That's the narrative. — Tzeentch

That's the facts. He's a former signals intelligence officer, meaning, he's an expert in the surveillance of radio communications and he was listening in on communication. There's even a section with him analyzing the communication behavior to determine the experience of the person using the radio.

He tracked the vessel to the point of its stated science mission position and then it deviated from its mission to go to the pipeline right at the location of the explosion.

You can speculate all you want, but the capability of the ship and the tracked route confirmed by two sources as well as intercepted communication back all of this up. You don't seem to get that it wasn't a military vessel, it was a civilian science vessel with the military on board, based on the analysis of the communication it had with the mainland. The introduction of him in the documentary shows him directly listening in and you're interpreting him only checking emissions? This is why I doubt you actually have looked into any of this, you are missing points all over the place.

I think you simply lack the practical knowledge to understand my objections. — Tzeentch

I think you lack the unbiased ability to look at these findings correctly. And what practical knowledge? Your ability to interpret a half-demented president?

Except that the story goes that they didn't mask themselves. — Tzeentch

They didn't mask against someone intentionally looking for it in the way they did in this investigation. Because it wasn't normal military practice, as stated by the military and navy if you paid attention.

Apparently they left port with their name plate on display and kept their active sensors on, without apparent reason other than it being very convenient for the story. — Tzeentch

As a science vessel, you know, trying to hide in plain sight. You seem to be very confused as to what actually happened.

What it shows is that I understand how these systems work and what constitutes an actual ship identification, rather than a dramatized collection of circumstantial evidence. — Tzeentch

How these systems work doesn't help if you utilize them for masking yourself. They traveled with a stated mission to a place in the Baltic Ocean to "do research", then went dark and went to the location of the explosion, before returning again.

Tracking a vessel with underwater operation capability, two times deviating to the same location where the explosions happened is not circumstantial evidence, and it's far more proof than any conjectures you draw up about who's responsible. Where's your actual evidence for anyone else?

What exactly was unconventional about the methods? The method is never really explained, but from what I gather they used AIS data, passive intercepts and satellite imagery; that's about as conventional as it gets. — Tzeentch

The satellite stations in Tromsö are not used for gathering this kind of information. And yes, they are explained, if you actually watched all of it.

It sounds like you are confusing territorial waters with Economic Exclusive Zones. To reach Bornholm island there is no need to enter Swedish territorial waters, and Bornholm Island itself is located in the Danish waters. The sabotage was conducted on the border of Danish territorial waters and the Danish/Swedish EEZ border. — Tzeentch

It sounds like you don't know how the Nordic nations' navies collaborate in the Baltic Ocean. It doesn't matter if it's right outside the borders. Do you think we have surveillance only within our nation's borders? How do you think we intercept subs before they enter our waters? The case point is that we have technology specific for spotting Russian subs and you suggest it would be better for Russia to use said subs. Not a very intelligent strategy really.

If you want to live in a fantasy where Sweden sees all that happens in a noisy, shallow sea like the Baltic, be my guest, I suppose - shows what you know. — Tzeentch

Not at all, but you know even less about our Swedish navy and its capabilities. The point is still that operating with a science vessel doing a covert op is far less likely to attract attention than going in with a Russian military submarine. That you think that would be a better strategy just shows how little you know about the conflict events that happen all the time between the Swedish and Russian navies. They're constantly pushing away Russian subs who get too brave thinking they're invisible. It would be the most stupid strategy ever to use a Russian sub for actual operation so close to Sweden, but hey, maybe you live in a fantasy where that is a sound strategy.

Because NATO and Russia have been practically at war since February 2022. I'd expect western intelligence agencies to keep tabs on literally every Russian vessel they can, especially in the Baltic and Black Seas. — Tzeentch

Explain how you do that practically with hundreds of thousands of Russian ships. First, you keep most intel gathering on military movements in the Baltic sea, then, as a priority, you need to keep track of movements in Ukraine, around the borders of Ukraine, Russia, China, and its borders, since that's a potential conflict as well, not to mention other places in the world like, as a recent example, Sudan. You also need constant surveillance of the Black Sea. After you've positioned all analysts to every priority target you then have hundreds of thousands of ships to keep track of around the Nordic region and need to constantly monitor everyone and their movement in order to spot deviant behavior.

So, I'm asking you to explain how in practice you would allocate these resources to effectively be able to spot the rapid deviant behavior of the specific ship that was pointed out in this investigation.

Because it's rather ironic that after you call it fantasy that Sweden would be able to monitor the entire Baltic Ocean (which is a strawman because that's not what I said), you argue that NATO would be able to cover all of this around the world including all the thousands of ships that this specific ship was a part of. Seriously, you're not very consistent in the capacity anyone has of surveilling ships. According to you, the Swedish navy doesn't see much, and the signal intelligence officer shouldn't be able to gather much, but NATO should see everything all the time, because that is in line with your conspiracy theory about them.

What findings? — boethius

The findings by the investigative journalists that were just released. Are you illiterate or just ignorant?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/prigozhin-wagner-troops-withdraw-bakhmut-russia-military-ammo-video-rcna83015

Of course, this is just maskirovka. Everything's running like a well-oiled machine, right stooges?

The findings by the investigative journalists that were just released. Are you illiterate or just ignorant? — Christoffer

You seem to claim this is some sort of backup for NATO's claims.

You literally state:

With confirmation from navy intelligence officers going over the material, simply concluding "With this evidence it is much more clear who was responsible". — Christoffer

But if you want to pretend there's some "independent journalism" that is stronger evidence than the lead suspect saying they will do exactly this thing, believe what you want to believe.

