Vladimir Putin says the world’s energy infrastructure is at risk
economist.com
economist.com
I can stop reading at this line to know that this isn't journalism, it's opinion at best and propaganda at worst. I expect better from HN.
At this point if Moscow gets obliterated in a Nuclear Mushroom cloud, I expect the next mornings headlines to be "And here's how Russia benefits from this"
The explosions benefit Russia because it gives them cover for a permanent stop to supplying Germany with gas, something that was already a given because Germany would never buy gas from Russia again due to their atrocities in the war. In the Russians' mind it gives them the "moral high ground" rather than humiliation and makes out the West to be the villain. This is typical Russian logic.
On the other side there is no rational reason for the West to destroy the pipelines, outside of strained conspiracy theories that the US wanted to stop Germany from buying gas from Russia and buy it from the US, which was already happening. Nevermind that the risk/reward of such an action would be stupid for the US and that it has other, much safer ways to achieve the same result.
Ordinary Russians need an income.
When you think of it, it's really sad. Because now that Russians have clearly realized that this is not any "special operation" but a real war, their war, and that they are going to die in it, it's already too late - it's even difficult to escape these days if you don't have ample resources.
I am not a Russian, but would highly advise you to carefully choose your words about any nation and their beliefs/logic.
> On the other side there is no rational reason for the West to destroy the pipelines
If you can't find reason, doesn't mean there is no reason. I could also ask same question there was no reason for NATO expansion because war ended, no reason for EU/US not to support diplomatic actions, instead of pushing to the war.
Russia is still supplying gas to Europe (and indirectly to Germany) through Ukrainian pipelines that operate normally. Despite all the carnage of war neither side attacked the pipelines. War is war and business is business.
What makes it strained? Even if Germany didn't buy gas, and wasn't planning to buy gas, that could change any time. Now it cannot.
The gas shortage in Europe has only just begun. We will suffer from it over the next several years, Germany more than most.
Saying there was never any chance of a change of policy in Germany is not serious.
Also which other country does have an interest in cutting internet cables between Europe and the US?
It's the "opinion" of pretty much everyone in the geopolitical community. Hardly propaganda.
And equating The Economist with Russia Today is just ludicrous and a sad demonstration of the effectiveness of the "Firehose of falsehood" propaganda technique employed by, well, guess who. (hint - same guys who blew up the pipeline)
It's that simple.
I disagree: "Hardly propaganda."
A loneley voice in the geopolitical community (August Hanning):
How exactly did Russia sneak so deep into enemy territory to blow it up and sneak back out again? Especially considering how incompetent we hear that they are in literally every single article written?
I've yet to read a single explanation of this, and in fact you would think we're not supposed to look on a map and ask ourselves this question since it doesn't seem to even be asked by "everyone in the geopolitical community".
Doesn't that seem strange?
Fortunately the US benefits the most from this so that was very considerate of Russia, I guess. To sabotage themselves for our benefit. Bold move.
Honest question. Now that you know just how easy it was for Russia (and only Russia) to do, does that change your calculus a little?
Russia had already shut off the gas, "hurting" themselves by your own logic. They have a long, proven history of irrational behaviour and false flag operations. And if the USA had done it, against all reason and logic, why didn't they finish the job?
Anyway, I did say almost certainly Russia. Who knows, could have been some faction in Germany or another EU power seeking to really force Germany's hand. But it seems far more likely to be the obvious actor with the means, motive and mindset who started the bloody war in the first place.
Also, everybody in Europe hates Russia so if the investigation had pointed to them that would have been shouted from the rooftops immediately. Instead, the details of the report has been hidden from public view and Russia was told they couldn't see it.
So really nothing would indicate Russia is behind it and everything indicates they're not.
Russia had already shut off the gas, "hurting" themselves by your own logic.
"Everyone" thought that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program.
Life is going to be one long series of disappointments for you. Well done for engaging your critical thinking faculties, but expecting unbiased facts is, well, naïve.
Keep being sceptical. Especially of the things you want to believe.
If the kremlin wants to shut down the pipeline, they simply shutdown. The sender and receivers are the last folks who will sabotage or damage.
So who did? It's going to be a well funded country with something to win.
Norway just got their pipe online literally 1 day after.
Canada/USA want to export their energy. Well not canada, they lack the capability.
Middle east? Maybe? Unlikely.
