Baltic Pipeline Discussion (Current Events)

@LilWabbit have you changed you probability in light of subsequent "evidence"/events?

I am still sticking with 0.66, but am tempted to lower.

Still 0.95 but also still totally aware it's my own subjective gut estimate, possibly wrong, and one which cannot be verified nor falsified with the current publicly available body of sketchy evidence.

If I'm wrong, I'll fully accept it. Wouldn't be the first time in my life. Nor the last. :)

P.S. @captancourgette Sir Bond Double-O-seven. :cool: Your movie style scenario is for me far too straightforward and fantastic, full of holes and hence highly unlikely in the real world. But it's 0.05 possible. :p However, you're entirely redeemed by the fact that you already admitted it's unlikely.
 
...
Is Russia capable, and willing, enough, to have carried out such an elaborate false flag operation? Part of me says, no. Another part wouldn't be surprised.
...
That "Another part" - would that be the one that knew from the start, before any evidence was in, that Russia surely was guilty? You know, the part that works from prejudice?

...
And yet despite the entire story being sourced on one sketchy anonymous individual in Ukraine, the WP, and other networks, went on with the story. I guess, commercially, it was the smartest course of action.
...
Part of that journalistic network is German public-law broadcasters with no significant commercial incentives.
 
I think the word they used was "impractical" for carrying 500 kg worth of explosives.
An impractical vessel might raise a lower level of suspicion, perhaps to the point where people let "impractical" trump harder evidence? If so, the perps were smart - they fooled you!

But the reason a yacht is unlikely included other variables as well.

... Secondly, it is surprising that traces of explosives were found on the yacht, since in this case clearly no homemade explosive device was used.
How is that "clearly"? You know, when, e.g., a conspiracy theorists uses the word "clearly", my ears twitch and my brain goes into immediate "Say what?" mode.

Thirdly, accurately placing the explosives on the bottom above the pipeline at 60–80 meters depth from a small surface vessel is practically impossible.
For an experienced diver? No. Bare assertion, rejected on account of it being "clearly" wrong.

The skepticism was shared by a named former chief analyst of the Danish Defence Intelligence Service now senior analyst in the Danish think tank Europa.
Might he have a commercial interest? :D

The naval officer instead speculated
Ah! Speculation.
that a submarine was used to place the explosives and pointed out that a sonar-equipped submarine can, with relative ease accurately place a naval bottom mine with 500 kg of explosives.[87][88]
Yes, just as 500 kg of explosives, well placed by perps disguising as elevator service crews, could easily have brought the WTC towers. Problem is: That's a made-up story, and it's wrong.

...
Also, a military-grade charge, necessary for the operation, doesn't leave any explosives residue onboard like an IED may do.
Bare assertion. Is there any argument to support this?
How is every "military-grade charge" always significantly different from any and all IEDs?
You see, even a "military-grade charge", even if it is different from IEDs, is custom-made for such a job - those were one-off sized and shaped charges. You might call these explosive devices "improvised", could you not? So how come a "military-grade" IED would not have traces of explosives on the outside nor leak any? I understand that explosives can be identified even in tiny amounts. Perhaps you picture the table in the yacht's cabin as having been badly stained with spoon-fulls of explosives? I haven't read any reports to that effect. Have you?

'Evidence-planting' for framing Ukraine is a viable hypothesis, whilst far from proven.
Not only is it "far from proven". At this time, I see no evidence at all.
 
...
P.S. @captancourgette Sir Bond Double-O-seven. :cool: Your movie style scenario is for me far too straightforward and fantastic, full of holes and hence highly unlikely in the real world. But it's 0.05 possible. :p However, you're entirely redeemed by the fact that you already admitted it's unlikely.
What is wrong with straightforward? Do you prefer convoluted?

How is the scenario fantastic?
Can you point out any holes in the scenario?
If not, will you retract the "highly unlikely" judgment you drew from the "full of holes" assessment?

The German researchers have said explicitly that the 6-person crew on the Andromeda included 2 divers and 2 diving assistants.
Why should divers not be able to lower 500 kg of explosives to a depth of 80 and place them there? Once in the water, the weight becomes fat less. It's certainly possible to handle heavy bags underwater. Once it is possible, assigning a-priori likelihoods would be foolish.
We have evidence of a yacht in the area at the time that was rented under shady conditions and had the correct type of explosives aboard. That is hard evidence supporting a theory that this yacht was employed in the attacks, even if we don't know exactly how it might have been done - like how many bags of explosives they used, how they lowered them into the water, etc. On the other hand, we do not have as specific any evidence that a submarine that actually carried that particular explosive was there at the time.

So my money right now is on the Andromeda theory, with some variation of the Bondesque scene that @captancourgette conjured up.
This leaves open the (equally conjured up) scenario that you presented in another post, where Russian intelligence learned of the Ukrainian plans and/or CIA warning in June, and then acted out that plan to make Western services think Ukraine did it.
Possible.
But in the absence of evidence actually supporting this particular hook, I refrain from assigning any significant likelihood to it.
 
The German researchers have said explicitly that the 6-person crew on the Andromeda included 2 divers and 2 diving assistants.
How would they know that?

It seems like we know so much about these alleged saboteurs except who they were. We know how many there were, what their group composition was, what their motive was ("pro-Ukrainian"), what boat they used, where they rented it, that they used faked passports, and so on. But nobody can catch these guys? How did a group of six people with no military or intelligence assistance pull off such a perfect crime?
 
How would they know that?

It seems like we know so much about these alleged saboteurs except who they were. We know how many there were, what their group composition was, what their motive was ("pro-Ukrainian"), what boat they used, where they rented it, that they used faked passports, and so on. But nobody can catch these guys? How did a group of six people with no military or intelligence assistance pull off such a perfect crime?
In this time of war, caution has to be taken with anything in the news. We cannot simply believe anything, as we all know at what lengths both parties (Ua<>Ru) go to try to blame each other.
However, we know the pipeline has been blown up, which is a fact.
Perhaps we will never see the truth. Examples from the past we all know.
 
Last edited:
Without even getting into how flimsy (pun intended) the yacht theory is to account for a large underwater ordnance detonation operation with precision instead of Russian naval vessels (such as the SS-750 Crane Ship carrying the Priz mini-sub) spotted in the vicinity with their AIS off, it's naivete rather than reason to so quickly dismiss Russian involvement based on poorly-sourced news copied by other news outlets without independent access to the same or other relevant sources.

When we are talking about a war and the corollary involvement of military intelligence services in the war effort, we are always also talking about the resulting distinct possibility of all kinds of false flag and framing operations on all sides. To assume such a framing operation by Russian intelligence as a distinct possibility is perfectly reasonable rather some nutty excursion into conspiratorial territory. Even if it turns out not to have been Russia.
 
We cannot simply believe anything, as we all know at what lengths both parties (Uk<>Ru) go to try to blame each other.
Yet, the evidence in this scenario does not originate with Ua or Ru.

Also, with the exception of Nordstream, what did Ukraine blame Russia for that Russia wasn't actually responsible for? (apart from politics, like who sabotaged peace talks etc.)
 
Point is, they supposedly have all these leads but still no suspects. All sorts of crimes are committed where the criminal takes steps to conceal their identity, like using a fake passport. But they also make mistakes, they leave behind other evidence that allows law enforcement to track them down. And the more complicated the crime, the more mistakes they're bound to make. But not these guys, apparently. They acquired hundreds of kilos of explosives, loaded them into a sailboat, blew up a pipeline, and then vanished into thin air like ghosts. All this without any sophisticated military equipment or intelligence agency assistance... If you can believe that.
 
Yet, the evidence in this scenario does not originate with Ua or Ru.
Which is good.

Also, with the exception of Nordstream, what did Ukraine blame Russia for that Russia wasn't actually responsible for? (apart from politics, like who sabotaged peace talks etc.)
I have no examples, which is entirely so because I really don't follow all the events happening..
 
How would they know that?
Good question - I'd have to re-read the articles on the matter.
It seems like we know so much about these alleged saboteurs except who they were. We know how many there were, what their group composition was, what their motive was ("pro-Ukrainian"), what boat they used, where they rented it, that they used faked passports, and so on. But nobody can catch these guys?
Well, yeah, fake passports have a way making arrests difficult.
How did a group of six people with no military or intelligence assistance pull off such a perfect crime?
How do you know they did not have military or intelligence assistance? Did anyone claim they didn't?
 
The use of a submersible instead of divers to plant the charges is not only the likelier alternative to carry out the operation in the way that it eventually panned out, but also something which both investigative leads suggest, whether pointing to Ukraine or to Russia. The New York Times writes regarding the original plan to sabotage NS which was leaked to the Dutch intelligence prior to the attacks by a source in Ukraine:

The original plan also involved using Ukrainian special forces personnel to rent a submersible and a boat to attack the pipelines, near a spot popular with divers, the European official said.


Based on publicly available sources, there're three key details on which the establishment of fact will largely determine the responsibility behind the NS sabotage.

(1) Submersible (Was one used at all or necessary? Was it the Russian Priz on their crane ship spotted in the vicinity? Was it something rented by the 'pro-Ukrainians? What kind of a submersible was it? Who owned it and how was it operated by the 'pro-Ukrainians'? If it was rented, from where was it rented, by whom, and using which payment methods?)

(2) The source of intel in Ukraine providing information to the Dutch intelligence (which, in turn, alerted the CIA) on plans within the Ukraine's military to attack the pipelines without Zelenskyi's knowledge (What can we really establish as to who did (s)he take orders from? How reliable is (s)he? Who is (s)he?)

(3) The 'pro-Ukrainian' operators (Who were they really? Who did they take orders from? What are their links to 2?)

Due to these open questions and the possibility of a framing operation, we cannot yet rule out Ukraine, Russia or even a third country/countries as possible culprits.
 
How do you know they did not have military or intelligence assistance? Did anyone claim they didn't?
Yeah sorry there was a bit of confusion there, it was the New York Times reporting quite a while back that claimed the saboteurs were not officially affiliated with any state. I'm aware of the latest reporting that they were actually affiliated with Ukrainian military, and that the CIA knew about it and warned them against it.

I'm not sure how much credence the latest reporting has, though... The sourcing in the latest New York Times article is just as vague as before, a mere "U.S. officials said." Well, how do we know they're telling the truth? It's not any different from the Seymour Hersh story, that also relied on an anonymous source. We should also consider the possibility that these are self-serving stories being fed to the media by the CIA. Basically wanting to assure Germany that the US had nothing to do with it, and throwing Ukraine under the bus instead.
 
It seems even the German investigators have been suspecting Andromeda was used as a decoy -- irrespective of who's responsible -- after initially thinking otherwise (caveat: investigative suspicions are a shifty thing and often keep changing, and this investigative detail refers to an April article by the Washington Post):

German investigators’ earlier theory was that a small team of perpetrators used a rented 50-foot sailboat, the Andromeda, to plant explosives on the two pipelines. But as their investigation progressed, they began to suspect the boat might have been used as a decoy, and U.S. and European officials are also now skeptical that the Andromeda played a key role. One major reason for the doubt is the craft’s size and capabilities, per the Post:

"Experts noted that while it was theoretically possible to place the explosives on the pipeline by hand, even skilled divers would be challenged submerging more than 200 feet to the seabed and slowly rising to the surface to allow time for their bodies to decompress. Such an operation would have taken multiple dives, exposing the Andromeda to detection from nearby ships. The mission would have been easier to hide and pull off using remotely piloted underwater vehicles or small submarines, said diving and salvage experts who have worked in the area of the explosion, which features rough seas and heavy shipping traffic."

Also according to the Post, investigators have confirmed that traces of military-grade explosives found during a search of the Andromeda in January matched the explosive used on the pipelines — but that the evidence might have been planted aboard the boat. Some investigators also doubt that a team skilled enough to blow up the pipelines while evading detection would be sloppy enough to leave that evidence behind, while others believe it was possible they were indeed that careless."
 
Last edited:
External Quote:
Such an operation would have taken multiple dives, exposing the Andromeda to detection from nearby ships
I don't understand why this would take multiple dives. Couldn't they have taken a line down, and then slid the explosives down the line? Perhaps with one of the divers stationed halfway up?
Obviously it would have taken 3 dives to reach the 3 different locations. Was this done in a single night?

Secondly, how many ships sail the Baltic at night and care about anchored yachts?
 
I don't understand why this would take multiple dives. Couldn't they have taken a line down, and then slid the explosives down the line? Perhaps with one of the divers stationed halfway up?
Obviously it would have taken 3 dives to reach the 3 different locations. Was this done in a single night?

Secondly, how many ships sail the Baltic at night and care about anchored yachts?

There's no avoidance of travelling at night - for example they build up east of the bridges over the Neva in St. Petersburg, and then are all let out when the bridges open when road traffic is low at night. Having said that, the speed they travel, those particular boats wouldn't be anywhere near Denmark whilst it's still night, unless that's the *next* night. Similarly, I know many of the freight lines between Finland and Germany are largely night-time. That lets the lorry drivers minimise wasted time awake and not driving. Almost all of these examples seem to have 2 nights in the Baltic:
External Quote:
Travemünde - Helsinki
Travemünde Helsinki Helsinki Travemünde
ETS ETA ETS ETA
Sun-Fri 2:00 10:00* Mon-Sun 15:00 21:00*
Sat 2:30 10:00*
* arrival next day Finnstar/ Finnmaid/ Finnlady 7/7

Travemünde ETS Helsinki ETA Helsinki ETS Travemünde ETA
Wednesday 16:00 Friday 06:45 Tuesday 23:00 Thursday 09:30
Saturday 20:00 Monday 06:45 Friday 22:30 Sunday 10:0
https://www.finnlines.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/finnlines-master-schedule-2022.pdf
 
Similarly, I know many of the freight lines between Finland and Germany are largely night-time.
I can't imagine these freighter captains caring much about yachts unless they were sitting smack dab in the middle of the shipping lane. But blowing up the pipeline there would be another level of stupidity altogether. I don't know where the shipping lanes are around the NS2 explosion sites, but the NS1 site seems well out of the way.
 
I don't understand why this would take multiple dives. Couldn't they have taken a line down, and then slid the explosives down the line? Perhaps with one of the divers stationed halfway up?

Even one dive seems very tricky since we're talking about a military-grade explosive equivalent to 500 kilograms of TNT. Such a charge is even heavier with its shell structure and internal machinery intact. Take, for instance, the Russian MDM-2 Mod. 1 sea bottom mine which could produce the type of blast and underwater crater observed and which weighs 1370 kilograms and is over 2 meters long. Something in the order of 1-tonne magnitude lowered on a line from the side of a flimsy yacht, guided by divers:

Nordstream_25-706x513.jpg


To plant such a charge with precision, efficiency and to do it clandestinely requires a submersible. These charges must be loaded on drones and brought to the site by quiet submersibles.

Obviously it would have taken 3 dives to reach the 3 different locations. Was this done in a single night?

Two locations since there were only two explosions (17 hours apart) intended to damage both lines of each pipeline NS1-2 but succeeding in destroying 3 lines out of 4.

Secondly, how many ships sail the Baltic at night and care about anchored yachts?

Indeed, if it were an anchored yacht, it would provide a better cover than a large navy vessel in heavy sea traffic. It's a heavy sea traffic area. A yacht just seems operationally tricky in so many ways, especially if the claim is that no submersible was used, but only 'pro-Ukrainian' divers. Plus any vessel using a submersible
need not be that close to the blast site.

But like I've said, I'm not claiming it's impossible.
 
Last edited:
Two locations since there were only two explosions (17 hours apart) intended to damage both lines of each pipeline NS1-2 but succeeding in destroying 3 lines out of 4.
The NS1 leaks are 6km/4 miles apart, they were blown up separately.

To plant such a charge with precision, efficiency and to do it clandestinely requires a submersible.
I don't doubt that, but I had assumed that the final charge would be assembled from multiple parts which would be submerged separately. (Plus, water reduces the weight if not the inertia.)

Btw, if I interpret the nautic chart above correctly, the main shipping lane is well north of the NS1 explosion sites.
 
The NS1 leaks are 6km/4 miles apart, they were blown up separately.

We don't know that yet. According to seismic data from several measuring stations in several nearby countries, there were only two explosions (or at least two that were measurable by seismographs), the first one at NS2 and the second at NS1, whereby the latter caused at least two leaks.
 
We don't know that yet. According to seismic data from several measuring stations in several nearby countries, there were only two explosions (or at least two that were measurable by seismographs), the first one at NS2 and the second at NS1, whereby the latter caused at least two leaks.
There were 4 explosions.
On September 26 last year seismologists reported two underwater explosions in the Baltic. According to Norsar, a Norwegian monitoring organisation, the first occurred at 02.03 local time, about 25km southeast of Bornholm island and a second — larger — blast was recorded 17 hours later, some 50km northeast of Bornholm.

The first blast had a magnitude of 1.8 (categorised as a microearthquake) and equivalent to 190–320kg of TNT, Norsar said. The second underwater event had a magnitude of 2.2 or 2.3 which the seismologists described as corresponding to “a noticeable earthquake” and estimated as equivalent to 650–900kg of TNT.

It soon became clear, though, that this second event — which seismologists at first thought was a single big explosion — had actually been a series of smaller explosions happening almost simultaneously.


Even one dive seems very tricky since we're talking about a military-grade explosive equivalent to 500 kilograms of TNT. Such a charge is even heavier with its shell structure and internal machinery intact. Take, for instance, the Russian MDM-2 Mod. 1 sea bottom mine which could produce the type of blast and underwater crater observed and which weighs 1370 kilograms and is over 2 meters long. Something in the order of 1-tonne magnitude lowered on a line from the side of a flimsy yacht, guided by divers:

Nordstream_25-706x513.jpg


To plant such a charge with precision, efficiency and to do it clandestinely requires a submersible. These charges must be loaded on drones and brought to the site by quiet submersibles.
The Russian submersible could only manipulate 50 kg, and it appears its host ship was not there.
The mini-submarine is the Priz-class AS-26 submersible which has a crew of four and can carry up to 20 passengers (see video). It is designed to rescue trapped submariners from depths of up to 1,000 metres but it also has a manipulator arm capable of lifting 50kg.

Similarly, Expressen’s report says the Russian ships’ positions “have been mapped” and “the conclusion must be that they have not been in such a place that they could have carried out the deed”.

On the dives:
There have been repeated claims that it would not be feasible to carry out 80-metre dives from such a small boat, since the Andromeda had no space for a decompression chamber. However, a mention of helium in the intelligence report about the Ukrainian plan points to an alternative solution. By breathing a mixture of oxygen and helium and pausing at intervals while returning to the surface, the need for a decompression chamber could be avoided. A Dutch military website describes the process when used by navy divers.
 
The Russian submersible could only manipulate 50 kg, and it appears its host ship was not there.

The mini-submarine is the Priz-class AS-26 submersible which has a crew of four and can carry up to 20 passengers (see video). It is designed to rescue trapped submariners from depths of up to 1,000 metres but it also has a manipulator arm capable of lifting 50kg.

The blog post analysis you linked (a decent analysis btw) citing these various articles actually doesn't say Priz can't be implicated. It's one thing to lift 50 kg, another for the Priz arms to carry bigger loads underwater and release them. Plus there are other possible methods of tying the explosives to the relatively large mini-sub.

The Brian Whit analysis in your link in fact says:

OSINT investigators managed to track the first part of the Russian vessels’ journey but not the most crucial part when they were closest to the sabotage area (details here, here and here). Even so, it does appear that between the evening of September 21 and the afternoon of September 22 (when they left the area) they would have had an opportunity to plant explosives if that had been their mission.


This diametrically contradicts with the Expressen journalists' own poor analysis you cited, which is not representative of what the German investigators have concluded:

Similarly, Expressen’s report says the Russian ships’ positions “have been mapped” and “the conclusion must be that they have not been in such a place that they could have carried out the deed”.

As Whit says, OSINT reports did not manage to track the most crucial part of the Russian ships journeys at the most crucial times. So for Expressen to say their positions have been mapped is false insofar as the exact positions at all relevant time periods are concerned.

We have no idea if the German investigators mapped it any better.

Also the Whit analysis regards it impractical and difficult for divers to have carried out the planting of all the large explosives from Andromeda, and explores assistant ships as well as the Andromeda decoy hypothesis as plausible scenarios.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: qed
This diametrically contradicts with the Expressen journalists' own poor analysis you cited, which is not representative of what the German investigators have concluded:


As Whit says, OSINT reports did not manage to track the most crucial part of the Russian ships journeys at the most crucial times. So for Expressen to say their positions have been mapped is false insofar as the exact positions at all relevant time periods are concerned.

We have no idea if the German investigators mapped it any better.
Yes, we know that NATO can track ships better than OSINT can. They have satellites and radars and subsea microfones and stuff.
“Some of these [Russian] ships had switched off their signals so that they could not be located. In German security circles it is said that this approach by Russian military ships is not unusual, but takes place regularly in the Baltic Sea. NATO is still able to track the movements of the ships. The German investigators also followed these tracks, evaluating satellite images and radio recordings.”
Original:
In deutschen Sicherheitskreisen heißt es dazu, diese Vorgehensweise russischer Militärschiffe sei nicht ungewöhnlich, sondern finde in der Ostsee regelmäßig statt. Die NATO sei dennoch in der Lage, die Bewegungen der Schiffe zu verfolgen. Auch diesen Spuren sind die deutschen Ermittler nachgegangen, haben Satellitenaufnahmen und Funkaufzeichnungen ausgewertet.

Also the Whit analysis regards it impractical and difficult for divers to have carried out the planting of all the large explosives from Andromeda
Yes. Difficult but possible. It's also the only scenario we have evidence for.

And there's a reason why they only rigged 3 lines on their first go, and tried to rig the 4th line separately (but rigged the 3rd line again).
 
According to Swedish intelligence expert Joakim von Braun (featured in this article by Finnish TV1), the recent revelations by the Dutch broadcasting service NOS about the CIA being alerted by Dutch intelligence on Ukrainian plans to sabotage the pipelines are credible.

But it does not affect his assessment that Russia remains the likeliest culprit. According to von Braun, "it's likely that the countries participating in the naval exercise were misled to track the Russian vessels [six Russian vessels were sighted in the area during the Nato drills prior to the explosions] whilst Russia used a boat rented from Poland to carry out the operation".

Regarding the two Ukrainian citizens that, according to the German police, were involved with the yacht rental transaction, von Braun states that the first person, the woman owning the firm that rented the yacht, was indeed born in Ukraine. But it has later become apparent she's also been a long-standing Russian citizen. He continues that the other Ukrainian seems to also have strong links to Russia.

I had to use Google translate so any Finns here or other Finnish-proficient interlocutors (@FatPhil ?), please correct if I got something wrong.
 
According to this fresh article by Danish TV2, citing the analysis of Niels Kamp, a retired explosives expert with the Danish military intelligence, it's very likely only a small few-kilogram charge was used to blow up NS2. The article is in Danish.
Google translate excerpts:
But if you closely study the drone footage that TV 2 and the three other media took on the seabed on June 13, 2023, there are several things that indicate that only a smaller explosive charge was used on Nord Stream 2.

Based on the photos of the damage to Nord Stream 2, Niels Kamp estimates that it is either a radiation charge that has punctured a round hole in the pipe, or a cutting charge that has made a narrow, elongated hole.

According to Niels Kamp, the way the metal in the bend is shaped indicates that it has been strongly heated, which is typical for a directional "cutting" blast.

Niels Kamp's assessment is supported by an expert in underwater explosions with France's military.

He does not want to be named, as he is on operational duty, but tells TV 2's media partner Libération that, in his eyes, the injuries also look like something from a directional blast.

- There was probably not a very large explosive charge, but a smaller one of a few kilos. What I see looks like the result of a directional charge, he says.

Lars Nøhr-Nielsen estimates that there is a 70 percent probability that the bend in the pipe originated from an explosion, while there is a 30 percent probability that it occurred because the gas pipe twisted when it sprung a leak.

According to the two engineers, the large crater in the seabed under the pipeline was probably created when gas under high pressure began to flow out of the pipeline.

When Nord Stream 2 sprang a leak, Denmark's geological surveys, GEUS, measured the tremors at 2.3 on the Richter scale, and according to the two engineers, it is not impossible that the gas outflow alone could have caused the tremors.

- It probably could. But from experience we have to say that we don't know. The explosions we have done, we have done in the air, says Lars Nøhr Nielsen.

When Nord Stream 1 sprung a leak, Swedish scientists also measured tremors of 2.3 on the Richter scale, so if only a small explosive charge was used on Nord Stream 2, it is not impossible that the tremors on Nord Stream 1 were also only caused by outflowing gas.

If explosive charges of a few kilos were used to sabotage one or more of the gas pipes, it opens the possibility that the action could have been carried out with a drone from a smaller vessel on the surface.

When TV 2 was out at the pipeline, it took about 20 minutes to locate the pipes with sonar and send a civilian underwater drone with grappling claws down there.


Remember that the investigators have removed evidence from the site, and have also identified the type of explosive.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: qed
I would have preferred the Post article, but it's behind a pay wall for those not signed up.
Their feeble security cannot defeat my 1990s web technology!!

Code:
phil@dovespaz:~$ wget https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/
--2023-11-15 19:07:49--  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/
Resolving www.washingtonpost.com (www.washingtonpost.com)... 2.21.205.161
Connecting to www.washingtonpost.com (www.washingtonpost.com)|2.21.205.161|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Moved Temporarily
Location: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/ [following]
--2023-11-15 19:07:58--  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/
Reusing existing connection to www.washingtonpost.com:443.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: unspecified [text/html]
Saving to: 'index.html'

index.html                [ <=>                    ] 422.37K  --.-KB/s    in 0.05s   

2023-11-15 19:08:08 (9.14 MB/s) - 'index.html' saved [432505]

phil@dovespaz:~$ file index.html 
index.html: HTML document, UTF-8 Unicode text, with very long lines

I presume wget alternatives like 'curl' will also cope, the 'w3m' browser also worked just fine.
 
For whatever its worth, many of the posters here must have caught the (half-sarcastic) exchange between President Putin and Tucker Carlson regarding the Nordstream incident.
Is there a definitive answer (or strong working hypothesis) regarding responsibility?
 
Is there a definitive answer (or strong working hypothesis) regarding responsibility?
"Definitive" requires a court verdict.
I see no reason doubt the investigation that puts the responsibility on Ukraine's intelligence, with the yacht Andromeda. But at this stage, it's not definitive.
Joint reporting by DER SPIEGEL and The Washington Post has revealed that Chervinskyi apparently played a significant role in one of the most spectacular bombing attacks in recent history. He appears to have been a central figure behind the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines. Security officials are describing him as the "coordinator" of the attacks, with responsibility for the logistics of the sabotage operation.
(November 12, 2023)
 
Back
Top