That's the whole point of suddenly finding Russian ships are in the Baltic is exactly for people like you who find this a surprising fact.

If you actually lived on the baltic (as I do) it's considerably less surprising.

I did not doubt Russia had opportunity to blow up their own pipelines before. Finding out there are Russian ships "actually in the Baltic, including military ships!!!" is literally zero new information.

Both the US and Russia have opportunity. The only thing worth analysing with the information we have (absent actual material evidence, which even then wouldn't be conclusive considering the means of the two suspects, but at least interesting) is motive and intent.

If you want to argue the US literally declaring their motive and intent on television is weaker than speculations as to Russia's motive, go ahead and make that argument.

If you want to continue to make the case that Russia has ships and Russia's ships sometimes ship through busy shipping lanes, it was not previously in doubt.

Do the wretched Ruskies not have access to a stopcock somewhere, if they want to cut off the flow?

Do the wretched Ruskies not have access to a stopcock somewhere, if they want to cut off the flow? — unenlightened

Nord stream 2 never got permission to open from the Germans, so it's difficult to see a motive for the Russians blowing it up.

Nord Stream 1 wasn't flowing because of "turbine maintenance" depending on Seimans who sent them to Canada who couldn't send them back to Russia due to sanctions, which the Western media assumed was bullshit.

Which is the central problem behind the idea the Russian's blew up their own pipelines, as there was far less destructive means to shut them down, restrict gas supplies while also keeping the leverage on the table in the future.

Indeed, even if we elaborate the scenario where the Russians wanted to take advantage of the US stating they'd "end" the pipelines (for example to create tensions in NATO), it's difficult to imagine any rational for blowing up both Nord Stream 1 and 2 and so destructively. You could get largely the same result by blowing up only one of four the pipelines, create the same tensions and keep 3 quarters of the leverage.

And not only is there little reason to blow up all the pipelines, but there's degrees of destruction to choose from. There would be little reason to use so much explosives:

The lawmaker was also told that more than 1,000 pounds of "military grade" explosives were used by the perpetrators. — 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, wikipedia

If it was the Russians and they used a measly 100 pounds of explosives to cause repairable leaks, would there really be a risk people find that a non-credible attack?

For the Russians, attacking their own pipelines would be a PR thing, there would be no fundamental motivation to destroy their own stuff in a non-repairable way, so you really need to get to very advanced levels of PR kung fu to come up with a model where the Russians conclude not only is it a good idea to attack all the pipes, but do it so close to Denmark and Sweden (rather than somewhere they could get to and control the crime scene first), and in such a destructive way.

You seem to claim this is some sort of backup for NATO's claims. — boethius

No, what I refer is that navy and military investigators, as well as independent ones who went over what the journalists found agreed that what they found is significant. That is a confirmation of it being important, it doesn't mean this investigation is in any form of alliance with these military officals and investigators. It's like you don't even attempt to understand any of this but just boil everything that is said down to some unintelligent interpretation. It's like speaking to a child.

To make it clear for your mind. These investigators are not working for or with the official investigations that have been conducted both by military, navy and civilian actors. This investigation that I am referring to is its own investigation, looking at sources that the other investigators seemingly didn't use.

But if you want to pretend there's some "independent journalism" that is stronger evidence than the lead suspect saying they will do exactly this thing, believe what you want to believe. — boethius

"lead suspect" is something you have made up. In no way is the US any lead suspect other than through Russian propaganda and people gullible enough to eat that propaganda without a second thought. It's this presumption that makes you acting out bias towards what you already believe, and me only referring to the evidence at hand.

And of course, you ignore to even study the findings that have been presented. You just dismiss it and continue with your narrative of "lead suspect". It is a fundamentally biased and faulty deduction on your part. A normal useful idiot for Russia basically.

Which is the central problem behind the idea the Russian's blew up their own pipelines, as there was far less destructive means to shut them down, restrict gas supplies while also keeping the leverage on the table in the future. — boethius

Only in your faulty deduction. Russian propaganda and methods include creating conflicts between western nations in order to weaken them. It's the foundation for why they interfered in the 2016 election. It wasn't because Trump was an ally or anything like it, it was because he stood for the most chaos inflicted by US on itself and other Western nations. This has already been clearly described by many including people like Vlad Vexler, focusing on the shift from Soviet propaganda before the wall fell to Russian propaganda today.

But you don't seem to be able to understand these motivations, or rather I think you just ignore it because it is problematic for your argument. You are part of the problem that is what Russia want by this type of actions. You are the one who ignore actual evidence and continue to focus on a narrative that you have already decided, downplaying and strawmanning everything that is a threat to your own conclusions and arguments. You have no evidence that is tangible in any form that would be of significance. You have a wildly speculative interpretation of a speech and calling the US "leading suspect" without anything to back that up other than conjecture. The difference here is that I go where the evidence is the strongest, the actual evidence, and I don't conclude Russia to be guilty yet since the evidence so far can only point in that direction. But it is a far stronger direction than these wildly speculative interpretations you are doing and has been doing throughout this thread while ignoring everything that is remotely a threat to your own opinions.

This type of ignoring anything that is a problem for your argument is called Selective Perception Bias and it is the very foundation of everything you write in here. This is why it's hard to take your arguments seriously. They're so obviously flawed with ignorance and bias.

