Nordstream pipeline sabotage?

[Lawman]

I must admit I find it a little crazy that virtually no one on this forum other than gearhog even acknowledges the possibility that the Nord Stream culprit isn't whom the West wants it to be. A couple of questions which will hopefully stimulate some thinking, but instead will likely just get me downvoted and dunked on by the BO.net mainstream:
1. Who stands to gain?
2. If there were anything tying the Russians to this, wouldn't the investigating parties (who, being Western, clearly would want to finger the Russians) have found it or at least "found it" after several months?
3. Hersh is an old man. Considering his My Lai and Abu Ghraib work, and even taking CH's word for it that he has also espoused conspiracy theories at times, his legacy seems secure. Why would he throw it away with an in-depth, elaborate fabrication?
None of these questions mean that I'm convinced of a heterodox explanation for the blasts. They simply represent that, in my mind, it is absolutely valid for American citizens (among others) to have and express doubts, especially since zero explanation has been on offer.

So you can see a vast conspiracy by western aligned countries to just allow the US and by extension NATO to widen the risk of war, but you can’t play that a level higher where Russia would use that and an IO campaign to force NATO to deescalate its support of Ukraine?

“Oh surely it had to be the Americans… they want to make billions off selling fallout shelters and iodine pills.” Couldn’t possibly be that months into a war going badly, Putin and his guys would sabotage one of a multitude of their own pipelines for their oil exports to create a narrative that uses existing sentiment and forces NATO to attempt to withdraw support to avoid the risk of widening the conflict. What would they possibly have to gain from such a move.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[O Face]

25 minutes ago, Splash95 said:

, wouldn't the investigating parties (who, being Western, clearly would want to finger the Russians) have 

I’m western and I want to finger this one!

[dream big]

Our current DOD apparatus is way too incompetent to pull off a conspiracy like this. I find it more likely that it was the Russians. In desperation they would shoot their toe and point fingers. 

[FLEA]

43 minutes ago, dream big said:

Our current DOD apparatus is way too incompetent to pull off a conspiracy like this. I find it more likely that it was the Russians. In desperation they would shoot their toe and point fingers. 

By law, the DoD could not have done this. It would have to have been planned, staged and executed by the IC, with support from the DoD. Look up Gang of Eight, Covert Operation, Clandestine Operation and Plausible Deniability for some just gee-wiz on where SOCOM lines end and IC lines begin. 

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/intel/R45175.pdf

Edited February 9, 2023 by FLEA

[gearhog]

6 hours ago, Prozac said:

The fact that we were so publicly critical of the Nordstream projects means blowing them up would immediately have people pointing the finger at us. Pursuing that option seems like it would’ve been rather daft. Not saying it’s impossible for us to make silly, ill timed decisions, just less probable in this case than other possibilities. I think it’s entirely possible, for instance, that one of our Baltic or Eastern European NATO partners could’ve been the culprit. They have advocated for far more deliberate & direct action against Russia and, given their stated positions in this conflict, I wouldn’t downplay the possibility that perhaps the Latvians or Poles decided to act on their own. Another possibility (and I think a more likely one) is that the Russians did indeed blow up their own pipeline as part of a series of actions to create tension and doubt amongst the Western allies. One of Russia’s primary angles of late has been “yeah, we’re pretty sneaky and nasty, but your so-called democracies are just as corrupt and amoral as us”. Thankfully, most of us can see through that narrative, but it does seem to have taken hold with a certain segment of our population and media. In any case, one article that hasn’t been corroborated by anyone (and written by an octogenarian with a sketchy history) is probably not quite the slam dunk you think it is. 

I could go all in on the cautious backpedaling in the first few lines of your post, but I'm not.

I'm just glad you're starting to be receptive to other possibilities. Good post.

