In what is sure to be cited as proof of US culpability for the Nord Stream attacks, Arab media is carrying reporting that US MH60-R Seahawk helicopters sortied around Bornholm Island, the area where the attacks occurred, during early September.
US military helicopters habitually and on numerous occasions circled for hours over the site of the Nord Stream pipelines incident near Bornholm Island earlier in September, Flightradar24 data showed.
Earlier this month, a US Navy Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopter spent hours loitering over the location of the damaged natural gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea near Bornholm for several days in a row, September 1, 2, and 3, in particular.
Built by Lockheed, the MH-60R Seakhawk is touted as a multi-mission helicopter whose intended roles include anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-surface warfare (ASuW). The helicopter also can be used in Search and Rescue as well as Special Operations—which means it could be a potential means of delivering explosive devices into the area around Bornholm Island.
“Of course, this will require the cooperation of several countries ... This is an extremely dangerous situation that requires urgent investigation ... This is an incident. So far, we cannot give a clearer qualification. But the scale of the destruction suggests that it really was some kind of act. Of course, it is very difficult to imagine that such a terrorist action could take place without the involvement of some state," Mr. Peskov commented on the situation, answering a question from Kommersant FM during today's press call.
NATO says that any attack on the critical infrastructure of the countries of the alliance will be followed by a strong response, the alliance said in a statement released on Thursday in connection with the incidents on the Nord Stream gas pipelines.
We, as Allies, have committed to prepare for, deter and defend against the coercive use of energy and other hybrid tactics by state and non-state actors. Any deliberate attack against Allies’ critical infrastructure would be met with a united and determined response.
Russia’s response to the attack thus far seems rather restrained, in marked contrast to the hyperbole employed by Vladimir Putin in his mobilization speech. What the significance of that might be, if any, is one of the many unknowns still before us.
Within the context of a NATO communique, the term "Allies" would be the natural reference to the members of the NATO alliance.
My reading of the communique was that NATO is more concerned with infrastructures within the Baltic that are demonstrably NOT Russian in any capacity (e.g., the Baltic Pipeline just opened between Norway and Poland).
One of the challenges the Nord Stream attack poses is what does one do about such an attack, even if the responsible party can be provably identified? In the globalist mindset that has dominated geopolitical thinking particularly in Europe for decades, this sort of attack just doesn't happen--it cuts against the very premise of a globalist integrated economy.
One of the realities of the Nord Stream attack is that it shows unmistakably that the era of globalism is fading, and fading fast. How the world manages international infrastructures such as pipelines in a deglobalized political environment is a question no one has yet contemplated (or answered).
Unless you see the blowing up of the pipeline as being in line with Globalists' agenda to make energy scarce and expensive, and thus kill off some more people.
Quite possibly. At a minimum it removes any incentive for a quick peace in Ukraine.
It also sets a precedent. Undersea infrastructures are vulnerable and indefensible....and now legitimate targets.
The Baltic Pipeline just opened between Norway and Poland traverses the Nord Stream pipelines just south of ... wait for it ... Bornholm Island. How long before it is bombed?
This reminds me of the recent US railroad strike which almost happened. Whenever goods are prevented from going from point A to point B, economies collapse quickly. Granted this pipeline was not transporting anything at the time, but it has been a wake-up call (I hope): Pipes, transmission lines, tracks. Humans need free-flowing transportation.
Unfortunately, you can expect the governments on both sides of this to wage war to "protect" such free-flowing transportation, principally by blowing up the other side's free flowing transportation.
Such is the level of thinking that passes for leadership in government circles these days.
Please pardon my being picky, but I don't buy the fairy dust of "leadership." People don't need leaders. Rather they need to stop being followers. Government needs "good" people for sure, but perhaps that is a Catch-22.
This is similar to my being picky about conflating "anarchy" with "chaos."
"Any deliberate attack against Allies’ critical infrastructure would be met with a united and determined response."
Excuse my confusion: is this pipeline Russia's critical infrastructure or "Allies" critical infrastructure.
Also excuse me but isn't "Allies" the WWII term against "Axis" countries.
So which is Germany these days?
Within the context of a NATO communique, the term "Allies" would be the natural reference to the members of the NATO alliance.
My reading of the communique was that NATO is more concerned with infrastructures within the Baltic that are demonstrably NOT Russian in any capacity (e.g., the Baltic Pipeline just opened between Norway and Poland).
One of the challenges the Nord Stream attack poses is what does one do about such an attack, even if the responsible party can be provably identified? In the globalist mindset that has dominated geopolitical thinking particularly in Europe for decades, this sort of attack just doesn't happen--it cuts against the very premise of a globalist integrated economy.
One of the realities of the Nord Stream attack is that it shows unmistakably that the era of globalism is fading, and fading fast. How the world manages international infrastructures such as pipelines in a deglobalized political environment is a question no one has yet contemplated (or answered).
Unless you see the blowing up of the pipeline as being in line with Globalists' agenda to make energy scarce and expensive, and thus kill off some more people.
Whoever did this, the outcome is going to be catastrophic.
Quite possibly. At a minimum it removes any incentive for a quick peace in Ukraine.
It also sets a precedent. Undersea infrastructures are vulnerable and indefensible....and now legitimate targets.
The Baltic Pipeline just opened between Norway and Poland traverses the Nord Stream pipelines just south of ... wait for it ... Bornholm Island. How long before it is bombed?
This reminds me of the recent US railroad strike which almost happened. Whenever goods are prevented from going from point A to point B, economies collapse quickly. Granted this pipeline was not transporting anything at the time, but it has been a wake-up call (I hope): Pipes, transmission lines, tracks. Humans need free-flowing transportation.
That they do.
Unfortunately, you can expect the governments on both sides of this to wage war to "protect" such free-flowing transportation, principally by blowing up the other side's free flowing transportation.
Such is the level of thinking that passes for leadership in government circles these days.
Please pardon my being picky, but I don't buy the fairy dust of "leadership." People don't need leaders. Rather they need to stop being followers. Government needs "good" people for sure, but perhaps that is a Catch-22.
This is similar to my being picky about conflating "anarchy" with "chaos."
No worries. I'm actually not that far behind you in that regard.
" In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25
Then and now, God's Law has always been sufficient. It's Man's laws that muck everything up.
https://blog.petersproverbs.us/2021/11/no-king-in-israel-no-king-required-then.html