In reply to 02Pilot : I think you pretty well nailed it. The fact that the pipeline bombing helps USA's position while hurting Russia's makes we question whose hand was involved in the act. The fact that the pipelines are 90 meters down, built like a brick E36 M3house, and directly under Sweden's nose makes me wonder if the CIA or some such is pulling the shenanigans.
In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :
What does the US gain from blowing NS1? The only real gain from it I can see is that it supports Putin's domestic narrative (by claiming the West blew it), and if he's calculated that the chances of long-term profits from it are low, then it's surplus to requirements.
02Pilot said:In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :
What does the US gain from blowing NS1? The only real gain from it I can see is that it supports Putin's domestic narrative (by claiming the West blew it), and if he's calculated that the chances of long-term profits from it are low, then it's surplus to requirements.
Tunadad, whom I disagree with, and who distrusts everything because being contrary seems clever, claims that the US did it because they want to keep fighting the war and "they" don't want Putin to be able to offer that on the negotiation table.
With his theories, there is always a "they", a dark shadowy unidentified force, somehow unilaterally able to act without any proof or evidence, even if it means someone spent billions without anyone noticing.
I said "Putin hasn't acted rationally yet, why would we expect him to start now?"
Blowing up the pipelines is a terrible move for Russia, it does nothing, and makes them look stupid, like when they blew up the pylon, or were caught doing any number of silly propaganda stunts which were so quickly disproved. But they still did it. Russian ships operating in those waters days beforehand, no other ships in the area, etc etc.
I don't really see a western angle on the pipeline either. One wild suggestion was that a pipeline from Noway to Poland apparently JUST started operation, but that is a very big stretch.
One possibility for the pipeline attack "might" be, inside hardliners in the Russian military want to eliminate it as a potential negotiating point, thus continuing the eventual conquering of Ukraine.
This call for talks is pretty strangely times though. Right after the pipeline goes away, and right after calling for a semi-quazi-sort of mobilization.
Now, you could say, the mobilization (right before calling for peace) is a show of force to encourage peace, "or else", but I am not sure the Ukraine and the west see the potential appearance of a large number of poorly trained, low moral troops as intimidating as PutPut might think they are.
US says it imposes sanctions on hundreds of individuals and companies following Russia's annexation of parts of Ukraine
President Zelensky: It is impossible to hold talks with Putin, as he knows no honor or dignity. We are ready to talk with Russia, with another President
Other updates:
aircooled said:I don't really see a western angle on the pipeline either. One wild suggestion was that a pipeline from Noway to Poland apparently JUST started operation, but that is a very big stretch.
One possibility for the pipeline attack "might" be, inside hardliners in the Russian military want to eliminate it as a potential negotiating point, thus continuing the eventual conquering of Ukraine.
This call for talks is pretty strangely times though. Right after the pipeline goes away, and right after calling for a semi-quazi-sort of mobilization.
Now, you could say, the mobilization (right before calling for peace) is a show of force to encourage peace, "or else", but I am not sure the Ukraine and the west see the potential appearance of a large number of poorly trained, low moral troops as intimidating as PutPut might think they are.
I did mention at one point attempts by the Russian hardliners to handcuff those in the hierarchy that might be calling for a deal with the West. I think the domestic angle inside Russia is dramatically underappreciated in the West, so there's certainly something to consider from that side.
As far as the timing of the mobilization, and the problems that have occurred in implementing it, consider this: when Ukraine's offensive started to succeed, and lacking the means to reverse it, Putin had three basic choices - accept it, go nuclear, or mobilize. If he did the first, as I've said before, he would have set himself up for a coup attempt by the hardliners. The second is undesirable on every level, no matter what rhetoric has been employed. He did what he had to do, at least as he saw it. That it's been such a shambolic effort strongly suggests there was little to no preparation or planning for a "partial" mobilization; ironically, this is exactly what happened when the Russians were trying to decide how to proceed after Austria declared war on Serbia in 1914 (the Russians quickly went to full mobilization, because the partial effort was not in their plans and had to be completely improvised from scratch; continuing with it threatened their ability to effect full mobilization in the event Germany mobilized).
In reply to aircooled :
If you are trying to attempt to freeze the lines, it makes prefect sense to me to mobilize troops and call for peace talks. Conscripts are going to be much more effective in a defensive posture then an offensive one.
Maybe, but it could as easily work against them. When the conscripts bolt at the first sign of push back, it's going to create all sorts of mayhem or a lot of Security Forces to shot them when they do.
It looks like the Russians are preparing to make a large donation to the Ukrainian Used Russian War Making Equipment industry:
In reply to aircooled :
Also a possibility.
I am expecting the winter and muddy spring to make any offensive extremely difficult which would give time for Putin's forces to really dig in. Also I am sure he is thinking that it may soften the West's resolve
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to 02Pilot : I think you pretty well nailed it. The fact that the pipeline bombing helps USA's position while hurting Russia's makes we question whose hand was involved in the act. The fact that the pipelines are 90 meters down, built like a brick E36 M3house, and directly under Sweden's nose makes me wonder if the CIA or some such is pulling the shenanigans.
I'm pretty sure this is Russia's version of Cortes burning his ships when he got to the new world. Make it impossible to turn back.
93EXCivic said:In reply to aircooled :
Also a possibility.
I am expecting the winter and muddy spring to make any offensive extremely difficult which would give time for Putin's forces to really dig in. Also I am sure he is thinking that it may soften the West's resolve
If Ukraine can keep hitting supply lines during the winter, it won't matter if the Russian troops dig in or not. They'll either starve or freeze to death.