Climate groups? Very unlikely.
China or India? Absolutely. They are getting a huge discount on russian energy now.
Russia in active aggressor in this conflict and has the most to gain by killing the pipeline since the gas they now still sell is more expensive and they have other places to ship the gas (if anyone know a reference to Russian gas exports, I'd like to see).
For America to do it is harder to believe (even though there is a video of Biden alluding that they will "shut it down"). Even though they might have what to gain from LNG exports - the destruction of the European economy is not something that will help the US in the mid/long-term.
It would be one of the few actions the US could take in 2022 that would have pretty much bi-partisan political support. That to me lends a level of credibility to the possibility along with Biden’s inability to handle off the cuff questions, even though I suspect that the likely culprit is not the US.
However there is zero doubt in my mind that there are a group of folks within the Biden administration who cringe every time he runs off script. It’s said that President Obama once said “Never underestimate Joe Biden’s ability to fuck something up”.
But seriously, if anything is at risk, it is because he and people like him still exist.
Paraphrasing Jim Carrey in the movie Liar Liar: STOP THE WAR, ASSHOLE!
People often have a hard time accepting that a problem may not have a solution. The nuclear threats from this f**** regime are a good example: simply yielding to them doesn't actually decrease the risk of a nuclear exchange, it merely postpones it.
https://www.crn.com/news/security/zscaler-ceo-major-eu-inter...
Title: Zscaler CEO: ‘Major’ EU Internet Cable Cut Was ‘Act Of Vandalism’
Most incidents of cuts in internet cables usually have benign causes but given recent hostilities it's worth keeping an eye on whether these incidents start becoming far more common than they have been historically.
They cant be serious. The Kremlin gains nothing from blowing up their own pipeline.
The investment gave them potential leverage over the German energy market that is going to be screaming for more gas come winter.
America and Poland are the most likely culprits.
Here is why I think Germany will be relatively ok:
German source on Zeit.de showing gas deliveries from other countries making up a big chunk of Russian deliveries and German gas reserves being almost full and gas demand being ~25% under the average demand in the past years (probably largely due to the price of course). https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/energiemonitor-deutschland-ga...
Additionally LNG terminals are due to come live in December (if there won't be delays).
Germany will probably survive without a rash of people freezing to death but economically it is going to suffer very, very badly.
- Russia was very unbothered on day 1 of the explosion. Surely, someone blowing up _their_ pipe would have them up in arms about it? But no.
- It was the same day as the opening of a key pipeline between Norway and Poland. Feels like a "you think you have energy security?" moment.
But it's all speculation, ultimately...
On day 1 nobody except the culprits knew wtf was going on.
I wouldnt read too much into their hesitancy to comment.
Also the political risk for everyone else seems suicidally high.
Yeah, the risk of getting caught would be non-zero.
Apparently the lack of evidence and motive doesnt prevent respectable news publications from blaming Russia either.
Conveniently after the explosions, NS2 became one of the few working ways to get gas to Europe, and Putin offered to deliver gas via it. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/10/12/putin-offers-t...
That’s way he blew up what he blew up. To force Europe’s hand on NS2.
I can think of at least three parties for whom this would be convenient. All of them publicly objected to NS2 and and none of them are Russia.
Whatever benefit any NATO agent might have from blowing up these pipes would be negated by the risk of getting caught.
Neither, the US or Poland would want a weaker more fractured NATO -- which would be the result if they got caught doing this.
In that sense, it even makes sense for Russia to be coy about it.
All we hear from our esteemed journalists is how incompetent Russia is, until they need us to believe they snuck past everyone in the middle of war time undetected.
This is from the well-regarded Fiona Hill / Clark Gifford book:
----------
In fact, the Putin book turns out to be the only source for this story, something that ought to have set off alarm bells. Ot pervogo litsa was intended to be a campaign biography, or “semi–autobiography.” The publication of the book was orchestrated by Putin’s staff in the spring of 2000 based on a series of one–on–one interviews with a carefully selected troika of Russian journalists. Putin’s team’s task was to stage–manage the initial presentation, to all of Russia, of this relatively unknown person who was now standing for election as president of the country. It was crafted as a set of conversations with Putin himself, his wife, and other people close to him in his childhood and early life. Every vignette, every new fact presented in the book was chosen for a specific political purpose. The journalists who interviewed Putin also used some of the material for articles in their own newspapers and other publications.