"lead suspect" is something you have made up. In no way is the US any lead suspect other than through Russian propaganda and people gullible enough to eat that propaganda without a second thought. — Christoffer

The US blatantly stated it was going to end Nord Stream. It has been trying to change European energy dependency since the Bush administration.

We have almost a day-by-day account of what happened provided by an independent, world-renowned journalist.

The US has been profiting immensely from blowing up the pipeline.


The fact that you believe one has to be brainwashed by Russian propaganda to believe the US is a likely suspect is just rich, and probably points towards an effort of projection on your part.

The US blatantly stated it was going to end Nord Stream. It has been trying to change European energy dependency since the Bush administration. — Tzeentch

Yes, that doesn't mean they blew it up, that only means they want to end the use of Russian gas in their allied nations because of how the dependence on it create problems, as we've see when sanctions were drafted. It's also a pretty stupid way to "end it" since it would just be rebuilt. "Ending it" means making sure EU is choosing something else than Russian gas and oil. But you are interpreting that as attacking it. It is nowhere close to any admission of guilt, it is Selective Perception Bias.

We have almost a day-by-day account of what happened provided by an independent, world-renowned journalist. — Tzeentch

Day to day of what evidence? What's the tangible and real evidence here, all I see is you having Selective Perception Bias.

Are you saying that Vanessa Beeley is a world-renowned journalist? Is this the kind of person you are using as a source calling her a world-renowned journalist? Are you for real? :rofl:

Vanessa Beeley (born 1963/1964[1]) is a British activist and blogger[2][3][4] known for sharing conspiracy theories[5] and disinformation[2][6

You mean that the actual top investigative journalists in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland are less trustworthy than a proven liar and disinformation blogger?

It's this kind of bullshit that is enough to show how low the level is in terms of rational deduction on your part. It's this kind of things that show why the conclusion that you are just another useful idiot for Russian propaganda is accurate.

The fact that you believe one has to be brainwashed by Russian propaganda to believe the US is a likely suspect is just rich, and probably points towards an effort of projection on your part. — Tzeentch

You are brainwashed because of how you deduce anything in your arguments, using known conspiracy theory bloggers and wild conjecture through Selective Perception Bias. You have nothing tangible to support anything you say, only your biased opinions. It's so intellectually empty.

using known conspiracy theory bloggers — Christoffer

Excuse me?

You have nothing tangible to support anything you say, only your biased opinions. It's so intellectually empty. — Christoffer

That's quite simply untrue. I support everything I say here with tangible arguments, and most of what is discussed is directly related to my own academic field.

That you don't like what I have to say is completely unrelated.

Excuse me? — Tzeentch

Vanessa Beeley, it's who you linked to if you had any idea.

That's quite simply untrue. I support everything I say here with tangible arguments, and most of what is discussed is directly related to my own academic field. — Tzeentch

Your arguments aren't tangible just because you say so and especially since the premises you provide have such a weak footing that they're simply just your subjective opinion based on nothing else than what you believe to be true and then seem to call Vanessa Beeley a world-renowned journalist as if she were in any shape or form more valid than the top investigative journalists that conducted the investigation I referred to.

The fact is still that your conjectures are fundamentally weak against the findings of these journalists. And these findings are in support of Russia being the most likely suspect. In the real world, outside of your fantasies and biases, these findings are so far the strongest there is, and any person able to understand what is and what isn't strong evidence have no problem understanding the significance of this.

I think this thread has fried some people's brains. People are so deeply lacking in the area of understanding biases that it's sometimes impossible to converse with them and this thread is clearly such a place.

Vanessa Beeley, it's who you linked to if you had any idea. — Christoffer

... Obviously I was referring to Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh and his nearly day-by-day account of the Nord Stream bombing, directly incriminating the United States. Hersh who, by the way, has a proven track record of bringing US misdeeds to light.

It's rather cute you are trying to dismiss the poster of a YouTube video - as though the poster is in any way relevant - when the video features former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice outright admitting their preoccupation with European energy dependency.

You're just making a fool of yourself at this point.

I think this thread has fried some people's brains. — Christoffer

A bit ironic.

Forgot to post this earlier:

No, what I refer is that navy and military investigators, as well as independent ones who went over what the journalists found agreed that what they found is significant. That is a confirmation of it being important, it doesn't mean this investigation is in any form of alliance with these military officals and investigators. It's like you don't even attempt to understand any of this but just boil everything that is said down to some unintelligent interpretation. It's like speaking to a child. — Christoffer

Discussing with you is like shifting through the debris of a vapid soul.

It is not worth my time for something as low stakes as the question of whether Russian ships (civilian, military, covert) are in the Baltic doing what they would normally be doing in peace, and much more-so in war time.

However, since no one is debating at the moment anything remotely important (such as if the cost of the war to Ukraine is worth the benefits so far or then expected benefits in the future and if whether the Western policy to supply is in Ukraine's interest, the West's interest or then just the arms suppliers interest) I will pick apart your delusions for the benefit of the casual follower to this discussion.

"lead suspect" is something you have made up. In no way is the US any lead suspect other than through Russian propaganda and people gullible enough to eat that propaganda without a second thought. It's this presumption that makes you acting out bias towards what you already believe, and me only referring to the evidence at hand. — Christoffer

Sure, I have zero problem defending that I am defining the US as the lead suspect.

In any crime, someone who credibly states they intend to do that crime beforehand makes themselves the lead suspect.

You accuse me of ignoring this "important evidence" of some messages or whatever, while completely ignoring a party to this affair literally declaring their intention to end the pipeline.

