We are not disagreeing.

I've mentioned a few times that hypothetically NATO has trained and equipped an entire new army, maybe even provided a whole new airforce of F-16s ... or even F-22's and F-35s, whatever it takes "to win".

We agree on both points.

The problems Ukraine is facing in military terms do not mean they cannot be solved. I have difficulty imagining how they could be solved, but that's more an invitation to speculation.

You have been saying that resistance is futile since 2/22. We will see. — Paine

I have not said resistance is futile since 2/22.

I made clear I would myself sacrifice a few thousand men to arrest the initial invasion and stabilise the lines.

Continuing to fight beyond that point of maximum leverage (where a smaller force can leverage the damage and chaos it can deal to a larger force, thus motivating a peace to avoid said cost) is simply negative returns on the blood invested in my particular moral system.

Especially as Russia was offering autonomous Donbas (still part of Ukraine from what I understood) which is far better than annexation and the language repression of Russian speakers is not actually a good thing.

We don't go around telling Germans to not speak the "language of the Nazis" or various colonised people to not speak English.

Ending the civil war (that had been going on since 2014) with more autonomy for the separatist region is not exactly some geopolitical world ending result. Pretty banal.

As a Anglo-Canadian, I don't tell Quebeckers not to speak French, and last I heard they're a nation ... inside a country. Which, as an anarchist, I think is the right direction.

However, I never used the words futile. Depends on what you want to achieve. If your moral system is one of maintaining the "rules based world order" and you're willing to sacrifice Ukraine to do that, then maybe it's not futile. Although, even then it seems to me far from clear that Russia will in fact be damaged more than the West when all is said and dead. Situation is complicated.

but only observing that Ukraine cannot afford to just wait out the present situation if it is to have a chance of stopping the Russians. — Paine

That's pretty much what the NY Times is saying, that if this coming offensive doesn't work, Ukraine will be under a lot of pressure to end the conflict.

"WASHINGTON — Ukraine is preparing to launch a counteroffensive against Russian forces as early as next month, American officials say, in the face of immense risks: Without a decisive victory, Western support for Ukraine could weaken, and Kyiv could come under increasing pressure to enter serious negotiations to end or freeze the conflict.

"American and NATO allies have supplied Ukraine with extensive artillery and ammunition for the upcoming battle, and officials now say they are hopeful the supplies will last — a change from two months ago when weapons were only trickling in and U.S. officials were worried that the supplies might run out.

"At the same time, 12 Ukrainian combat brigades of about 4,000 soldiers each are expected to be ready at the end of April, according to leaked Pentagon documents that offer a hint of Kyiv’s timetable. The United States and NATO allies are training and supplying nine of those brigades, the documents said.

"Although Ukraine shares few details of its operational plan with American officials, the operation is likely to unfold in the country’s south, including along Ukraine’s coastline on the Sea of Azov, near the Russian-annexed Crimea.

“Everything hinges on this counteroffensive,” said Alexander Vershbow, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia and senior NATO official. “Everybody’s hopeful, maybe over-optimistic. But it will determine whether there is going to be a decent outcome for the Ukrainians, in terms of recovering territory on the battlefield and creating much more significant leverage to get some kind of negotiated settlement.”

"While Ukrainian officials have said their goal is to break through dug-in Russian defenses and create a widespread collapse in Russia’s army, American officials have assessed that it is unlikely the offensive will result in a dramatic shift in momentum in Ukraine’s favor.

"Ukraine’s military faces many challenges — one reason that a stalemate remains the most likely outcome. Fighting in Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine this winter has drained ammunition reserves and led to heavy casualties in some experienced units.

"And yet American military officials say it is possible that Ukraine’s army could once again surprise them. They are now armed with European tanks and American armored personnel carriers and have new units trained and equipped by Americans and NATO forces.

"“I’m optimistic that between this year and next year, I think Ukraine will continue to have the momentum with it,” Britain’s defense secretary, Ben Wallace, told reporters during a visit to Washington last week. “I also think we should be realistic. There is not going to be a single magic-wand moment when Russia collapses."

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

(Financial Times) Several Russian military ships were observed close to the Nord Stream pipelines in the days before the gas links between Russia and Europe were blown up last year.

A Russian tugboat SB-123 capable of launching and rescuing mini-submarines was seen near the pipelines on September 21 and 22, shortly before the explosions on September 26, according to an investigation by four Nordic state broadcasters based on intercepted radio messages.

Denmark’s overall military command authority confirmed to the Financial Times that it had taken 26 pictures of the special Russian ship SS-750, which had a rescue mini-submarine on board, on September 22 to the east of the Danish island of Bornholm, close to where the sabotage of the twin pipelines took place.

Investigators in Denmark, Sweden and Germany as well as western intelligence agencies are still trying to establish who was behind the pipeline attacks.

Several Russian military ships were observed close to the Nord Stream pipelines in the days before the gas links between Russia and Europe were blown up last year.

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".

With this, any claim that someone else than Russia committed the act requires a much better foundation of evidence than what has been delivered by these investigative journalists.

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

This is not very good evidence at all, considering Russian ships regularly go through the Baltic and you have to go through the Danish straits (basically where the explosions happened) to get to and from the Atlantic.

So it's not some unusual thing that Russian ships would be there.

With this, any claim that someone else than Russia committed the act requires a much better foundation of evidence than what has been delivered by these investigative journalists. — Christoffer

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.

Feel free to go with 2, but don't pretend that what people say they're going to do doesn't matter and is not strong evidence.