What, then, could Putin’s purpose have been in revealing such a character flaw? The answer becomes evident when one reflects on the curious ending of the book. Ot pervogo litsa ends with the interviewers noting that Putin seems, after all the episodes in his life that they have gone through, to be a predictable and rather boring person. Had he never done anything on a whim perhaps? Putin responded by recounting an incident when he risked his own life and that of his passenger, his martial arts coach, while driving on a road outside Leningrad (in fact when he was at university). He tried to grab a piece of hay through his open car window from a passing truck and very nearly lost control of the car. At the end of the harrowing ride, his white–faced (and presumably furious) coach turned to Putin and said, “You take risks.” Why did Putin do that? “I guess I thought the hay smelled good” (Navernoye, seno vkusno pakhlo), said Putin. This is the last line in the book. The reader clearly is meant to identify with Putin’s coach and ask: “Wait! What was that all about? Just who is this guy?”
See more here:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/mr-putin-operative-in-the-k...
So instead he'll level the gap against the West by burning it. Ah no he can't do that, he'll go around cutting cables and blowing up pipes.
Or is Putin assuming he can behave like a gangster and eventually we’ll back down? I’m not sure this is possible given that any sign of weakness leads to more threats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_research_vessel_Yantar
- Before all sanctions, the Russian economy was about the same size as the Italian economy. Russia barely has any allies: Belarus and to some extent Iran (with some vocal supporters like Venezuela or Syria, but they have nothing substantial to offer). Neither China nor India will back Russia. You can see how isolated Russia is in the United Nations (e.g. UNGA Resolution ES-11/4).
- Russia has lost most of its conventional military capacity and capability in Ukraine. Russia is nowhere near the Soviet Union with its Warsaw Pact satellites. The illusion of its mighty power was based on propaganda. To the point where Putin himself began believe his own propaganda and Russia's invincibility.
- Yet, they threaten NATO and the aligned countries. NATO is a military superpower. These countries combined (USA, EU, UK) have a population of ~1 billion people. It is also nearly a half of the world economy.
Just because the consequences for Russia would be unimaginably bad doesn't mean much. What is important is that the de-escalation happens. And part of that involves listening to what the Russians are saying earnestly, rather than going with millennia of monkey-instincts that say to stop listening to the out group when times are tough.
It is certainly important to de-escalate, but it cannot happen under the Russian terms. The current war in Ukraine is a war of conquest. Moreover, it is genocidal (as dictator in Russia is questining the very existance of the Ukrainian nation). There must be serious consequences for this, otherwise we just go one or rather two centuries back when invading, conquering territories and enslaving the local populations was a norm.
Except for the China-Taiwan thing and the concerning risk of an unstable China after their COVID policies. We're very close to a really ugly situation.
Russia is isolated in the Ukraine conflict, but not in opposing the US military.
Poland was invaded by Germany on Sep 1 and when they overran the designated by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact borders Russians occupied the rest of the country beginning on Sep 17th.
No major fighting occured between the Russians and the Polish army during the russian occupation.
It doensn't change the end result, occupation by both countries, but they're some accounts that Stalin was hesitant to send his troops early.
People are much more satisfied/apathetic, they won't collectively risk their quality of life for a war.
The biggest predictor of mass violence (war) is your run of the mill daily violence (murders, revolts, terrorism etc), those are at historic minimums.
The second biggest predictor is trust in institutions, which also is at an all time low. This is especially true in Russia, but also in the West. The shelf life of a POTUS is basically 2-6 months, that's how long the approval rating stays above 50%.
By the time the 1st anniversary of inauguration comes around every POTUS from now on will be around 35-38%. That has never been the case ever.
Russia has no allies on the world, only common enemy relations.
In terms of equivalent / proportional response, RU can fuck with maritime infra and disproportionately disrupt NATO countries more reliant on imports and trade flows / connectivitiy. NATO would have to escalate to disrupting RU within RU soil, or hit one of their critical connections to PRC which would be... bold.
I don't think the west would take kindly to commerce raiders, or cutting of cables.
If Russian forces NATO to make a kinetic response, then what is Russia's next play?
It's probably fine for Russian propaganda to claim they are fighting NATO in Ukraine, but that line becomes much harder to keep if they are suddenly fighting NATO.