To make a credible case it was someone else, you need to first explain why this threat by the US was not actually credible and we should dismiss it. For example, perhaps it was a bluff ... or perhaps it wasn't a bluff but the US and Russia were in a race to blow up the pipelines first and Russia just so happened to win that race because they are so competent and crafty.

If it was a bluff, then you're simply agreeing with my position at the start of this discussion with you:

Sure, doesn't prove who did it, but declaring you'll "end" something and then that very thing you promised you'd end does get ended, results in two possibilities:

1. You did it, just like you said you would.
2. You're a fucking moron. — boethius

For, if it's actually in Russia's interest to blowup the pipeline because they are "masters of perception" a la Soviet:

The whole idea behind it being a post-soviet propaganda system that doesn't act on trying to convince Russia to be right, they only need to plant doubt into populations of other nations in order to get them into conflict with each other instead of focusing on Russia. It's the foundation for why Russia wanted Trump to win. Vlad Vexler has gone into those things describing the difference between propaganda before the wall fell and after. — Christoffer

Then obviously, if making a bluff to blow up the pipeline plays right into the hands of the "Vlexler" you are a complete fucking moron for making that bluff, as it's literally blown up in your face.

Now, if it wasn't a bluff why didn't the US blow up the pipelines before Russia, or just not get around to it, forcing Russia's hand to blow up their own pipelines?

If you're argument is "Biden's a fucking moron, delusional senile ol' goat that is liable to say whatever comes into his mind on live television and his words should be ignored, just unfortunately in this situation the damage of the president's incompetence is like super high because a lot of people will mistakingly assume US blew up the pipelines because the US president basically said that and the motive is clear" then you have no disagreement from me. Biden being a senile imbecile that was hallucinating when he was talking about "ending" the pipelines and then Russia took advantage of that blunder to cause strife and consternation is as plausible a theory as the US did it.

We are not, in fact, in disagreement. You just don't want to call a spade a spade or then offer some other theory as to what Biden's words meant, why they don't matter, or why did matter but the Russians got to same plan first ... in which case why is it in Russia's favour if the US was planning to do the exact same thing?

... Obviously I was referring to Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh — Tzeentch

By linking to a channel of a known conspiracy theorist and disinformation spreader. I failed to see the obviousness and the fact that you did kind of shows just how bad you are at understanding sources.

nearly day-by-day account of the Nord Stream bombing, directly incriminating the United States. Hersh who, by the way, has a proven track record of bringing US misdeeds to light. — Tzeentch

Where's the evidence? You are still doing what conspiracy theorists do and connect dots by wishful thinking. Where't the actual evidence?

It's rather cute you are trying to dismiss the poster of a YouTube video - as though the poster is in any way relevant - when the video features former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice outright admitting their preoccupation with European energy dependency. — Tzeentch

You are still unable to understand that this does not equal guilt of the bombing. It's conjecture. You also fail to explain why there's any motive to bomb it. The EU is an ally to the US and after the invasion there's already began a switch away from Russian dependency for energy. Bombing the pipeline while Germany is already dismantling their need for it has no function. Russia however, just as with their propaganda strategies, aims to split the west into conflicts with each other so as to not have a united front against Russia. That's their aim and it's well established. So, what does a bombing of Nordstream at this time? Russia directly pointed blame against Ukraine, then the west, then the US, just as they already do with other propaganda strategies. The intention is to seed doubt so that the west starts to blame each other. And you are among the ones who they play like a fiddle in order to spread this doubt. So, you are the one who's making a fool out of himself. You don't even understand the conspiracy rabbit hole you're stuck in.

It is not worth my time for something as low stakes as the question of whether Russian ships (civilian, military, covert) are in the Baltic doing what they would normally be doing in peace, and much more-so in war time. — boethius

Oh, the good old debate strategy of dismissing everything saying it's not worth your time... and then just continues to write a long follow up anyway :rofl:

And of course you just ignore everything said and just go back to normal strawmans. It's pathetic actually.

However, since no one is debating at the moment anything remotely important (such as if the cost of the war to Ukraine is worth the benefits so far or then expected benefits in the future and if whether the Western policy to supply is in Ukraine's interest, the West's interest or then just the arms suppliers interest) I will pick apart your delusions for the benefit of the casual follower to this discussion. — boethius

Why are you shifting focus? Shifting goal posts is another strategy of dishonest interlocutors. I have no interest in dancing along with these biases and fallacies. I can feel my intelligence taking damage just being around your dishonest writing.

I have zero problem defending that I am defining the US as the lead suspect. — boethius

Of course, just pick and choose and when the blame comes into question, move goal posts and try to prove it that way.

In any crime, someone who credibly states they intend to do that crime beforehand makes themselves the lead suspect. — boethius

Hindsight bias. You have no evidential link other than conjecture.

You accuse me of ignoring this "important evidence" of some messages or whatever — boethius

Strawman. And of course, you ignore to look into it. Your way of ignoring things like this makes you unable to actually do any kind of investigation. That you don't understand that you suffer from Selective Perception Bias like this also moves you into Dunning Kruger territory.

To make a credible case it was someone else, you need to first explain why this threat by the US was not actually credible and we should dismiss it. For example, perhaps it was a bluff ... or perhaps it wasn't a bluff but the US and Russia were in a race to blow up the pipelines first and Russia just so happened to win that race because they are so competent and crafty. — boethius

Perhaps, perhaps perhaps. Any more dots to connect through conjecture in your water tight accusation towards the US? You would have been laughed out the court room if you had the same level of burden of proof required in there.