Half a year on they suddenly find a box of photographs of the Russians caught in the act?

Color me skeptical.


Besides, it couldn't have been the Russians because we already have US intelligence officials going on record claiming the attack was carried out by a Ukrainian 'group'. :snicker:

Why would the US deliberately be spreading bullshit (obfuscating the investigation) if they weren't trying to cover their tracks?

This is not very good evidence at all, considering Russian ships regularly go through the Baltic and you have to go through the Danish straits (basically where the explosions happened) to get to and from the Atlantic. — boethius

If you had any interest in looking at the actual evidence, it is not just about ships going about their business. Their investigation is part of a long and large investigation into commercial ships being used for military operations. There are surveillance images of these ships showing heavily armed military personnel with masks to hide their identity so that it's hard to track their origin of operation. There are experts in both military navy as well as commercial shipping that examined the movement of these ships in relation to how they should move according to their function, showing them following US subs and other ships in surveillance moves rather than being used for commercial fishing. All while they turn off their sea traffic trackers at the moment they deviate.

This is just a short sum of the body of evidence they've gone through, but why would you care about that? It's not like you're a person who would actually lift a finger to go through it.

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.

Feel free to go with 2, but don't pretend that what people say they're going to do doesn't matter and is not strong evidence. — boethius

Try that in court against the other evidence :rofl:

They also had a long investigation into people in western countries who on the surface are independent journalists who keep releasing pro-Russian concepts and propaganda, only to be proven paid by Russia.

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.

I'd say this thread shows just the same kind of behavior from some. Disregarding any evidence in order to just plant enough doubt. That people still fall for it trying to dismiss pretty convincing evidence is just a tragic reality of it all.

Half a year on they suddenly find a box of photographs of the Russians caught in the act?

Color me skeptical. — Tzeentch

It was their own footage, taken while they are heard asking the photographer: "are they aiming at us? Should we go? Let's go now"

This was WITHIN danish waters, not international waters.

Do you know how long investigations take? They've been conducting this investigation since the explosions, and compared to amateurs, they actually went through A LOT of scrutiny to verify, just like investigative journalists actually do, compared to amateurs with too much time on their hands.

And you really think that if they had footage supposedly depicting Russian ships conducting the sabotage, that the US would be so eagerly throwing its ally under the bus?

Get real.

To reiterate, the US story about a Ukrainian 'group' was full-blown panic in reaction to Hersh's story. There's no way they would have made such a move if they knew the official investigation was on the Russians' tail.

And you really think that if they had footage supposedly depicting Russian ships conducting the sabotage, that the US would be so eagerly throwing its ally under the bus?

Get real. — Tzeentch

Maybe you should actually look into the evidence before conjuring up some scenarios and calling out people to get real.

To reiterate, the US story about a Ukrainian 'group' was full-blown panic in reaction to Hersh's story. There's no way they would have made such a move if they knew the official investigation was on the Russians' tail. — Tzeentch

I don't give a fuck about the US, this is an investigation by Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland with support of intel by former UK navy. If you want to discuss what US says and if it is true or not that has nothing to do with the evidence that these investigators found.

But all of this just shows how low the level is in this thread. There's ACTUAL tangible evidence on the table and it's still just who said what and what propaganda is correct in a never-ending circle.

Return with something more tangible after you've looked into the evidence in detail, until then it's just empty words on your part.

Return with something more tangible after you've looked into the evidence in detail, [...] — Christoffer

This is a bit cute, considering there's no evidence whatsoever presented in any of these reports.

This is a bit cute, considering there's no evidence whatsoever presented in any of these reports. — Tzeentch

What are you talking about? What reports are you referring to?

Alrighty, then. :up:

Alrighty, then. — Tzeentch

What report? I've said that these investigative journalists presented this evidence and it's been a multipart series of one-hour investigative documentaries in collaboration between the top investigative journalists in each nation and then aired on their respective biggest channels. It's then been confirmed and built upon by other news outlets and journalists further building on top of it and all of it has been with utmost care to verification because of the sensitive matter all of this is about. They've even had access to intelligence tools for deep tracking internet services for digging into people spreading propaganda and who's been shown to be paid by the Russian state.

But you say there's no evidence in... some reports? What are you talking about? If you don't care to dig into this yourself then there's nothing to talk about since you will just conclude yourself right by ignoring it.

All of this shows just how stupid this whole thread discussion is. There's actual evidence presented by these journalists, painting a far clearer picture than any fantasies, conjured-up stories, and wild interpretations that get spewed out in this dumpster fire of a thread. Instead of looking into any of it, you just claim to be right because you don't have the evidence served to you, but I question that you would even look at it then.

Here's one of the Russian soldiers on a civilian ship with a turned-off official tracker within Danish waters. These ships have been reported to be conducting surveillance all around the nordic regions and the other ship that was tracked to be at a stand still at the site of the explosions is a vessel with the specific capability of mini-sub underwater operations.



But yeah, there's nothing in this because you say so... give me a fucking break.

This is a picture of a seperate event. The Russians have been conducting surveillance with civilian ships since time immemorial, so I'm not sure what you believe any of this proves.

I thought you were accusing me of not 'looking into the evidence in detail'.

Where's this evidence?

Where's this evidence? — Tzeentch

That's part of the whole body of evidence, it's one image that is able for me to provide since I cannot link the actual episodes because, you know, it's national television spread between all nations. So if you want the evidence, please go check yourself, use VPN, or whatever.

