The House of Mirrors

 

There is an excellent conversation going on regarding the post @unsk ‘s post, Tucker Carlson: Nord Stream Pipeline Sabotage: Who is behind it? The problem of course is not one thing, it is a series of things: who did it? what did they think they would get from it? who did they want people/governments to think did it? what comes next?

“What comes next?” is of course the most important question and is entirely distinguishable from “Who did it?”

Europe was already in an energy squeeze. The attack on the pipeline rendered it differently from Putin merely turning it on or off. I don’t know anything about how you repair pipelines other than it is likely easier to breach them than to repair them. This, in my mind, makes Putin the least likely source of the attack. Europe cannot now curry favor with him by reducing support for Ukraine — the very tactic most valued by Putin. This implicates the Ukrainians.

Ukraine is already in a world of hurt, so they likely see the suffering of other Europeans is not out of line with their own problems. And the Europeans are now “boxed in” when it comes to their dealings with Russia. Placating Putin now really doesn’t solve their energy problems. But it does eliminate a possibility that the Ukrainians dearly wish was not there.

Does this mean the Ukrainians sabotaged the pipeline? Not necessarily. Let’s look at their greatest bought and paid for friends: the Bidens and US military-industrial complex. That group has no desire for Europe to go wobbly this winter, which they likely would with Putin being able to relieve their suffering with a turn of the valve. That is no longer an option. And who had the better technology to carry out a sabotage mission — the U.S. or Ukraine? A joint mission where one does one thing and one does another creates some room for plausible deniability.

But could Putin be so diabolical as to think that this might be a conclusion that Europe comes to and drives a wedge between Europe/Britain and the US? Did he believe such a rupture between allies would be of more use than control over the flow of natural gas into Europe? This seems like a Götterdämmerung strategy. But is it impossible? And even if Putin didn’t blow up his own pipeline will he not be tempted to blow up some others? A new pipeline just opened up to flow Norwegian fossil energy to Poland and thence to the rest of Europe. Why would that stay intact?

And if the Norwegian pipeline is blown, who is going to be implicated for that? Will it be seen as a single perpetrator for all sabotage or a Russian retaliation? If it could be an object of Russian retaliation, would there be a better one — the US energy grid?

We have entered a house of mirrors where there is an increasing likelihood of bad things happening without knowing who is the actor (although claims will be made). And this will put pressure on peoples and governments to react and to target perceived (real or not) bad actors.

We are on the verge of “we are all Ukrainians” in the sense of the destruction that awaits, the disruption and the turmoil. The only question is will your hardships be akin to Kharkiv, Kyiv, Odessa, or Lviv.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 44 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    I’ve been listening to people who are convinced it’s Putin, but the logic is tortured at best.

    If you don’t believe that Putin did it, you’re obviously a tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist.

    Or so I’ve been lectured on these pages.

    I mean, the CIA’s very own perjurer and friend of Hillary, John Brennan, one of the ringleaders of the Resistance Against Trump and promoter of the Russian Collusion Hoax, says that Russia did it. Why would you doubt him?

    Brennan recently said that Russia won’t use nuclear weapons and people were responding with, “Welp, nukes it is I guess.” “Everything this man says, expect the opposite.”.

    • #31
  2. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):
    And for how long, who knows? To the last Ukrainian? ‘Til Putin is ousted (most likely replacement, btw: Medvedev, who’d be even less friendly to whoever is in charge of the Biden admin, not to mention Zelensky)? ‘Til US taxpayers’ patience with yet another “forever war” on the heels of the Afghanistan debacle runs out?

    I don’t know how long. The Russian population is getting restive. So are the Chechens, who Putin has been using as shock troops through this whole thing. Ramzan Kadyrov has been gung-ho for this operation, and the Chechens are getting sick of him too. And now, Vladimir proposes to send 300,000 ill-trained, poorly equipped conscripts who were insufficiently motivated to volunteer despite what apparently have been excellent inducements. Challenged to get out of the hole he himself dug, Vladimir has elected to grab a bigger shovel.

    I thought that the latest Russian mobilization was reservists, not conscripts.

    They were all conscripted originally. If you were in the army, you are automatically in the reserves until a certain age. In addition, they seem to have been “calling up” people without paying much attention to their actual status. At one point, they were handing out induction notices to students who haven’t yet served. It doesn’t sound like this was planned before it was announced. Someone is panicking.

    Are you sure that they were all conscripted originally? I’ve seen reports of Russian recruiting efforts.

    Sure, but the well has run dry.

    I don’t know the facts here. Very brief internet research indicates that Russian men aged 18-27 are subject to conscription, but it doesn’t appear that all of them are actually conscripted. It appears that this depends on voluntary recruiting — something like a backup draft, so that in essence, the Russian military recruits volunteers, but a shortfall can be made up by conscripts.

