The Phantom Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 14 minutes ago, woolley said: I don't think you can accuse someone of having a screw loose for wishing to discuss other possibilities than the one everybody here appears to have accepted without question. To do so is the definition of closed minds, and that is what I have encountered as usual. It's nothing new around here, and it's one of the reasons I don't post much now. You all appear not to recognise that I have stated repeatedly that the Russians are the most likely to have done this, and as time goes by the full rationale for them doing so may or may not be revealed. For now it remains inconclusive, so what is so offensive about examining it? To do so represents no support for Russia and their cause of annexing Ukraine. I hope fervently that they fail, but I am not as optimistic as others seem to be. It's going to be long, messy and dangerous to the wider world. Like you, I think it's plausible that Ukraine, or even a third party, might have damaged the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. It's very hard to believe the prevailing narrative that it was the Russians. What would they have to gain by destroying their own infrastructure built to sell their gas? It makes no sense. Who would have most to gain by making sure it never comes on stream? Perhaps those who have stepped in to fill the big gap in the European oil market? Am I seriously suggesting that a Ukraine force managed to get to the dam, plant explosives and detonate it without being spotted? I'm not pushing the theory as fact, but neither am I discounting the possibility. It's the blur of war. Anything is possible. Has it not been noted repeatedly that many of the Russians in the field are not the sharpest or most motivated? The Kerch Bridge was was under Russian control at the time it was attacked and put out of action. Did the Russians do that too? Is there any military tactical advantage for either side in breaching the dam? Maybe we will have a better idea in due course as the battle plays out. It's interesting that one can be accused of supporting Russia and peddling propaganda merely by attempting to delve into events on the ground. If anyone still doesn't get it, I'll say for the 4th time that I want to see Russia expelled from Ukraine and their "special military operation" fail spectacularly. I'll be the first to admit that we are seeing propaganda from both sides. Admittedly the Ukrainian stuff is much more complex and sophisticated, so it is hard to filter out the mis-information. The Russian stuff is usually really easy to spot. Even being avidly pro-Ukrainian and following the war and reports closely, sometimes I even turn off from the fervent pro-Ukrainian reports. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 46 minutes ago, HiVibes said: The Russians blew the dam in WW2, so it was always on the cards they would blow it again. Ukraine would benefit if were able to choose the timing oi the inevitable catastrophe, it's pretty bleak stuff but such is the history of the region. Yep and they negligently killed 1000s of their own troops in the process. Much changes in the world, but not the expendability of Orcs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 16 minutes ago, woolley said: Nordstream could possibly be Ukraine but my hunch would be a third party. Or Ukraine with the connivance and assistance of a third party. Agreed. I don't think Zelensky ordered it parse and there was minimal involvement from the UA military. But on the otherside, they probably turned a blind eye or provided some intel to a Pro-UA/anti-Rusky (probably very wealthy) individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 22 minutes ago, woolley said: And? My exchange with some folk these past couple of pages is a succinct analogy for the way they look at everything - Brexit included - through one eye, and that's half shut. I beg to differ.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 5 minutes ago, The Phantom said: Even being avidly pro-Ukrainian and following the war and reports closely, sometimes I even turn off from the fervent pro-Ukrainian reports. The forum thought police will be along for you shortly.... 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 Just now, woolley said: The forum thought police will be along for you shortly.... 🤣 And I'll just ignore them, like my mum told me to. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 2 minutes ago, P.K. said: I beg to differ.... I know. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 5 minutes ago, The Phantom said: Agreed. I don't think Zelensky ordered it parse and there was minimal involvement from the UA military. But on the otherside, they probably turned a blind eye or provided some intel to a Pro-UA/anti-Rusky (probably very wealthy) individual. Clue? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60151839 "I want to be very clear: if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward," US state department spokesman Ned Price told NPR. But he added that he was "not going to get into the specifics" of how it would be stopped, and questions remain over whether the US would have the power to cancel the project." They sure do have the power! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 (edited) 9 minutes ago, woolley said: Clue? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60151839 "I want to be very clear: if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward," US state department spokesman Ned Price told NPR. But he added that he was "not going to get into the specifics" of how it would be stopped, and questions remain over whether the US would have the power to cancel the project." They sure do have the power! True. But I don't think the US did it directly either. Despite the reports, it wouldn't have been that difficult to do really, assuming you had access to divers (or Underwater AV) and explosives. The Baltic is not that deep and the pipe isn't really armoured. Edited June 12, 2023 by The Phantom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 38 minutes ago, woolley said: I don't think you can accuse someone of having a screw loose for wishing to discuss other possibilities than the one everybody here appears to have accepted without question. To do so is the definition of closed minds, and that is what I have encountered as usual. It's nothing new around here, and it's one of the reasons I don't post much now. I didn't accuse you of having a screw loose. I made the observation that some people on here have such an open mind that their brains have fallen out. I 100% disagree with your views on Brexit but I was more thinking of some of the conspiracy theory posters that we have had on these forums. They are a group of people who constantly promote the benefits of an open mind and not treating facts as facts... 38 minutes ago, woolley said: You all appear not to recognise that I have stated repeatedly that the Russians are the most likely to have done this, and as time goes by the full rationale for them doing so may or may not be revealed. For now it remains inconclusive, so what is so offensive about examining it? To do so represents no support for Russia and their cause of annexing Ukraine. I hope fervently that they fail, but I am not as optimistic as others seem to be. It's going to be long, messy and dangerous to the wider world. I have not accused you of being pro-Russian. I am just making the point that the evidence points strongly towards Russia having done this. They also appear to blown up a smaller dam well within the territory they currently control. 