But you know, you won't do that and in your head, that means there isn't any evidence. I've tried to explain this to you, but you ignore it and still go on with "Where's the evidence" like that somehow is a counter to the evidence. That's just pure ignorance and being a dishonest interlocutor. But that's just how this thread seems to work, it doesn't matter if someone points and says, look there's some evidence for you all to take into consideration, it doesn't matter if I try to explain what it was, you just keep ignoring it.

If you want the evidence, go in the direction I pointed towards, or just keep doing this lazy charade, because I cannot provide something you need to actively watch yourself. If you don't want me to install a VPN or try and tune an antenna for you. :shade:

But here you go, I doubt you will care though
https://www.svtplay.se/uppdrag-granskning-skuggkriget

I've already watched it, and no actual evidence is presented.

I'm talking about Nord Stream, in case that wasn't clear.

That the Russians are floating around scanning the seabed with civilian vessels is nothing new. Hell, I don't even doubt they could have conducted the Nord Stream sabotage if they had wanted to.

I've already watched it, and no actual evidence is presented.

I'm talking about Nord Stream, in case that wasn't clear.

That the Russians are floating around scanning the seabed with civilian vessels is nothing new. Hell, I don't even doubt they could have conducted the Nord Stream sabotage if they had wanted to. — Tzeentch

If you've actually watched it through and especially the third episode, then you are just ignoring the fact that the ship in question, the one with underwater operation capabilities was at the location of the explosions, turning off their commercial trackers, stopped, went back to Kaliningrad, turned off normal communication, went back and turned off their trackers again and held positions for a long period of time right at the site just days around the explosions occurred. Verified by both satellite and the former Navy operator separately.

So, we have a ship, built for underwater operations at deep levels, that went to a place, twice, that has no purpose other than being the place where the pipeline is located. While turning off trackers that all commercial ships are required to have on in these waters. While turning off normal communication back to Kaliningrad. While no other ships were reported in the area and no other ships were spotted on the satellite other than this ship around that time. On top of this, it's clear that Russian civilian ships are almost all involved with surveillance everywhere around the Nordic region, spying on everything based on their deviant movement from their commercial purpose, right at times when something else is in the area that would be of interest as intel to Russia. You then have the propaganda strategy of blaming in all directions, then boiling it down to one part, in order to make the appearance that guilt has been cleared up. The same exact propaganda strategy that Russia is using all the time to steer the narrative away from them after they've done something (which according to this thread is pretty obvious they succeed with), as they did after Butcha.

All of this (which is a brief summary of three hours), is also commented on by outside sources that verify the significance of their findings.

But you don't think any of this is significant because of what a half-demented president, vaguely said and you interpreted as an admission of guilt. That is your strong evidence against all of this? :rofl:

Seriously, all of this is enough to have the guilt heavily leaning toward Russia. Of course it isn't a picture of a Russian operative shooting a rocket launcher on the pipeline, but it's way more evidence than any other theory has shown so far (and any wild conspiracy theory in this thread), and dismissing this because you interpret what the president said as "stronger evidence" is just a conspiracy charade, either on purpose or just because brainwashery. I guess this thread really fried some people's brains, good thing I'm not a regular in here anymore.

But then again, I don't think you watched it at all. I just think you try to bullshit your way through this.

If you've actually watched it through and especially the third episode, then you are just ignoring the fact that the ship in question, the one with underwater operation capabilities was at the location of the explosions, turning off their commercial trackers, stopped, went back to Kaliningrad, turned off normal communication, went back and turned off their trackers again and held positions for a long period of time right at the site just days around the explosions occurred. Verified by both satellite and the former Navy operator separately. — Christoffer

All we see are blips on a map and the vaguest of satellite imagery.

Military ships aren't required to use AIS. The US navy sails around without AIS 24/7. Moreover, navies use a special version of AIS that allows them to manipulate the ship ID data.

Warship Automatic Identification System (WAIS) enables the operator to adjust the own ship’s visibility, vary the information the own ship transmits (including its identity, size, and type), and create and place simulated vessels.

It would have made a whole lot more sense if while carrying out such a high-risk operation, they would never have turned AIS on, and maintained EMCON throughout the mission. Supposed 'retired UK intelligence officers' aren't the only one's listening in around the Baltic. All of NATO is too.

The idea that the CIA and other intelligence agencies can't produce more than a few blips on a map and the grainiest of satellite imagery is just the type of naivety that would make this theory plausible. Had the Russians been this obvious about it, there wouldn't have been a mystery in the first place.

Moreover, the Russians own the pipeline. They know where it is located and have the capacity to carry out the operation via submarine, completely covertly.


The story doesn't really provide evidence, nor does it add up.

On top of this, it's clear that Russian civilian ships are almost all involved with surveillance everywhere around the Nordic region, spying on everything based on their deviant movement from their commercial purpose, right at times when something else is in the area that would be of interest as intel to Russia. — Christoffer

That much has been clear since the Cold War.

But you don't think any of this is significant because of what a half-demented president, vaguely said and you interpreted as an admission of guilt. — Christoffer

An overt threat by the US president and Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, both basically outright saying they will blow up the pipeline, is a very strong indication of guilt - yes.

I think it requires an ungodly amount of confirmation bias not to interpret that as such.

The fact that the US threw Ukraine under the bus in a panic move when the Hersh story came out, makes its innocence even less likely.

But then again, I don't think you watched it at all. I just think you try to bullshit your way through this. — Christoffer

Yes I did. I'm just a little less naive.

