1. #24181
    Over 9000! zealo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    9,144
    I kinda wonder, did Russia hit their own pipelines by mistake in an attempt to sabotage Baltic Pipe?

    Confirmation coming out the damage is from deliberate explosions, and it being this close to the partial opening of a new pipeline from Norway to Poland, set to enter partial operation on October 1st of this year, is highly suspicious.

  2. #24182
    Quote Originally Posted by zealo View Post
    I kinda wonder, did Russia hit their own pipelines by mistake in an attempt to sabotage Baltic Pipe?

    Confirmation coming out the damage is from deliberate explosions, and it being this close to the partial opening of a new pipeline from Norway to Poland, set to enter partial operation on October 1st of this year, is highly suspicious.
    If Russia wanted to further mobilize the West against them, to the point where directly attacking a pipeline could even be pushed as a reason for triggering article 5, then yeah.... sure....
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  3. #24183
    Pandaren Monk Iphie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Suomi/Nederland
    Posts
    1,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    If Russia wanted to further mobilize the West against them, to the point where directly attacking a pipeline could even be pushed as a reason for triggering article 5, then yeah.... sure....
    And that's the thing isn't it? There's literally no gain for russia here, no goodwill, no tactical advantage, risk of art. 5. For them to do it is beyond odd. But then, they have been behaving rather strangely lately.

  4. #24184
    Over 9000! zealo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    9,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    If Russia wanted to further mobilize the West against them, to the point where directly attacking a pipeline could even be pushed as a reason for triggering article 5, then yeah.... sure....
    That's the thing, article 6 is also kinda explicit about what article 5 covers.

    For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

    on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

    on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
    That is to say, it has been written deliberately to not cover things happening that are not strictly on the territories of signatories, and the locations for these blasts weren't within that in the most strictest of terms.

  5. #24185
    Quote Originally Posted by zealo View Post
    That's the thing, article 6 is also kinda explicit about what article 5 covers.

    That is to say, it has been written deliberately to not cover things happening that are not strictly on the territories of signatories, and the locations for these blasts weren't within that in the most strictest of terms.
    It wasn't an entirely serious point. NATO isn't going to go to open war with Russia over a pipeline. But its probably about as close as Russia could get.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  6. #24186
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    33,871
    This feels like a slow roll up to some kind of catastrophic nuclear exchange. Putin is already drafting people, and that means they ran out of available peeps already in service (did Russia keep their 2 years conscription requirement from the USSR?).

  7. #24187
    Pandaren Monk Iphie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Suomi/Nederland
    Posts
    1,905
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    This feels like a slow roll up to some kind of catastrophic nuclear exchange. Putin is already drafting people, and that means they ran out of available peeps already in service (did Russia keep their 2 years conscription requirement from the USSR?).
    No, they went to 1 year. Among other things to fight the abuse of conscripts by older conscripts and career military.

  8. #24188
    Quote Originally Posted by Iphie View Post
    And that's the thing isn't it? There's literally no gain for russia here, no goodwill, no tactical advantage, risk of art. 5. For them to do it is beyond odd. But then, they have been behaving rather strangely lately.
    That's what puzzles me about this. I don't see any country benefitting from this. Russia wants the pipeline to tempt Germany with when the days get cold and get reserves run low. Some people say the US which is just preposterous. They don't need the threaten the entire Western cooperation by attacking a pipe to stop NS1, they can do that with soft pressure and sanctions just fine.

    I don't see anyone who benefits from this outside of some radical nature movement who I doubt would just pull of multiple undersea bombings at the same time.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    This feels like a slow roll up to some kind of catastrophic nuclear exchange. Putin is already drafting people, and that means they ran out of available peeps already in service (did Russia keep their 2 years conscription requirement from the USSR?).
    Russia still has conscripts but they legally cannot be used in a 'special operation that is totally not a war'.
    Ofcourse they could just change the law but its a public step they are apparently not willing to make. They still try to keep up some pretence. Tho no one is buying the 'no losses' line anymore.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  9. #24189
    Russia has repeatedly cut off its own nose to spite its face so them sabotaging the pipeline would not surprise me.

    They are trying to blame the Ukrainians for it.

  10. #24190
    Congratulations to the newly freed people of the now expanded Russian Federation in what is being universally recognised as a free and fair election. If by any chance any men of fighting age (that's anyone born with a penis within the ages of 9 to....well there is no upper limit) and your new benevolent overlords offer (with your assumed consent) the chance to donate arms (probably a rifle from WW2) to your previous homeland by placing you on the front lines and surrendering then please take the chance to execute your officers before doing so.

