClearedHot]

On 10/8/2022 at 11:29 AM, ClearedHot said:

More than faith, can't elaborate.

First images released to the public showing the blast came from INSIDE the pipeline. 

[Lord Ratner]

4 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

First images released to the public showing the blast came from INSIDE the pipeline. 

Is that what it shows? when you shoot a can of spray paint, the metal of the can still rips outward from the escaping gas. 

 

How do you even get a bomb inside an underwater pipeline? Strap it to an RC car? Is it just one long smooth pipe from one end to another, or are there regulators and valves along that way that would impede movement inside? Were the charges prepositioned during construction?

 

It would not surprise me at all that Russia did this, but from inside? Seems sus.

[Lord Ratner]

A little online research indicates that there is such a thing as a pipeline "pig" which can zip through the pipe, propelled by the gas pressure, usually for cleaning and inspection. Easy to rig with a bomb.

 

If true for the NS pipes, it would be a much easier solution than using a submarine. And because the gas only flows in one direction, it would have had to come from the Russian side. Getting four to go off at the same time might be tricky

 

More Intel needed.

[ClearedHot]

12 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

A little online research indicates that there is such a thing as a pipeline "pig" which can zip through the pipe, propelled by the gas pressure, usually for cleaning and inspection. Easy to rig with a bomb.

Indeed...

12 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

And because the gas only flows in one direction, it would have had to come from the Russian side.

Interesting huh.

12 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Getting four to go off at the same time might be tricky

Not as hard as one would think.

12 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

More Intel needed.

I think a little more may come out, especially on the intercepted comms side, but Germany appears reluctant to publicly release what they have.  That being said, as I said before we know exactly who and how they did it.