I made a cogent point
you dumped a pile of words on the floor that didn't amount to complete thought
you're a fkn mess
REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Who blew up Nord Stream?
- Thread starter GromsDad
- Start date
you dumped a pile of words on the floor that didn't amount to complete thought
you're a fkn mess
I'm pressing the reset on this thread due to incoherence and an utter lack of cogency.
As you were, Comrades.
As you were, Comrades.
No you didn’t
You tried to say holding phony elections somehow proved Russia blew up its own pipeline
As an anti Authoritarian you should be the most upset about the Russian criminal invasion, but like everything else your anti authoritarianism is a complete fraud just like all your screeching.
You're not even making sense anymore. Take a step back
Here's how it works. I am anti-authoritarian and anti-war. That does not mean I need to fight fire with fire. The proper response to a regional conflict is indifference
Here's a map for you
You did feel the same about Iraq and Afghanistan being "criminal invasions" as well? How about Mexico back in the 1840s?
it would be great if you could follow a thread instead of constantly casa'ing it and showing up mid-conversation and taking a giant non sequitur sh!t on the floorNo you didn’t
You tried to say holding phony elections somehow proved Russia blew up its own pipeline
GromsDad posted a stupid fkn meme, I pointed out the absurdity of the meme, and you're arguing about what now?
You know who blows up pipelines? Impotently rageful libertarian proud bois do!
go for a jog or something....
Guy unironically writes #believeWeird. Rigged elections. That would never happen in the US or US-occupied territories
also they have EVERYTHING to do with pipeline destruction
#believe
1 "Let’s say the US Navy did it."
Ok, sure, for the sake of the argument being displayed.
2 What agency would investigate it and tell the world whodunnit?
At this time, Sweden and Germany are last I read. They are NATO aligned.
3 Let’s say the Russians investigated and concluded the US navy did it or the Ukrainians with the help of the US Navy. Would anyone believe them?
Ok, then it seems to stand to follow that Russia would believe their own report and those on Team Russia may choose to do same.
4 Thus the point that the guilty parties have not been found is squid ink.
Ok, can concede this point based on the above "givens".
5 We can at best look at means, motive and opportunity and apply inductive reasoning and Ockham's razor but will never receive a trustworthy investigative report from a NATO-aligned country.
Agree that conjecture buoyed up with cogent and salient facts is better at convincing others of 'who done it'. Based on the the "Let's say the US Navy did it" aspect of this reasoning of why you down voted me for posting facts, the following conclusion from the above also make sense.
But if you change the opening to "Let's say the Russian Navy did it" and just flip around the players, use the same reductive logic displayed above, then it would then equally makes sense that we (the world at large) will never receive a trustworthy investigative report from a Russian-aligned country.
Which to me, then seems to be a non-persuasive line of reasoning.
Walk us through the means, motive, and opportunity for Russia to blow up their own pipeline after they had already turned it off.
Means: Russian (or Russian affiliated) demo teams.
Opportunity: Russian Navy in the Baltic Sea.
Motive (all conjecture at this point):
1 link
2 link
3 link
4 link
If anyone doesn't want to follow links, and I can't blame you, perhaps simple motive for the pipeline attack is better understood by looking at recent Crimea bridge attack. I think this bridge is more useful to Russia and the Russians on Crimea than it is to Ukraine. After the bridge was attacked, Ukraine got missile attack in civilian areas. Russian retribution seems slightly more plausible than solely trying to go for battlefield gains. When the pipeline was attacked, no similar Russian attack. Ergo, the appearance is that Russian strikes back when it has suffered something it doesn't want.
Opportunity: Russian Navy in the Baltic Sea.
