The explosions which took out three of the four gas conduits for Nord Stream 1 and 2 may be the gift that keeps on giving for whichever entity orchestrated the sabotage. Once the gas leaks out, seawater floods in, corrode corroding and ruining the pipelines.
Meanwhile, German security authorities are assuming that the three tubes of the Baltic Sea pipeline Nord Stream 1 and 2 will be forever useless after alleged acts of sabotage . If they are not repaired quickly, a lot of salt water will run in and corrode the pipelines, the Tagesspiegel learned from government circles.
Unless dive teams are working to seal the leaks even now, the odds of the pipelines being a total loss rise rapidly.
Remember the 'leaked' phone call in which Victoria Nuland said, "Fuck the E.U."?
Well she really meant it! -- LOL
That said, I also remember when Hurricane Sandy flooded a goodly portion of the NYC subway system back in 2012 and lots of people said the damage would be irreparable; that some of those lines would never run again due to salt water damage to & corrosion of the electrical switch gear and such. But in a matter of weeks, they were all up and running. These pipes are not that deep down. I'm confident they can be repaired if Europe and Russia are motivated to do so.
While I'm not sure of the exact depth of the water around Bornholm island, the depth of the Baltic Sea proper is as much as 459 meters. While far from the deepest water on earth, that's still deep enough to be a fairly technical and complex dive (e.g., divers would require a helium/oxygen mixture rather than air).
Could the damage be repaired? Possibly. It depends on the extent of the damage and how many sections of pipeline would need to be replaced. And, as you say, on the motivation of the EU and Russia to repair the pipelines. Right now, with the EU determined to isolate Russia economically, I'm guessing neither side is all that motivated.
Depending on the ultimate outcome of hostilities in Ukraine, rather than repairing the Nord Stream pipelines the impetus may be to focus on the existing Yamal pipeline through Poland and the Progress and Soyuz pipelines through Ukraine--the latter two of which has historically earned Ukraine a few billion dollar per year in transit fees (the Nord stream pipelines were designed primarily to cut Poland and Ukraine out of the loop so that Russia wouldn't have to share in the money). Expanding the use of those pipelines might be a way for Russia to fund Ukrainian reconstruction once the war ends.
Regardless of who did this, the scariest thing about it is that it basically says that it's open season on all critical infrastructure. Think about all the critical bridges, transmission lines, etc. that are difficult if not impossible to protect, and that have huge ramifications for the functioning of society as we know it if they taken out of commission. Plus, you have to assume that the software systems used to run and maintain these systems have likely already been infiltrated by hostile states. This statement is true of all adversaries in the current conflict. It does not lead to a pretty picture of the future and leaves everyone vulnerable in ways that most people can't contemplate.
You have hit upon exactly why most of the "Great Reset" theories that are becoming popular in certain circles ultimately are simply not feasible forecasts of the future.
“They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind." -- Hosea 8:7
Deglobalization breeds global chaos, out of which all outcomes are unpredictable. Yes, all critical infrastructures become military targets. And all critical infrastructures are, ultimately, indefensible.
The end result is not merely an end to global trade, but an end to most trade of any kind. The very systems the WEF presumably would leverage to take control over everything would simply cease to exist.
We are approaching a singularity, and what comes after that singularity is both unknown and unknowable.
I agree. The people running the show have god complexes that make them feel like they know all the answers. They don't. The reality is that they can't see past their next decision. Whoever blew up the pipelines think they were super smart, but as you said, will now have to reap the whirlwind in ways they likely didn't consider.
PNK - do you still agree w your initial assessment this am that these terrorist attacks are not the risk the markets were addressing? Given the orchestration to do it could there have been leaks or hints making the rounds?
Imho this is, to quote a VP over a hot mike, "a big f\/ing deal...."
1) for the markets to price in an act of sabotage on Nord Stream literally days before it happened implies a measure of advance knowledge--which in turn requires a breach of operational security that clearly has not happened (as proven by the fact that we have no proof of exactly which entity did the deed).
2) the economic impact of the sabotage is limited. The geostrategic implications, particularly as they involve the Russo-Ukrainian War, are, as I stated in my original article, potentially huge.