Try that in court against the other evidence :rofl: — Christoffer

What planet are you living on?

Saying you're going to do something ... then that thing happening would definitely be used against you in court.

Mafia bosses who say they will whack a guy, who have incentive and means to whack said guy, and then that guy turning up whacked is court admissible evidence.

In itself, is it enough to convict? No. But it's pretty strong evidence.

Definitely "exhibit A: the defendant is recorded as threatening to 'what him'" type evidence.

As for your evidence, being placed at the scene of a crime only matters if it's somewhere you would not normally be. Being placed at your home or at your work ... or in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world (as a ship) "a few days before the crime took place" is extremely weak evidence.

Why wouldn't the Russian ships be there? This narrative is spun like the Danish straights is in the middle of some random place in the pacific.

And speaking of court, if you want to argue on that basis, "who dun it?" we cannot say conclusively based on the available evidence, but what we can know in this "court" you are imagining, is that prosecutors purposefully withholding evidence is a serious procedural violation (mistrial at best) and arguably fraud.

NATO has access to the crime scene ... so why don't we see pictures of the crime scene, reconstruction of the explosive devices, any basic investigatory work at all?

For these claims to be something other than propaganda, the material evidence should be presented.

Of course, people could still say it was a setup, doesn't necessarily resolve anything, but the material evidence should be consistent with this story that the explosives were laid a few days before (or then a pretty good explanation of how the Russians faked how long the explosives were there) if that's what NATO is claiming.

No prosecutors (outside a circus court) could ever possibly get away with making a case while not only making zero effort to make their story consistent with the material evidence of the crime scene ... but hiding all the material evidence of the crime scene to boot.

In terms of criminal process, it's just dumb.

NATO has not made a case, they've thrown a bone to the people who want / need to believe it wasn't the Americans ... in a way that increases, rather than decreases, the suspicion it was the Americans to any attentive observer.

Now, if we had seen pictures of the crime scene, catalogue of the materials used, reconstruction of the devices, would it prove conclusively who did it? No. But it would at least be a plausibly good faith investigatory process where we could argue based on actual facts of the actual crime scene.

All we see are blips on a map and the vaguest of satellite imagery. — Tzeentch

No, they have verified signatures for a specific ship. Nice strawman try to lower the significance of it.

Military ships aren't required to use AIS. The US navy sails around without AIS 24/7. Moreover, navies use a special version of AIS that allows them to manipulate the ship ID data. — Tzeentch

They are required to use them when exiting international waters. That's why Sweden chases out Russians all the time when discovering deviating routes and having them off.

Supposed 'retired UK intelligence officers' aren't the only one's listening in around the Baltic. — Tzeentch

There are hundreds of thousands of ships, he used his retirement time to specifically track ships around the Nordic region and mapping behaviors using a specific tracking technique. That is what he is actually doing, what you do there is to guess that Nato is doing exactly the same. So guesswork once again.

The idea that the CIA and other intelligence agencies can't produce more than a few blips on a map and the grainiest of satellite imagery is just the type of naivety that would make this theory plausible. Had the Russians been this obvious about it, there wouldn't have been a mystery in the first place. — Tzeentch

More guesses and attempts to downplay. Spy satellites that something like CIA uses require specific targets. They are super-advanced with high-resolution resolution, but you can't go back in time and just pull out images from all around the globe and you could do it less for tracking an object if you didn't know its location in the first place.

And then you say "If the Russians had been obvious about it, there wouldn't have been any mystery". That's not in any shape or form a counter-argument to these things, that's like saying "if the murderer had been obvious about it there wouldn't need to be any investigation". What the hell kind of argument is that? :rofl: It's this non-obvious and covert op that perhaps made it hard for advanced surveillance and the CIA to catch them in the first place. Because the surveillance that did spot them was a retired Navy officer who made it a 24/7 hobby to track ships' movements and deviations and then confirmed by one of the most advanced non-military satellite systems around, which, compared to your guesswork about CIAs capabilities for intel, actually do take images frequently. But as a drawback, it can only get the outline of the ship. However, the combination of two separate tracking methods that aren't traditionally used in tandem to confirm things like this, provided a confirmation of the ship's identity and behavior during the attack on the pipeline. It was this unusual combination that helped find this intel because it was a non-standard practice that Russians wouldn't have any intel on.

That you only believe that the CIA should have gotten better intel while trying to strawman the actual findings in order to paint the theory as naive is just so weak as a counterargument that it comes off as a desperate attempt to dismiss everything out of bias to what you already believed before.

Moreover, the Russians own the pipeline. They know where it is located and have the capacity to carry out the operation via submarine, completely covertly. — Tzeentch

You don't seem to know how well Sweden tracks Russian subs. A civilian-looking ship using small submarines is more covert than a large sub. And you also totally ignore the fact that there are residue and evidence left after an explosion. If they had used a Russian sub and torpedos it would have shown signs of that kind of attack. You're just pulling ideas out of your ass now without any regard for what the consequence of different strategies would be. To use a ship that is among hundreds of thousands of other ships in the Nordic region is obviously a much more covert and intelligent strategy. The fact that it required non-standard methods to spot the deviations is clearly a sign of that operation being smartly planned.

The story doesn't really provide evidence, nor does it add up. — Tzeentch

Because of what? You shrugging at the evidence and thinking the CIA "should have" spotted things because they are the all-seeing eye of the universe? You have nothing tangible whatsoever to support any other theory, while this is the best evidence so far. The most plausible culprit is Russia, you can't deny that just because you believe and interpret things about what CIA "should be able to do" and what a half-demented president vaguely said.