    In all seriousness though, aside from the ratcheting of nuclear rhetoric, the worst implication of this is Ukrainians being drafted to fight Ukrainians, hopefully these unwilling conscripts can find a work round before making it to safety via surrendering with as much Russian equipment as they can.

  11. #24191
    Pandaren Monk Iphie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Suomi/Nederland
    Posts
    1,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    That's what puzzles me about this. I don't see any country benefitting from this. Russia wants the pipeline to tempt Germany with when the days get cold and get reserves run low. Some people say the US which is just preposterous. They don't need the threaten the entire Western cooperation by attacking a pipe to stop NS1, they can do that with soft pressure and sanctions just fine.

    I don't see anyone who benefits from this outside of some radical nature movement who I doubt would just pull of multiple undersea bombings at the same time.
    I mean, I agree, literally no one who could pull it off would benefit, and those who would benefit, or who have a cause, like radical nature movements, don't have the means. (I hope, because if one of those movements has the means I'm just a bit concerned, no matter how much I support fighting climate change.)

    It's puzzling as you say.

  12. #24192
    Russia does benefit though. Neither were in use but they happened right near the newly opened line coming from Norway. And Russia still supplies gas via other pipelines. It's yet another warning shot trying desperately to get Europe to stop supporting Ukraine, otherwise other gaslines like the Norwegian one, might also have accidents.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Lyman is very close to being surrounded with the only road into it under Ukrainian artillery range. Russia are desperate to hold it and have reportedly 5 to 7 thousand troops there.

    https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/statu...UPDWBWZZKVHf_A
    Last edited by Corvus; 2022-09-28 at 01:37 AM.

  13. #24193
    Pandaren Monk Iphie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Suomi/Nederland
    Posts
    1,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus View Post
    Russia does benefit though. Neither were in use but they happened right near the newly opened line coming from Norway. And Russia still supplies gas via other pipelines. It's yet another warning shot trying desperately to get Europe to stop supporting Ukraine, otherwise other gaslines like the Norwegian one, might also have accidents.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Lyman is very close to being surrounded with the only road into it under Ukrainian artillery range. Russia are desperate to hold it and have reportedly 5 to 7 thousand troops there.

    https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/statu...UPDWBWZZKVHf_A
    No, sorry I disagree. "Courting war to try to force Europe to stop supporting Ukraine.", is not what I'd call a benefit, in fact I'd say it would be a massive miscalculation. I usually agree with you Corvus but I really think you're wrong here.

  14. #24194
    The Unstoppable Force Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    24,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Iphie View Post
    No, sorry I disagree. "Courting war to try to force Europe to stop supporting Ukraine.", is not what I'd call a benefit, in fact I'd say it would be a massive miscalculation. I usually agree with you Corvus but I really think you're wrong here.
    Well I mean this whole thing has been a "massive miscalculation" on Russia's part at pretty much every step of the way.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  15. #24195
    Pandaren Monk Iphie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Suomi/Nederland
    Posts
    1,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    Well I mean this whole thing has been a "massive miscalculation" on Russia's part at pretty much every step of the way.
    It has, but when you struggle with one country, supported by other countries who have to exercise restraint lest they become active participants, it is generally not a super good idea to take the restraints of the supporting countries by directly attacking them. (Even russia has to see that it would be a really, really bad idea to draw NATO in actively.)

    But then, as said, "massive miscalculation".

  16. #24196
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    If Russia wanted to further mobilize the West against them, to the point where directly attacking a pipeline could even be pushed as a reason for triggering article 5, then yeah.... sure....
    It's not going to trigger Art. 5. The West has no interest in a direct confrontation. Actually, the West would prefer if Russia didn't force their hand, because it would look like a typical discussion on here, where you start out with "Russia vs. US, who would win?" and inevitably, on page one, some guy goes "Yeah, but nukes!" and the discussion is over, because all that's left to do is see who is left after the fallout.

    Some dumb pipeline that doesn't even belong to Europe? Yeah, not going to make anyone overly uncomfortable, although of course the horse will be beaten to a pulp diplomatically before all of this is over.
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  17. #24197
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    It's not going to trigger Art. 5. The West has no interest in a direct confrontation. Actually, the West would prefer if Russia didn't force their hand, because it would look like a typical discussion on here, where you start out with "Russia vs. US, who would win?" and inevitably, on page one, some guy goes "Yeah, but nukes!" and the discussion is over, because all that's left to do is see who is left after the fallout.