38 minutes ago, woolley said: Like you, I think it's plausible that Ukraine, or even a third party, might have damaged the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. It's very hard to believe the prevailing narrative that it was the Russians. What would they have to gain by destroying their own infrastructure built to sell their gas? It makes no sense. Who would have most to gain by making sure it never comes on stream? Perhaps those who have stepped in to fill the big gap in the European oil market? If we are saying that we cannot be certain that Ukraine did not blow up a dam which causes them problems with a planned offensive why would we so willingly dismiss that Russia did not blow up Nord Stream 2? The hope could have been that this action causes disarray in the West and falling support for Ukraine. I think that is what largely causes people to view you as pro-Russia. Your views can come across as being one sided. 38 minutes ago, woolley said: Am I seriously suggesting that a Ukraine force managed to get to the dam, plant explosives and detonate it without being spotted? I'm not pushing the theory as fact, but neither am I discounting the possibility. It's the blur of war. Anything is possible. Has it not been noted repeatedly that many of the Russians in the field are not the sharpest or most motivated? The Kerch Bridge was was under Russian control at the time it was attacked and put out of action. Did the Russians do that too? Is there any military tactical advantage for either side in breaching the dam? Maybe we will have a better idea in due course as the battle plays out. The balance of probability is that the dam was destroyed by the Russians. As has been posted already the explosives had to be inside the dam (which was controlled by the Russians) and their is minimal benefits for Ukraine to destroy the dam. Sure, there are some implications for Russia as well but we have all seen how little they value the lives of their soldiers. The Kerch bridge is a much easier target. It is exposed and vulnerable to attacks from drones in the water or air. The bridge was also open at the time and it looks like Russian security checks were performed fairly incompetently. The volume of vehicles using the bridge makes it much more likely that someone could gain access. Gaining access to the dam to place explosives inside would have been much more difficult. 38 minutes ago, woolley said: It's interesting that one can be accused of supporting Russia and peddling propaganda merely by attempting to delve into events on the ground. If anyone still doesn't get it, I'll say for the 4th time that I want to see Russia expelled from Ukraine and their "special military operation" fail spectacularly. 👍 (Let's hope your Russian paymasters don't see that last statement!) 🤣 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 (edited) 40 minutes ago, The Phantom said: True. But I don't think the US did it directly either. Despite the reports, it wouldn't have been that difficult to do really, assuming you had access to divers (or Underwater AV) and explosives. The Baltic is not that deep and the pipe isn't really armoured. Whether they did or they didn't, it's undeniable that they had a lot to gain financially and geopolitically in throttling a massive Russian export to Europe, chiefly Germany, and stepping in themselves as the replacement supplier with the attendant huge boost to their own exports. What's not to like for the US Treasury and producers? They have doubled their gas sales to Europe at highly inflated prices, and the situation won't change soon. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=52659 US LNG export sales began beginning of 2018 with a huge surge in production looking for a market. It found one. Boy, buddy, ain't that really fortunate? Join the dots? https://wolfstreet.com/2023/03/03/us-natural-gas-production-surges-to-record-in-2022-up-33-from-2017-lng-exports-hit-record-despite-freeport-terminal-shutdown/ Edited June 12, 2023 by woolley 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 18 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: (Let's hope your Russian paymasters don't see that last statement!) 🤣 I always demand cash upfront from people I don't trust. And I certainly don't trust the Russkis. 🤣 My mention of being accused of being pro-Russian was not so much aimed at you but the 999 guy. Again, though, you mention me coming across as pro-Russian despite my stating mulitple times by now that I support them being kicked out of Ukraine and their invasion failing miserably. People nowadays don't like open questions. They want everything put neatly in a box for instant gratification. Life, and certainly warfare, just isn't like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 7 minutes ago, woolley said: Whether they did or they didn't, it's undeniable that they had a lot to gain financially and geopolitically in throttling a massive Russian export to Europe, chiefly Germany, and stepping in themselves as the replacement supplier with the attendant huge boost to their own exports. What's not to like for the US Treasury and producers? They have doubled their gas sales to Europe at highly inflated prices, and the situation won't change soon. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=52659 LNG sales began beginning of 2018 with a huge surge in production looking for a market. It found one. Boy, buddy, ain't that really fortunate? Join the dots? https://wolfstreet.com/2023/03/03/us-natural-gas-production-surges-to-record-in-2022-up-33-from-2017-lng-exports-hit-record-despite-freeport-terminal-shutdown/ Effect doesn't always stipulate cause. BAE share price has doubled since the invasion and I don't think they started to increase their profitability. Put it this way, I've spoken with people who's opinions I would value highly in relation to the conflict. They stated that Ukraine would have known about it in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 Nordstream was obviously the yanks, and they've run a surprisingly efficient disinformation campaign about it too. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 5 minutes ago, The Phantom said: Effect doesn't always stipulate cause. BAE share price has doubled since the invasion and I don't think they started to increase their profitability. Put it this way, I've spoken with people who's opinions I would value highly in relation to the conflict. They stated that Ukraine would have known about it in advance. Of course causes can have multiple unpredictable effects and vice versa. Those LNG figures are pretty compelling though, and Washington has been warning Germany in no uncertain terms for years to back off Russian hydrocarbons. I know about the BAE share price. I bought a load of defence stocks in October 20 including BAE at about £4, but obviously at the time it wasn't to do with Ukraine. I was told that Johnson was about to announce a massive defence spending increase, so it was a no brainer. A good example of multiple causes again that built the price up. Ukraine could have been aware of the Nord Stream 2 adventure, but we don't know. I reckon Uncle Sam would tell them, like he tells everybody, as much as they need to hear whether it's true or not. If (big if) it was a US or NATO special op, why tell anyone who doesn't need to know? More people know, more chance of a leak, although I do realise that most of those come from the Pentagon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.