Blowing up the pipeline had no purpose for the US when the invasion had already had the effect of moving Germany and Europe away from dependency on Russia. The changeover was already happening so there's no point in bombing a pipeline and hurting allies. Russia, however, have everything to win by the chaos it produces. You are just blaming the US because it rhymes with your personal opinions.

For, if it's actually in Russia's interest to blowup the pipeline because they are "masters of perception" a la Soviet: — boethius

Then obviously, if making a bluff to blow up the pipeline plays right into the hands of the "Vlexler" you are a complete fucking moron for making that bluff, as it's literally blown up in your face. — boethius

What are you talking about? It had the intended effect, you're here playing into exactly what Russia wants to have; the west fractured by gullible people and muddying the waters to the point that when there's even tangible evidence of the act you continue to push for your personal opinions, using every bias and fallacy possible. Russia has everything to win on fracturing the west, it can have the effect of governments stopping shipments of weapons to Ukraine because the people have started to doubt everything. Russia even stated how Europe will "freeze" this last winter, which is an odd thing to say after the explosion. Why isn't the fact they said that equally guilty like the half-demented president quote? Maybe because there's more tangible evidence pointing towards Russia. Things you ignore out of inconvenience for your personal opinion and conspiracy ridden narrative.

If you're argument is "Biden's a fucking moron, delusional senile ol' goat that is liable to say whatever comes into his mind on live television and his words should be ignored — boethius

No, it is that his chaotic mumbling makes it deeply unreliable for interpretation, especially when you do it through hindsight bias and conjecture.

We are not, in fact, in disagreement. You just don't want to call a spade a space or then offer some other theory as to what Biden's words meant, why they don't matter, or why did matter but the Russians got to same plan first ... in which case why is it in Russia's favour if the US was planning to do the exact same thing? — boethius

I have already described three times now what the possible motives are, but you don't care. Your mind seems to wander through conspiracy-land being both confused and paranoid.

The US bombed Nord Stream for the simple fact that it didn't want European opinions getting in the way of war — Tzeentch

The US has been profiting immensely from blowing up the pipeline. — Tzeentch

Certitude? :brow: Many would like to know what happened regardless, but you claim to know.

Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh and [...] — Tzeentch

Why just him? :chin:

More evidence on the possibility of Russia being the culprit for Nordstream pipeline bombings.
Still the question is open... — ssu

Means :up: Opportunity :up: They were there (unlike Brian Williams)

Yep (@ssu), no particular proof. Some evidence, though.

@Tzeentch, your apparent certainty is (still) too thin. :down:

From the looks of it, the east is where the mercs are sent to die. Only need (a less expendable) regular army to ("volunteer" locals to) dig trenches elsewhere anyway.

I find the thoroughly patronizing attitude towards the Ukrainians...nevermind. They ain't fucking children.


, nice story, sort of. I suppose you'd have the UN being "war-mongers".

You are still unable to understand that this does not equal guilt of the bombing. — Christoffer

You're position is literally:

This was reported by a collaboration between top investigative journalists in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. It was rigorously verified using a former Navy operative in England and through advanced satellite tracking. With confirmation from navy intelligence officers going over the material, simply concluding "With this evidence it is much more clear who was responsible". — Christoffer

Now you're walking back from "much more clear who was responsible" to "conjecture".

I have already described three times now what the possible motives are, but you don't care. Your mind seems to wander through conspiracy-land being both confused and paranoid. — Christoffer

We don't disagree what Russia's motives would be. I literally say:

For the Russians, attacking their own pipelines would be a PR thing — boethius

What you fail to do is account for the undisputed fact the US threatened to blow up the pipelines.

If you want to propose an alternate theory, you need to take into account the undisputed facts.

You need to say "I have this theory that it was the Russians that conspired to blow up the pipelines and make it look like the US did it by taking advantage of the fact the US said they would do it, all while totally not being a conspiracy theorist conjecturing about this conspiracy theory I have" (or is it only a "conspiracy theory" if it's not the Russians somehow?).

You do not even have the beginnings of a proposal.

I get it, Western media simply ignores the US president threatening to blow up the pipeline as there's simply no way to fit it into a pleasant narrative: either the US president means what he says, threatened to blow up the pipeline and then did exactly that to maintain the credibility of the US' word ... or then he's a moron that makes empty threats that the opponents of the US can easily take advantage of.

So, because the Western media ignore this obviously pertinent fact you think that's "smart".

Blowing up the pipeline had no purpose for the US when the invasion had already had the effect of moving Germany and Europe away from dependency on Russia. The changeover was already happening so there's no point in bombing a pipeline and hurting allies. Russia, however, have everything to win by the chaos it produces. You are just blaming the US because it rhymes with your personal opinions. — Christoffer

So ... why would the US threaten to blow up pipeline if it serves no purpose?

Even in the realm of conjecture, you're idea should cohere with the known facts.

As I say above, if you're theory is the Russian's did it and Biden is a moron for doing the Russians the favour of making empty threats about the pipeline, I don't have a problem with that theory. Conjecture all you want Russia is the master of strategy and perception and US officials are dunces that have no idea what they are talking about or why.

For, if it was the Russians, the only reason this pipeline thing causes the:

the intended effect, you're here playing into exactly what Russia wants to have; the west fractured by gullible people and muddying the waters to the point that when there's even tangible evidence of the act you continue to push for your personal opinions, using every bias and fallacy possible. — Christoffer

Is only because the US president threatened to blow up the pipelines in Public.