[tac airlifter]

9 hours ago, FLEA said:

By law, the DoD could not have done this. It would have to have been planned, staged and executed by the IC, with support from the DoD. Look up Gang of Eight, Covert Operation, Clandestine Operation and Plausible Deniability for some just gee-wiz on where SOCOM lines end and IC lines begin. 

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/intel/R45175.pdf

There’s a LOT of grey space and wiggle room between those two bolded statements.  I’m curious if you’ve ever been involved in this world or are only academically familiar, because DOD could absolutely have done this within existing legal carve outs.  

[gearhog]

https://twitter.com/Edwin07011/status/1623364307818844180?s=20&t=3ZTV3B263sNEWXTdhSkKAw

Edited February 9, 2023 by gearhog

[nsplayr]

5 hours ago, gearhog said:

I could go all in on the cautious backpedaling in the first few lines of your post, but I'm not.

I'm just glad you're starting to be receptive to other possibilities. Good post.

Dude there’s a difference between something being possible and likely.

Is it possible we blew up the pipeline…sure! But I find it unlikely.

Is it possible we faked the moon landing…again, sure, but not likely.

You presented a story casting some mighty inflammatory accusations, written by a known crank, that has zero hard evidence in it and relies on “unnamed senior administration officials.” Then you either expected people to change their minds or at least take you seriously. I’m not sure why you thought that was going to work out well. If you want to have an unconventional take and be respected for it, you’re gonna have to do more than that.

If there is hard evidence that the US blew up the pipeline I’m all ears! It not an impossible thing to imagine, but again, I don’t think that’s very likely what happened. I’m open to being wrong, but those making the accusations bear the burden of proof.

[nsplayr]

3 minutes ago, gearhog said:

https://twitter.com/LetsGoBrando45/status/1623384319128477698?s=20&t=3ZTV3B263sNEWXTdhSkKAw

Jesus dude you need a remedial course in sorting good information out from total dumpster fire trash.

Some Twitter rando with the handle LetsGoBrandon45 is not a credible source. Shit, in his feed he’s also claiming that maybe “the globalists” causes the earthquake in Turkey.

https://twitter.com/LetsGoBrando45/status/1623727567625756679?s=20&t=kTXcm8n6-OVNShY0BAYz6w

GTFO with this level of pure uncut bullshit.

Edited February 9, 2023 by nsplayr

[gearhog]

7 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Jesus dude you need a remedial course in sorting good information out from total bullshit.

Some Twitter rando with the handle LetsGoBrandon45 is not a credible source. Shit, in his feed he’s also claiming that maybe “the globalists” causes the earthquake in Turkey.

GTFO with this level of pure uncut bullshit.

Bullshit? I just searched for "Biden Nordstream" and that was one of the first results. I posted it because it was vertically oriented and had subtitles. I did change it because I didn't notice the handle. The poster is probably a little sketch. Maybe this one will work better for you. Is it BS too? Yahoo Finance. I have a couple dozen links. I can likely get whichever source you trust. Just let me know.

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by gearhog

[nsplayr]

The issue isn’t with posting a video of Biden, it’s that you’re just googling and posting the first thing that confirms your priors, or it seems that way. You can’t just link to some wild bullshit and expect people to filter that out and understand your point.

Either stick to credible sources and make a logical argument, or just save us all the time. If you want to say the US blew up the pipeline, fine, good luck, but my argument to you is there’s no evidence for that and the sources you’re citing are not credible, which makes me pretty much dismiss whatever else you’re wanting to say.

[gearhog]

15 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

The issue isn’t with posting a video of Biden, it’s that you’re just googling and posting the first thing that confirms your priors, or it seems that way. You can’t just link to some wild bullshit and expect people to filter that out and understand your point.

Either stick to credible sources and make a logical argument, or just save us all the time. If you want to say the US blew up the pipeline, fine, good luck, but my argument to you is there’s no evidence for that and the sources you’re citing are not credible, which makes me pretty much dismiss whatever else you’re wanting to say.

You're still calling it wild bullshit. I don't get it? Is the video of Biden saying he will bring an end to the pipeline fake?