3) Russia was uncharacteristically muted in its response for the first 24 hours after the attack--and muted in the RUSSIAN media. Any nation whose economic infrastructures had been so attacked would have been denouncing the attack all over social media. The Russians did not do this.
4) The BoE threw in the towel on fighting inflation this morning. While I think there is still a bigger event yet to happen, that is the sort of reversal the markets seem to be anticipating.
American involvement is quite possible, but even the court of public opinion needs a few facts on which to hyperfocus.
The Biden and Nuland statements are suggestive but not dispositive. And given Nuland's previously demonstrated expertise in successful interventions, frankly I'd expect something more sophisticated from her than a planted charge and a detonator.
The brute simplicity of the attack is actually more in line with Putin's playbook.
But even then, no proof. Nothing but speculation and reinforcing existing biases.
With logic and the right predicates, a variety of plausible scenarios can be concocted for why the pipelines were destroyed. Without proof, however, we have no way to tell which scenario is the one called "what really happened."
Even if they could seal the leaks (doubtful, assuming lots of explosives were used), they still have to get the seawater out -- I don't think they will be repairable. And then, whoever did it could just do it again. Much cheaper/easier to destroy, and each take-out costs billions of dollars to repair.
Which illuminates a key reality about undersea pipelines in a deglobalized world: they are indefensible. The technology needed to sabotage is little more than the limpet mines of WW2, and a small 2-man sub could get in, place the charge, and leave without detection.
Thus we come to a fascinating question: why now?
The US would have gained the best strategic advantage from the sabotage back in April or May. Russia would have benefited most if the sabotage had come before Putin's mobilization speech (think a repeat of the Moscow apartment complex bombing that Putin leveraged into a casus belli to reinvade Chechnya and level Grozny; some Kremlinologists believe the attack was a Putin false flag to generate popular support for the Second Chechen War).
With the pipelines effectively shut down for the duration of the Russo-Ukrainian War, blowing them up now seems almost pointless.
A very good question, maybe the key question in terms of who has most to gain. Perhaps to keep the EU from rapprochement with Russia in exchange for more gas?
There is a theory floating around that if the USA did blow up Nord Stream, it was to do the German Chancellor a solid by taking the pressure off on sanctions.
As theories go, it's plausible. But again we come back to this pesky thing called "proof".
Victoria Nuland, on the other hand, is a fairly competent strategic thinker, as she demonstrated in 2014.
The "names" who are supposed to be running everything in Washington are clowns. The bureaucrats in the permanent Administrative State (aka the Deep State) are dangerously competent most of the time.
Biden’ odd televised remarks about the pipeline earlier this year suggest it’s either his misadministration’s doing, or he wishes for others to believe it’s his doing…
He also started saying around 2018 that he was worried that DT would steal the next election. Totally projecting his own plans I thought. He thought he was planting seeds in gullible TDS-affected minds. Of course it was that too sadly.
Many crim's suffer from duper's delight. They WANT you to know they did it and were smart enough doing it that you can't quite prove it. Pride wants recognition and the chance to gloat over your enemies is hard to leave alone.
Following the Russian media is a challenge. However, there are several Russian language media sites that are available--some toe the government line and others are dissident publications.
A word on the silence of the Russian media. In the 24 hours following the initial reports of the explosions, the above mentioned Russian sites had very little to say about the explosions, and TASS acknowledged the sabotage but did not point any fingers in any direction.
RIA and Kommersant have both had articles describing the trajectory of UN Security Council level "investigations" into the incident, and Kommersant has used intemperate remarks and tweets by various figures to allude to US/Western culpability in the matter.
This is a far cry from the aggressive finger pointing one would naturally expect under the circumstances, especially given the finger pointing that is taking place within Corporate media.
Given Putin's willingness to accuse NATO of unconscionable aggression by cozying up to Ukraine, thereby forcing Russia's military hand, the Russian media reticence on Nord Stream is quite striking.
Remember the 'leaked' phone call in which Victoria Nuland said, "Fuck the E.U."?
Well she really meant it! -- LOL
That said, I also remember when Hurricane Sandy flooded a goodly portion of the NYC subway system back in 2012 and lots of people said the damage would be irreparable; that some of those lines would never run again due to salt water damage to & corrosion of the electrical switch gear and such. But in a matter of weeks, they were all up and running. These pipes are not that deep down. I'm confident they can be repaired if Europe and Russia are motivated to do so.