That much has been clear since the Cold War. — Tzeentch

Except, since the invasion, Russia has expanded this to include all civilian ships, not just a few specific ones. All ships are required to be able to aid in intelligence. You can find info about this if you cared to look up anything.

An overt threat by the US president and Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, both basically outright saying they will blow up the pipeline, is a very strong indication of guilt - yes. — Tzeentch

They didn't say they will blow it up. That's something you put together after the fact. As I said, try that in court and people will laugh at you because that's called conjecture and cannot be used in the way you try to.

I think it requires an ungodly amount of confirmation bias not to interpret that as such. — Tzeentch

Holy shitballs you are backwards with that. You don't even realize that you use confirmation bias, after the fact to spot this connection. You don't seem to realize that it's precisely confirmation bias that you do with that conjecture. And this thing is your only thing, as well as "CIA should have seen stuff".

How the hell can't you see how weak what you suggest is? You say that the evidence that has been presented is weak and yet you provide the weakest form of "evidence" possible. It's hilarious.

Yes I did. I'm just a little less naive. — Tzeentch

No, you are purely biased toward your own belief in this. You have no evidence whatsoever and you call me naive? Get real

Saying you're going to do something ... then that thing happening would definitely be used against you in court. — boethius

They didn't say that they were going to blow it up.

Mafia bosses who say they will whack a guy — boethius

They didn't say they were going to blow it up. Or whack anything.

In itself, is it enough to convict? No. But it's pretty strong evidence. — boethius

Actual tracking of Russian operatives connected to the time of the explosion is stronger evidence. What you are doing is conjecture. Get some basic justice knowledge if you want to conclude what is "strong evidence".

The evidence presented in this investigation is also not enough to convict, but it is damn stronger than all of your wild interpretations and conjecture of that speech. You need to prove that the intent wasn't to diplomatically dismantle the pipeline with Germany.

On top of this, you need something else than just that speech. You wouldn't win any court case with just that. The investigation has a lot more evidence to show. If you think that speech is enough against all that, then you're delusional.

NATO has access to the crime scene ... so why don't we see pictures of the crime scene, reconstruction of the explosive devices, any basic investigatory work at all? — boethius

Uhm... because ongoing investigations do not share such things? There are a number of investigations going on as well. Have you ever heard of investigations sharing evidence in real time? That's a good way for the perps to adjust their stories and prepare for when they're caught. Not a good strategy of justice, which is why such things aren't publically exposed.

And if you don't trust NATO you can check other people investigating. Like, for instance, what I've referred to.

For these claims to be something other than propaganda, the material evidence should be presented. — boethius

I've linked to the series. You can watch it. There's no NATO involved in that investigation.

Of course, people could still say it was a setup, doesn't necessarily resolve anything, but the material evidence should be consistent with this story that the explosives were laid a few days before (or then a pretty good explanation of how the Russians faked how long the explosives were there). — boethius

Then look into the investigation then, that I talked about. What's the problem?

making zero effort to make their story consistent with the material evidence of the crime scene — boethius

I think the investigative journalists made a tremendous effort to show a story consistent with their evidence. I don't know what you're referring to.

NATO has not made a case — boethius

This isn't about NATO, it's about what the collaborative investigative journalists between four nations did to provide tangible evidence of Russia's involvement. It has zero to do with NATO so I don't know what you are babbling about.

Now, if we had seen pictures of the crime scene, catalogue of the materials used, reconstruction of the devices, would it prove conclusively who did it? No. But it would at least be a plausibly good faith investigatory process where we could argue based on actual facts of the actual crime scene. — boethius

You can wait for the investigations conducted by others than NATO as well as understand the fact that ongoing investigations don't share evidence (which doesn't mean they hide anything because, you know, that kind of conclusion is called a conspiracy theory). They have no obligation to share this with you in some "good faith" and it is also strategically stupid to release evidence before anything can be concluded. You are not an investigator and you are irrelevant to show evidence to.

However, you have the evidence from these journalists, which is far more conclusive than any bullshit that's been produced by this thread. In here, there's just conjecture and conspiracy theories. There's nothing different between this thread and some deep internet hole with other conspiracy nutjobs. Wild interpretations and confirmation biases.

These journalists have found tangible and clear evidence that points to Russia. It's not strong enough to deductively conclude Russia's guilt, but it's damn well better than any bullshit that's been conjured up by internet amateurs so far.

Actual tracking of Russian operatives connected to the time of the explosion is stronger evidence. What you are doing is conjecture. Get some basic justice knowledge if you want to conclude what is "strong evidence". — Christoffer

You are completely delusional.

Placing someone where they would likely be (a busy shipping lane) = weak evidence.

Someone threatening to do something, indeed promising to do it = strong evidence.

Purposefully withholding evidence (such as all the material evidence of a crime scene) while accusing someone of a crime = fraud.

You are completely delusional.

Placing someone where they would likely be (a busy shipping lane) = weak evidence. — boethius

That's not the evidence, maybe you should just shut up and watch it in detail before guessing what it's about. Thinking this is about ships in a busy shipping lane just shows how ignorant you are.

There's no point trying to convince someone like you to do this since you've shown in this thread just how biased you are. Actually, there's a big part of the series dedicated to what you are doing, but you wouldn't know anything about it or would deny it.

That's not the evidence, maybe you should just shut up and watch it in detail before guessing what it's about. Thinking this is about ships in a busy shipping lane just shows how ignorant you are. — Christoffer

The evidence you are talking about is literally ships near the scene of the crime.

Civilian ships, military ships, covert ships. Any kind of ship with any kind of person for any kind of purpose is not surprising to be in a busy shipping lane.

How would Russian civilian, military, covert ships go to and from St. Petersburg and the Atlantic?

Literally right through Danish straights.

Now, in terms of ignorance, you seem to believe:

Spy satellites that something like CIA uses require specific targets. They are super-advanced with high-resolution resolution, but you can't go back in time and just pull out images from all around the globe and you could do it less for tracking an object if you didn't know its location in the first place. — Christoffer

There are civilian satellite photography taken every day of the entire earth that you can purchase.

And you think CIA spy satellites would need a "specific target" to track something as large as a ship in critical waters in the heart of NATO ... during a war in the region?

But let's put that aside, because you literally state:

Uhm... because ongoing investigations do not share such things? There are a number of investigations going on as well. Have you ever heard of investigations sharing evidence in real time? That's a good way for the perps to adjust their stories and prepare for when they're caught. Not a good strategy of justice, which is why such things aren't publically exposed.

And if you don't trust NATO you can check other people investigating. Like, for instance, what I've referred to. — Christoffer

So, if the investigation hasn't shared all it's evidence, and that's just normal, why would we come to any conclusions?

The problem here is these countries (who have material evidence) coming out with partial evidence without presenting the rest, so we can't see if it even coheres with the material evidence they possess. Presenting partial evidence pointing to one party means absolutely nothing other than trying to shape the narrative for people who want / need to believe it wasn't the Americans (such as giving a plausible basis for European policy makers to continue to be bitches; not that there's any risk of them being something other than bitches, but this way is more comfortable for them compared to considering the possibility the US does not have Europe's interests at heart, but rather their own interests ... surprisingly close to exactly what they keep saying for the last 5 decades to explain nearly all of their policies; as crazy as it sounds, people could just mean what they say sometimes, such as "protecting US interests" means "protecting US interests" and not European interests).

Bad faith at best, fraud at worst (if we're pretending to be in court and 'normy' laws apply to the parties involved).

And isn't Denmark coming out with statements such as:

Denmark’s overall military command authority confirmed to the Financial Times that it had taken 26 pictures of the special Russian ship SS-750, which had a rescue mini-submarine on board, on September 22 to the east of the Danish island of Bornholm, close to where the sabotage of the twin pipelines took place. — Financial Times

Doing exactly what you say is incompetent for investigators to do?

Isn't that a ....

a good way for the perps to adjust their stories and prepare for when they're caught. Not a good strategy of justice, which is why such things aren't publically exposed. — Christoffer

If anything you seem to be criticising the investigation.

What you haven't done is point to any evidence even remotely stronger than the US President publicly declaring his intention to "end" the pipeline.

If you think some stories of ships in the Baltic (where we'd very much expect them to be, including military and covert ships) is somehow stronger evidence, all while chocking up the lack of presenting the material evidence as "a good strategy of justice" but coming to conclusions anyways, that's called: believing what you want to believe.

No, they have verified signatures for a specific ship. — Christoffer

There's no such thing, except maybe acoustic signatures, which weren't mentioned (and civilians don't have access to). They mention a handful of visual characteristics which we are then to assume are present on the irrecognizable white blotches we see on the satellite imagery.

There are military installations that can passively detect and identify specific sensor emissions, and identifying a set of sensors can create a profile that can match a certain vessel. There are three problems with that, however:

1. This type of equipment is not readily available outside of the military.
2. This is why militaries practice EMCON (emissions control) during operations, especially clandestine ones.
3. This would all have been available information to the various militaries and agencies surveilling the Baltic Sea.

To reiterate, this would have been basic stuff. Literally the first things that would have been done when trying to discover whodunnit - check positioning logs, satellite imagery, and data from the numerous listening installations that line the Baltic coasts.

For this information to just 'pop up' out of nowhere while the US has already pressed the panic button is very hard to believe.

We never get any real insight in the actual data that was used. I wouldn't be surprised if this 'retired UK intelligence officer' was just logging positions on https://www.marinetraffic.com, since it actually passes on the screen at one point in the documentary.

[... ] he used his retirement time to specifically track ships around the Nordic region and mapping behaviors using a specific tracking technique. — Christoffer

A secret technique which we never get any insight into, and is somehow unknown to professional militaries who have access to every type of surveillance imaginable?

Again, color me skeptical.

If they had used a Russian sub and torpedos it would have shown signs of that kind of attack. You're just pulling ideas out of your ass now without any regard for what the consequence of different strategies would be. — Christoffer

If you're going to accuse me of "pulling ideas out of my ass" then maybe not display your ignorance so blatantly.

Obviously they wouldn't have to use torpedos. Their submarines can lay mines and launch divers, underwater vessels and drones.

To use a ship that is among hundreds of thousands of other ships in the Nordic region is obviously a much more covert and intelligent strategy. — Christoffer

That's begging the question, isn't it?

How many ships in the Nordic region have the letters "CC-750" on their hulls, hm?

Are you sure conducting underwater sabotage in broad daylight with a submarine tender would classify as "covert and intelligent"?

The evidence you are talking about is literally ships near the scene of the crime. — boethius

No, it's about their behavior and their function. Once again, dig into the actual findings instead of continuing this biased charade.

