Nordstream Is Burning

[Stuart Galbraith]

ive read in several sources online about this incident (I read about the yacht last night). If they have a source, if they have video, if they have an actual guy standing up saying 'Yeah these guys are suspects', or they have them admit it, Im happy to base my opinion on that, and to change it accordingly. All ive heard is is unamed 'US Intelligence sources' , without it being any clearer than that. Or we hear unamed intelligence sources, quoted by guys whom are also unamed.

If anyone has got any real evidence this happened, if they have seen it anywhere Ive missed, please post it up, and Ill take back everything ive posted. But we have anonymous guys quoting anonymous guys and no comments. Even the Hersh story had more cited evidence, even if it was complete bollocks.

Yes, Ill keep an open mind, but for christ sake, slow down, and dont be so quick to accept this at face value. To me, and I flatter myself ive a reasonably good nose for bullshit if anyone has, it just doesnt smell right. One doesnt simply blow up one of the worlds most famous undersea pipelines, in the middle of a NATO exercise, and nobody notices for 6 months. I find that deeply questionable, on all sorts of levels.

[BansheeOne]

You're confusing this with the Hersh story which had the charges planted during BALTOPS in June, then somehow waited three months to blow them. The new allegations have the saboteurs swanning around the Baltic in the three weeks before the explosions. Of course the Kearsarge ARG was there at this time - initial conspiracy theories focussed on it crossing Nord Stream on the way out just days earlier. But obviously some kind of naval activity is always going on in what is rapidly becoming a straight NATO lake.

Obviously the possibility still exists it was a Russian operation, even if the new reports are correct; the intact Nord Stream 2 strand remains the main suspicion pointing to that. However, noone has so far come up with even circumstancial evidence for that, either official sources or internet rumor mongering. In fact investigators have been quoted as saying they have nothing of that sort. Motivation is nice and well, but just rejecting all other attempts at concrete explanations without showing something to substitute for them won't cut it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

One has to reflect on the very considerable evidence of the Russians treating the Baltic like their personal lake, all the way back to the 1970's. I remember reading in one UFO book in the 1980's the discovery of what looked like tank tracks on the bottom of the Baltic. WOOH, the tinfil hat mob went, undoubtedly its aliens! Or, as it turned out, the martitime Spetsnaz had been experimenting with submersibles fitted with tracks, that could drive for miles over the sea bed. Ive discovered recently that they were doing the same thing off the coast of Norway in the same period.

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/12/secret-1991-mission-disclosed-soviet-mini-submarine-was-jarfjord-norway

There was also very considerable submarine activity in the area. Some, it turned out, was British and American submarines stirring the Swedish up, presumably to spend more money on ASW. But much of it wasnt, and of course we all well remember Whiskey on the rocks.

Like I say, the soviets treated it like their own lake.

 

Its tempting to believe this is all in the past, but if you will recall back as recently as 2014, there was the observation of what appeared to be a minisub in Swedish territorial waters, several times if I recall correctly.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2800088/Submarine-hunt-sends-Cold-War-chill-Baltic.html

https://news.usni.org/2014/10/28/lessons-swedens-sub-hunt

Clear evidence to my mind, the Russians still retain a minisub capablity in the region. I also recall the properties that were raided in Finland that had been bought by Russian secret service operatives, that had the Finnish concerned they had been bought as a potential jumping off point for Russian forces in a conflict. Which again strongly indicates that the Russians seem to have a hankering to retain some secret offensive military capablities in the Baltic.

https://www.rferl.org/a/raids-on-reportedly-russia-linked-island-properties-sets-finland-abuzz/29509255.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finnish-government-suspects-russia-of-buying-property-to-house-troops-a7392841.html

'“A landowner could build real estate constructions that a foreign state could take advantage of in a crisis situation - using them to close transport routes and accommodate troops unchecked, for example.”'

Are there any similar facilities in the region we dont know about, perhaps even on the coast of Germany or Sweden? Id suggest its at least conceivable.

Added to the presence of an entire Russian Naval Spetsnaz unit in Kaliningrad, almost on top of the damn pipeline, I can say honestly, no, there isnt enough proof that the Russians did this.  Its wholly circumstantial. But what convinced me they did, was the threadbare disinformation effort they launched which attempted to portray the Americans having done it. At precisely the same period when they were trying to drive a wedge between the Europeans and the Americans.