If you cannot see the video or do not trust any of the sources, I can get you another source.

Perhaps you will find this sufficient: This is the official White House Transcript. Once again, is this bullshit? Please answer.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/07/remarks-by-president-biden-and-chancellor-scholz-of-the-federal-republic-of-germany-at-press-conference/

(Speaks German.) (As interpreted.)  If I may ask you, Chancellor Scholz — you said there was some strategic ambiguity that was needed in terms of sanctions.  I just wanted to know whether the sanctions you are envisaging and the EU is working on — and the U.S. as well — are already finished, finalized, or is there still work ongoing?

And you’re not really saying what the details are.  Is that just an excuse for Germany, maybe, to not support the SWIFT measures?

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  The first question first.  If Germany — if Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the — the border of Ukraine again — then there will be — we — there will be no longer be a Nord Stream 2.  We will bring an end to it. 

Q    But how will you — how will you do that exactly, since the project and control of the project is within Germany’s control?

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  We will — I promise you, we’ll be able to do it. 

CHANCELLOR SCHOLZ:  (As interpreted.)  Thank you very much for your question.  I want to be absolutely clear: We have intensively prepared everything to be ready with the necessary sanctions if there is a military aggression against Ukraine. 

And this is necessary.  It is necessary that we do this in advance so that Russia can clearly understand that these are far-reaching, severe measures. 

It is part of this process that we do not spell out everything in public because Russia could understand that there might be even more to come.  And, at the same time, it is very clear we are well prepared with far-reaching measures.  We will take these measures together with our Allies, with our partners, with the U.S., and we will take all necessary steps.  You can be sure that there won’t be any measures in which we have a differing approach.  We will act together jointly.

(Speaks in English.) And possibly this is a good idea to say to our American friends: We will be united, we will act together, and we will take all the necessary steps.  And all the necessary steps will be done by all of us together. 

Q    And will you commit today — will you commit today to turning off and pulling the plug on Nord Stream 2?  You didn’t mention it, and you haven’t mentioned it.

CHANCELLOR SCHOLZ:  As I’ve already said, we are acting together, we are absolutely united, and we will not be taking different steps.  We will do the same steps, and they will be very, very hard to Russia, and they should understand.

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by gearhog

[VMFA187]

It is possible. I don't think anyone is saying that it is not, and if they are then they need to examine history. I also think that some of our agencies act on their own without guidance or in direct violation of guidance from our nation's leadership. 

Do I think we did it? No, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if at some point it were proven true. 

[Elaroh]

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

You're still calling it wild bullshit. I don't get it? Is the video of Biden saying he will bring an end to the pipeline fake?

If you cannot see the video or do not trust any of the sources, I can get you another source.

Perhaps you will find this sufficient: This is the official White House Transcript. Once again, is this bullshit? Please answer.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/07/remarks-by-president-biden-and-chancellor-scholz-of-the-federal-republic-of-germany-at-press-conference/

(Speaks German.) (As interpreted.)  If I may ask you, Chancellor Scholz — you said there was some strategic ambiguity that was needed in terms of sanctions.  I just wanted to know whether the sanctions you are envisaging and the EU is working on — and the U.S. as well — are already finished, finalized, or is there still work ongoing?

And you’re not really saying what the details are.  Is that just an excuse for Germany, maybe, to not support the SWIFT measures?

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  The first question first.  If Germany — if Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the — the border of Ukraine again — then there will be — we — there will be no longer be a Nord Stream 2.  We will bring an end to it. 

Q    But how will you — how will you do that exactly, since the project and control of the project is within Germany’s control?

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  We will — I promise you, we’ll be able to do it. 

CHANCELLOR SCHOLZ:  (As interpreted.)  Thank you very much for your question.  I want to be absolutely clear: We have intensively prepared everything to be ready with the necessary sanctions if there is a military aggression against Ukraine. 

And this is necessary.  It is necessary that we do this in advance so that Russia can clearly understand that these are far-reaching, severe measures. 

It is part of this process that we do not spell out everything in public because Russia could understand that there might be even more to come.  And, at the same time, it is very clear we are well prepared with far-reaching measures.  We will take these measures together with our Allies, with our partners, with the U.S., and we will take all necessary steps.  You can be sure that there won’t be any measures in which we have a differing approach.  We will act together jointly.

(Speaks in English.) And possibly this is a good idea to say to our American friends: We will be united, we will act together, and we will take all the necessary steps.  And all the necessary steps will be done by all of us together. 

Q    And will you commit today — will you commit today to turning off and pulling the plug on Nord Stream 2?  You didn’t mention it, and you haven’t mentioned it.

CHANCELLOR SCHOLZ:  As I’ve already said, we are acting together, we are absolutely united, and we will not be taking different steps.  We will do the same steps, and they will be very, very hard to Russia, and they should understand.

 

It's a credible source, but how does this support your theory?

All I'm reading from this is that the US and Germany were united in their efforts oppose a Russian invasion of Ukraine.  There are some vague threats(?) that are open to interpretation, but nothing conclusive.  This can be written off as good old-fashioned chest beating.

[FLEA]

5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

There’s a LOT of grey space and wiggle room between those two bolded statements.  I’m curious if you’ve ever been involved in this world or are only academically familiar, because DOD could absolutely have done this within existing legal carve outs.  

A bit of a loaded question because there are a lot of facets and disciplines that intersect on those communities, operational, strategic, academic, legislative, compliance, oversight, etc.....

But I think what you're getting at is operational. The short answer then would be yes but the longer answer is, definitely not as deep or long (so to speak) as others. Its worth noting that there are a lot of DoD programs that are coordinated under IC direction and its also worth mentioning that not all of them are directly tied to SOCOM (but many are). That said, just based off what I know and my experiences regarding your expressed carve outs, I would have significant concerns that if this were a US operation, about it being a primarily DoD "thing." The biggest problem being that there is a long standing international consensus that attacking a maritime instrument of commerce is a very clear act of war. That is a standard that goes far beyond the general IPOE's that the DoD is generally allowed to pursue without congressional oversight and reinforces the necessity that it would need to bear plausible deniability concepts. 

[Lord Ratner]

I gotta say I think I'm with gearhog on this one. And I leaned towards blaming Russia when it happened. But...

 

More than a few western intelligence agencies have investigated this, and not a single one has come out with an accusation. That's suspicious.

 

The Biden administration unsanctioned the pipeline as soon as they took office, only to watch Russia march into Ukraine. That's embarrassing, especially when they then tried to "get tough" on Russia only to watch Europe keep buying energy from them. That's suspicious.

 

The pipelines were blown up when everyone was worried about Europe going into a cold winter and having to resort to begging Russia for energy. So Russia... Blows up their leverage when they could just turn it off (and back on) at will? That's suspicious.

 

Now if the "America didn't do it" crowd was blaming China, where there is a much clearer motive to force Russia to sell cheaply to them while also putting Europe in an energy bind, well that's a lot more plausible to me than Russia doing it.

 

But at this point, you should always ask "why?"

 

There are plenty of pretty obvious "why's" for blaming the US, as well as European allies that are worried Germany will once again sell out the West to get cheap Russian energy. And like I said, China could make sense too.

 

But I'm not hearing a whole lot of "why's" for Russia, just that they're evil and crazy, which I believe, but so evil and crazy they are now slitting their own throats to... empower the American energy export industry?

 

What is the Russian motivation for this that doesn't play right into the American goals of weakening Russia?

Edited February 9, 2023 by Lord Ratner

[BashiChuni]

5 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I gotta say I think I'm with gearhog on this one. And I leaned towards blaming Russia when it happened. But...

