zlacker

> The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story.

I'd bet my last dollar that at least four nations had "blow up Nord Stream to force continued conflict" contingency plans.

Who did it? Germany, Russia, USA, Ukraine, or a curve ball from the one of the Nordic or Baltic states? We'll probably never know, and none of those answers would surprise me.

>>thwayu+(OP)
Considering that a lot people came out after the pipeline was blown up, people with the necessary training and experience, saying that it was not a particularly difficult job, it might even have been some rogues having a fun fishing trip.

Besides motive, this article doesn't provide anything new. And that the US had at least motive is established fact since basically the day of the explosion.

>>hef198+R3
There's probably thousands of scuba divers are trained in cold water diving to 300ft/100m depths. That is deep technical diving, but not crazy or stupid deep.

>>thwayu+(OP)
Why just those countries? Surely some countries in the middle east would be interested in opening and supplying petro products to a new market. What about China? Maybe they're interested in division and weakening their nearest neighbor so they could buy up all the gas?

There are too many players with varying interests at different levels to just go off of someone's reputation and an unnamed source. Perhaps Biden or some other head of state needs to come along and blow up this thread so that moderators and commenters alike have to find other outlets for the water they're carrying.

>>thwayu+(OP)
I think we left out extraterrestrial aliens.

>>linkju+RC
Are any middle eastern militaries competent enough to blow up the Nord Strom pipeline and cover their tracks?

>>peanut+9L
Prince Choppy Choppy can't even get rid of 1 guy without the whole world noticing. But to clutch my tinfoil hat, if Saudi Arabia really did want to do this, Prince Choppy Choppy could've told Biden "We're doing this, I know you can see us, but be quiet and you'll get your cheap oil, OK?".

Although if Biden took part in such a conspiracy, someone in one of the American intelligence agencies would've probably leaked it out.

>>thwayu+(OP)
The one you'd never guess: Vanuatu

It's the perfect crime

>>peanut+9L
It's not very deep. You can buy a tethered underwater ROV rated for 300ft OTS for a few thousands of dollars. Not to mention a camera and an actuator on an anchor. Practically anybody could have done it. Even non-state actors. Hardest part would be getting the explosives in sufficient quantity.

>>peanut+9L
Ever hear about Qatar screwing anything up? Me either.

They have successfully annoyed just about ever regional player, as well as the US and every other major power at times, and yet mange to thread the needle of staying friendly with the US and Iran at the same time. The way they played out the Saudi sanctions on them was a masterpiece, and they are the biggest gas exporter in the world.

No evidence they are involved of course, but there are plenty of extremely competent militaries in the Middle East.

>>peanut+9L
Israel, Iran, Turkey, the gulf states have the money to pay someone who’s good

>>lamont+pl
(Although it would probably be easier these days to use a pipe bomb and a COTS underwater tethered drone -- depending on what bits of physical evidence you were comfortable leaving behind you could just blow the drone up with it too -- the "hardest" part would probably be dodging the coast guard on the surface)

>>thwayu+(OP)
No man. This was not in the Russians’ geopolitical interests. And even if Germany wanted to divest itself of Russian gas, they would not have done so, in this way.

This was leaked at the time that it is now to send a message to the Germans.

>>netsha+1P
If SA made a deal like this with Biden, they immediately broke it by having OPEC cut production before the midterm elections.

>>lambda+Oj1
I would be very very careful with your analysis of what is and is not "in the Russians' geopolitical interests." Almost every analysis based on "what was in the Russians' geopolitical interests" ended up concluding that Putin was not going to invade the Ukraine, because doing so was transparently a terrible idea[1]. And he did it anyway, because his calculations of what was in the Russians geopolitical interests were done differently. So before you opine on what the Russians might or might not have done based purely on your calculations of what is in the Russians interests, you need to show that your calculations are similar to Putin's in other ways. Without that, one should be really really skeptical that anyone is doing their calculations of what is in Russia's geopolitical interests the same as Putin.

[1]: Whereas analysis based on what Russia was actually doing was largely correct before the war. This is why there was such a large chasm between what the US was saying then- based on their ability to hack Kadryov's phones and hear what was being said at those levels, along with their satellites to observe what the actual Russian army was doing- and what the French and Germans were saying based largely on 'that would be a dumb thing for Putin to do'.

>>thwayu+(OP)
Just how many submarines does Ukraine have right now?

>>RajT88+rP
I lived next door to Tuvalu once, in New York City. Quiet little apartment building in Manhattan, west-facing views of the East River. We hung out with Vanatu once or twice. Doesn’t quite seem the type.

>>jccoop+FS
You would leave debris by doing that. Doing it in a way that doesn't leave evidence is difficult.

>>mandev+Su1
Many, many realist analysts were of the opinion that Russia invading Ukraine was a possible outcome of the geopolitical moment.

It is now known that Putin's decision to invade was due to bad intel from his intelligence services that reported that Ukraine would not be able to mount significant resistance. In that light it was reasonably self-interest-pursuant.

Acting on incorrect information is not the same as being irrational.

>>sclari+ay1
> Doesn’t quite seem the type.

Exactly!

>>sclari+ay1
> Quiet little apartment building in Manhattan, west-facing views of the East River.

How can you view the East River if you're facing West?

>>sampo+TR1
Admittedly it’s harder in Manhattan but take the aerial tram and it works out.

(Yes, that’s legally Manhattan still. And a reasonable walk from the UN.)

>>sudosy+qI1
What if you use it to just plant the explosives, then have it leave before detonating?

>>SeanLu+5v1
You don't need a submarine to blow up a pipeline at 300ft below the surface lol. A master driver or cheap underwater drone, and access to some explosives, will do.