Comments
black641 t1_j9i2jlt wrote
I'm pretty sure attacking any NATO infrastructure is an immediate act of war. That in turn, triggers Article 5 which, in turn, fucks Russia even worse than they already are.
SquarePie3646 t1_j9iekwq wrote
>That in turn, triggers Article 5 which
Article 5 does not get triggered automatically. And the treaty lays out conditions for invoking it by a country that has been attacked:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
>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.
An attack on pipelines in international waters for example might not technically be accepted as a reason to invoke article 5.
Sixcoup t1_j9j7tjt wrote
> on the Algerian Departments of France
Maybe it's time to rewrite those rules ...
Friendly-Health-4518 t1_j9k6tq8 wrote
Hmmm the key question is whether those are considered international waters? In the Pacific Indian and Atlantic Ocean international waters are easy to define. However in the Baltic, Black , Mediterranean and North seas less so because of the little concept of Exclusive Economic Zone and possibly the extended continental shelf which effectively extends some countries territorial waters.
Chubbybellylover888 t1_j9kn2si wrote
Is French Guyana under NATO protection as well or is it excluded?
SquarePie3646 t1_j9liez0 wrote
I don't believe so, but I'm not sure. The Falkland Islands weren't, and it's believed that even Hawaii would not be covered under the language of the treaty.
edit: Found this on /r/MapPorn
https://reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/ulb5mc/nato_article_5_coverage/
Chubbybellylover888 t1_j9mr5v8 wrote
Thanks!
[deleted] t1_j9ilvjq wrote
[removed]
TheBusStop12 t1_j9ink1t wrote
Denmark and Germany decided against triggering Article 5 after Russia blew up the Nord Stream pipelines.
It all depends on just how critical the infrastructure is to whether you want to risk all out war. It's a balance the attacked country must decide themselves. Same goes for Russia, they know that if they go too far they'll risk too much, so I'm very doubtful they'll damage anything critical
msemen_DZ t1_j9irlra wrote
>Denmark and Germany decided against triggering Article 5 after Russia blew up the Nord Stream pipelines.
Because there is no proof of that. Article 5 is a very big deal. Try calling Article 5 on something with no proof, you gonna get shut down by other NATO members. You don't escalate like this on hunches.
TheBusStop12 t1_j9is1xf wrote
>Try calling Article 5 on something with no proof, you gonna get shut down by other NATO members.
All of NATO came along when the US triggered article 5 after 9/11 to invade Afghanistan without proper proof (everyone nowadays knows it was mostly Saudi Arabian people behind the attack)
If Article 5 is triggered then that's it, members will have to respond in some form. Lest you risk the alliance falling apart. It's built on trust after all.
Luckily members do not throw this around willy nilly, especially where Russia is concerned, and will likely only trigger it if there's substantial proof that Russia crippled critical infrastructure
venomm1123 t1_j9ise1q wrote
> All of NATO came along when the US triggered article 5 after 9/11 to invade Afghanistan without proper proof (everyone nowadays knows it was mostly Saudi Arabian people behind the attack)
Osama bin Laden was physically in Afghanistan and Afghanistan received an ultimatum requesting to hand him over to the US, which they refused.
Quackagate t1_j9iv941 wrote
Ehh they offered to turn him over if we recognized them as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. O how the would would be different if we had took that path
venomm1123 t1_j9iykkk wrote
When dealing with sociopaths, "yes if (condition)" means no. It is a test of your naivete. This is basically a fundamental part of criminal mind and traces all the way to game theory.
Would one be stupid enough to actually agree and recognize Taliban? If one is indeed naive, then they'll make sure to apologize profusely once Mr. bin Laden escapes right after you recognized Taliban.
In fact, they'll be so sorry that they will promise they'll spare no effort in finding him IF (another condition)
The length of this sequence is limited only by the stupidity of the mark.
ringobob t1_j9klonj wrote
How about "the US is prepared to recognize anyone who hands Bin Laden over to us as de facto leaders of Afghanistan at the point of transfer. Go. We'll be making a trophy."
Tongue firmly planted in cheek, if that wasn't obvious to anyone.
venomm1123 t1_j9l91xx wrote
I believe the very desire to get into these word games means you are already tricked. It's the wrong approach.
You know the Aesop's fable of "The Wolf and the Lamb"? https://read.gov/aesop/063.html
When talking to a wolf, it is not about the word games. It is about whether you look like a lamb, or a grizzly bear.
ringobob t1_j9lcx71 wrote
Hence the tongue in cheek. I agree with you.