Literally right through Danish straights. — boethius

Yes, and the deviations are the things that they investigated. As well as the fact that these ships entered Danish waters (not international) with masked armed personnel, deviate from their planned routes and enter restricted areas where they should not be. Sweden has been driving off Russian ships and subs on occations for years, but at the moment it's almost done on a regular basis.

So you don't know what you're talking about.

There are civilian satellite photography taken every day of the entire earth that you can purchase.

And you think CIA spy satellites would need a "specific target" to track something as large as a ship in critical waters in the heart of NATO ... during a war in the region? — boethius

If you had been looking into this, you would have understood that there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of civilian-marked ships that are used by the Russian military and navy as covert ships around the Nordic region. And if you knew anything about the Baltic region you would know that it is not "the heart of NATO" and has never been up until maybe when Sweden joins NATO, which hasn't happened yet. But the key factor here is that your idea of it being easy to track all ships as you imply is just not correct. This is the foundation for why they probably used such a ship in the first place because there's simply no way for the CIA or NATO to track all ships and if they mask their intent right up until they deviate with a commercial tracker off, they won't be noticed other than by something that tracks an entire region or someone who's dedicated all their time to just looking at deviations. And then there's the fact that there's no war in the Baltic region and ocean. Where do you think the intelligence people are looking the most? Ukraine and the Black Sea of course.

Painting CIA and NATO as an all-seeing eye that has superhuman capabilities of spotting everything everywhere is not a counter-argument to the findings presented. Because these findings were used with unconventional methods. Which may be key to why they spotted it and not any intelligence agency. If Russia knows the tactics and methods of surveillance, they would plan a covert op to hide from it, but not unconventional methods like the ones used in these findings.

So, if the investigation hasn't shared all it's evidence, and that's just normal, why would we come to any conclusions? — boethius

Because... once again, if you cared to look into these findings that are a result of investigations since the explosions occurred, you would understand that the conclusion is not undisputed guilt towards Russia, but that there's enough evidence here to point at Russia far more than any other perp.

But you don't care, you just conjure up your own conspiracy theory based on official investigations not releasing evidence in an ongoing investigation and some far-fetched interpretation of a half-demented president.

If this was a murder case and you would say: "If the prosecutor isn't releasing the evidence for the public to see, then there has to be some corruption against the accused", no one would judge you as being anything other than another conspiracy nutjob. If the normal practice in criminal investigations is to keep the evidence confidential, then in investigations that revolve around national security and war it would obviously be even more so. To say that this confidentiality is "evidence of guilt" on the investigator's part is just conspiracy theory nonsense.

The problem here is these countries (who have material evidence) coming out with partial evidence without presenting the rest, so we can see if it even coheres with the material evidence. — boethius

Nations, NATO, or the CIA isn't part of the investigation that has released these findings I'm talking about. If you are this confused about who's doing what and what evidence is where then it's no wonder you're acting like a conspiracy nut.

Bad faith at best, fraud at worst (if we're pretending to be in court and 'normy' laws apply to the parties involved). — boethius

I'm using "court" or normal legal practices as thought examples in order to show just how weak your "evidence" is. The thing is that these new findings that have been released paint the clearest picture yet, it's the most conclusive evidence yet. And you are doing everything you can to dismiss their relevance without even having much of an insight or care for the details. This is the behavior of Russian trolls or of people brainwashed by their propaganda strategy. They show a hilarious example of this with a "people's journalist" who questions everything in the same manner you do, and then they track his history back to being paid by Russia to keep feeding misinformation and disinformation to the public in order to plant doubt. So that even when there are clear hints, through evidence, that Russia is in fact behind the attack, the seed of doubt produces useful idiots who keep spreading this doubt.

There's no such thing, except maybe acoustic signatures, which weren't mentioned. They mention a handful of visual characteristics which we are then to assume are present on the irrecognizable white blotches we see on the satellite imagery. — Tzeentch

False, the navy former officer specified the ship identity and the tracker before it was turned off was linked to the exact ship. If you paid attention to the material you would know it wasn't identified by the "white blotches". The "white blotches" were correlated between locations the former officer registered and with the satellite images in order to confirm travel paths. So you are clearly wrong and once again try to strawman their findings.

To reiterate, this would have been basic stuff. Literally the first things that would have been done when trying to discover whodunnit - check positioning logs, satellite imagery, and data from the numerous listening installations that line the Baltic coasts. — Tzeentch

Doesn't matter if they mask themselves among the hundreds of thousands of ships in the area. There's literary a section focused on how they didn't use the satellite system in Tromsö that they used to detect this. And it was the combined tracking between the navy officer and those satellite images that created a map of the ship's travel path. The whole point was that the initial investigators missed it because the satellite system in Tromsö isn't used for investigations. It was the idea of the journalists to use them.

For this information to just 'pop up' out of nowhere — Tzeentch

It was months of investigation in order to find something conclusive. Compared to your wild speculations, real investigators actually take time to verify to a point where it has substance. That takes time, and that's what investigative journalism is about compared to whatever bullshit clickbait the rest of the journalist world conducts.

It's kind of the opposite of what this thread is, where everyone is just spewing out wild speculations as soon as something happens. It's also that kind of behavior that lock people into biases, so deep that you are unable to do anything but try so very hard to dismiss all of this in every way possible.

We never get any real insight in the actual data that was used. — Tzeentch

This shows that you just skimmed through everything.