So, at least start your presentation with "Yes, the US did threaten to 'end' European infrastructure, and that wasn't a good idea to threaten the interests of your own allies, the US should of course respect the sovereignty of Germany to decide for themselves to buy Russian gas or not, which is what this whole war is about supporting sovereignty so just the threat on this infrastructure and deciding things for the Germans, however right the outcome is, already, in itself, is going to cause unneeded tensions between allies ... but even worse! sets the stage for crafty ol' Putin to take advantage of this empty threat and blowup the pipeline himself as everyone will for sure think it was the US considering they threatened, actually more than threatened, promised! to 'end it'."

For someone who does so much mental gymnastics, you're not doing nearly enough to avoid the obvious conclusion which is:

The US president saying:

We will bring an end to it. I promise you. We will be able to do it.
— the president of America

Sure, doesn't prove who did it, but declaring you'll "end" something and then that very thing you promised you'd end does get ended, results in two possibilities:

1. You did it, just like you said you would.
2. You're a fucking moron. — boethius

Which, again, where is the disagreement?

We both agree both the US and Russia had opportunity to blow up the pipeline.

If it wasn't the US then how do avoid the conclusion that Biden is a fucking moron for threatening to do it before hand ... if it actually benefits Russia in their Soviet style perception mastery?

Now you're walking back from "much more clear who was responsible" to "conjecture". — boethius

You are the one conducting conjecture. This is the problem, you seem unable to understand what others write and come off as deeply confused.

What you fail to do is account for the undisputed fact the US threatened to blow up the pipelines. — boethius

They didn't threaten that, they said "end it", which can also mean working with Germany to end their dependence on it. The way you interpret it is akin to how conspiracy theories form.

If you want to propose an alternate theory, you need to take into account the undisputed facts. — boethius

Your "theory" doesn't have nearly as much support other than your own conjecture over your own interpretation of something that isn't directly linked.

You need to say "I have this theory that it was the Russians that conspired to blow up the pipelines and make it look like the US did it by taking advantage of the fact the US said they would do it, all while totally not being a conspiracy theorist conjecturing about this conspiracy theory I have" (or is it only a "conspiracy theory" if it's not the Russians somehow?). — boethius

I'm not doing anything other than pointing in the direction of new evidence. It's you who's conjuring up rants through biases and fallacies in order to dismiss all of that because it doesn't fit what you believe.

You do not even have the beginnings of a proposal. — boethius

I don't claim to, I have talked about possible motives and pointed at the investigation done by these journalists. My "lack of a theory" does not mean your theory is right, it means that I go where the evidence is and conclude that the most plausible perpetrator is Russia. But you're the one who claims to have the truth on your side based on conjecture.

I get it, Western media simply ignores the US president threatening to blow up the pipeline — boethius

You still go on about this even though that never happened. If you are this confused on how to interpret reality or how to carefully interpret what is happening without adding your own beliefs, then no wonder you write as you do. Because the foundation you present is already flawed, but you formulate entire arguments on that foundation, which makes everything you say break apart.

So ... why would the US threaten to blow up pipeline — boethius

You keep doing it.

Even in the realm of conjecture, you're idea should cohere with the known facts. — boethius

This is the most blatant attempt at turning the tables. What I pointed to is actual evidence. What you call evidence is a highly speculatory interpretation of a president who actually didn't say specifically what you constantly write he said. It's you who are doing the conjecture, it's you who are conjuring up new ideas of what constitutes evidence. And then you say that I should stick to "known facts"... are you actually delusional? You haven't even gone through the new findings and just dismiss everything and then said something like that... you're fucking hilarious :rofl:

As I say above, if you're theory is the Russian's did it and Biden is a moron for doing the Russians the favour of making empty threats about the pipeline, I don't have a problem with that theory. Conjecture all you want Russia is the master of strategy and perception and US officials are dunces that have no idea what they are talking about or why. — boethius

Strawman again... seriously, get your medicine or whatever. The problem with your way of making arguments is that you write out what you want the other person's argument to be about, and then you counter-argue it. Instead of that, go where I pointed and look into that material because so long as you ignore that you are making a fool out of yourself.

Is only because the US president threatened to blow up the pipelines in Public. — boethius

Again... mr one-trick-pony can't do anything else than parrot this thing over and over and over thinking the amount of time you say it, it's gonna be more real than the last. He didn't say it like that, YOU are the one interpreting it this way and then you build an entire conspiracy theory around it sprinkling fallacies and biases all over the place.

So, at least start your presentation with — boethius

I'm not gonna dance to your pipe just because it makes it easier for you. :rofl:

For someone who does so much mental gymnastics, you're not doing nearly enough to avoid the obvious conclusion which is: — boethius

Stop writing out what you believe others should write just because it makes sense to you. It's lunacy.

Which, again, where is the disagreement? — boethius

I'm not playing your games, your foundation for your argument is so fucking speculative and far-fetched as the entire foundation for it and your entire dismissal of many months of investigations by the group of investigative journalists I've pointed to just shows how desperate you are to have things your way. You simply seem unable to comprehend how deep your head is in the sand. You can't will yourself into being right.

We both agree both the US and Russia had opportunity to blow up the pipeline. — boethius

Why would I agree that the US had the opportunity or reason to? I specifically gave a motivation as to why the US wouldn't, which, as with everything else just wooshes right over your head. Once again you are trying to position the one you debate against into a position you decided by writing what you believe and then try to demand the other to agree with you. Moving the goal posts.

If it wasn't the US then how do avoid the conclusion that Biden is a fucking moron for threatening to do it before hand ... — boethius

You never fucking understand what hindsight bias is, do you? And you never understand that your entire argument is based on what you believe his speech meant. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't change the fact that your argument is too weak, it has a tremendously weak foundation and premise. And as long as you ignore the new findings you are just showing everyone how desperate you are for your conjecture to be right, so much so that you try to manipulate your way to it by writing long sections where you try to change other's arguments into what you want them to be. The question is if you do it on purpose or are completely clueless. But you are behaving like the usual stereotypical conspiracy theorist. It's the same attempted tactics, the same inability to understand bias and fallacies, and the same errors in reasoning.

You have the facts presented by the investigative journalists. Dig through it. If not, then you are dishonest in the discussion and only interested in being right. And then you need to understand hindsight bias and understand why your argument is thin as aerogel. Until then, you simply act like a delusional conspiracy theorist.

↪boethius, nice story, sort of. I suppose you'd have the UN being "war-mongers". — jorndoe

What story?

At no point did I recount a story.

What I did was outline the key questions a story that it was the Russians would need to at least address to be a minimum credible.

The fact that it's not an easy story to tell is a fact not some counter-story.

Why is it difficult?

First, the Russians not-attacking their own stuff has several advantages:

1. They get to keep their stuff and who knows what use it may have in the future. True, Russia is going "all in" with China, but even then have leverage to potentially be able to sell gas to Germany in the future is still useful even if China remains the main buyer and relations with China are good: every bit of leverage allows increase pressure on the price. Indeed, before the attacks the accusation from the West was Putin was "weaponising" the gas exports. So if this accusation was true ... why wouldn't he continue to do that? Why voluntarily giveu-p a "weapon" in a time of war?

2. Biden "promised" the world he would "end" the pipelines if Russia invaded Ukraine. So, not-attacking the pipelines puts the US in the position of being weak if they don't fulfil their promise ... and if they do, then Russia would get all the benefits is going on about but not only without any of the risks but the added benefit that, if not the general public, non-US NATO intelligence are far more likely to conclude it was the US, if it was actually the US.

Which us to the operational parameters. These attacks were not some casual jaunt through a meadow and "just so happens" a ton of explosives was handy for some spontaneous vandalism.

It's a complex operation and the risks of things going wrong is very real.

So, the story that Russia attacked the pipelines not only needs to completely ignore the leverage some 20 billion dollars of infrastructure that takes decades to build and supplies a resource of fundamental importance (that for the short term benefit of creating intra-NATO suspicions Russia is willing to permanently give up immense leverage in all their international relations for the next decades) but that the Russians would also conclude that Biden literally stating they would "end" the pipelines was not enough to create the aura of suspicion they are seeking, but they need to use enough explosive to guarantee complete destruction of the pipes as well as do it right under NATO's nose on the marine border of Denmark and Sweden ... rather than basically any point between there and Russia.

And control of the crime scene in this sort of operation is always of immense benefit, as there's never any guarantee the operation isn't a complete clusterfuck and there's always a threshold of clusterfuckuppery which is so fucked it can't be spun as "enemy schemes". The divers and / or mini-sub could die or then nearly die and NATO goes out and pulls these corpses / near corpses from the water.

Likewise, in this sort of game, you cannot know your opponents capabilities. What if a US sub shadows the entire Russian operation and then NATO goes and "discovers" these explosives before they blow. There's a real possibility of getting caught red handed in this sort of operation ... unless you do it in waters you control and can easily control the crime scene afterwards as well ... you know, right in the middle of all your sonar and listening devices tracking everything that goes through Denmark (if you're the US) so you can be pretty damn certain no one else is around and also be sure no one goes and checks anything out ... something you couldn't at all guarantee if you were Russia doing the operation right in the middle of the US' backyard.

We're talking about massive operational risks with massive geopolitical implications and risk of embarrassment if anything goes wrong.

So not only does the idea the Russians did it make no sense on pretty much every point but to even entertain the idea we need to just suddenly forget the US is a Naval superpower with all sorts of surveillance capabilities with high motivation to track anything going near and through the Danish straights ... and the whole reason Russia launches subs from the flipping arctic is just paranoia because Russia could just sale right up to Denmark and blow shit up this whole time with the only line of defence some retired Swedish captain on an island with a radio and a hobby or some bullshit along those lines.

And on-top of all the suspension of disbelief to even listen with a straight face to such a story, we also need to believe that anyone pointing out the US president literally "promising" to end the pipeline is somehow a conspiracy theory to discuss what someone says to a journalist on television.

Why would I agree that the US had the opportunity or reason to? I specifically gave a motivation as to why the US wouldn't, which, as with everything else just wooshes right over your head. — Christoffer

Yes ... so ... why did the US president first threaten to put an end to the pipeline and then when challenged double down and "promised" the world they would bring an end to it and then tripling down with the assurance that they for sure could be able to do it?

What's the motivation to threaten to do something you have no motivation to do?

Additionally, Nord Stream 1 continued to operate and it was the West accusing Russia of purposefully kneecapping the flow and "weaponising" the gas, so if your theory is based on Germany deciding all by themselves to fully cut themselves as permanently as possible from Russian gas, that's not what happened, and therefore no need to "end" the pipelines, and Russia (seeing this permanent refusal of gas supplies from Russia, which no competent analyst of international relations would conclude the policy would be "permanent", if it existed at all, which it didn't as Germany kept on buying whatever came through Nord Stream 1) saw the only value in the pipes remaining to be to blow them up to throw shade on the Americans ... none of that stacks up because at no point did Germany have a policy to disconnect entirely and in as permanent way as possible from Russian gas, and even if Germany did have such a policy no credible analyst would conclude a country announcing something "permanent" to actually be permanent. Things change.

You never fucking understand what hindsight bias is, do you? And you never understand that your entire argument is based on what you believe his speech meant. — Christoffer

Really? You really find the following words ambiguous?

Speaking at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Biden said, "If Russia invades... again, then there will be longer Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

When asked how he would do that, he responded, "I promise you we will be able to do it." — Reuters

Ok, well ... what does he mean then?

Enlighten us.

Strawman again... seriously, get your medicine or whatever. — Christoffer

Calm down. You're crossing a line here.

I have already described three times now what the possible motives are, but you don't care. Your mind seems to wander through conspiracy-land being both confused and paranoid. — Christoffer

You do realise you're the one proposing the conspiracy theory that the Russian did in secret (i.e. conspired) to blow up their own pipeline, a crime against property holders in both the EU and Russia.

I'm pointing out the undisputed fact (what the US president said on live television, location of the attacks, minimum bound on how much explosives were used, control of the crime scene, lack of material evidence etc.) your conspiracy theory doesn't even address.

Whereas my position relative these known facts is:

1. Sure, both the US and Russia had the means to carry out such an attack, both have ships that regularly patrol and carry out manoeuvres in the the Baltic and would have reason to be there.
2. I do not deny the intra-NATO tensions that would arise if the pipes blew up and people suspected the US did it.
3. It's totally reasonable to primarily suspect the US considering the US president publicly promised to "end" the pipelines if Russia invaded.
4. So, if it was Russia and they did it because it benefits them ... then obviously it was pretty dumb for the US to basically set themselves up for being an obvious suspect (some would even go so far as to say the party that overtly promised to do the thing that then happened would be the lead suspect in any competent criminal investigation).
5. There's a whole bunch of motivations (decades of economic leverage) we'd need to believe the Russians don't care about, and to such an extreme degree that they don't even mitigate the damage to the pipes ... don't even take advantage of the president's words to carry out a lesser attack and closer to their border in seas they control.

I'm not saying I know what happened. When material evidence of the crime scene is available, even then I don't suspect I'd come to any strong conclusions as people who's job it is to deceive with billions of dollars and / or rubbles at their disposal may very well succeed in deceiving me.

It's you who claims to have knowledge of the conspiracy to the level of confidence:

It was rigorously verified using a former Navy operative in England and through advanced satellite tracking. With confirmation from navy intelligence officers going over the material, simply concluding "With this evidence it is much more clear who was responsible". — Christoffer

You're the one with the conspiracy theory that was "rigorously verified" and makes clear "who was responsible".

I subject your conspiracy theory to critical scrutiny ... and that somehow makes me the conspiracy theorist?

Which, is a label I don't actually mind ... the whole reason we have a long list of laws with the word "conspiracy" in it is because conspiracies do in fact happen and for them to be uncovered someone at some point needs to theorise as to what may have conspired, such as what you are doing vis-a-vis the Nord Stream "sabotage", which, I think is worth mentioning it's being called "sabotage" instead of "terrorism" because not a single brown person has been alleged to be involved in any of the theories proposed so far (Ukraine, Russia, US, Poland ... all white people, so blowing shit up for political pressure is all of a sudden the work of "la di da fancy dancy saboteurs").

Also notable, on the subject of meaning, the sentence "With this evidence it is much more clear who was responsible" could actually mean it's obviously the US that's responsible, for all we know, he doesn't actually say.

Calm down. You're crossing a line here. — Baden

I actually miss Olivier5 calling me a Russian agent.

Not only was it comedy gold but of great insight into how people maintain their world view.

And to be fair, I did just liken discussing with to sifting through the debris of a vapid soul, as a retort to being called:

A normal useful idiot for Russia basically. — Christoffer

"Go take your medicine or whatever" is just the banalist of weak sauce at that point in the exchange.

The weakest of sauces.

And at least Olivier5 was discussing the issues of import: was the war justified, is the price worth it, can Ukraine win, is Ukraine winning, what would be a win, etc.

We had different opinions, but it did move the conversation forward on the key issues.

It's never going to be squeaky clean in here but we'll come round with a brush and pan now and then..

Thanks for the work.

Calm down. You're crossing a line here. — Baden

Sorry about that. But since Boethius will never stop changing other people's arguments into his random nonsense and then just rant on without ever addressing the counterpoints provided I'd better just leave. I think it's frustratingly low quality to the point you get dragged down by it, and it's impossible to write anything in here without him just bombarding everyone with his nonsense. It's the reason most people have left this discussion.

I'm not going to read any more of your nonsense. You ignore looking at the investigation that I have been talking about and referred to this entire time. And since you ignore all of that there's no point in having any further discussion. If you're just here to rant and ignore whatever counterpoint doesn't fit your narrative, then it's a waste of everyone's time to be a part of such discussions.

A feature of this thread from its beginning is that no source of information has been accepted as a common ground for differences of opinion to take as points of departure.

Maybe our grandchildren will be able to piece together the different parts.

, it was about another post of yours. You can check via the ↪boethius links.

They're just going to lie and obfuscate and produce red herrings. It's like playing whack-a-mole, but the bullshit pops up so much faster than you can ever knock it down. Best to not even play the game.