    If this research is correct, then it would not be the case that all of the reservists now being activated were originally conscripts. I don’t know for sure, though.

    I don’t know how exactly one would do to avoid compulsory conscription. Maybe a criminal conviction would suffice, or some kind of physical or mental defect. Maybe the military only brought in new men until they had hit a quota. Maybe – this might shock you – bribery was involved.

    One of my cousins married a Russian who was quite up front that his original reason for coming over was to avoid military service. They’ve been married for almost twenty years now, and it would probably upset their kids if Dad went back.

    Either way, the callup seems to affect those who otherwise would not be available, including those who have “aged out” of the reserves.

    • #32
  3. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    I’ve been listening to people who are convinced it’s Putin, but the logic is tortured at best. They say it’s short term a net zero effect because he isn’t selling gas right now. Putin could use this to strengthen his support at home by telling everyone that they are all out to get Russia. That could be it, but once again, Putin looses the chance to turn the gas on quickly.

    Ukraine makes sense to me, but at the same time they would need support to accomplish this.

    And yet, you’re mentally ill, insane, or a traitor for saying this.

    The CIA is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

    Joe Biden is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

    • #33
  4. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Flicker (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    I’ve been listening to people who are convinced it’s Putin, but the logic is tortured at best. They say it’s short term a net zero effect because he isn’t selling gas right now. Putin could use this to strengthen his support at home by telling everyone that they are all out to get Russia. That could be it, but once again, Putin looses the chance to turn the gas on quickly.

    Ukraine makes sense to me, but at the same time they would need support to accomplish this.

    And yet, you’re mentally ill, insane, or a traitor for saying this.

    The CIA is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

    Joe Biden is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

    Yes, we’re now at the point where if you don’t believe Putin blew up his own pipelines, you are obviously a Putin-lover.

     

    • #34
  5. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    I’ve been listening to people who are convinced it’s Putin, but the logic is tortured at best. They say it’s short term a net zero effect because he isn’t selling gas right now. Putin could use this to strengthen his support at home by telling everyone that they are all out to get Russia. That could be it, but once again, Putin looses the chance to turn the gas on quickly.

    Ukraine makes sense to me, but at the same time they would need support to accomplish this.

    And yet, you’re mentally ill, insane, or a traitor for saying this.

    The CIA is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

    Joe Biden is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

    Yes, we’re now at the point where if you don’t believe Putin blew up his own pipelines, you are obviously a Putin-lover.

    And un-American.

    • #35
  6. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Here is an interesting post that makes out a reasonable case for accidental rupture rather than sabotage: https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html . But even if true it may not matter if there is a desire to believe otherwise and actions based upon that belief.

    • #36
  7. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Here is an interesting post that makes out a reasonable case for accidental rupture rather than sabotage: https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html . But even if true it may not matter if there is a desire to believe otherwise and actions based upon that belief.

    Credible.

    • #37
  8. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Rodin (View Comment):

    But even if true it may not matter if there is a desire to believe otherwise and actions based upon that belief.

    And there is. Which is why Brennan is dining out on the “Russia did it!” hoax.

    • #38
  9. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Here is an interesting post that makes out a reasonable case for accidental rupture rather than sabotage: https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html . But even if true it may not matter if there is a desire to believe otherwise and actions based upon that belief.

    The timing of it, one day before the Norway-Poland pipeline’s inauguration, steers me away from this explanation.

    • #39
  10. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Here is an interesting post that makes out a reasonable case for accidental rupture rather than sabotage: https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html . But even if true it may not matter if there is a desire to believe otherwise and actions based upon that belief.

    Yeah, but I don’t buy this lawyers apparently incidental knowledge of old technology.

    Firstly, I don’t know from undersea pipelines, but from what I’ve read there was virtually no pressure in at least one of the pipelines, so how could a spontaneous, non-combustion breach create a Richter explosion of 2.6 or whatever two of the “explosions” were?

    Secondly, these were pipelines of two different ages, one old and one new.  How likely is it that they both breach from the same causes, specifically lack of maintenance, within a 24-hour period?

    And thirdly, and this is the weakest argument against, but why did US voices, and (if I recall) European voices, say so quickly, within 24 hours, that these were “sabotage”?  Granted, these could be propaganda or jumping to conclusions but I would think that someone in at least the US government would have some reasonable comment and explanation other than “sabotage” by now.

    • #40
  11. Phil Turmel Inactive
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Here is an interesting post that makes out a reasonable case for accidental rupture rather than sabotage: https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html . But even if true it may not matter if there is a desire to believe otherwise and actions based upon that belief.

    Yeah, but I don’t buy this lawyers apparently incidental knowledge of old technology.

