This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Finnish president has said damage to an undersea gas pipeline and communications cable connecting Finland and Estonia appears to be deliberate.
Nato’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said the transatlantic military alliance was “ready to share information about the destruction of Finnish and Estonian underwater infrastructure” and to “support its allies”.
The Finnish government said in a statement that authorities had discovered the damage to the Balticconnector natural gas pipeline, and to a communication cable linking Finland and Estonia, at about 2am local time (0000 BST) on Sunday morning.
It cited unnamed intelligence sources as saying the government “considered it possible that Russia had aimed a sabotage attack” amid sightings of Russian vessels in the vicinity of windfarms and underwater power cables in the Baltic Sea.
Konrad Muzyka, an independent regional defence analyst, said on X that the Russian hydrographic survey vessel Sibiryakov had been detected in the Gulf of Finland near the pipeline and the Estlinks cable in May, August and September.
Finland and Estonia are EU and Nato members that border Russia and stopped importing Russian oil and gas as part of sanctions imposed against Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine.
The original article contains 510 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Good bot
I can’t not support the attacks on fossil fuel infrastructure. It’s a shame that a communications cable was also affected
If they keep trying this, we’ll get another oil spill
That made mw think, what is worst for the environment, an oil spill, that is pretty localized, or the use of the same amount of spilled oil in production of energy and others, that affects the entire planet?
By quantity of oil, I would think an oil spill is more damaging.
However, the damage from the sum of all oil spills pale in comparison to the damage of burned fossil fuels. But that’s because we try not to spill oil too much, that’s expensive to waste it.
What do you mean by quantity of oil, is the same quantity. One is preprocessed, but very densely localized, the other is the same amount but in it entirely of use.
I think they mean like a gallon of gasoline burned in a car does less environmental damage than the same gallon of gasoline just released into the environment.
Not saying it is or isn’t, just how I took it.
He’s saying we would never have an oil spill equivalent to the amount of oil that is used because we try very hard not to spill oil. It is expensive and damaging.
If you are asking a hypothetical question comparing the amount of oil in a spill and its damage to the environment vs simply using that oil normally, I think the oil spill wins in a landslide for being the most damaging.
Well, an oil spill is still probably worse. Depends on volume of spilled oil. Also depends on if that oil is replaced by using renewables.
The typical spill playbook is to slowly clean this up while also creating emissions elsewhere and also disrupting the environment more to repair the pipeline or whatever alternative they have.
On a long enough time span, that oil disperses throughout the entire ocean. Same goes for the pollution so it’s a matter of Ocean toxicity vs greenhouse effect/air quality
I too enjoy waking up to another false flag operation. It’s literally the exact same story used for Nordstream, which is incredibly lazy as far as false flag operations go.
So, you think Finland launched a false flag attack on their own gas pipeline, in order to do absolutely nothing against Russia. I mean, nobody went to war over Nordstream either, if these are false flag attacks, they’re pretty fucking shit at the follow-up, especially considering nobody really needs a reason to do anything against Russian aggression right now.
No, no, it was ukranian spy, Jakiv Bond. He’s so good that he highjacked russian vessel, used it to sabotage the pipeline then returned it without letting the russians know it was even highjacked!
I mean, yeah, it risks the alliance with the west, but that’s a risk that Ukraine is willing to take, it’s not like it’s reliant on their support or anything.
Occam’s razor is a hard concept to grasp for some people it seems.
After MH17 and Salisbury, a Ukrainian could piss in my mouth, and I’d still blame Russia.
🤣
The current prevailing theory supported by organisations like the Telegraph is that this was done by Ukraine though it is not ironclad it is the most likely by significant margin.
The West’s progressively decreasing support? That support?
The “Russian vessel” story is literally the exact same story told about Nordstream. Russia has full control over Nordstream flow already because one of the terminals of Nordstream is IN RUSSIA. Russia gains no advantage from bombing Nordstream, not even as a false flag, because no Russian gives a fuck about the bombing of German infrastructure.
Yes… that decreasing support.
Also what have been the effects of the blowing up of the Nord stream? The thing wasn’t even in use. But the prices of gas went up. And people are pointing fingers left and right. Sounds like russia trying to destabilize the west.
Now again pipeline blows up. Immediately gas prices up again. Again pointing fingers. It sure sounds like the only one benefitting is Russia. And people selling gas, I guess.
Russia destabilized the West by… doing no effective work?
Slovakia pulled support, Belgium is saying it’s F-16s are “too old,” Poland is confused, Germany’s Leopard 1s are “defective,” and the UK has made no indication it plans to send more Challenger 2s after the destruction of the supposedly “invincible” tank on the battlefield back in September.
https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/military-support-ukraine-2054992
Again you’re spewing bullshit. As you can see, another batch of weapons and ammo announced including 38 leopard tanks. That’s 18 leopard 2, btw. And 20 leopard 1. Which are only “defective” by German standards. And that was pre-repairs.
Belgium: https://kyivindependent.com/umerov-belgian-defense-minister-discuss-f-16s/
UK doesn’t need to announce every other week that it’s supporting ukraine. 2023 matched 2022 as far as the UK is concerned. 2.3 billion worth, for the record.
It’s cute that you had to mention Slovakia with their new pro-putin lackeys. Every little bit helps, sure, but we’re talking about a 0.1% of the total aid here.