While I'm not sure of the exact depth of the water around Bornholm island, the depth of the Baltic Sea proper is as much as 459 meters. While far from the deepest water on earth, that's still deep enough to be a fairly technical and complex dive (e.g., divers would require a helium/oxygen mixture rather than air).
Could the damage be repaired? Possibly. It depends on the extent of the damage and how many sections of pipeline would need to be replaced. And, as you say, on the motivation of the EU and Russia to repair the pipelines. Right now, with the EU determined to isolate Russia economically, I'm guessing neither side is all that motivated.
Depending on the ultimate outcome of hostilities in Ukraine, rather than repairing the Nord Stream pipelines the impetus may be to focus on the existing Yamal pipeline through Poland and the Progress and Soyuz pipelines through Ukraine--the latter two of which has historically earned Ukraine a few billion dollar per year in transit fees (the Nord stream pipelines were designed primarily to cut Poland and Ukraine out of the loop so that Russia wouldn't have to share in the money). Expanding the use of those pipelines might be a way for Russia to fund Ukrainian reconstruction once the war ends.
My understanding is that the damaged sections are at a depth of about 100 meters, or perhaps a bit less.
Regardless of who did this, the scariest thing about it is that it basically says that it's open season on all critical infrastructure. Think about all the critical bridges, transmission lines, etc. that are difficult if not impossible to protect, and that have huge ramifications for the functioning of society as we know it if they taken out of commission. Plus, you have to assume that the software systems used to run and maintain these systems have likely already been infiltrated by hostile states. This statement is true of all adversaries in the current conflict. It does not lead to a pretty picture of the future and leaves everyone vulnerable in ways that most people can't contemplate.
You have hit upon exactly why most of the "Great Reset" theories that are becoming popular in certain circles ultimately are simply not feasible forecasts of the future.
“They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind." -- Hosea 8:7
Deglobalization breeds global chaos, out of which all outcomes are unpredictable. Yes, all critical infrastructures become military targets. And all critical infrastructures are, ultimately, indefensible.
The end result is not merely an end to global trade, but an end to most trade of any kind. The very systems the WEF presumably would leverage to take control over everything would simply cease to exist.
We are approaching a singularity, and what comes after that singularity is both unknown and unknowable.
I agree. The people running the show have god complexes that make them feel like they know all the answers. They don't. The reality is that they can't see past their next decision. Whoever blew up the pipelines think they were super smart, but as you said, will now have to reap the whirlwind in ways they likely didn't consider.
PNK - do you still agree w your initial assessment this am that these terrorist attacks are not the risk the markets were addressing? Given the orchestration to do it could there have been leaks or hints making the rounds?
Imho this is, to quote a VP over a hot mike, "a big f\/ing deal...."
Yes, I do. For several reasons:
1) for the markets to price in an act of sabotage on Nord Stream literally days before it happened implies a measure of advance knowledge--which in turn requires a breach of operational security that clearly has not happened (as proven by the fact that we have no proof of exactly which entity did the deed).
2) the economic impact of the sabotage is limited. The geostrategic implications, particularly as they involve the Russo-Ukrainian War, are, as I stated in my original article, potentially huge.
3) Russia was uncharacteristically muted in its response for the first 24 hours after the attack--and muted in the RUSSIAN media. Any nation whose economic infrastructures had been so attacked would have been denouncing the attack all over social media. The Russians did not do this.
4) The BoE threw in the towel on fighting inflation this morning. While I think there is still a bigger event yet to happen, that is the sort of reversal the markets seem to be anticipating.
Biden and Nuland, 2 different threats of sabotage.
I’d say they are behind it w the other CIA operatives.
Putin, charge them with war crimes.
Proof.
American involvement is quite possible, but even the court of public opinion needs a few facts on which to hyperfocus.
The Biden and Nuland statements are suggestive but not dispositive. And given Nuland's previously demonstrated expertise in successful interventions, frankly I'd expect something more sophisticated from her than a planted charge and a detonator.
The brute simplicity of the attack is actually more in line with Putin's playbook.
But even then, no proof. Nothing but speculation and reinforcing existing biases.