If the truth is usually the easiest explanation, this explanation avoids the complication of acquiring explosives, hiring a yacht, finding deepwater demolition divers, finding the pipeline without any sophisticated echo sounding equipment, then managing to get away for 6 months without anyone noticing.  Because Russia already have all the capablities they need to do it in the region. Ukraine does not.

As always, happy to be wrong if proven so.

 

 

[Huba]

3 hours ago, Yama said:

Regarding "But Ukraine has no motive for it!" argument, then well, why would Russia? Lots of people here have commented how destruction of the pipeline was a good thing, so what would be the Russian motivation, hmm? Seems this line would point to completely other direction!

At that point NS1 was not being used anyway. Blowing it up:

- allowed avoiding any legal issues/ demands coming from RU stopping supply
- at time might be an argument to launch the remaining undamaged NS2 line. It was a moment when people were genuinely afraid of freezing during the upcoming winter.
- if anyone else apart from Russia was blamed or just seriously suspected, it would be a huge wedge stuck in NATO/ EU unity regarding UA support. 

We are of course in the Clancyesque territory, but it's easy to come up with a motive for basically anyone, including Germans themselves.

[Josh]

I think it’s fair to say we still don’t know anything for certain. The two stories presented so far seem improbable.

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 minutes ago, Huba said:

At that point NS1 was not being used anyway. Blowing it up:

- allowed avoiding any legal issues/ demands coming from RU stopping supply
- at time might be an argument to launch the remaining undamaged NS2 line. It was a moment when people were genuinely afraid of freezing during the upcoming winter.
- if anyone else apart from Russia was blamed or just seriously suspected, it would be a huge wedge stuck in NATO/ EU unity regarding UA support. 

We are of course in the Clancyesque territory, but it's easy to come up with a motive for basically anyone, including Germans themselves.

First one is a good point, id not thought of that.

Otherwise it amped up the threat of Germany running out of gas. If they were trying to steamroller the German Government, it seemed, if they imperfectly understood German politics which I think its clear they do, that it might be a good way of trying to push them in a direction they wanted. It also makes it look like quite possibly one of Germany's allies must have done it, which fits quite well with the Russian plan to try and fragment NATO, hence the intial story to try to blame the Americans.

I dont think even Clancy would have any part of this, because its all so utterly absurd. But of course as many authors have aid, fiction is difficult, because it has to make sense. Reality doesnt.

[Josh]

14 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Actually it does not matter how well patrolled are the waters. The very idea that bunch of Ukrainian intelligence operatives (or entusiastic amateurs - not much difference in fact) have traveled across Europe with big load of explosives is strange. If German Gov believe it, they must have a lot of questions to ask to their security officials. And if they do not believe - they have a lot of questions to ask USA about.

  By the way time to remember that when Russia found that load of explosives to attack Crimea bridge was transported via Europe, it was denied by West. So now they claim it is not a big deal....

I took a bus to Germany from Czech. I don’t think we even stopped at the border. When I drove my rental car from Spain into France I didn’t even notice I’d crossed until the language of the signs changed. So crossing borders isn’t difficult. That said, sourcing half a metric ton of explosives is still difficult, so in my opinion some nation state was involved. I’m not convinced by any of the current stories.

[urbanoid]

Sure, there was no gas flowing through the NS at the time, but blowing it up forced Germany to look exclusively for non-Russian alternatives, making sure that they don't try to force any deal in Ukraine and subsequent return to business as usual with Russia even if their asses were freezing off. Impossible solutions are only impossible until you run out of alternatives. 

[RETAC21]

It was the Appeasement of the West party, evidently.

[Strannik]

17 minutes ago, Josh said:

I took a bus to Germany from Czech. I don’t think we even stopped at the border. When I drove my rental car from Spain into France I didn’t even notice I’d crossed until the language of the signs changed. So crossing borders isn’t difficult. That said, sourcing half a metric ton of explosives is still difficult, so in my opinion some nation state was involved. I’m not convinced by any of the current stories.