    Some dumb pipeline that doesn't even belong to Europe? Yeah, not going to make anyone overly uncomfortable, although of course the horse will be beaten to a pulp diplomatically before all of this is over.
    They bombed a pipeline that is in Sweden and Denmark, regardless of who owns it. This could be seen as a direct military assault against those countries, one of which is a NATO member. The problem is that it is hard to prove who did I guess.

  18. #24198
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    It's not going to trigger Art. 5. The West has no interest in a direct confrontation. Actually, the West would prefer if Russia didn't force their hand, because it would look like a typical discussion on here, where you start out with "Russia vs. US, who would win?" and inevitably, on page one, some guy goes "Yeah, but nukes!" and the discussion is over, because all that's left to do is see who is left after the fallout.

    Some dumb pipeline that doesn't even belong to Europe? Yeah, not going to make anyone overly uncomfortable, although of course the horse will be beaten to a pulp diplomatically before all of this is over.
    I agree that this is often the case, but It shouldn't be. Before the start of the great war, as WW1 was then called, many intellectuals argued that a great war was not going to happen because of the large armies that nations had build up acting as a protection against war, because a full scale war would lead too the destruction of all nations involved and was therefore unthinkable. An argument used was the Chinese Civil war that started in ~1850 had caused between 20-30million casualties, and that the western nations with their much bigger armies and much more advances weaponry would lead to a much bloodier conflict (the chinese started the rebellion using mainly spears/swords/bows and handcannons tied to sticks along with terracotta "handgrenades".

    Yet obviously the first world war did happen.

    I don't believe that if Russia where to use a nuclear weapon as a show of force that the US would respond with nuclear weapons themselves. I think their main priority is disabling Russia's launching capabilities ASAP and I believe they'll most likely have more efficient weapons for that. Additionally I could see the US throw a heavy nuke on a Russian bunker/base hidden deep within Siberia far from civilization just to show they're capable of reaching everywhere within Russia.

    I think a big error in this debate is the idea of MAD. I don't believe Russia has the capability to destroy the US and Europe. theoretically if they'd launch all their launchable weaponry simultaneously it could destroy large parts of the western world, but even then that would just be the start of a really horrible and short war that Russia would lose. In reality there are the possibilities of countermeasures, weapon and equipment malfunctions, refusals to execute orders, breakdown in communications, sabotage and many more that'll make the real world scenario play out less apocalyptic, yet ultimately still devastating and world changing.

    The only way that Russia can reliably hit the US is though the use of their submarines, and if they were to station all their nuclear missile subs around the US and launch all their weapons and hit all their targets the US would obviously be devastated, but it would still be around and capable of fighting back. Theoretically they could shoot one of their ICBMs toward the US but these things are huge, and can't be launched from just anywhere. They can only be launched from relatively deep within Russia, their launch would most likely be detected and while they go very fast and far, they can't deviate much from their projected path without losing significant range, and they're going to need all of it to hit the west coast. A large cloud of metal particles deposited in it's projected path would shred the missile long before it could split up.

    On top of that Russia is suspecting the US of having loitering ICBMs that can enter the orbit and from there change their course, which means that unlike the Russian missiles that have to travel along a thousands miles long path which is entirely predictable the US ones can just change course when orbiting above Russia, even when already detected and tracked (very difficult) there would only be a few seconds between them finding out it's intended target and the moment of impact.

    I won't say Putin won't use a nuke, but realistically speaking it'd a very bad move for him and Russia. Using a single nuke as a show of force would most likely sour his relationship with China and India further. It would open the floodgates for military intervention from all over the world. after that and even if all things go according to his designs when going for a nuclear apocalypses Russia would still lose, and Putin will die. And his greatest enemy the US would most likely come out of it largely unscathed.

    This would cement his legacy as the worst and weakest leader in the history of Russia. The reason why I think he could use a single one is because that would be a catastrophically bad idea for him and blow up in his face which is kind of his playbook at this moment.
    Last edited by P for Pancetta; 2022-09-28 at 11:53 AM.

  19. #24199
    I'm still not completely convinced it wasn't actually Finland taking a revenge on Germany for the Uniper episode.

  20. #24200
    Pandaren Monk Iphie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Suomi/Nederland
    Posts
    1,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I'm still not completely convinced it wasn't actually Finland taking a revenge on Germany for the Uniper episode.
    I know you're not serious, but what's that?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •