Utopia Talk / Politics / The Nordstream murders:Who dunit? Vol2

Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 12:31:50 Its looking more and more like most people suspect thebUS had a role in it.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Oct 04 12:34:38 possibly because the top-rated show host on the top network of the Right keeps saying we did it
jergul large member	Tue Oct 04 12:46:23 I dont think it was the US beyond turning a blind eye and perhaps offering a detailed contingency plan to someone so they would know exactly what the US does not want anyone to do.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 12:50:37 TW, Plenty of people who don't strike me as Tucker fans seem inclined to think either the US did it, or had some sort of role/knowledge about it. Here is a clip from Bloomberg yesterday. http://youtu.be/WV_dZKkL_Uo
murder Member	Tue Oct 04 13:02:40 I love every time you say that "most people" this or that relating to something that most people aren't even aware of. Most Americans have never heard of Nordstream or have any idea wtf it is, or where it is located, let alone that someone blew up a couple of pipelines.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 13:08:53 Murder, Most people who are talking about it. Oddly technical.
McKobb Member	Tue Oct 04 13:21:59 I only hear about it from you people
Seb Member	Tue Oct 04 13:33:28 Habebe: In the other thread you said we had no specific reason not to believe the Russian referendum results. Here are several: 1. We know a large portion of the population have fled, so the electorate isn't complete. 2. It claims to be binding over the entire oblasts, but the oblasts are not under Russian control and no polling occurred outside Russian areas. 3. Every area liberated by Russia we find mass graves and evidence of Russian torture. 4. We know that in occupied areas Russia has transported many civilians to "filtration" camps. Did they vote? 5. There are numerous reports of the Russians getting votes by soldiers turning up at the doorstep and asking the resident to vote in front of them. (See also point 3.) 6. There were no international observers - which is contrary to best practice and what happens in many oecd elections. So that's 6 specific reasons not to believe in the Russian referendum result.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 13:47:15 Seb, You really are the dumbest smart guy I've ever met . Your too zoned in focused on the particular wording. "In the other thread you said we had no specific reason not to believe the Russian referendum results." For context, my point was we do not need specific reasons to not fully trust the results from any Russian refferendum. And I even said for the same reasons we would know not to trust Russian internal polling either. They are also loor excuses for specific reasons. These are general reasons.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 13:47:48 Mkobb, What you mean "You people"?
jergul large member	Tue Oct 04 13:52:43 http://edi...ine-referendum-intl/index.html This lists some of the problems with the international observers. In general, referenda done while a conflict is still highly active are bound to be fatally flawed. Russia may go for it when things settle down as it probably will win more than what it held in 2022. Ukraine will not go for it because it will inevitably have less than what it held in 2013. But the devil is in the details if we pretend this will ever happen. Who gets to vote?
murder Member	Tue Oct 04 13:54:59 They can vote with their feet.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 13:56:47 To use extreme examples to illustrate my points. I don't need any specific knowledge of an election in North Korea to have good cause to question its legitimacy. We have a general knowledge to be skeptical of any elections or polls etc. from Russia, especially in regards to the Ukraine war territory. Skeptical may even be too light of a term. We do have enough knowledge of the German situation to also suggest people who dissent from government views are probably slightly more likely to be less forth coming and many other ways the polls cpuld reasonably be skewed (to a far lesser degree than Russian) opinions as they have a vested interest in war propaganda.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Oct 04 13:57:56 No one with an iq over 60 believes the referenda results. Reasons already mentioned.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 14:00:06 "In general, referenda done while a conflict is still highly active are bound to be fatally flawed." 100% Seb took my point out of context and ran with it. All I said was that even without specific knowledge of tampering, we had good cause to not trust the results. He flipped that to try and make it sound like I was supporting the veracity of the referendum, the opposite of what I really said while still technically using my words paraphrased.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 14:02:31 EarthPig, We agree. To clarify my point. I don't need specific knowledge of wrongdoing/meddling by Russia to not trust the results. I wouldn't trust any referendum results Russia came up with in this situation.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 14:04:13 If all we heard was "Kim Jong In has 98% approval rate" by internal polling. On that knowledge alone, we wouldn't trust that result. Even without any specific evidence of coercion or cheating.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 04 14:04:32 EP It would not really matter if we did believe it. The referenda simply do not meet standards they need to meet for validity.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 04 14:05:55 Murder "They can vote with their feet" I can tell you know you do not want referenda where only current residents are allowed to vote.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 04 14:06:08 now*
murder Member	Tue Oct 04 14:08:56 Sure I do. They can all leave. They don't get to take a chunk of Ukraine with them though.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 14:20:34 For reference here is the quote Seb took out of context to try and make it sound as if I inferred veracity to the referendums when I clearly called them shams. "The same way that we don't have any specific reason to not bekeive the Russian referendums. We don't trust them for good reasons. The same reasons I wouldn't fully trust polls from Russia or Brazil, or even the US depending on circumstances and varying degrees. You've long struck me as a brilliant fool who could be a professor but also get robbed by a self proclaimed wallet inspector." Now, yes, Clearly I would trust US polls in most circumstances to a far greater degree. The point still stands. I specifically mentioned Brazil for a reason, anyone following their recent elections knows what I'm talking about polls that were off by 36% in elections all favoring one side.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 04 14:24:02 Murder Well, that has already happened. Pro Ukraine folk have left for the most part. You sure they dont get to take their country with them?
jergul large member	Tue Oct 04 14:28:00 MOSCOW, October 4. /TASS/. Nord Stream AG is not yet able to start surveying damaged segments of the Nord Stream gas pipeline due to lack of required permits, the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline operator said on Tuesday. "As of today, Nord Stream AG is unable to inspect the damaged sections of the gas pipeline due to the lack of earlier requested necessary permits. In particular, according to the Swedish authorities, a ban on shipping, anchoring, diving, using of underwater vehicles, geophysical mapping, etc. has been introduced to conduct a state investigation around the damage sites in the Baltic Sea," the pipeline operator said. "According to information received from the Danish authorities, the processing time of the Nord Stream AG request for the survey may take more than 20 working days. Moreover, the owner of the appropriately equipped survey vessel chartered by Nord Stream AG still doesn’t have ‘green light from Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ to depart," Nord Stream AG noted. "In line with the calculated expectations, the pressure in both lines of the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline stabilized as of Monday, October 3, 2022," the pipeline operator added. The company remains "in close contact with relevant authorities," it added. ========= There seems to be some degree of stonewalling for some reason. No doubt Seb will explain to me why he thinks this is perfectly reasonable, but Russia denying access in a reverse scenario would be incredibly nefarious.
murder Member	Tue Oct 04 14:29:57 "Well, that has already happened. Pro Ukraine folk have left for the most part. You sure they dont get to take their country with them?" They don't need to. It'll still be there when they return.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 04 14:30:09 The stonewalling part is Denmark taking 20 working days to process a critical survey and Norway for not greenlighting a chartered survey vessel. The Swedish ban for a reasonable time might be understandable.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 14:58:09 The permit thing is retarded. This is where a Trumpian figure can be helpful. How did Trump get a rapper home So quick from a Swedish prison? He called them ans threatened a full scale trade war with maximum pressure, and he doesn't usually bluff, he almost gets off on biting his nose to spite his face. Needless to say his tactic was effective. ASAP Rocky was home ASAP. Very likely for the reason that Trump could use that pun.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 04 15:18:08 Habebe: "For context, my point was we do not need specific reasons to not fully trust the results from any Russian refferendum." This is what you said precisely in response to me: [s] "There is no particular reason to think these polls skewed." [H] The same way that we don't have any specific reason to not bekeive the Russian referendums. Can you give any reasons with the equivalent level of specificity - and whether you call them specific or general - why it is you would think these various polls, conducted by reputable polling firms in Germany and reported in a free German press are equally or less credible than the results of the Russian referendums. It is not that I think you believe the referendums, in fact if you read my post closely and correctly in the way that you suggest I have not - I do not remotely suggest that you believe the referendums at all. It is a refutation of your claim that there is any factual basis for doubting the German polling on the level of support for sanctions that is equivalent to the case that can be trivially constructed against the sham referrendums. Ball's in your court dunce.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 16:01:55 Seb, You clearly intentionally twisted what I said to make it sound like the opposite. Specific knowledge shouldn't be hard to understand. If I walk up to a cop and say "I killed people" he can not charge me with a crime, he has no specific knowledge of a crime. He may.want to question/investigate. If I walk up to a cop and say "I stabbed Joe Smith to death, here is the murder weapon, the body is in my trunk, stop your search" He now has specific knowledge of a crime. But even all this, is a distraction started from two lines used as an analogy. 1. German press is not free, especially in reference to this war. Journalists have been arrested, others are censored it is a very strict regime against the public narrative of the government. ----- ""The Russian attack on Ukraine is a crime and whoever publicly approves of this war can thereby become criminally liable," said Marek Wede, a spokesperson for Germany's Interior Ministry. German law forbids public support of illegal acts. Those who are found guilty could face punishment ranging from a fine to three years in jail. The letter Z has been painted on Russian tanks and troop transport vehicles since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine. Some Russian civilians have also reportedly painted the symbol on their cars, and a Russian gymnast donned the symbol on his uniform during a podium ceremony at Apparatus World Cup in Doha, Qatar. The Russian Defense Ministry claims the symbol stands for "za pobedu," which means "for victory." In late March, Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba wrote on Twitter, "I call on all states to criminalize the use of the 'Z' symbol as a way to publicly support Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. 'Z' means Russian war crimes, bombed out cities, thousands of murdered Ukrainians. Public support of this barbarism must be forbidden." Critics of Germany's effort to expand its restrictions on so-called hate speech and certain types of political speech argue that the Z ban is both illiberal and not helpful to Ukraine. "Of course it is regrettable that some people choose to defend or support Putin's attack on a sovereign nation. But no one, not even our politicians, can seriously believe that banning the 'Z' symbol will change their minds. On the contrary, it will probably embolden Russia's supporters, who already claim to feel victimised by the West," wrote Sabine Beppler-Spahl, chair of the German liberal think tank Freiblickinstitut, in Spiked. "Moreover, pro-Russia demonstrators can now accuse Germany of hypocrisy. After all, the very same German politicians who frequently attack the repression of dissent in Russia are now repressing dissent in Germany." http://www...le-who-use-pro-russia-z-symbol http://reason.com/2022/04/07/german-states-will-prosecute-speech-that-supports-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine/ Now combine that with even Zelensky claiming Elon Musk is pro Russian, for merely offering the SAME EXACT deal that Zelensky himself had publicly floated. Mind you Musks donated $80 million out of pocket and risked Russian attacks on his company for giving them free satelite internet to fight the war/logistics.etc. And this is.part of the "free and open press" you cant see a rewsonable person not wanting to express their opinion openly? You could argue these laws/arrests are needed, fine. But to claim you couldn't understand why people would be less than forthcoming to express opinions contrary to the war sanctions is blind or disengenous.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 16:03:43 The clickable link is to Euronews coverage of the same story. The one below corresponds to the quoted story.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 16:07:10 http://www...hread?id=politics&thread=90696 Here is evidence of Germany cracking down on dissent yet again, they watch your social media and will charge you with wrong speech. So yeah, I'd say German polls are likely skewed in favor of the pro war narrative.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 16:16:00 As a more global example, this guy explains the enviroment of being attacked online and smeared for suggesting anything resembling de-escelation. http://youtu.be/oCLKPdWt_Iw
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 16:18:07 http://youtu.be/x5bs1Rpg6eo And again, anyone in favor of anything other than the Ukrainian maximalist narrative is smeared and harassed.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 04 16:26:09 Habebe: It's literally your words. The only thing I have included in my post was a direct quote from you: "The same way that we don't have any specific reason to not bekeive the Russian referendums." In context, what I understood that quote to mean something along the lines of: "there is no particular specific evidence that the Russian referendums are false, but we know they are, the same way we know the German ones are not to be trusted. It is common sense." And that is how my post should be read - a good faith understanding of your point - that in turn refutes it by pointing out we have plenty of evidenced context to know that the Russian referendums are false and unreliable and nothing equivalent for the German polls. The fact that you now look upon your own words, and my post, and instead read it as saying "Habebe, you are wrong to think the Russian Referendums are real" is more a testament to your poor drafting of the original line I quoted. Nevertheless, I do not think I misunderstood your words - I think I understood them perfectly well, and my post addresses them as I believe you want them to be understood, and as you appear to be confirming now that they should be understood. I think it is likely the reason you are pretending that my post is falsely portraying you as thinking the referendums real instead of addressing the point I was clearly making - that there is no such supporting reasons for your assertions that the German polls are skewed - is that you realise it is an absolutely ridiculous proposition and you couldn't come close to doing that. So just retract it.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 04 16:33:53 Lets also go through the points again: "1. We know a large portion of the population have fled, so the electorate isn't complete." Do we lack specific knowledge that many of the residents of the areas where referrandums are being held have fled the area and are therefore unable to vote at this time? Is this in any way in dispute as a fact? "2. It claims to be binding over the entire oblasts, but the oblasts are not under Russian control and no polling occurred outside Russian areas." Do we lack specific knowledge that Russia does not control the whole of Donetsk, zaporizhia, and Kherson province and that the referendums were not conducted across the whole of those Oblasts? Is this a fact in dispute by anyone? 3. Every area liberated by Russia we find mass graves and evidence of Russian torture. Again, do we lack specific knoweldge of this? These sites have been visited by international inspectors. Do we lack knowledge of this? 4. We know that in occupied areas Russia has transported many civilians to "filtration" camps. Did they vote? Again, do we lack specific knowledge of this? Russia admits it. 5. There are numerous reports of the Russians getting votes by soldiers turning up at the doorstep and asking the resident to vote in front of them. (See also point 3.) I will grant that you may have specific knowledge of the reports, but doubt their veracity. 6. There were no international observers - which is contrary to best practice... Again, do we lack specific knowledge of this? Is it in doubt? Or is it a known and accepted fact? "Journalists have been arrested, others are censored it is a very strict regime against the public narrative of the government." Can you give some specific examples of this and demonstrate it? Germany scores higher on press freedom than the US, 16th highest in the world. https://rsf.org/en/index You assert this as a fact, but where is any specific examples that back this, that have similar weight to the 5 or 6 I have given you on the Russian referrendums?
Seb Member	Tue Oct 04 16:35:56 The only thing you have provided is a crackdown on overt political endorsement of Russia's invasion. The question here is about support for sanctions - that is an entirely different thing, and nothing at all to do with reporting. Is it possible you have confused reporting and editorialising?
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 16:36:04 Of course focus on the distraction that you misrepresented. If you look up some posts you will see I adressed this and put up my full quote and explained it. But whatever. It's not that deep. Can you see why a reasonable person would think there is good cause to take these polls with a grain of salt in that environment? Im not even saying do you agree, I'm merely saying do you see how a reasonable person could come tonthe reasonable conclusion whether or not you agree with the assessment or.not.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 04 16:37:58 "And this is.part of the "free and open press" you cant see a rewsonable person not wanting to express their opinion openly?" Not really, no. It is one thing to stage a public rally with Z symbols on your car in support of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It is quite another to say "I don't think we should sanction Russia, it is more painful for us than it is for them, ineffective and while Russia's actions are deplorable it is not our role to police the world." Conflating the two is a bit cheap really.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 04 16:40:27 Habebe: You put up the quote, and you say it means - according to you - exactly what I understood it to mean, and exactly what my post is addressing. I haven't twisted it at all. You did not think there was specific reasons to disbelieve the Russian referendums (even though we all know they are fake) and it is therefore equally valid to be doubtful of the German polls. As I have pointed out, they are not equivalent. I did not misrepresent you, and the only reason you can make that claim that I am is by choosing to misunderstand your own words in my post, even though my post has not misunderstood them at all.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 04 16:42:39 "So yeah, I'd say German polls are likely skewed in favor of the pro war narrative." Why would people be more likely to be pro war in private telephone interviews undertaken by professional pollsters that do everything they can to avoid such biases? Many of these are done by online anonymised surveys now - so again, why would the person be afraid of ticking a box in the privacy of their own home? Comparing it to a flame war on social media doesn't seem very comparable. Does it.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 04 16:43:22 Habebe, seriously, when in hole: stop digging. All you are doing is demonstrating your motivated reasoning here - a desperate belief to justify your own gut instincts.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 16:43:22 Fine you didn't mean to misrepresent, or you didn't. Indont really care. ---- Can you see why a reasonable person would think there is good cause to take these polls with a grain of salt in that environment? Im not even saying do you agree, I'm merely saying do you see how a reasonable person could come tonthe reasonable conclusion whether or not you agree with the assessment or.not.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 16:45:56 The self projection of Seb is fucking astonishing. Again, he doesn't touch on any points nor tries to refute encounter point. Instead he "Oh man your digging a hole!, I won't actually respond in any meaningful way"
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 16:56:31 "Germany scores higher on press freedom than the US, 16th highest in the world" Whataboutism. US is rife with censorship, sure we agree. Your random source, I couldn't give a fuck about.Which is such a liberal thing to do " this orginization says they are a code blue #12" Your ignoring the key issue. On matters of the Ukraine war, speaking for peace is conflated with being pro Russia. A man who spent $80 million oit of pocket and set up wsr logistics is now being called pro Russian for offering the same idea Zelensky offered in March. In Germany they can seize your accounts and throw you in jail for years for not being pro war. Some people might find such an environment as hostile and would be less likely to speak their mind specifically on this hot button issue. Not everyone. But enough to skew reslusts? Mabey. Mabey not.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 04 17:16:44 Habebe: "Can you see why a reasonable person would think there is good cause to take these polls with a grain of salt in that environment?" No actually, I can't, for the reasons I set out: 1. Criminalising rallies in support of the invasion and use of the Z symbol in that context is not at all the same as either saying that it is criminal to oppose sanctions (it very obviously isn't) and clearly isn't the same thing as responding to a poll. 2. Polls are done privately. 3. You say Germany is known as not having a free press. Reporters without borders think differently. So I think you have to be a very unreasonable person to somehow bend these to fit a narrative that the polls are unreliable. And that in fact was my original point - it is unreasonable. You are being unreasonable. I've literally rebutted every single one of your points in detail in paragraphs of text. To suggest I haven't is wilful denial. "Whataboutism." No, not at all, I'm pointing out that contrary to what you have claimed, Germany is one of the most free presses in the world according the Reporters without Borders. You don't give a fuck about the views of one of the most famous press industry international bodies that campaigns for press freedom, with consultative status at the UN, UNESCO, Council of Europe - oh, ok - what objective measure of press freedom would you care to look at instead? "On matters of the Ukraine war, speaking for peace is conflated with being pro Russia." What evidence do you have for this? You have just asserted it - even though your articles that talk about the German criminalisation of this refer specifically to the use of Z symbol in pro-war rallies. Is it common for pro-peace protests to wave the Z symbol and Russian flags around? Is there any evidence of pro-peace protests being arrested? Is there any evidence of protestors or people that think the sanctions are pointless as being conflated with peace protestors or pro-Russian nationalists? "A man who spent $80 million oit of pocket and set up wsr logistics is now being called pro Russian for offering the same idea Zelensky offered in March." By people on twitter. And yes, of course he is being called pro-Russian, because now is not March and Ukraine does not need to offer concessions to a Russian invader to avoid further batterings. Also what he is offering is not what Zelensky offered in March at all. And none of that has the slightest bit to do with whether you can trust the polls. As any reasonable person can see. "In Germany they can seize your accounts and throw you in jail for years for not being pro war." Not they can't. Under which law? Give an example of this happening. You keep saying this shit, and then offering no evidence, and trying to link it to a twitter shitstorm where the richest man on earth made a fucking stupid offer and got ratioed.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 17:27:21 "No actually, I can't" No need to read after that. You refuse to see anything but what you wish. I'll agree to disagree. I have no desire to get into this sort of back and forth with you, Ive been down this road before, I might as well debate a brick wall. I skimmed some, you ask for cites Ive already done that.Scroll up.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 17:34:26 http://www...mes-donbass-1973896-2022-07-10 Here is more. If you happened to scroll up you also would have read this. ""The Russian attack on Ukraine is a crime and whoever publicly approves of this war can thereby become criminally liable," said Marek Wede, a spokesperson for Germany's Interior Ministry. German law forbids public support of illegal acts. Those who are found guilty could face punishment ranging from a fine to three years in jail.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 04 17:48:43 Im a glutton for a headache. "1. Criminalising rallies in support of the invasion and use of the Z symbol in that context is not at all the same as either saying that it is criminal to oppose sanctions (it very obviously isn't) and clearly isn't the same thing as responding to a poll." It doesn't have to explicitly be. Its not illegal to have transgender kids in rural TX. But a reasonable person could see why someone may be more reluctant to be forthcoming with that info. "2. Polls are done privately" And yet, some people, maybe 5, 10% who knows? could reasonably be reluctant to voice true opinions. "3. You say Germany is known as not having a free press. Reporters without borders think differently. " Yes well alinna Lipo is literally facing jail time for reporting from the Donnas region. As for musk "By people on twitter. " By Ukrainian officials including Zelensky himself. "Not they can't. Under which law? Give an example of this happening." I linked Rugians thread which you already posted in.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 05 01:40:18 Habebe: "Public support" - in German law, what does that mean in practice? It does not mean "ticking a box on a survey run by a polling agency saying you oppose sanctions". It is not reasonable to doubt the polling basis. It requires a misunderstanding of what is banned in Germany in the first place, applying this law to a private, not public act, and conflating opposition to sanctions as overt support for invasion. None of which are actually the basis for a reasonable assessment.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 05 01:42:16 And no, that does not mean we can agree to differ. I can't necessarily change your mind, but this is not a difference of an opinion. It is you engaging in motivated reasoning unsupported by facts to sustain a belief you have.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 05 02:17:32 This is not an uncommon phenomenon. Nate Silver (538) has talked about people people reluctant to admit they would vote for Trump. Its not illegal to support Trump, there is far more of a stigma in Germany about being viewed as "pro putin" People around the world even, with less hostile environments have said its very often not worth it to be thought of as pro putin because you don't like sanctions or would support peace. This isn't even new. Let me flip the question why would people have zero reservations about admiting the truth? Maybe they are. But plenty of examples of reasons to suggest people would be reluctant. You would rather bury your head in the sand.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 05 02:20:32 "It is not reasonable to doubt the polling basis." You've never known people to lie in order to fit in, or just be less likely to respond? You should really watch 538 podcasts more often. This sort of thing is very common in instances where its not always good to speak ypur mind. Such as admitting yoir voting for Trump or Bolsanaro.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 05 03:45:58 Habebe: "This is not an uncommon phenomenon." Indeed, and it is standard practice of polling agencies to correct for this in a number of ways (looking at pattern between online response, face to face response, and phone response). I mentioned this earlier. And there is a big difference between "I support the war" and "I don't support sanctions". It is a massive leap to assume that the two are linked to the extent that voicing opposition to sanctions is stigmatised. You've presented no evidence to support that link - you are just assuming it to buttress your argument that it is reasonable to think the polls are skewed. You say I am burying my head in the sand - I say you are inventing things out of thin air to justify believing something you want to believe.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 05 04:08:40 "And there is a big difference between "I support the war" and "I don't support sanctions". It is a massive leap to assume that the two are linked to the extent that voicing opposition to sanctions is stigmatised." Only because you under estimate the view from the side that fsvors we escalation.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 05 04:12:27 " I say you are inventing things out of thin air to justify believing something you want to believe." The problem with that logic is that I never did claim this to be the cause of a political shift. You made it way deeper than it was. I think half the polls if not more depending on what they measure are skewed, again look at Brazil last week. I said aside from my point, that I thought they were likely a little skewed anyway. I never said "Support is so much higher because of under reporting" You took that and ran with it as you do and built a mountain from a mole hill.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 05 04:14:43 Your own sources showed support.for sanctions was about split even and as time goes on and prices go up, winter is coming, support will fade. That is all accurate common sense.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 05 04:16:02 Habebe: Is there a significant segment of the German population that favours escalation? If so, why is Germany being a big laggard in providing military aid. Again, you assert something without evidence to justify the thing that is without evidence. The German population is not actually that enthusiastic at all about war. Broadly, they favour sanctions because they oppose conflict. We know this from polls. Though a substantial number still believe in the logic of Ostpolitik - that only though mutual interdependence and cooporation can their be lasting peace. We know this by looking at their op-eds. There are probably a substantial number of people that oppose sanctions because they are economically inconvenient and they don't see Ukraine as their problem - they tend to hide that under terms like "it hurts us more than the Russians" or expressing a preference for Ostpolitik. Germans are extremely down on public rallies that looks like fascism - so public campaigns with flags with a black thing that looks a bit like a swastika in support of the invasion and annexation of a European country is something they are very firmly against. To suggest however this means people are so firmly in favour for escalating conflict that people opposed to sanctions are embarrassed to say so flies in the face of what you can actually read in the German media, the polls themselves and actual facts like the (small) protest you mentioned RE sanctions not only happening, but resulting in no arrests. In short, you are making shit up by stacking up a bunch of untested assumptions and convincing yourself you are not.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 05 04:31:14 " Is there a significant segment of the German population that favours escalation?" The government does, clearly its literally a crime if they think you support the war. Do you realize how crazy that sounds to non far left Europeans? Your.not allowed to say "You know what, I support the invasion" That is a illegal. " If so, why is Germany being a big laggard in providing military aid." When has Germany ever lead the way on international projects? They have snubbed NATO goals for decades. "Again, you assert something without evidence to justify the thing that is without evidence." I cited several prominent cases of people stating the climate world wide is so harsh in the pro escelation camp its limiting discourse.Just because you refuse to watch the videos doesn't mean it's not cited or *common knowledge*. Did you watch either video literally just from yesterday's news. Time and time again they all say a similar story, that people are attacked for speaking their minds. Germany is a state that it is literally illegal to openly state you are in favor of the invasion. At the same time you can't deviate the slightest from a pro maximalist Ukrainian stance or else your accused of being pro Putin ( a available offence) Why speak your mind? Even if doing so on a poll might not land you in jail, wouldn't it just be easier to hide your intentions like a transgender in rural TX. He won't be arrested, but we can agree there could be a stigma, so even signing forms somewhere, they may just go with the flow, that sounds unreasonable to you?
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 05 04:49:00 Let me ask this. What part do you not bekeive. 1. That people in general would be reluctant to express anti sanction views? 2. That people specifically in Germany would be reluctant? 3. That pollsters would account for this and because they account for this its a non issue?
Seb Member	Wed Oct 05 05:27:59 Habebe: "The government does, clearly its literally a crime if they think you support the war." No, it's not. It's a crime if you go out and stage a public rally in support of the *Russian invasion*. Can I ask, if after September 11th, you staged a public rally in the middle of new York flying al-quaeda flags in support of the attack; would that have been a crime in US law? (It absolutely would be). Arguing that the Germans are treating public rallies in support for Russia's invasion as a hate crime is not at all the same thing as saying the German govt is pro escalation. That's factually and logically unsupported and evidence of your lack of reason.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 05 05:31:14 "1. That people in general would be reluctant to express anti sanction views?" "That people specifically in Germany would be reluctant?" Yes. I think there is demonstrable evidence that this is not be the case given a large proportion did in fact voice anti-sanction views, and you can find many mainstream political and media voices in Germany doing so. That are not winning the argument, but there is no evidence that the argument itself is seen outside reasonable discourse. Germany is not as politically polarised as the US. "That pollsters would account for this and because they account for this its a non issue?" Pollsters deliberately look to detect this and if they find it, correct for it. Track down the full poling report if it's been published and you can find out.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 05 07:09:00 Why not just wait for new polling come say on the 1 year date of the invasion when the true cost of sanctions and counter sanctions start to tell in most Western European countries?
Seb Member	Wed Oct 05 07:15:06 Because Habebe's entire thesis on the north stream attacks is that there is a real risk right now of the Germans cutting and running on sanctions.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 05 07:35:07 How would that help Germany? Habebe Europe is tied together in natural gas dependency. A common market and interconnected pipelines dictates that natural gas will flow to who can pay for it. Germany leaving a sanction regime will do nothing to secure ng from Russia (who still has other sanctioning countries to think about). Not that Germany can reverse EU sanction regimes unilaterally in any event.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 05 07:36:00 Germany's option is to drag its heels on permitting military supplies to Ukraine. Which it is already doing.
Daemon Member	Wed Oct 05 08:38:33 I don't know if is has been mentioned, but Gazprom is offering to send gas again through NS2. It seems like only one of the two lines of NS2 has been damaged, and the other is usable. Which attacker would destroy both lines of NS1 but only 1 of NS2? What do you think? http://www...resume-single-line-2022-10-03/ "Gazprom said Nord Stream 2's 'B' line could still export gas to Europe, if a decision were made to start deliveries."
Seb Member	Wed Oct 05 08:57:42 Ah, this is simple. Ukraine just messed up even though it is so easy it can be done with a trawler.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 05 10:28:02 The pipes run parallel within 2 m of each other. Tremendously bad luck. The gas release alone should have ruptured the 2nd pipe.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 05 10:28:46 Daemon It had not been mentioned :).
Seb Member	Wed Oct 05 10:37:40 Or, you know, good operational design.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 05 10:47:21 300 kg TNT equivalents is not good operational design. High risk anyway, nobody could bet on the gas release not rupturing the 2nd line. Find yourself another pet CT. Russia blowing up its own shit is stupid.
Paramount Member	Wed Oct 05 12:04:10 So Sweden and Denmark won’t allow the operator/owner of the Nord Stream to inspect their own pipelines. Hmm… Suspicious? I also don’t understand the EU, who has said that it was an attack on their energy infrastructure, why they are so upset and concerned about the attack when the EU itself has taken the decision to sanction and stop buying Russian gas. So how can it be an attack on European energy infrastructure?
Seb Member	Wed Oct 05 13:06:27 So, so easy that the Ukrainians could do it, but they somehow managed to fail to blow up one of the lines.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 05 13:42:54 You are no good at trolling Seb. I would blame bad luck. It is in the nature of the beast that surface set explosives would be on one side of one of the pipes. 300kg TNT equivalent should have been more than enough. Subsea set explosives would just need a couple kg placed charges.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 05 14:02:33 The russians obviously left one open to try to blackmail germany.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 05 14:12:07 Nord stream 1 was attacked at two different spots 6km between the leaks on A and B lines So more than one explosive charge per line. Which begs the question why only one attack on the NS2 A pipe. The 100-500kg estimate is based on the seismic signal and not that accurate. Especially if multiple charges at different points were detonated at the same time.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 05 14:12:48 "The russians obviously left one open to try to blackmail germany." 5 dimensional conspiracy theory! Who could be so sophisticated and overcomplicated?!