 

More than a few western intelligence agencies have investigated this, and not a single one has come out with an accusation. That's suspicious.

to me that's the smoking gun.

the west from day one has tried to fan the flames to support ukraine. if russia truly did this, the west would be shouting from the rooftops.

ESPECIALLY when their populations have endured higher energy costs because of it. if a european politician could point at russia and say THEY CAUSED YOUR ENERGY BILLS TO SKYROCKET don't you think they would? remember president biden's "Putin's Price Hike" line?

instead the narrative is "we will suffer for however long it takes to support ukraine"

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by BashiChuni

[FLEA]

In case anyone wants to know what ChatGPT thinks: 

 

It is not clear who specifically sabotaged the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, as the exact details of any incidents are typically not disclosed to the public. However, there have been reports of opposition to the pipeline from various groups and individuals, including environmental activists, and some countries have imposed sanctions on the project.

In December 2020, the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was temporarily halted due to the threat of U.S. sanctions. The U.S. government had expressed concerns about the pipeline's impact on European energy security and the potential for it to be used as a tool for political leverage by Russia.

It is also possible that the pipeline could have been damaged by natural causes, such as rough sea conditions or other environmental factors. In any case, the exact details of any incidents affecting the pipeline are typically not disclosed, so it is difficult to say with certainty who was responsible.

[ViperMan]

The naivete of some here is completely incredible. Who the F cares if we blew it up?!? Russia is the aggressor! Do you seriously think that we're just going to let Russia run roughshod over Pax Americana because a couple aging douchbags got their feelings hurt they're not empire they convinced themselves they deserve to be while chugging vodka?

Grow up. Some shit doesn't smell right upon first whiff, but makes sense when you accept that bad shit happens in war. We're not above that, nor should we be. We're not about to let Russia undo the last 70 years of history and us being in the right. If we did do it, we out-maneuvered them. You should be happy and proud you have people in our government capable of such foresight with the balls to execute on a bold plan. If Russia did it, then you should be glad they're such unbelievable idiots. If Ukraine did it, that's the price Russia pays for invading it's neighbor without just cause.

Stop listening to pundits who have zero skin in the game who cast moral aspersions in realms they wouldn't dare set foot in. I say again: you don't know what happened and you never will. It doesn't matter which source you read on the internet. Pick your side.

[BashiChuni]

strange post.

pick your side? lol

that's exactly the kind of thinking that pushes nations into foolish wars

 

"GrOw Up WhO CaReS iF wE gEt PuLlEd iNtO WW3!"

Edited February 10, 2023 by BashiChuni

[ViperMan]

Foolish war is an oxymoron. We're already there.

[BashiChuni]

"WE" are not. Ukraine (NON NATO COUNTRY) is.

i'm all for supporting them (to a point).

I am 100% fucking opposed to American troops engaging russia in ukraine.

 

and i am 100% opposed to let ukraine dictate our foreign policy.

[ViperMan]

8 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

"WE" are not. Ukraine (NON NATO COUNTRY) is.

i'm all for supporting them (to a point).

I am 100% fucking opposed to American troops engaging russia in ukraine.

and i am 100% opposed to let ukraine dictate our foreign policy.

No American troops are engaged. Soooooooo, what's your point? You're worried about things that aren't happening?

Sometimes, country's foreign policy goals happen to align, that doesn't mean they are dictating our foreign policy.

By the way, back in the 90s, we guaranteed Ukraine's security in exchange for them giving up their nuclear arsenal - which was the 3rd largest in the world (bigger than China's). Here's a liberal source for you to brush up on: https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion

So yeah, in some (real) sense, we owe them. Just like some other country would owe us...you know, if we agreed to give up all of our nuclear weapons in exchange for security...but you know, who cares about promises at the end of the day. Amirite?

Edited February 10, 2023 by ViperMan
Wrong decade.

[BashiChuni]

We don’t owe them a god damn thing! 

[BashiChuni]

Also those were Soviet nukes and not Ukrainian.