A secret technique which we never get any insight into, and is somehow unknown to professional militaries who have access to every type of surveillance imaginable? — Tzeentch

You don't understand why they were able to track in the way they did. The unconventional methods used are not anticipated by Russian covert ops, and not something planned against. Using civilian ships in the way they did is perfect to circumvent intelligence agencies who monitor these areas because of the sheer number of ships in use. Do you think this is the first time in history that civilians were able to spot operations and intel that intelligence agencies missed?

If you're going to accuse me of "pulling ideas out of my ass" then maybe not display your ignorance so blatantly. — Tzeentch

My ignorance? I'm pointing to the only fucking tangible evidence that has been publically available and you call me ignorant? Ger real

Their submarines can lay mines and launch divers, underwater vessels and drones. — Tzeentch

And the Swedish navy is an expert hunter for Russian subs. Do you know how many they've pushed back from our waters over the years? Do you think the presence of our navy is less after the Ukraine invasion? Do you think it's intelligent for Russians to use subs in Swedish waters when our entire sub fleet has been specifically built to counter Russian submarine designs? I guess if you had been the leader of this operation it would have failed spectacularly. Swedish submarines and operating personnel is proven the best in the world since we took out US flagships with ease. What would be the most intelligent way to do this operation then? Disguise as a civilian ship that has the capacity to do fast deep sea minisub missions of course. The Swedish navy is actively looking for Russian subs and military ships, they aren't focused on these civilian ones. The report that there are thousands of these pseudo-civilian ships is big news in the Nordic region, our governments are now initiating actions based on this investigation.

You are just throwing out ideas in an attempt to counter all of this but there's no depth to any of your ideas. Pun intended.

That's begging the question, isn't it? — Tzeentch

How is that begging the question? It's inductive reasoning based on Russia's actual practice with civilian ships right now. And you fail to realize that YOU are the one doing "begging the question". "Biden said this... so that's begging the question of why the explosion happened after it". "NATO is keeping evidence quite, so that's begging the question, what are they hiding". You don't seem to understand what begging the question means.

How many ships in the Nordic region have the letters "CC-750" on their hulls, hm? — Tzeentch

You mean this ship? Because this is the one they tracked



And of course, why would anyone track a ships location pre-explosions? You are suggesting that they should have spotted these ships before the action, but how would they know? How would they know to track this ship? The findings by these journalists were possible because they found a way to track ships in this region post-explosions. The actual intelligence agencies were surprised by their findings. There's been further interviews with counter-intelligence personnel basically being surprised by what the journalists were able to achieve and it's now part of the investigation going forward.

Are you sure conducting underwater sabotage in broad daylight with a submarine tender would classify as "covert and intelligent"? — Tzeentch

This just shows how naive you are about what covert means. It's not a Mission Impossible movie. Real operations use any means necessary to stay covert. In real life, there can be far weirder things like inflatable tanks, which fool intel personnel more than people realize. If you think that going down with a Russian sub into Swedish waters, where Sweden is world-leading at countering Russia, down to the very design of our military naval equipment and conducting the operation at night like some Hollywood movie, is more "covert" than operating within a group of thousands of other ships, only deviating a short time to a location along the pipeline that is located in a place where Russia could spin the blame towards others than if they had done so closer to their shore, and then slip out playing "innocent ship", then you have no idea what covert ops mean.

Once again you are stretching things too thin for your counter-arguments to actually work. What will you think of next I wonder?

False, the navy former officer specified the ship identity and the tracker before it was turned off was linked to the exact ship. — Christoffer

That's the narrative.

The actual thing that happened (from what I'm able to tell) is he correlated AIS data with intercepted emissions.

That's both unlikely, and not sufficient for an identification.

Unlikely because military vessels can turn off their AIS at will or tamper with the vessel information - even produce ghost contacts. In addition, one would expect military vessels to practice EMCON while on a covert mission, even moreso because nothing the vessel was supposedly engaged in would require it to make use of military-purpose active sensors that could be used to identify it.

Not sufficient for identification because of the aforementioned, and also for other more practical reasons like passive intercepts being generally unsuited for a precise localization (and thus correlation), especially without triangulation from multiple stations. How exactly did the retired navy officer get his hands on this type of hardware again?

So you are clearly wrong and once again try to strawman their findings. — Christoffer

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

Doesn't matter if they mask themselves among the hundreds of thousands of ships in the area. — Christoffer

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

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.

We never get any real insight in the actual data that was used. — Tzeentch

This shows that you just skimmed through everything. — Christoffer

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.

The unconventional methods used are not anticipated by Russian covert ops, [...] — Christoffer

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.

And the Swedish navy is an expert hunter for Russian subs. Do you know how many they've pushed back from our waters over the years? Do you think the presence of our navy is less after the Ukraine invasion? Do you think it's intelligent for Russians to use subs in Swedish waters when our entire sub fleet has been specifically built to counter Russian submarine designs? — Christoffer

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.

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.

[...] why would anyone track a ships location pre-explosions? — Christoffer

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.

No, it's about their behavior and their function. Once again, dig into the actual findings instead of continuing this biased charade. — Christoffer

What findings?

You literally just said yourself investigation is "on-going" so they'd be stupid to release any actual evidence that would allow the culprits to get their stories straight.

You can't have it both ways, saying the lack of countries releasing evidence on the one hand is investigators being "smart" and on the other the very same countries releasing "some evidence" that tells you what you want to hear are "findings".

The evidence of Russian ships being in the Baltic is poor even if we assume it's true. Where else would they be?

If it merely establishes that Russia had opportunity to blow up their own pipeline, no one's ever disputed that.