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 05 14:36:08 Here is the thing with Seb. He picks and chooses what he wants your arguments to be. "Because Habebe's entire thesis on the north stream attacks is that there is a real risk right now of the Germans cutting and running on sanctions" I laid out multiple issues. One of which was not even a primary factor Sen decided was the sole issue. This all came from me pointing out growing frustration with sanctions across Europe but I did specifically mention protests in Germany. My point was that from a US perspective, there was a threat of if we had a bad winter wr would get more pushback against sanctions. What he is good at is framing the conversation. He nit picked one small faction of my argument and blew it up and claims my entire reasoning for thinking there was likely US involvement was because of this. Just like he earlier argues he didn't intentionally misrepresent my position. He did. The cognitive dissonance must be killing him. He knows his position that it could only be Russia doesn't make alot of sense. It is possible, but far less likely. So he he will pick up on one or two small arguments, twist them and blow them up and claim my arguments are entirely based on that. His mother is white with a fat-ass.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 05 14:43:41 Jergul, I get that, we have talked about the Euro grid here before enough to know it's a tighter knit grid than the US grid. My general point was this. Winter is coming, food/energy prices are skyrocketing across Europe. Yes Germany is one of the harder hit nations. We are already seeing protests over prices. What would be the breaking point at which support for peace grows and support for maximalist Ukrainian war loses support? This doesn't have to be massive protests sweep the country(ies) and they repeal sanctions. It doesn't have to go that far. When do people put pressure to seal for peace? I think its a reasonable question. Now for the monkey wrench, Venezuela looks primed to come back on the market. That could stabilize oil prices enough to make this a non issue, or not, idk.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 05 15:03:26 Germany will definitely not be one of the hardest hit countries. It can cash tank. Pushback against sanctions are impossible in the EU. there are no triggers individual countries can pull to roll back unionwide sanctions. As little as say Utah deciding it did not want to follow the US sanction regime anymore. This is about Ukraine's energy security primarily with a headnod to the 2 billion dollars it is making in transit fees. It really is an existential issue for that country. As opposed to some wierd-assed conspiracy theory some posters are pandering here that Russia bombed itself (again or so the CT nutters would claim. See earlier CTs about Russia attacking a NPP it holds). Poland-Ukraine almost certainly. End of story.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 05 16:26:05 Habebe: Whether it is the entire or just a part of it - the point is as follows: 1. There is no evidence that there is significant pressure in Germany to break the sanctions regime 2. Even if there was it is out of Germany's hands, unless they want to rip up the EU, which will hurt them economically far more than an energy crisis Therefore there is no need for Ukraine, the US, or anyone to blow up Nord Stream to prevent imports of gas from Russia to Germany.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 05 18:15:24 "There is no evidence that there is significant pressure in Germany to break the sanctions regime" Even by your polls at face value almost half the population NOW thinks they hurt more than help. To clarify, that is not the same as wanting to end the sanctions, but its also nice weather. This trend will likely* gain more traction when prices go up and demand outstrips supply. Is that enough to break them? Mabey, mabey not. Again I think it depends how bad it gets and if Venezuela coming on the market will have a big impact. To many variables. "Even if there was it is out of Germany's hands, unless they want to rip up the EU, which will hurt them economically far more than an energy crisis" This same pressure doesn't have to just pressure removing the sanctions. It could take the form of more people wanting a peace deal which is relatively popular in the US. If gas goes over $6/gallon Support over here will drop and with Republicans looking all but certain to take the house and mabey the Senate, definitely down ballot state elections. With a big exception in PA where even I'm rooting for the Democrat over the Trump guy, which should let you know how far out he is, lol. "Therefore there is no need for Ukraine, the US, or anyone to blow up Nord Stream to prevent imports of gas from Russia to Germany." And that's an understandable argument. But its also much more short term. This damage doesn't seem likley to be fixed anytime soon. If it was easily fixed I'd be more inclined it wasn't the US. I can say here in the US even the people who don't think the US didn't do it admit "But, I wouldn't be surprised to find out they were" How has this helped Russia who is currently trying to push for peace on favorable terms for him?
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Wed Oct 05 21:16:25 "How has this helped Russia" Already answered dude Russia has been wanting to switch to NS2 for ages so it dont got to pay Ukraine fees for NS1 "Daemon Member Wed Oct 05 08:38:33 I don't know if is has been mentioned, but Gazprom is offering to send gas again through NS2. It seems like only one of the two lines of NS2 has been damaged, and the other is usable." http://www...am-2-and-why-is-it-contentious "While Germany has maintained it is solely a commercial project, Nord Stream 2 also has geostrategic consequences, bypassing Ukraine and potentially depriving it of the approximately $2bn in transit fees Russia currently pays to send gas through its territory."
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 05 23:35:34 Jesse, I think your mistaken, Jergul/Daemon/paramount can probably better field. But AFAIK no pipeline running through the Ukraine were damaged in the bombing. The Ukraine is in the Southeast of Europe, this happened. Near a Danish island. The land pipeline that runs through the Ukraine is the Soyuz. I think the confusion comes in where the term Nordstream also refers to the network at large, like "the interstate". I could be wrong though.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 06 01:37:49 Gazprom says it can be fixed in a month. Salt water corrosion may shorten the pipelines life by c. 10 years.
Habebe Member	Thu Oct 06 02:39:31 If it does get fixed right away, I would be more inclined to think it was Russia sending a message. Time will tell I suppose.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 06 03:57:26 It will take Gazprom more than a month to even get permission to inspect the sites, and god knows how long before Norway lets the chartered survey ship actually go there. Repair is as aspirational as Ukraine's Nato membership (that could take 24 hours. In theory).
Seb Member	Thu Oct 06 04:29:33 jergul: That is not the same thing as the technical time required to fix the pipe. Bottom line, the pipe is not irreversibly bust - the main blockers remain political.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 06 06:17:21 Seb We do not actually know that. Gazprom has not been allowed to survey the sites so would be about as informed as you or I. Also, winter is coming. The main blockers remain blown up pipelines. And the time it takes to get permits and charter vessels is part of the technical time it takes to fix pipelines. So, do you think the West will lift sanctions so that Gazprom can charter the vessels and know-how it would need to actually survey, then attempt to repair the pipeline? It is just not going to happen. Poland among others would have to be onboard for changing the sanction regime.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 06 06:18:15 Are you even in favour of the West granting exceptions to sanctions in so far as required to fix the pipeline?
Seb Member	Thu Oct 06 07:11:52 Jergul: Breaches are known localised from instrumentation. It's not determined by how long it takes to insert a replacement length and weld, it's pumping out and cleaning the line. It can be repaired in a few months *if* Europe wants it repaired.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 06 07:31:07 Oh, so surveys are not needed? You have such a big, academic brain. At the very least, several km of wields will need to be uncovered inspected and redone. It took Melkøya 24 months to go online again after a filter caught fire in an air intake valve. But it is all moot. Lifting the sanction regime is impossible, Russia could not think it was possible, and Western stumbling blocks outside of sanctions indicate very clearly that the West is in fact quite happy with the pipelines being down. After all, the West is supporting Ukraine and it is of existential importance to Ukraine that the pipelines not supply Europe with natural gas instead of the transit pipeline going through Ukraine. You did not answer btw. Are you in favour of the West taking measures to allow gasprom to repair the pipeline?
Seb Member	Thu Oct 06 09:20:22 Jergul: For someone throwing words like "big academic brain" around you sure do make a lot of logical fallacies. Of course surveys are needed: you need to know how much pipe needs to be replaced, where it is, local conditions etc. Repair is complicated underwater operation and needs planning However, there's nothing you will find that will either significantly extend the timeline to e.g. years or render the pipeline irreprable. The dominant factor is pumping out the sea water and then cleaning the pipe until it can accept oil again without fucking to the product. With the melkoya is an LNG facility where part of the machinery caught fire, there was a lot of complicated damage and the need to establish root cause and address. This is a pipe with a hole in it because explosives. It doesn't require lengthy diagnosis and the repair work is straightforward. They replaced the damaged section of pipe, and then the really hard part: pumping out all the sea water, drying and cleaning, and ensuring they've done so.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 06 09:21:16 "Are you in favour of the West taking measures to allow gasprom to repair the pipeline" Not at this juncture if NS2B is operational.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 06 09:22:41 "Lifting the sanction regime is impossible, Russia could not think it was possible" Well indeed. So it's useless, except to exacerbate political tensions in Germany and the EU. Blowing it up however sends an ambiguous but threatening message on energy warfare, while sowing confusion and doubt. Classic Russian hybrid warfare.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 06 09:25:32 The fact that one pipeline remain means Russia gets benefits of both. They have multiple motives and the means, and if they did it can do it in such a way as to minimise the risk of significant MPs of the capital investment. Somehow you can this 5d chess. But it's actually a pretty obvious move for a country looking to threaten escalatory action against Europe when talk of nukes isn't really credible for a number of reasons.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 06 09:26:18 "Poland among others would have to be onboard for changing the sanction regime" So what's the point in blowing up the pipe then?
jergul large member	Thu Oct 06 09:30:07 Seb Yet you glibly comment on something outside your field before Gasprom has done any surveys or indeed has even had time to make a damage mitigation report. A dominant factor is replacing damaged wields stretching kms along the pipelines. There is no need to address the possibility of future sabotage and secure the pipelines better during the repair process? Why was it needed at Melkøya, but not along these pipelines? Are you in favour of the West allowing repairs if NS2B is functional, or even allowing gasprom to charter a ship with permits to inspect if NS2B is functional? It runs right beside a pretty big explosion (a HILMAR salvo of 6 missiles sized explosion at each place). What political tensions? You and your 5-d chess moves that always seem to have Russia bombing itself. Classic Ukrainian move to protect itself from an existential threat.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 06 09:30:38 if NS2B is not functional*
jergul large member	Thu Oct 06 09:31:59 The US finally released information that it thinks Ukraine was behind the assasination you were attributing to Russia for 5-d chess move reasons.
	show deleted posts