Paintingmyfreedom t1_j9jum8m wrote
Can you source that they refused? Bc that’s not real history
msemen_DZ t1_j9ivcgw wrote
They had proof linking Al Qaeda to the event in just a few hours, that's why everyone responded.
The point is the US still had to prove to NATO allies that the attacks were eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty Article 5. This wasn't confirmed until beginning of October even though the US invoked it on the 12th of September.
VolvoFlexer t1_j9j2fk8 wrote
>Because there is no proof of that.
Exactly, so what's stopping them from doing it again?
qtx t1_j9jdc19 wrote
That's like the dummest take ever.
There isn't even any proof that this was a sabotage attempt, let alone who was behind it.
VolvoFlexer t1_j9jfolb wrote
On 11 November 2022, Wired reported that satellite imagery revealed two large unidentified ships which had turned off their AIS trackers and had appeared around the site of the leaks in the days before the gas leaks were detected.
On 18 November 2022, Swedish authorities announced that remains of explosives were found at the site of the leaks, and confirmed that the incident was the result of sabotage.
Paintingmyfreedom t1_j9jr2r8 wrote
Why would Russia bomb the pipeline?
What evidence do you have it was them. Fuck Russia but I don’t see it likely it was them. That was bad for them
qtx t1_j9jd5fu wrote
> Denmark and Germany decided against triggering Article 5 after Russia blew up the Nord Stream pipelines.
There is as much proof that the US was behind that as there is that Russia is behind it.
All the affected countries (Norway, Germany, Denmark) have been investigating it since the start and there is no proof that Russia was behind it, or that it even was a sabotage.
Scouse420 t1_j9jhkct wrote
Hasn’t it literally just came out that it was officially the Americans that blew it up?
Edit for anyone who sees this the source for this is dubious; misinformed at best and casts massive doubt on my initial statement.
Leaving this up for transparency.
TheBusStop12 t1_j9jjhxy wrote
No it hasn't, just a single report of a once celebrated journalist who has gone of the deep end making up conspiracy theories to stay relevant. Literally no reputable media wanted to publish his "report"
He tried the same bullshit with Syria and was rightfully called out
No one else has been able to verify his claims
Scouse420 t1_j9pp075 wrote
Fair
[deleted] t1_j9j2sox wrote
[removed]
TheBusStop12 t1_j9j3ih7 wrote
No it wasn't. Maybe stop reading Russian state propaganda.
I challenge you to post some sources that support your claims, and then look for sources that dispute your claims, and then compare which sources are more reputable. This is basic education stuff, we learn this in school
[deleted] t1_j9jhl4u wrote
[removed]
TheBusStop12 t1_j9jituz wrote
As stated numerous times in recent years Seymour Hersh has fallen into the deep end of conspiracy theories and making up pure bullshit. As proven already by Bellingcat in 2017 when he was making up pro Russian bullshit in Syria
There's a reason the media ignores it. Show me another source that isn't based on the ranting of a single lunatic trying to stay relevant. No one, and I mean absolutely no one has been able to verify his claims
The pipeline was useless to Russia as it was never going to open again. It was just costing Gazprom tons of money. At least this way they could gage the Wests reaction to sabotage and see what they could get away with. Europe doesn't need Russian gas anymore, it has no purpose as leverage
[deleted] t1_j9j3zmj wrote
[removed]
mildobamacare t1_j9j53em wrote
That was never even suspected by any legitimate source. Most signs point to russia, as they did in 2008, and again in 2010.
[deleted] t1_j9jf3yy wrote
[removed]
mildobamacare t1_j9jg48b wrote
Ok. You probably meant subjective instead of objective, and it's really not. These "major media conglomerates " don't do investigations first hand to things like this, they report on the findings of third party investigators. The entire credible world agrees the usa had no involvement.
[deleted] t1_j9jh3jo wrote
[removed]
excitedburrit0 t1_j9j94hd wrote
There is no such thing as an immediate act of war with NATO.
- something happens
- nato convenes and determines if it rises to standard of article 5 and recommends action
- volunteer members of nato follow action
No member is forced to act
Foamrocket66 t1_j9j1o4y wrote
Yeah I dont think the extent of an attack on a NATO member has anything to do with article 5.
HugeHans t1_j9jd3jt wrote
The lack of casus belli is not the thing that is holding NATO back. We have just as much reason to attack now as if russia started attacking NATO. The point is that NATO is simply afraid of nukes. Which is understandable but also its understandable that russia is equally afraid. Which somehow gets removed from the calculations.
[deleted] t1_j9jop9a wrote
[removed]
Fair_Construction634 t1_j9j0rj5 wrote
Coming soon. Kick putin
DownImpulse t1_j9j97vu wrote
Calm down, let’s not forget about the nukes and the idiots who will do everything to protect themselves and if everything is lost would not think twice about bringing down the rest of the world with them.
BlueJinjo t1_j9idf6s wrote
Why is this sub so obsessed with the most sensationalist rage induced type of comments such as this?
Russia won't risk a true escalation into article 5. They will likely do a very minor attack which would yield minimum disruptions leading to future admonishments /sanctions by NATO members without any real major change to the current state of affairs.
The reality is that no western country would ever risk a direct military conflict against a country with nuclear weapons capabilities. Furthermore , historically , there is a repeated underestimation of the effects /challenges of an invasion into Russia . The loss of life on natos end would be catastrophic. Redditors have to stop masturbating to the notion that Russia has to be taken down by a unified western presence... It would be utterly catastrophic
Despite Russia's recent failures, they still have nukes which means no country can effectively drive them into a corner.
This isn't a game of civ... You can't just start a war against one of the largest countries in the world with enough nukes to blow half the world to hell on the idea that they haven't maintained their nuclear capabilities...
If reddit is looking for Russia to collapse due to either Ukraine fighting back and advancing into Russia, or due to a unified NATO response, then you guys are dumber than civ ai ( which is 100% true. I reckon 90% of you haven't even read a Wikipedia page about Russia's history in the Soviet era)
..IF the Putin regime will fall, it will be due to an internal collapse due to deteriorating economic conditions afflicting their population. The NATO countries know this. In the meantime, expect more of these headlines about devastation coming out of Ukraine. Additionally, expect Russia to escalate matters in the winter with a strengthened Chinese supplied backing. NATO has to slowly bleed Russia out and the nukes they have become effectively useless.. Putin can't just nuke his own country .. they have over 140 million people to feed. Once Putin can't do that... He will fall.
This is precisely why bidens speech mentions Ukraine never surrendering and saying nato support won't wane. He doesn't expect an end to the war. Just an elongation.
ferrdek t1_j9jaifa wrote
I agree expecting NATO invasion on Russia (or even better Ukraine armed with western weapons invasion on Russia) is insane and dumb idea (too much video games or Hollywood movies) but if Russia can collapse because of war with Ukraine is another problem. Soviet Union collapsed partially becauseof their failed invasion on Afghanistan.
mistaekNot t1_j9ivuo7 wrote
conventional nato military would absolutely decimate russian forces it would be iraq 2.0 - a true special military operation.
psioniclizard t1_j9je8u6 wrote
NATO forces would win in a conventional battle, but that is different from fighting a war against Russia. Also where will this take place because if you mean in Russia it won't come to that. Their doctrine clearly states they will use nukes to defend Russian homeland. Also NATO has no real desire to invade Russia, it would he nothing like Iraq. It would be very costly for both sides and what would be the long term plan once you oust Putin?
I want to see Russia fail as much as anyone else but the person you are replying to is right. People see this like seem Hollywood movie/computer game but it's not. It's real life. Causalities would be massive on both sides even without nuclear war, which more that likely would happen as soon as NATO started to march on Moscow.
One_User134 t1_j9kknob wrote
I disagree only on the idea that fighting Russia conventionally will lead to massive casualties. IF we imagine a fairy-tale world which Russia does not use nukes, I don’t see too many reasons why the result of an invasion of Russia will not be similar to an invasion of Iraq. Even the planners of Desert Storm expected high casualties and a long stalemate before eventual victory…we know that the exact opposite happened; and Iraq was a formidable enemy.
I’m not saying I’m sure it’ll be a cake walk, but nato, and the US in particular has the technology, the weaponry, and the operational conduct to win these conflicts not involving nukes.
mistaekNot t1_j9kvxr5 wrote
casualties would be massive on the russian side. russia wouldn’t be able to inflict casualties on the nato side, simply because it wouldn’t have the means to do so. russian air force is no match for nato air force, russian anti air would be destroyed either by stealthy planes or nato artillery which is more precise and out ranges the russian artillery. russian tanks would be destroyed from air. there wouldn’t even be much troop on troop engagement as russian equipment would just keep blowing up and they wouldn’t even know how or where the rounds or missiles are coming from. this won’t happen because nukes, but don’t kid yourself that there would be any kind of even matchup between nato/russia military
psioniclizard t1_j9l8s69 wrote
Ok, if that is what you want to believe don't let me stop you.
mistaekNot t1_j9la99d wrote
it’s not a matter of belief. you can already see this with himars. russia is unable to destroy these launchers, as they outrange russian artillery and russian planes can’t get overhead them either. so himars is invulnerable. the damage ukraine is able to inflict with himars is only limited by himars ammunition and the number of launchers they have, which is both low. nato has hundreds of himars launchers and virtually unlimited ammo. that’s just one weapon system….
DrumAway9009 t1_j9j9oyt wrote
That’s what Hitler thought too when Russia was humiliated by Finland in the Winter War. Look how that ended for him.
Maybe the Russian military would be easily destroyed while they’re in Ukraine but that’s MOSTLY due to the non existent Russian morale. Attacking their military within mainland Russia would be a completely different story though.
batmansthebomb t1_j9jwhv0 wrote
Russia also had the support of US manufacturing and logistics during WW2 though.
misyo t1_j9lumad wrote
Whoa whoa whoa, you can't just walk in here with facts and expect everyone to listen to you
orlandrescu t1_j9kgsye wrote
Just like now it has China‘s.
batmansthebomb t1_j9kkju7 wrote
Not even close. Nor will it ever be.
fatpandana t1_j9j0kpi wrote
And then what? U overthrow a wolf that keeps other wolf's in check. It will exactly be same as iraq 2.0. On many fold worse scenario. NATO Coalition control all cities but cant control country side. Russia is too vast for an occupation like iraq. And if you leave some radicals will take over a country that has a lot of nukes or has resources to make nukes.
BlueJinjo t1_j9jjw21 wrote
You think NATO wouldn't suffer losses as well when supply chains are interrupted due to the harsh winters + when a unified Russian front defends itself?
NATO would win but it would burn so much money and most importantly lives on both sides.
There's essentially 0% chance this happens. For whatever reason, this sensationalist sub is rooting for it.. it's similar to the propensity of this sub to expect a full on militaristic invasion between India and china every time there's a border dispute which will continue to happen for the next 10+ years. Stop snorting crack
Open_Blackberry_4901 t1_j9k3y7p wrote
I prefer to smoke my crack, thank you very much.
BadYabu t1_j9jn4nd wrote
A Ukraine being supplied with weapons and training at a trickling pace is embarrassing Russia but the full force of NATO in a non-nuclear war would be a pyrrhic victory. Logic checks out.
BlueJinjo t1_j9jo6xm wrote
Invading a country is significantly harder than defending a country.. If Russia was invaded they'd also use nukes.
If the loss of life would definitely be NONCATACLYSMIC, NATO forces would already be at Moscow's doorsteps..
I don't think you've ever opened a history book. Finish high school and college and then maybe we can have a discussion
[deleted] t1_j9kwrz2 wrote
[deleted]
Bubbly_Lab_9356 t1_j9j7tyh wrote
Hell I might even pick up a rifle for my country if that happens.
GrizzledFart t1_j9kwfdh wrote
The approach Russia generally takes is to act in ways that give them plausible deniability. Not believable deniability, but plausible deniability. Who was really convinced that the little green men invovled in Crimea in 2014 weren't Russian soldiers? That sort of thing generally makes it politically more difficult to respond because there are always groups of people who fall into one of two categories: blithering idiots, and the willfully blind. Combine those groups of people with the groups that would oppose any sort of reaction even if it was a deliberate and publicly announced act of war and it can be more difficult to react.
[deleted] t1_j9h47op wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9i8nm9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9jkqqx wrote
[deleted]
CG3HH t1_j9jr5rp wrote
Is that something anyone wants? And regardless of article 5 or not, nato could just collectively decide to fuck russia, couldn’t they?
wart365 t1_j9i41sb wrote
It's really up to Europeans. Would Swedes tolerate their Internet speeds dropping in half, or being forced to route all communications through satellites launched by USA? Would Swedes tolerate rolling blackouts or the occasional railroad derailment? What about interdiction and filtering of Swedish ferries for "terrorists" that are detained and then sent to Russia for imprisonment? Or hijackings of Swedish planes so their passengers can be used in human medical experiments?
All of this requires a large and effective military to respond to such incidents. Europe lacks this, except for countries with border problems like Spain, Italy and Poland. All conservative-leaning countries whose security policies have long drawn the ire of more left-leaning politicians. Europe would have to admit that many on the right are correct, and concede that not everyone has a right to live within Europe.
skofan t1_j9ia7p9 wrote
I'm guessing you're american.
Off the top of my head, Europe's largest and most well maintained armies are the french, the British, and the German.
And after looking it up, Spain, Italy, and Poland does come in at 4'th, 5'th and 6'th, with half the combined military spending of the liberal economies, despite similar population sizes.
For christs sake, France, the most left leaning country in Europe has an enormous weapons industry, and exports everything from battleships and fighter planes, to rifles and munitions, while also being one of the worlds major nuclear powers.
[deleted] t1_j9io9x7 wrote
[removed]
lollow88 t1_j9ivhx8 wrote
>For christs sake, France, the most left leaning country in Europe
Curious about this, what makes you say that? If I had to say, I'd place Sweden and even Spain (especially in the last decade) more to the left of France.
[deleted] t1_j9k0edh wrote
[deleted]
beechcraftmusketeer t1_j9hlfda wrote
Oh I wouldn’t doubt it for a sec.
Demonicjapsel t1_j9jsunr wrote
These are the same people that watched Russian interference with US elections in real time due to an unsecured smart doorbell
[deleted] t1_j9kqp3n wrote
[deleted]
Demonicjapsel t1_j9kz7u0 wrote
edit, i misremembered, its the DNC hack, but here you go: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch-intelligence-hacked-video-cameras-in-office-of-russians-who-hacked-dnc/
[deleted] t1_j9m0zpp wrote
[deleted]
AwTekker t1_j9kbq0h wrote
There is a really cool book called The Red Atlas that shows how the Soviet Union made insanely detailed maps of every major city, military installation and bit of significant infrastructure in basically every NATO country back in the cold war. No particular reason to think they stopped just because of a change in management.
KenGriffinsBedpost t1_j9kpqqh wrote
Article on failure of initial convoy said they were using maps from 60s/70s that were missing entire towns.
If they didn't stop they sure weren't providing that Intel to their invasion forces.
AwTekker t1_j9l9owk wrote
The book goes on to talk about the tons of intentionally wrong maps of Soviet territory they produced and provided to the general public lol. Russian paranoia is not a new thing.
beechcraftmusketeer t1_j9kjvfh wrote
I agree with you on this. It’s totally crazy as dictators they are always looking over their shoulder and they should be holding the world hostage
[deleted] t1_j9kvalk wrote
[deleted]
ringobob t1_j9kkobw wrote
No doubt there was an interruption in service during the early 90s, but also no doubt KGB Putin got the trains running on time again.
ambulancisto t1_j9m6uau wrote
Soviet military maps are amazingly good. For a long time they were the absolute best my maps available of a lot of remote places around the world. They came on the market after the fall of the USSR, but I think you can find a lot of them online now, as they're rather out of date.
squidmanwillie t1_j9me5u2 wrote
Me using the map with my friends : “ok so it should be right next to the radio shack and just down the road from the blockbuster video”
drododruffin t1_j9hhsqr wrote
Guess that confirms the suspicions about those Russian citizens suddenly looking at various bits of infrastructure with drones and having encrypted photos on their cameras when trying to leave the northern countries back at the outset of the war.
qtx t1_j9jdryj wrote
Yet they've all been released with excuses from the justice department..
So yea.. guess if you're Russian and want to take drone shots of the natural beauty of Norway you're immediately labeled a spy.
The paranoia of people is insane these days.
FortunateCrawdad t1_j9jhilq wrote
That's not paranoia.
Krepard t1_j9ldayh wrote
You underestimate how many Russian "civilians" spy on military bases and factories. Some recently attacked two Albanian soldiers with pepper spray because they were asked to leave a factory area. Similar tactics are used by their puppet states. For example Serbia during the 1999 bombing. They spied on Italian airbases.
piouiy t1_j9hpnlc wrote
Time for European countries to deploy their navies to patrol the waters around these facilities and pipelines.
jesus_you_turn_me_on t1_j9iykgl wrote
> Time for European countries to deploy their navies to patrol the waters around these facilities and pipelines.
They already do, I have a family member working on an off shore rig in Norway. Russian drones fly almost so close they can touch them.
Norwegian navy is already patrolling the water around these rigs.
[deleted] t1_j9juh7s wrote
[removed]
AggroDorfHeroicDeath t1_j9i2ech wrote
But what if Russia deploys their aircraft carrier?
It definitely floats on water!
MeppaTheWaterbearer t1_j9iim14 wrote
Eh. It literally sank in drydock
AggroDorfHeroicDeath t1_j9mcvh5 wrote
Sorry, neglected to put the /s in.
hyldemarv t1_j9nsujd wrote
No, it didn’t. The watertight compartments were tested exactly as planned from the beginning /s
Perfect_Ability_1190 t1_j9h0n2n wrote
Did they sabotage their own pipe before?
SquarePie3646 t1_j9idex9 wrote
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/23/russia.georgia
>Georgia's president, Mikhail Saakashvili, accused Russia of sabotage and "outrageous blackmail" yesterday after explosions cut off gas supplies from his country's energy-rich neighbour.
>Two simultaneous explosions at 3am yesterday cut through both tubes of a gas pipeline just on the Russian side of the border with Georgia. Another blast struck an important electricity pylon nearby nine hours later. The three blasts left Georgia with limited supplies of Russian gas for heating. It also meant Georgia could only supply about 40% of the electricity demanded by its 3 million inhabitants in temperatures of -5C (23F).
>But Mr Saakashvili called the blasts "a serious act of sabotage on the part of Russia on Georgia's energy system". He told Reuters: "Basically what happened is totally outrageous and we are dealing with an outrageous blackmail by people who do not want to behave in a civilised way."
>Relations between Georgia and Russia have deteriorated considerably since Mr Saakashvili came to power after a pro-western "rose revolution", yet yesterday's recriminations marked a new low.
>The Kremlin has sought to tighten its control over the energy industry, and analysts suggest Russia intends to retain its influence over former Soviet states and beyond by manipulating the price and supply of oil and gas. It has doubled the cost of gas for Georgia but has frozen the price for its more loyal neighbour, Belarus.
misyo t1_j9lv6vl wrote
Well, this will come in handy when the tankies come knocking on the door
[deleted] t1_j9jqxu1 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9k3okq wrote
[removed]
franzji t1_j9ihq47 wrote
Truth is we don't know who did it. It's easy to say Russia did, but looking at our past experience and knowledge of what the CIA does (and other government covert agencies), we can't rule out anyone.
Krepard t1_j9le8dm wrote
Russian agencies are more known and expierenced in espionage and sabotage than the CIA ever was. They relied on them since the 1800s.
franzji t1_j9lfsht wrote
oh yeah 100%, Russian espionage is legendary. I hope you aren't implying that I'm a Russian troll like that meme says about people who mention the CIA, that wasn't really the intention. But judging by the downvotes I got, it seems people are thinking that, haha.
I was trying to make the point that a lot of different nations are capable and have reason to do it.
Feeling_Hunter873 t1_j9mt5rs wrote
Why are you bending over backwards to be understood when this crowd downvotes reasonable views?
[deleted] t1_j9h16e3 wrote
[removed]
ObjectiveDark40 t1_j9h8ukc wrote
Yeah everyone knows it was Joe Biden with some swim fins and a snorkel.
RaginHardBox t1_j9hb8ui wrote
Check and mate
[deleted] t1_j9hbebc wrote
[removed]
DoctorFeelGood351 t1_j9hadt1 wrote
/s... ?
muscles_guy t1_j9im053 wrote
Tone is impossible here. Yeah, sarcasm.
[deleted] t1_j9h8ft9 wrote
[removed]
autotldr t1_j9h87wf wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot)
> Dutch intelligence services have warned that Russia is "Covertly mapping" key energy infrastructure in the North Sea, in preparation for possible sabotage attacks.
> MIVD director Jan Swillens told a news conference on February 20 that Russia was "Very interested in how they could sabotage the energy infrastructure," adding that a Russian ship had been spotted near an offshore wind farm.
> NATO announced last week that it was creating a new "Critical undersea infrastructure coordination cell" at its Brussels headquarters so that militaries and civilian infrastructure operators can cooperate more closely to defend critical infrastructure.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: sabotage^#1 infrastructure^#2 Russian^#3 energy^#4 NATO^#5
SpaceTabs t1_j9hhp4w wrote
Unfortunately there will be a lot of sad, butt-hurt Russians that will need to be "dealt with" when Ukraine kicks them out.
Vahlir t1_j9hnxkk wrote
Where are all the people who were convinced the NS attacks were done by the U.S. to push the EU away from Russia? I'd love to hear their nutjob take on this one.
globular_fluster t1_j9hsiay wrote
Their take is that the warmongering Dutch, famous for their warmongering, are warmongering again and innocent Russia will only attack if attacked.
Waste-Temperature626 t1_j9huxfg wrote
The Dutch are such fanatic warmongers they have been trying to pick a fight with Atlantic ocean for a few centuries now.
Like, give it a break. Eventually she will wake up and drown you all :(
iocan28 t1_j9i3i15 wrote
They fought a war with the Isles of Scilly for more than 300 years. They’re a doggedly determined foe.
BadYabu t1_j9jmp7v wrote
You gotta understand bro that not every comment you read on Reddit is written by an actual thinking lay person.
Any article that involves Russia, Ukraine or China the trolls come in full force to disseminate carefully curated talking points.
The vast majority of Redditors who said the US did it are likely hosting multiple accounts and getting paid for it. The remaining minority are gullible fools
cymricchen t1_j9i9288 wrote
Pulitzer prize winner Seymour Hersh claimed that the US navy is behind nord stream 2 bombing. Of course, he is basing this claim on an anonymous source, so not exactly the definition of credible. But I find it very interesting that this news is auto removed when submitted to the front page of r/worldnews.
Basquebadboy t1_j9imcfm wrote
That article is wrong on several key points such as the Norwegian naval vessel being at the pipeline at the time he describes. It also banks on Norway being a war monger for profit, and its elected leadership participation in a near act of war of aggression on a neighboring country which is an enormously tall order of speculative reporting on the weakest of sources. Hersh has been more wrong than right after the won the Pulitzer price in the 1970ies or so. The more interesting question is who fed him this fantasy tale, and why?
misyo t1_j9lwbv5 wrote
Also Hersh should know better as a long time journalist, which tells me Hersh might not be as cognitively sharp as he once was at 85.
cymricchen t1_j9ktju9 wrote
Yeah, I don't see why Norway would want to take the lead in antagonizing Russia too. Too much risk for too little gain. Still, I wish that a proper post could be made and a more through discussion done on why his claims are plausible/implausible. This is what I browse reddit for and I was surprise to find that the post could not be made at all. It would be great if you can post the sources that prove him wrong.
hyldemarv t1_j9ntba5 wrote
The projection of own motivations onto Norway sort-of gives away the source - and the factual errors, lack of preparation and care, corroborate it: Russia!
misyo t1_j9lvwh7 wrote
Here's how credible reputable media outlets found Hersh's story- he had to self publish. In media world that means no one wants to touch a single anonymously sourced story with no corroborating evidence that accuses the United States of an act of sabotage. Hersh should know better frankly and write a better story with adequate sources and supporting evidence if he wants to be taken seriously. We have journalistic standards and ethics for a reason.
cymricchen t1_j9nblvh wrote
Watergate started with "deepthroat" an anonymously sourced story.
[deleted] t1_j9jediz wrote
[removed]
hackingdreams t1_j9kcpml wrote
When you're linking to the New York Post and someone is quoting an "anonymous source"... you're pretty much straight up saying that this is manufactured.
All links to the New York Post should be autoremoved from any reputable news channel. They are a tabloid.
cymricchen t1_j9ks85i wrote
A pulitzer prize winner claiming something that contradicts mainstream reporting is news whether you like it or not.
He might had been lied to, he might had gotten foolish in his old age, he might had taken money, or, he might be right. Who knows, but it is newsworthy, again, whether you like it or not.
As for your claims that new york post is a tabloid, there are also lots of tabloid post here in r/worldnews. So obviously this sub doesn't mind it.
IOM1978 t1_j9iahio wrote
Censorship is a growth business in the West.
Ok-Willingness-4557 t1_j9ia80j wrote
Lololl
blablabla456454 t1_j9ibsu6 wrote
lol New York Post, haha
"Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist"
"scooped journalism’s top award more than five decades ago"
This is literally the article.
They suck his dick then he makes a "claim"??
Where is the article with proof? I would love to read that with a beer. But it doesn't exist. This is propaganda for fools. Thats why it is removed.
Basquebadboy t1_j9njta2 wrote
The extreme left in Norway is buying the Hersh story hook, line and sinker.
hyldemarv t1_j9ntpn5 wrote
Of course. The extreme left are kindred spirits to the extreme right on their own (and also totally infiltrated by TLA operatives who will help them adopt the most regarded causes)!
aaaanoon t1_j9l6tdy wrote
Allied coalition sabotage of the pipeline is entirely plausible. Did one reporter even ask about the txt leak?
I'm not saying it happened, but presuming your government wouldn't do it gives them room to do it without question.
marmarama t1_j9mhrks wrote
I'm totally open to the possibility that someone in the West blew up Nord Stream. Any evidence that may exist is not in the public domain. For good reasons, because it might be embarrassing, might cause a diplomatic incident, or it could be a trigger for a wider war.
