Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[avfc1982am]

 

[Panto_Villan]

8 minutes ago, tinker said:

Putin's hasnt played his trump card yet and it's not nuclear, it's simply turning the gas off to Europe during a cold snap. He's obviously waiting until the middle of winter. The gas price will rocket to levels never seen before. 

At that's point we will also, I would guess, see power cuts, at least in the UK as we generate the majority of our electricity via gas and the price of it will mean it has to go off.

Problem is the world depends upon Russia for a large portion of its commodities, a situation our politicians have put us in..

He totally has. He’s completely turned off the gas flows about a month ago and now he’s literally blown the pipelines up.

Edit: and also Europe already has their storage levels at 80%+ which is more than enough to see us all through winter. If there’s a problem it’ll be next winter.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[magnkarl]

11 minutes ago, tinker said:

Putin's hasnt played his trump card yet and it's not nuclear, it's simply turning the gas off to Europe during a cold snap. He's obviously waiting until the middle of winter. The gas price will rocket to levels never seen before. 

At that's point we will also, I would guess, see power cuts, at least in the UK as we generate the majority of our electricity via gas and the price of it will mean it has to go off.

Problem is the world depends upon Russia for a large portion of its commodities, a situation our politicians have put us in..

The gas magazines in Europe and especially Germany are 90% full. Norway's opened up a pipeline to Poland and Denmark today. (I imagine that's why Putin's done this)

The UK has gas from Norway. Norway together with other allies are able to cover Russia's gas deliveries if Europe manages to push through on some other fronts. They've already agreed partially to cap the price for NATO members.

Point moot.

If Russia did this in July it might have had an effect.

In other news NASAMS delivered to Ukraine are likely third generation. The most advanced AA system in the world with launchers that can be mounted on fast moving Spartan or Jeep vehicles. It's a bloody nightmare for a country like Russia who have no real counters. Hitting a jeep with artillery is about as easy as finding a needle in a haystack. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by magnkarl

[Panto_Villan]

6 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

 

If you’re trying to imply the US is behind the attacks that makes no sense. They could end Nord Stream 2 with sanctions alone, whereas a military attack in the territory of their allies would be a massive diplomatic incident if it were revealed. There’s no reason for them to use military force here.

[Lichfield Dean]

21 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

 

Interesting. I was wondering about the assumption that the Russians did this. How easy is it to blow something up at the bottom of the sea bed? Would you need some pretty decent tech? Is that something that modern Russia would have?

I know nothing about underwater warfare.

[avfc1982am]

15 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

If you’re trying to imply the US is behind the attacks that makes no sense. They could end Nord Stream 2 with sanctions alone, whereas a military attack in the territory of their allies would be a massive diplomatic incident if it were revealed. There’s no reason for them to use military force here.

I'm not implying anything, just posting what's out there.   

[Panto_Villan]

1 minute ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Interesting. I was wondering about the assumption that the Russians did this. How easy is it to blow something up at the bottom of the sea bed? Would you need some pretty decent tech? Is that something that modern Russia would have?

I know nothing about underwater warfare.

My knowledge of this is kinda limited too, but I’ve seen a couple of theories mentioned. Attacks were at depths of about 50m so apparently plain old divers could do it.

The other theory I’ve seen suggested is the Russians just pumped more and more gas until the pipe ruptured, so no actual attack needed. No idea if that is feasible though.

[LondonLax]

Maybe it was not Russia at all blowing up their own pipes? Could be a number of interested parties, even Greenpeace type activists etc

[avfc1982am]

My initial thought was whether or not the pipe had actually ruptured. If it was a gas explosion surely the blast radius would be far bigger? I don't know how the damage would differ between one or the other, but I didn't think an explosion would leave gas leaking like that.

[magnkarl]

6 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

My initial thought was whether or not the pipe had actually ruptured. If it was a gas explosion surely the blast radius would be far bigger? I don't know how the damage would differ between one or the other, but I didn't think an explosion would leave gas leaking like that.

Sweden and Denmark report that the blast signatures are that of explosives, they've got readings all the way up in Hamar, Norway, 700kms away. Definitely not a rupture.. There wouldn't be a 'blast' with a rupture alone, and it sure as hell wouldn't happen on both Swedish and Danish soil.

Edited September 27, 2022 by magnkarl

[LondonLax]

3 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

My initial thought was whether or not the pipe had actually ruptured. If it was a gas explosion surely the blast radius would be far bigger? I don't know how the damage would differ between one or the other, but I didn't think an explosion would leave gas leaking like that.

Well it was under water and at night so there’s nothing to see in the aftermath but seismologists recorded two explosions this morning  in short succession about 100km apart from each other, one corresponding to Nordstream 1 and one corresponding to Nordstream 2.

Seems suspicious. 

 

[blandy]

Re: whodunnit on the two pipelines. Firstly, to precisely target the pipelines a level of military involvement and equipment seems necessary, even if undertaken from an incognito vessel like a “trawler”. Or it could have been done via submarine.  But it’s unlikely to have been civilian protestors against war or Russia or the Eu buying Russian energy and thus paying for Ukraine war.

The EU has nothing to gain from it. Ukraine kind of does as it stops the EU buying Russian gas, if it were operating…but Russia has turned the gas off in one and the other was never opened, so not them, then.

The US or any other seller of LNG or gas to the EU? Nothing to gain really, they’re already selling as much as they possibly can and as posted above, the downside if fingered fit it would be immense.

So that leaves either the Russian state, but they have already turned off the gas, so then that seems to leave Russian military dissatisfied with Russia not being hard enough on the evil EU and the west, acting on their own agenda.

Just thinking out loud, but that’s my guess.

[HKP90]

Could this be an internal power thing between Putin and the oligarchs running the gas companies? 

I just don’t see how anyone wins from this. Surely if Putin wanted to turn off supply, he could just turn the tap off, without blowing the pipes up. 

Unless the US want to guard against anyone in Europe getting second thoughts in opposing the war when things get tough in the winter? 

All just complete speculation as it doesn't seem superficially to make any sense at all.

[LondonLax]

I’ve not yet heard a convincing argument as to Russia being the culprit for blowing up their own assets. It kind of **** their negotiation position, they can no longer dangle the carrot of gas to a desperate Germany in the middle of winter. It’s more probable some other party have just put further pressure on Russia by removing one of their strongest cards.

[Jareth]

Russia are good at self sabotage TBF

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Unless the US want to guard against anyone in Europe getting second thoughts in opposing the war when things get tough in the winter? 

That bit doesn’t add up to me. Definitely depriving the EU of gas, means more likely EU citizen protests when it gets cold, thus undermining unity against Russia and aiding Russia, not the West.

[HKP90]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

That bit doesn’t add up to me. Definitely depriving the EU of gas, means more likely EU citizen protests when it gets cold, thus undermining unity against Russia and aiding Russia, not the West.

True, but without a pipeline there would be literally nothing they could do to reestablish a supply with Russia, even if there was citizen protest. 

You are right, though, it would weaken the EU right when the States would want it to be strong, so long story short, I have absolutely no clue. Rogue Russian hardliners? God knows.

[HKP90]

26 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Well it was under water and at night so there’s nothing to see in the aftermath but seismologists recorded two explosions this morning  in short succession about 100km apart from each other, one corresponding to Nordstream 1 and one corresponding to Nordstream 2.

Seems suspicious. 

 

Was there enough time between blasts for it to be a single actor? If not, it's co-ordinated, which would suggest a larger organisation.

[tinker]

1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said:

He totally has. He’s completely turned off the gas flows about a month ago and now he’s literally blown the pipelines up.

Edit: and also Europe already has their storage levels at 80%+ which is more than enough to see us all through winter. If there’s a problem it’ll be next winter.

I think you will find Russia is still supplying Europe with gas through different pipelines , Yamal was cut off yesterday, Brotherhood and Souyoz are still in use and so is the southern line to Turkey.

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

True, but without a pipeline there would be literally nothing they could do to reestablish a supply with Russia, even if there was citizen protest. 

You are right, though, it would weaken the EU right when the States would want it to be strong, so long story short, I have absolutely no clue. Rogue Russian hardliners? God knows.

Aye, also true.