    Firstly, I don’t know from undersea pipelines, but from what I’ve read there was virtually no pressure in at least one of the pipelines, so how could a spontaneous, non-combustion breach create a Richter explosion of 2.6 or whatever two of the “explosions” were?

    Secondly, these were pipelines of two different ages, one old and one new. How likely is it that they both breach from the same causes, specifically lack of maintenance, within a 24-hour period?

    And thirdly, and this is the weakest argument against, but why did US voices, and (if I recall) European voices, say so quickly, within 24 hours, that these were “sabotage”? Granted, these could be propaganda or jumping to conclusions but I would think that someone in at least the US government would have some reasonable comment and explanation other than “sabotage” by now.

    Go back and re-read.  Pretty convincing to me, including a plausible scenario for why they happened with the given timing.

    • #41
  12. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Here is an interesting post that makes out a reasonable case for accidental rupture rather than sabotage: https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html . But even if true it may not matter if there is a desire to believe otherwise and actions based upon that belief.

    Yeah, but I don’t buy this lawyers apparently incidental knowledge of old technology.

    Firstly, I don’t know from undersea pipelines, but from what I’ve read there was virtually no pressure in at least one of the pipelines, so how could a spontaneous, non-combustion breach create a Richter explosion of 2.6 or whatever two of the “explosions” were?

    Secondly, these were pipelines of two different ages, one old and one new. How likely is it that they both breach from the same causes, specifically lack of maintenance, within a 24-hour period?

    And thirdly, and this is the weakest argument against, but why did US voices, and (if I recall) European voices, say so quickly, within 24 hours, that these were “sabotage”? Granted, these could be propaganda or jumping to conclusions but I would think that someone in at least the US government would have some reasonable comment and explanation other than “sabotage” by now.

    Go back and re-read. Pretty convincing to me, including a plausible scenario for why they happened with the given timing.

    It seemed pretty much like rough guessing to me.  This is the kind of thing I find disqualifying (underlining mine):

    So, yes, hostile actions are a possibility, but mass amounts of explosive hydrocarbon gas + 300 feet down under salt water + shoddy Russian maintenance = “Nobody could have possibly seen this coming”, and yet another entry into the extensive Wikipedia page on “Soviet/Russian disasters”.

    Hydrocarbon gas requires a certain percentage of ambient oxygen to explode and that is lacking underwater or within a pipeline  So what was he trying to point out here?  It seems like he’s saying that the gas itself exploded, 300 feet down, due to shoddy maintenance.

    If this is his reasoning, I’ll pass.

    Added: It could be anything.  But most of the speculation I’ve read seems unlikely.  Especially in two pipes one old and one new.

    • #42
  13. Phil Turmel Inactive
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Here is an interesting post that makes out a reasonable case for accidental rupture rather than sabotage: https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html . But even if true it may not matter if there is a desire to believe otherwise and actions based upon that belief.

    Yeah, but I don’t buy this lawyers apparently incidental knowledge of old technology.

    Firstly, I don’t know from undersea pipelines, but from what I’ve read there was virtually no pressure in at least one of the pipelines, so how could a spontaneous, non-combustion breach create a Richter explosion of 2.6 or whatever two of the “explosions” were?

    Secondly, these were pipelines of two different ages, one old and one new. How likely is it that they both breach from the same causes, specifically lack of maintenance, within a 24-hour period?

    And thirdly, and this is the weakest argument against, but why did US voices, and (if I recall) European voices, say so quickly, within 24 hours, that these were “sabotage”? Granted, these could be propaganda or jumping to conclusions but I would think that someone in at least the US government would have some reasonable comment and explanation other than “sabotage” by now.

    Go back and re-read. Pretty convincing to me, including a plausible scenario for why they happened with the given timing.

    It seemed pretty much like rough guessing to me. This is the kind of thing I find disqualifying (underlining mine):

    So, yes, hostile actions are a possibility, but mass amounts of explosive hydrocarbon gas + 300 feet down under salt water + shoddy Russian maintenance = “Nobody could have possibly seen this coming”, and yet another entry into the extensive Wikipedia page on “Soviet/Russian disasters”.

    Hydrocarbon gas requires a certain percentage of ambient oxygen to explode and that is lacking underwater or within a pipeline So what was he trying to point out here? It seems like he’s saying that the gas itself exploded, 300 feet down, due to shoddy maintenance.

    If this is his reasoning, I’ll pass.

    Added: It could be anything. But most of the speculation I’ve read seems unlikely. Especially in two pipes one old and one new.

    I chalk that up to a lawyer trying to paraphrase their petroleum engineering buddy’s statements.

    The hydrodynamic failures described for hydrates sure seem like explosions.  That no combustion is involved is moot.

    • #43
  14. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Twitter is full of theories.

    • #44
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.