And again, you’re ignoring actual data with sources and real numbers in favour of your “news”. If you actually check the previously linked data website you’ll see that 2023 was actually more generous than 2022. Mostly because the bulk of the aid comes from the EU as a while (all the other stuff you’re bring up country-level, extra/individual aid) and the US.
Also, I said Russia trying to destabilize, not succeeding. I never said they were capable or anything.
Ukraine rejects defective Leopard 1 tanks from Germany after finding ‘serious faults’
Sure doesn’t sound like it’s Germany calling them “defective”
Do you enjoy being wrong or are you just oblivious?
For what it’s worth, your entire claim is that Russia had no motive but was too stupid to tell… Yawn.
Russia perhaps had no advantage wrecking Nordstream. Putin on the other hand, had the advantage that removing it as an option meant the oligarchy couldn’t just oust him, walk back his war, and then use turning the gas to Europe back on to get the money flowing back into their accounts.
Ah yes, because Russia is simultaneously an authoritarian regime where Putin holds all power and an oligarchy where the Kremlin is feckless. If he wanted to prevent the taps from turning on, he could have just arranged for a false flag strike on the terminals or sabotaged the terminals in some other way (which, by the way, would be on Russian soil).
Russia gained no advantage from invading Ukraine. Didn’t stop them from doing that either. LOL
Then let’s play Occam’s razor: who wins if Nordstream is permanently out of commission? Who wins if Balticconnector is permanently out of commission?
It’s not Russia, because they’re not pumping gas through the pipelines anyway. In fact, it’s rather harmful to post-war Russian reintegration with the EU.
The easiest explanation isn’t that Russia would attack third-party infrastructure between two NATO countries when, by all accounts, US support is drying up and EU support is dropping like flies.
You’re reaching multiple conclusion based on zero cited evidence.
It’s not Russia, because they’re not pumping gas through the pipelines anyway. In fact, it’s rather harmful to post-war Russian reintegration with the EU.
Show your work. How is it harmful to post-war Russiam reintegration with the EU? Show us evidence that reintegration is even a goal of the Russian leadership.
What do you believe Russia gains by bombing Nordstream or the Balticconnector?
Nobody’s given one ounce of motive.
Raise the price of gas to make more money seems like a pretty straight forward motive to me.
Russia’s already pumping less than they have in decades and has been progressively cutting production. Odd way of making more money.
Pumping less why?
Cutting production why?
Gazprom’s declining capacity is due to several factors, including:
-
Sanctions: Gazprom has blamed sanctions for the reduction in gas production, citing the delay in the return of a gas turbine from maintenance in Canada by equipment supplier Siemens Energy[1].
-
Withholding supplies: Gazprom has declined to book extra capacity to ship more gas to Europe from January at auctions, indicating that it has no plans to supply more than its contractual volumes, at least via these two routes[2].
-
Infrastructure bottlenecks: Bottlenecks could reduce the ability to re-route gas within Europe because of insufficient import capacity or transmission constraints, leading to shortages of 15 percent to 40 percent of annual consumption in some countries in Central and Eastern Europe[3].
-
Loss of European gas pipeline markets: The loss of European gas pipeline markets has had a profound effect on Gazprom’s revenue stream[6].
In summary, Gazprom’s declining capacity is due to sanctions, withholding supplies, infrastructure bottlenecks, and the loss of European gas pipeline markets. Not because it is moving out of the natural gas industry willing, they are being forced to slash production because of sanctions.
So my conclusion: blowing up a pipeline and increasing the price of natural gas helps makes up the lost profits from sanctions.
Citations: [1] Exclusive: Russia’s Gazprom tells European buyers gas supply halt beyond its control https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-declares-force-majeure-gas-supplies-europe-2022-07-18/ [2] Russia keeps Europe waiting on new gas supplies - Reuters https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/gazprom-fails-book-more-gas-transit-europe-despite-kremlin-reassurance-2021-11-02/ [3] Russia to Cut Europe’s Gas Flow via Nord Stream to 20% - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/nord-stream-gas-flows-to-drop-to-20-of-capacity-russias-gazprom-says-11658760473 [4] Energy Fact Sheet: Why does Russian oil and gas matter? – Analysis - IEA https://www.iea.org/articles/energy-fact-sheet-why-does-russian-oil-and-gas-matter [5] A 10-Point Plan to Reduce the European Union’s Reliance on Russian Natural Gas https://www.iea.org/reports/a-10-point-plan-to-reduce-the-european-unions-reliance-on-russian-natural-gas [6] Europe’s Not Buying: The Impact of Lost Gas Markets for Gazprom and Russia - RUSI https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/europes-not-buying-impact-lost-gas-markets-gazprom-and-russia
-
I agree that Russia is really lazy with these false flag operations, where they destroy a pipeline and then try to blame all other countries.
now, it is most likely that Russia is actually behind the one in Finland. Probably as retaliation against these two countries he sees as his rightful sphere of influence acting up and as a warning.
However, it seems that Russia was actually not involved in the whole Mess around Nord Stream 2…
Here’s a Documentary from DW (Deutsche Welle), a editorially-independent German state-funded news Organization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFjAqth-EQk
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=RFjAqth-EQk
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
False Flag would mean that Germany itself commited the Attack in order to retaliate against russia. This was obviously not the Case. However, there have been some interesting revelations.
Here’s a Documentary from DW (Deutsche Welle), a editorially-independent German state-funded news Organization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFjAqth-EQk
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=RFjAqth-EQk
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Putins greatest soldier
