←back to thread

688 points hunglee2 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
syzarian ◴[] No.34707465[source]
Seymour doesn’t provide any proof or any evidence. It’s argument by assertion. What he writes is plausible but without any sources or other corroborating evidence. I think it more believable that Seymour has been paid to write this by a Russian aligned entity.

I don’t know the truth of the matter and Seymour could be right. We just can’t tell from the evidence provided.

replies(9): >>34707570 #>>34708763 #>>34709046 #>>34710161 #>>34712925 #>>34712963 #>>34715214 #>>34715699 #>>34757270 #
mytailorisrich ◴[] No.34709046[source]
If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. Of course this is not evidence but this the sort of operation where success means no evidence (at least no evidence available to the public at large as it is possible and, one might hope, likely that neighbouring countries know).
replies(5): >>34709242 #>>34709265 #>>34712642 #>>34712780 #>>34712891 #
dragonwriter ◴[] No.34709265[source]
> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it.

I disagree.

The most logical explanation is tha Russia did it as a capacity demonstration and threat against Baltic Pipe to pressure contries in the region regarding Ukraine, but that, like all their threats against the West over Ukraine policy so far, the threat was hollow.

replies(4): >>34710195 #>>34712818 #>>34712819 #>>34731175 #
mytailorisrich ◴[] No.34710195[source]
The US have been overtly against those pipelines and the close relations between Germany and Russia, including and especially energy dependency. In fact, a major win of the US so far in the Ukraine war has been the Europeans' and especially Germany's shift in gas supplies from Russia to themselves.

Russia destroying their own pipelines (both NS 1 and the new NS 2 were sabotaged) looks like them shooting themselves in both feet at once. Like doing 'capacity demonstration' by nuking the Kremlin... They could, but would that be a likely scenario?

Many, if not most, expert observers strongly suspect the US for a reason.

replies(1): >>34710608 #
syzarian ◴[] No.34710608[source]
Germany gets its gas natural gas from Norway now. It would be unlikely that the U.S. would attack the gas supplies of a major NATO ally. Especially when that ally has been less than enthusiastic in helping Ukraine.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/where-does-germany-s...

replies(2): >>34710855 #>>34712916 #
mytailorisrich ◴[] No.34710855[source]
They get a lot from Norway because it is near and there are pipelines, but US' LNG exports to the EU are through the roof and will keep growing as things get organised.

Joe talks a lot:

"If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2, we will bring an end to it." -- Joe Biden, Feb 2022, with the German's Chancellor standing next to him! [1]

So at the very least the US thought that they indeed had control over that "major NATO ally" and could make thinly veiled threats to their face. Why you think that the US would be above sabotage on a matter of strategic national interests is unclear.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-vladimir...

replies(1): >>34711144 #
syzarian ◴[] No.34711144[source]
On February 22, 2022 German Chancellor Scholz suspended certification of Nordstream2 following Russia formally recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk as republics. I believe that, but can’t find a confirming source, that Russia was obligated to make deliveries via Nordstream1 even though it did not have access to SWIFT. By it no longer being operational it was no longer required to make deliveries.

It is inconceivable that Biden made that comment without consulting Germany. Also it was primarily Nordstream1 that was attacked.

Gas prices spiked and it seems likelier that Russia was behind it. At least to me. I don’t know the truth of the matter.

replies(1): >>34712589 #
pphysch ◴[] No.34712589[source]
Washington, under Obama, was caught spying directly on Angela Merkel and her government. What leads you to believe that Washington has ever respected Germany, which it occupies with tens of thousands of troops, as a sovereign equal?
replies(3): >>34712957 #>>34712988 #>>34713248 #
nosianu ◴[] No.34713248{4}[source]
> Germany, which it occupies with tens of thousands of troops

As a German, not just me, when Trump threatened - yes threatened! - to withdraw lots of troops from Germany there was lots of Angst about the economic fallout. US troops are in areas that have benefited, and still benefit, very heavily from their presence.

The opinion that US troops are "occupiers" can only be found in some tiny minority fringe groups, left and right, if even that.

I'm East German even, who even maintained interest in the ex USSR territories, visiting a few times (Ukraine and Russia, both, even taking a two month long Russian language course to refresh my knowledge, so I should be biased towards the Russian PoV, but there is no way I would find your assertion anything but nonsense. Having US troops in Germany is mostly looked upon favorably, even when Germans have not agreed with some of the wars the US fought using them.

There also is a significant difference in public opinion before the Russian invasion and after. Also, opinions and the relationship were worst, by far, during the Trump years. So, during that time, and before the invasion, and definitely after Trump, the opinion was indeed more in favor of the US leaving. For some strange reason Russia decided to help out European-US alliance and to give it a huge boost...

Just as an example, it's not like that hasn't been reported many times since last February:

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/international-...

They include their methodology at the top, including the questions asked.

> Data collection began a week prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the UK and Japan.

.

Oh and I'm of the - weakly held - opinion that it was the Russians who blew up the pipeline. I don't understand the questions here about benefits and motives - this has all been discussed to death elsewhere, anyone seriously interested in the topic, and not just wanting to annoy somebody here, would/could just have gone there and read it all. I'd suspect Poland more than the US, they've been visibly mad and very outspoken about Germany's Russia reliance and close ties for a long time, they've felt threatened by the Russians and are right next to them.

https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/68455... -- "Nord Stream 2 as a Threat to National Interests of Poland and Ukraine"

There is no shortage of candidates, and if the governments don't want to talk, not even the Russians making much noise, I see no good purpose behind all this speculation. Especially when people start making strong assertions left and right, based on carefully selected pieces of facts. What a waste of time, but I didn't want to let the "US troops occupy Germany" stand, it's just too silly. Oh, and one pipe of NS2 remaining does seem kind of significant to me. Hardly an accident.

replies(1): >>34713528 #
1. pphysch ◴[] No.34713528{5}[source]
Also as a German, I respectfully disagree with your opinion on this matter.

For the most part, I agree that the US occupation has been benign. Really, they are not protecting Germany from anything, but also not causing many problems. They are perhaps creating some jobs even.

However, when Washington starts blowing up critical national infrastructure to advance its narrow geopolitical interests, that changes.

To be clear, the economic fallout of Germany having to export LNG across the Atlantic instead of through already-existing pipelines is vastly more severe than US closing its military bases (which could be partially reappropriated by a growing Bundeswehr).

replies(1): >>34714980 #
2. nosianu ◴[] No.34714980[source]
> However, when Washington starts blowing up critical national infrastructure to advance its narrow geopolitical interests

Well, that is an unsubstantiated opinion not held by the majority. I did not claim nobody with such opinions exist, one just has to look at the AfD.

Oh and it was Russia that stopped sending gas, long before the pipelines were blown up. You also conveniently don't address my last point, which does not fit the "the US was it" so that's understandable on some level.

> they are not protecting Germany from anything

And the reason for that is that we can hide behind Poland, which is protected by NATO.