Motive (all conjecture at this point):
1 link
2 link
3 link
4 link
If anyone doesn't want to follow links, and I can't blame you, perhaps simple motive for the pipeline attack is better understood by looking at recent Crimea bridge attack. I think this bridge is more useful to Russia and the Russians on Crimea than it is to Ukraine. After the bridge was attacked, Ukraine got missile attack in civilian areas. Russian retribution seems slightly more plausible than solely trying to go for battlefield gains. When the pipeline was attacked, no similar Russian attack. Ergo, the appearance is that Russian strikes back when it has suffered something it doesn't want.
Last edited:
from #1:
The attack may, however, have signaling value. If so, that does change the strategic landscape in the energy war. If perpetrated by Russia, the signaling value toward the West—which would certainly know Russia is behind the explosions—may be a threat to the rest of the marine energy infrastructure. Back in 2021, Putin told a gathering of military leaders: " If our Western colleagues continue the obviously aggressive stance, we will take appropriate retaliatory military-technical measures and react harshly to unfriendly steps. I want to emphasize that we have every right to do so." Was the Nord Stream attack a hint that similar mishaps might happen to some or all of the seven major pipelines delivering Norwegian gas to the UK and continental Europe? The explosions coincided with the inauguration of the Baltic Pipe taking Norwegian gas to Poland, so this is hardly an academic hypothesis.
from #2:
Additionally, by severing the pipelines carrying Russian gas to Europe, Russia could be signaling to Europe that it is Russia, not Europe, that has decided to cut energy ties and decouple and that there is no going back. This would seem to contradict the conventional wisdom that Russia was hoping Europe will buckle this winter due to rising energy costs and will seek to pull back from sanctions and pressure Ukraine to negotiate. But Putin may have realized that such hopes were fanciful—especially as Europe has found ways to restock its gas supply for the winter—and is now resorting to new tactics.
ONE HUNDRED PERDERP
The attack may, however, have signaling value. If so, that does change the strategic landscape in the energy war. If perpetrated by Russia, the signaling value toward the West—which would certainly know Russia is behind the explosions—may be a threat to the rest of the marine energy infrastructure. Back in 2021, Putin told a gathering of military leaders: " If our Western colleagues continue the obviously aggressive stance, we will take appropriate retaliatory military-technical measures and react harshly to unfriendly steps. I want to emphasize that we have every right to do so." Was the Nord Stream attack a hint that similar mishaps might happen to some or all of the seven major pipelines delivering Norwegian gas to the UK and continental Europe? The explosions coincided with the inauguration of the Baltic Pipe taking Norwegian gas to Poland, so this is hardly an academic hypothesis.
from #2:
Additionally, by severing the pipelines carrying Russian gas to Europe, Russia could be signaling to Europe that it is Russia, not Europe, that has decided to cut energy ties and decouple and that there is no going back. This would seem to contradict the conventional wisdom that Russia was hoping Europe will buckle this winter due to rising energy costs and will seek to pull back from sanctions and pressure Ukraine to negotiate. But Putin may have realized that such hopes were fanciful—especially as Europe has found ways to restock its gas supply for the winter—and is now resorting to new tactics.
ONE HUNDRED PERDERP
Last edited:
My conspiracy minded side of me noticed that one of the dead on the bridge was an ally of Putin (Sergei Maslov, a judge) who had (is?) overseen a case involving Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov's daughter.
Chechen kills the judge for going after the daughter, gets blame placed on Ukraine, Russia attack covers your butt, win-win!
(By the way, truck bomb not best to blow bridges unless you can get it under the deck. Bridge decks do great job resisting downward forces, so to do more damage with less, you make the force the explosion go in direction of least resistance.)
PS
All just in fun and games. I would put odds on Ukraine or Ukraine allies doing the job.
I was half joking about Russia blowing up the bridge.
This whole conflict seems extra shadowy (in it's unclear how far or what the West is doing or willing to do in order to support Ukraine or disrupt Russia) so many of these theories seem somewhat plausible. I guess that's what makes for good conspiracies. I wonder if we'll ever get any answers
Plus, the headlines write themselves.