You guys were making more sense when you were sticking to "Russians blew up their own pipeline to make a point" narrative. 🤣

It's akin to:

- If I go outside will I see a dinosaur?

- Well, there's a 50% chance of this

- Why?!

- You either will see it or you will not.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Der Zeitgeist]

The Chocolate King sends his regards.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

You dont mean....

 

[KV7]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Who says they need to?

https://shipfinder.co/

It strikes me probable more than one Western Intelligence agency stockpiles that information to keep an eye on smuggling or other illegal activity. And they didnt notice or try to push a case against these individuals?

Well I guess the answer to it being inconvenient is, why did it get released now? its scarcely less inconvenient now, whilst the German Government is gearing up to drop Leopards on Ukraine, and Ukraine is still at war. So they suppress it, then decide to release it. Why? Because Hersh's story was so damaging to NATO, they had to release the 'real story' so they wouldnt look bad?

Its got more holes in it than my socks, and let me tell you, im living in austerity Britain here.

As far as the size of charge, there is a lot we dont seem to know. I dont know the thickness of the pipe, or whether it was heavily pressurised. I do know that the deeper you go, the smaller the charge you need to do, because the pressure of the water helps magnify the blast. This is why the bouncing bomb sunk to the bottom of the dams before detonating, to maximize the use of the water in magnifying the blast. So It would perhaps, not need as big a charge as suggested, particularly if it was pressurized.

But all that said, I still think you want well qualified personnel, you want a proper dive vessel to operate from (Because good luck if you get the bends) and lastly, you must have had a vessel thats near impossible to pick up on radar and have no digital footprint. So that will be a rowing boat then.  

In the case of attacking dams or other large structures, there is a benefit from high pressure from a more energetically concentrated collapse of the smaller cavitation bubble, but this only really applies to instances where collapse is an important mechanism and for some structure similar sized or larger than the cavitation bubble. This does not apply to pipelines.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, KV7 said:

In the case of attacking dams or other large structures, there is a benefit from high pressure from a more energetically concentrated collapse of the smaller cavitation bubble, but this only really applies to instances where collapse is an important mechanism and for some structure similar sized or larger than the cavitation bubble. This does not apply to pipelines.

Is this because the pressure inside the pipeline is equal or greater than the water pressure outside it?

[KV7]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Is this because the pressure inside the pipeline is equal or greater than the water pressure outside it?

it is because of the small size and toughness of the structure and the relatively small charges needed.  Collapse of a large bubble produced by a large HE charge can produce a very large force but it is typically spread over a sizable area (i.e. with relatively low pressure in comparison to the blast itself, and especially with shaped charges) which is effective especially against large flat structures (dams, hulls of large vessels) and especially where the safety margin for structural integrity is relatively small (i.e deeply submerged submarines, concrete dams) or the structure is rather weak.

As the bubble here is much larger than the pipe, much of the force produced on collapse is dissipated into the seafloor or water body, and the pressure is in any case too low to destroy the structure. For destruction of pipelines, shaped charges are the preferred defeat mechanism.

Edited March 8, 2023 by KV7

[crazyinsane105]

57 minutes ago, Josh said:

I took a bus to Germany from Czech. I don’t think we even stopped at the border. When I drove my rental car from Spain into France I didn’t even notice I’d crossed until the language of the signs changed. So crossing borders isn’t difficult. That said, sourcing half a metric ton of explosives is still difficult, so in my opinion some nation state was involved. I’m not convinced by any of the current stories.

Agreed. Even the ISIS attacks in the last decade weren’t able to source large amounts of explosives, much of it was homemade. So half a ton of explosives..that’s coming from a country.

Given that Ukraine has been in the middle of a large war, getting half a ton of explosives from there will be more than plausible. How many people in Ukraine and other countries knew about it…that’s the million dollar question 

[BansheeOne]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But what convinced me they did, was the threadbare disinformation effort they launched which attempted to portray the Americans having done it. At precisely the same period when they were trying to drive a wedge between the Europeans and the Americans.

I was, and to some degree remain, on the same page; again note how the pro-Russian net community is ironically indignant of the Ukraine theory because it runs counter to their nice narrative that the US is a bumbling psychotic cowboy nation that would risk blowing up NATO along with a piece of critical, yet politically dead foreign infrastructure on the off chance that Germany might be tempted to use it again one day. Which only a hopeless Putinbot would accept, despite all the pointers to this aircraft, that ship, this exercise.

But in the case of Russia it's the reverse. You'd trust them to do it for reasons mentioned here, including the short-term gain of driving gas prices on the nervous European market further up, and/or delivering a fully deniable warning of further action against undersea infrastructures if the West keeps supporting Ukraine, while preserving one line as a backdoor option. Yet noone has pointed to specifics, even while suspected Russian agents have been detained in Norway for flying drones in suspicious places, and the Dutch and Belgians escorted a Russian ship with its AIS switched off out of their waters for snooping around their offshore installations.

The Ukrainian case remains somewhat dubious regarding execution, but we have both possible means and motive. Recall the bombing of the Kerch Strait bridge in what looks like a straight terror-type attack, which at least the Ukrainian government never admitted to, though it clearly fit their war aims. The Dugina assassination, claimed by the same guys who recently took a photo op in a Russian border village, falls roughly in the same category; as do some of the alleged uncredited bombings and fires elsewhere in Russia. For such an actor, blowing up Nord Stream wouldn't be about some nonsense idea of influencing German policy, but a straight hit against Russian infrastructure.

Sure they would still risk pissing off the German government; while there were no real adverse effects on Germany because the lines were already shut down, this remains an act of terror against an industrial object at least partially owned by German enterprises. If shown to be state-sponsored, it would become state terrorism. Obviously nations at war sometimes act against the interests of allies out of perceived necessity - just see the British sinking the French fleet at Mers el-Kebir. Which made de Gaulle livid, yet he defended it in public for the common cause. 

The questionable gain from destroying Nord Stream would still make it ill-advised vis-a-vis the potential repercussions; but as der Zeitgeist noted earlier on the Kiev thread, the repercussions may already have happened. Or we might yet see some judicial effects against the perpetrators if official investigations produce sufficient evidence to go after them, no matter who they are and who commissioned them.

[seahawk]

The only reaction possible for Germany now is to end all aid to the Ukraine.

[Mike1158]

1 hour ago, Strannik said:

You guys were making more sense when you were sticking to "Russians blew up their own pipeline to make a point" narrative. 🤣

It's akin to:

- If I go outside will I see a dinosaur?

- Well, there's a 50% chance of this

- Why?!

- You either will see it or you will not.

I think you would have to be on some serious good/bad Dandelion to see a Dinosaur outside of a museum mate.

[Josh]

50 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Agreed. Even the ISIS attacks in the last decade weren’t able to source large amounts of explosives, much of it was homemade. So half a ton of explosives..that’s coming from a country.

Given that Ukraine has been in the middle of a large war, getting half a ton of explosives from there will be more than plausible. How many people in Ukraine and other countries knew about it…that’s the million dollar question 

I suppose once you crossed the Polish border, you'd be home free. You wouldn't even need to cross another border to get to the Baltic. No idea what the current state of affairs is regarding crossings; I assume there are checkpoints.

[Yama]

42 minutes ago, Mike1158 said:

I think you would have to be on some serious good/bad Dandelion to see a Dinosaur outside of a museum mate.

Went to grocery hour ago, and saw several. They're not so rare 

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

The only reaction possible for Germany now is to end all aid to the Ukraine.

That's too weak, Germany should leave NATO and join Warsa... err... CSTO!

[Josh]

2 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

The Chocolate King sends his regards.

 

The sausage king of Chicago?

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, KV7 said:

it is because of the small size and toughness of the structure and the relatively small charges needed.  Collapse of a large bubble produced by a large HE charge can produce a very large force but it is typically spread over a sizable area (i.e. with relatively low pressure in comparison to the blast itself, and especially with shaped charges) which is effective especially against large flat structures (dams, hulls of large vessels) and especially where the safety margin for structural integrity is relatively small (i.e deeply submerged submarines, concrete dams) or the structure is rather weak.

As the bubble here is much larger than the pipe, much of the force produced on collapse is dissipated into the seafloor or water body, and the pressure is in any case too low to destroy the structure. For destruction of pipelines, shaped charges are the preferred defeat mechanism.





 

Thats genuinely fascinating, thanks for that.