This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Is it possible to determine what type of explosive was used from the seismic data? I'd imagine different types of material would have a different pattern.
Which, if we know about, then Russia would have known about it as well. I've read UK ships were in that area, too. This could have been done with an underwater drone filled with explosives. The area could have been chosen because of the activities of the US/UK and others in the area, in order to create doubt.
For all we know the mine-planting/explosive force was there because of concerns about explosives being placed on the pipeline, or intelligence about a possible attack on it.
Seems plausible that they were there based on intelligence. But it's also possible they did it, released this story, and can now simply say "why would we publicly announce that if we were going to blow the pipeline?" And then pull out some vague, uncorroborated, anonymous, top secret intelligence that suggested a threat on the pipeline. Yellow cake.
Why would the Russians blow up their own pipeline that they control?
The Russians need that pipeline for leverage. They can say 'stop waging proxy war against us and we'll send you gas'.
Because Putin benefits from sowing confusion among Europeans. He also gives a signal that Russia can do the same to any other pipelines or cables in the sea.
What's best for Russia has long been irrelevant here. Putin goes with what's best for his personal aims and nobody in power dares to go against him (at least yet).
Two sequences of events
US officials have long hated this pipeline and publicly threatened to terminate it, regardless of what Germany wishes
US military forces stage a mine-clearing exercise off Bornholm island, testing their snazzy new drones and technologies. They leave a couple of mines or smart torpedoes behind. If they're somehow discovered, it's an accident from the exercises. These are now a method they can use if Germany starts getting antsy about waging proxy war against their energy supplier or if Russia moves more aggressively.
Russia commences partial mobilization, stages referendums on parts of Ukraine joining Russia so it can creep its nuclear umbrella forward into Ukraine
US blows up the pipeline in response, securing profits for its energy exporters, tying Germany's hands and hurting Russian diplomacy in Europe by removing leverage
Alternately
Russia spends billions of dollars building a pipeline to Germany so it can make a great deal of money selling gas
Russian naval forces, not known for their excellence, lay explosives in their own pipeline (which they control the flow of gas to and could turn on or off at any time)
Russian forces blow up their own pipeline to show they can blow up other people's pipelines, like the Norwegian-Poland pipeline that finished just today, which they don't control, didn't pay for and actively harms their interests!
Surely you see that the former approach makes more sense than the latter!
This is what happens when you are linked to Biden's speech by someone saying "oh he threatened to take out the pipeline no matter what Germany wants" without realizing that he was standing right next to Germany's chancellor answering that question. In the statement "I promise you we'll be able to do it" the "we" includes Germany.
BIDEN: "There will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
REPORTER: "How will you do that, exactly? Since the project and control of the project is within Germany's control?"
BIDEN: "I promise you we'll be able to do it."
He didn't say, 'we'll get the Germans to cancel it' or explain anything further. I interpret that as a threat. He made a promise that they'd have the power to make it end, not contingent on what the Germans say.
Other officials like Ned Price said they'd work together with Germany to cancel it. But it's extremely obvious that the Germans want this pipeline more than the Americans do. The Germans were the ones defending it for the past few years because it advances their interests and the Americans hate it because it threatens their interests. They have been putting sanctions on this project, they've been hectoring the Germans to cancel it. Sanctions are not 'we're talking with our allies to get them to agree to cancel this', they're using pressure directly. All you have to do is put two and two together.
Imagine that your rich, influential girlfriend is really into environmentalism and hates that you drive a car. She's begging and threatening you to stop driving. She manipulates the system to make it harder for you to get your license renewed. You give in and stop driving after the petrol store owner throws some molotov cocktails at a rival of his. Suddenly, your car becomes totally inoperable in a way that's only explicable by sabotage. Isn't it natural to assume she's behind it, as opposed to the petrol store?
You are free to interpret it however you want. If you start with the assumption that the US is evil, you will quickly find everything they do to be a threat. And it is a free country, so no one will stop you!
More options
Context Copy link
That sounds like a pretty clear statement by Biden.
Question: What's special about this particular statement by Biden that leads you to believe it reflects American foreign policy? It's not uncommon for Blinken or unnamed staffers in the White House to issue statements that "American policy in this area remains unchanged" following a Biden statement that is sharply contrary to the status quo.
Well in this case unnamed staffers weren't saying that, were they? Official US policy was to shut down this pipeline. That is and has always been the status quo. See sanctions, see rhetoric, see everything.
This statement by Biden is just one example of a general tendency towards shutting down this pipeline. They've made no secret about what they want to do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This sounds like a line taken from a movie, that I'm supposed to nod along to, because I did it once, while suspending disbelief.
How does it benefit him more, than having a pipeline he can use for negotiations?
Except no one feels threatened by that, and that signal means people will now be paying attention to make sure no one is trying to damage their pipelines.
The Irish are as there are apparently some important undersea internet cables connecting Europe and America off the Irish coast which Ireland doesn't have the naval capacity to protect (the US, UK, and France have been patrolling the area but that still leaves Ireland's territorial waters).
Russian vessels were in the area a few months back. I'm not saying that's what they were there for, but that's what people here are saying.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Also Russia had a naval vessel there a week after the Americans. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-warship-violated-danish-territorial-waters-baltic-danish-military-2022-06-17/
There's evidence pointing in many directions. It's completely inconclusive.
Except US insiders (NRO, Sikorski) are chortling. The threats were made on record by the US president.
If chortling is not enough, you have to look at who profits. Not Russia, which was expecting Germans to crumble after some weeks of Africa-tier 'load shedding' by the power utilities.
No, US benefits here by making it impossible for EU to renew gas supplies even if Russia were to win or there was some peace treaty.
The link you posted is a short post, mostly speculation by a NR political correspondent, who appears to be mostly a regular journo. His analysis substantially equal to what we have here on the Motte already (it would serve the US interests to blow it up); he doesn't cite any named or anonymous insiders. Did you intend to post something else? Sikorski you refer to, in turn appears to be ex-Finance minister of Poland, which again doesn't sound like a credible insider. (IIRC there is an Israeli ex- minister of defense who proclaims aliens are visiting Earth on regular basis: showcases the quality of ex-ministers.)
Do we have any estimates how much time and money it would take to repair the damaged portion to the pipeline? Only thing I have seen is an estimate that will take up to couple of weeks before the area is safe and clear for investigation. It certainly does not appear impossible, by googling I can find companies that advertise case studies of providing gas pipeline repairs at depths of several thousands ft, though usually it is smaller scale leaks in production.
Assuming it holds up to saltwater fairly well probably several months, at the very least.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link