It's just that, on balance, and particularly taking into account past behaviours, access to the pipeline, and who would benefit the most from it, someone from Russia (not necessarily the Russian government) is by some distance the most likely candidate.
aaaanoon t1_j9nd6jf wrote
I totally agree, but presumed western influence on the same logic.
Bifferer t1_j9i1nps wrote
Trying desperately to make their oil relevant again
Suikerspin_Ei t1_j9lg4f8 wrote
They were also trying to map our internet cables, Amsterdam has one of the internet hubs in the world (Amsterdam Internet Exchange, AMS-IX).
Bifferer t1_j9lghpj wrote
Starlink is standing by- LOL
CmdrMctoast t1_j9ikpwq wrote
So pussy pootine is going to pull a saddam husain hissy fit.
RapidFalcon17 t1_j9i7eur wrote
With the help of China, no doubt.
cwn01 t1_j9huft5 wrote
Coming soon. Kick putin!
maminidemona t1_j9ix8f3 wrote
Zeebrugge (Belgium) and Rotterdam (Netherland) are the two biggest havens importing liquid gaz to North-Western Europe Of course Russia will try something It prove that they are pissed of by sanctions
RadiantHC t1_j9jgdrn wrote
Wait I'm confused. Are they preparing to sabotage NATO?
payle_knite t1_j9jg4bd wrote
Just like Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, sabotage of fossil fuel infrastructure will only speed Europe’s conversion to renewables.
hyldemarv t1_j9nu6fv wrote
Russia obviously believes in its own messaging about how impossible renewables are, the USA is more pragmatic: It’s impossible until a way has been developed for squillionaires to profit and then It The Right Thing to Do.
Bhsboykinm-86 t1_j9kmrw3 wrote
Pride is a very dangerous thing (spirit). They’ll burn the world and everyone in it bc of pride.
steff-2020 t1_j9m7wx3 wrote
Really glad to find someone who has the same reading as me. You know what is the opposite of pride? Humility. We live in a binary world and it's time to put the focus on humility. Human nature tends to change the world from the outter instead of the inner, as it should be. Willing to continue this thread in private...
Krepard t1_j9laztx wrote
Just waiting for russian trolls to accuse the US despite this warning from the dutch. Like I've seen in this comment section.
[deleted] t1_j9h0uwa wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9h472y wrote
[removed]
Bcmerr02 t1_j9ickab wrote
Makes sense. They thought they knew enough about all of their own pipes and they still bungled that sabotage.
WWGFD t1_j9iqqgg wrote
Russia is scared
[deleted] t1_j9ja5oa wrote
[removed]
weirdkittenNC t1_j9jfgzc wrote
They'd be pretty fucking incompetent if they didn't, so I guess I'm surprised they're doing it.
zalinuxguy t1_j9jss9b wrote
Time to sink the entire Russian fleet, no?
Open_Blackberry_4901 t1_j9k9w2b wrote
There are only two things I can't stand in this world; people who are intolerant of other people's cultures...and the Dutch.
aaaanoon t1_j9l5d06 wrote
I didn't see any media follow up on the 'its done' pipeline message leaks.
Did any reporters didn't ask about it?
Helpful_Aspect2110 t1_j9jl3d1 wrote
You blew nordstream pipeline so expect a retaliation.
BadYabu t1_j9jmcgp wrote
That goal post has permanent wheels attached
Krepard t1_j9lbnwf wrote
Why didn't they react after the US "did" it. Simple! The Russians did it themselves. It was a warning to the West about Russia's naval capabilities. Why not blow up a pipeline that wasn't going to be used again after what Russia did in Ukraine.
misyo t1_j9lxwx6 wrote
A multibillion dollar insurance claim by Gazprom
tmbgisrealcool t1_j9kgh71 wrote
Well yeah, the US already blew up 1 pipeline
FLMasterT t1_j9jddgn wrote
Just ask the Biden Administration, they blew up Nordstream 2 so they should be able to give them some pointers
[deleted] t1_j9jsxoz wrote
[removed]
aaaanoon t1_j9l5gr5 wrote
People don't like to think it's possible.
Krepard t1_j9lc8ib wrote
If only you were this critical of Putin's regime.
dabbledeluxe t1_j9lgt6p wrote
Hey, great commentary man! So did you actually read the article or are you just here to do mental gymnastics?
FLMasterT t1_j9ltqwi wrote
Wow, you claim to KNOW exactly what my thoughts and opinions are. Do you happen to work at the Psychic network?
Easy_Iron6269 t1_j9h13dg wrote
I keep saying it if the attack is badly enough to disrupt the way we live, and affect NATO members economies it is enough to invoke NATO article 5.