Yes, but I'm also sure they've studied Putin's playbook as much as you.
Which is why I keep harping on proof.
With logic and the right predicates, a variety of plausible scenarios can be concocted for why the pipelines were destroyed. Without proof, however, we have no way to tell which scenario is the one called "what really happened."
Even if they could seal the leaks (doubtful, assuming lots of explosives were used), they still have to get the seawater out -- I don't think they will be repairable. And then, whoever did it could just do it again. Much cheaper/easier to destroy, and each take-out costs billions of dollars to repair.
True dat.
Which illuminates a key reality about undersea pipelines in a deglobalized world: they are indefensible. The technology needed to sabotage is little more than the limpet mines of WW2, and a small 2-man sub could get in, place the charge, and leave without detection.
Thus we come to a fascinating question: why now?
The US would have gained the best strategic advantage from the sabotage back in April or May. Russia would have benefited most if the sabotage had come before Putin's mobilization speech (think a repeat of the Moscow apartment complex bombing that Putin leveraged into a casus belli to reinvade Chechnya and level Grozny; some Kremlinologists believe the attack was a Putin false flag to generate popular support for the Second Chechen War).
With the pipelines effectively shut down for the duration of the Russo-Ukrainian War, blowing them up now seems almost pointless.
A very good question, maybe the key question in terms of who has most to gain. Perhaps to keep the EU from rapprochement with Russia in exchange for more gas?
There is a theory floating around that if the USA did blow up Nord Stream, it was to do the German Chancellor a solid by taking the pressure off on sanctions.
As theories go, it's plausible. But again we come back to this pesky thing called "proof".
Right now it's all speculation.
we give our gov't way too much credit for thinking -- for ex, leaving Afgan, how did that go?
addressing covid?
use of the Vax?
or, lying to FISA ct.
prosecuting the use of private, sunsecured servers to store CI and conduct SOS business?
and I'm sure you all have many many more, and we attribute them any kind of fully informed and wise decision?
these guys are clowns
Dementia Joe is a clown.
Most of the White House staff are clowns.
Victoria Nuland, on the other hand, is a fairly competent strategic thinker, as she demonstrated in 2014.
The "names" who are supposed to be running everything in Washington are clowns. The bureaucrats in the permanent Administrative State (aka the Deep State) are dangerously competent most of the time.
Biden’ odd televised remarks about the pipeline earlier this year suggest it’s either his misadministration’s doing, or he wishes for others to believe it’s his doing…
He also started saying around 2018 that he was worried that DT would steal the next election. Totally projecting his own plans I thought. He thought he was planting seeds in gullible TDS-affected minds. Of course it was that too sadly.
Many crim's suffer from duper's delight. They WANT you to know they did it and were smart enough doing it that you can't quite prove it. Pride wants recognition and the chance to gloat over your enemies is hard to leave alone.
Following the Russian media is a challenge. However, there are several Russian language media sites that are available--some toe the government line and others are dissident publications.
There is the government news agency TASS: https://tass.ru/
There is the government friendly RIA Novosti: https://ria.ru/
Also RBC: https://rbc.ru/
On the dissident side there is the New Times: https://newtimes.ru/
There is also Paper: https://paperpaper.ru/
Most articles on these sites can be read in English if you rinse them through a translator like Google Translate
https://translate.google.com/?sl=auto&tl=en&op=websites
A word on the silence of the Russian media. In the 24 hours following the initial reports of the explosions, the above mentioned Russian sites had very little to say about the explosions, and TASS acknowledged the sabotage but did not point any fingers in any direction.
RIA and Kommersant have both had articles describing the trajectory of UN Security Council level "investigations" into the incident, and Kommersant has used intemperate remarks and tweets by various figures to allude to US/Western culpability in the matter.
https://ria-ru.translate.goog/20220929/nato-1820290168.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
https://www-kommersant-ru.translate.goog/doc/5583270?from=main&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
This is a far cry from the aggressive finger pointing one would naturally expect under the circumstances, especially given the finger pointing that is taking place within Corporate media.
Given Putin's willingness to accuse NATO of unconscionable aggression by cozying up to Ukraine, thereby forcing Russia's military hand, the Russian media reticence on Nord Stream is quite striking.