Some observations on the Putin speech (love the always consistent Russian what-about-ism):
Putin’s annexation speech made several general references to nuclear use that are consistent with his past language on the subject, avoiding making the direct threats that would be highly likely to precede nuclear use. Putin alluded to Russia’s willingness to use “all available means” to defend claimed Russian territory, a common Kremlin talking point. Putin stated that “the US is the only country in the world that twice used nuclear weapons, destroying the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Incidentally, they created a precedent.” Putin stretched his historical allusions, stating that the United States and the United Kingdom demonstratively and without a military need destroyed many German cities during World War II with the “sole goal, just like in the case of nuclear bombardments in Japan, to scare our country and the entire world,” attempting to portray Western states as the true aggressor. Putin did not directly articulate any new red lines or overtly threaten to use a nuclear weapon against Ukraine if Ukrainian counteroffensives continue.
Putin has set in motion two major means short of nuclear use through which he will try to achieve his objectives: partial mobilization to replace Russian losses, and wintertime energy pressures on Europe to deter European support. He likely intends Russia’s ongoing mobilization to stabilize Russian positions and enable the temporary freezing of the conflict. He is unlikely to succeed; rushing thousands of untrained and unmotivated Russian men to the front will not meaningfully increase Russian combat power, particularly in places like western Luhansk oblast where the Ukrainian counteroffensives are making significant progress. Putin intends his second approach, curtailing natural gas exports to Europe, to fracture the Western consensus around supporting Ukraine and limit Western military aid to Ukrainian forces. This too is unlikely to succeed; Europe is in for a cold and difficult winter, yet the leaders of NATO and non-NATO European states have not faltered in their support for Ukrainian sovereignty and may increase that support in light of Russia’s illegal annexation even in the face of economic costs.[7] European states are actively finding alternatives to Russian energy and will likely be far more prepared by winter 2023.[8] It is difficult to assess what indicators Putin will use to evaluate the success of either effort. But both will take considerable time to bear fruit or to demonstrably fail, time Putin will likely take before considering a nuclear escalation.
In reply to aircooled :
given that vlad has rattled his nuclear toys a few times in this tantrum, I'm not that sure he's really willing to use them.
And then the problems that arise from feeding productive humans into cannon fodder just deepens the economic future that vlad is going to "lead". Kind of further pointing out how irrational he has become.
Ukraine has made, and is making, a lot of progress pushing russia out of their country. Why would they be even remotely interested in stopping that progress? I just don't get why the west would be interested in abandoning them at this point. The economic gain to the west by adding Ukraine is worth the pain- seems that there is a lot of untapped potential there- even if it's just farming.
Interesting reading on the non-sabotage possibilities for pipeline failure:
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:Interesting reading on the non-sabotage possibilities for pipeline failure:
Now THAT was interesting. Smacks of the explosion of the battleship Maine in Havana harbor, doesn't it....?
In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :
Gads. If that was what really happened. Gads, again.
Meanwhile, everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else.
In reply to alfadriver :
Putin is in poor health, he is not going to be around in the mid-near future when the demographic effects come home to roost.
Heck, Russia had been suffering them from the insecurity of the 90s, with a big hole in their demographics from all of the kids that were not born because people were too unsure of their future to have kids, plus the brain drain of the ones who WERE born leaving for other countries (like Ukraine...) where opportunity is greater, especially in the tech fields.
It is kind of like watching a new North Korea being born...
Noddaz said:Meanwhile, everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else.
A couple guys I know have come out as... not necessarily pro-Putin, but so intensely cynical of American involvement it has echos of derangement syndrome. They accuse me of swallowing western propaganda, but the way I see it is that it really doesn't matter what shenanigans our spooks and politicos may be up to. Russia invaded a sovereign country that posed no existential threat to it. Period. The rest is so much noise.
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:Interesting reading on the non-sabotage possibilities for pipeline failure:
That does seem like a reasonable explanation (assuming it's accurate):
The question I would have, can you compression ignite pure natural gas with some water mixed in (assuming that is where the oxygen comes from). One thing that is known is there were two rather large explosions, but I am pretty sure natural gas needs oxygen (or something that has some spare electrons so spare) to explode (!?)
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:...They accuse me of swallowing western propaganda....
That sounds like they have a bit of a "stop smashing your face into my fist" kind of argument!
aircooled said:Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:Interesting reading on the non-sabotage possibilities for pipeline failure:
That does seem like a reasonable explanation (assuming it's accurate):
The question I would have, can you compression ignite pure natural gas with some water mixed in (assuming that is where the oxygen comes from). One thing that is known is there were two rather large explosions, but I am pretty sure natural gas needs oxygen (or something that has some spare electrons so spare) to explode (!?)
From my understanding of the issue, combustion/ignition is not required, just an overpressure or internal impact to rupture the pipeline, and then out comes the gas.
That would certainly create the leak, but they registered seismic activity. Not sure the event described would create that kind of "explosion". (?)
More notable (at least to me) than the additional HIMARS being sent is that they are now sending M30A1 rockets. These are the ones with thousands of tungsten fragments. Pretty worthless against armor, but a massive area effect against personnel and unarmored vehicles.
The plot thickens
Ukraine formally applied for NATO membership. This was apparently not pre-arranged with the US or other NATO countries, and the response from the West has been noncommittal.
I don't know exactly what prompted this public application now, but I suspect Ukraine's leadership is starting to feel rumblings from the West that some sort of negotiation should be pursued, and wants to capitalize on what favorable public sentiment remains before winter hits and voices linking support for Ukraine with energy shortages and high prices get louder. Still, it feels poorly considered, given that there has been no clear recent support for the idea of Ukraine in NATO, especially while the conflict is still ongoing.
Part of the Western response is also likely to quietly reassure Russia and try to set up conditions for talks. It's too subtle to affect Russian public opinion and the Putin narrative, but policymakers will have taken note of the lukewarm response.
You'll need to log in to post.
