Russia and Ukraine Current Events

Mauro

Senior Member
Other sources say a truck exploded, so it may have been a truck bomb?
I'm baffled at how they could pull it out..

- Missile attack? But Ukrainians are not supposed to have missiles with so long a range. Their Tochka-U are both too short range and too imprecise. US says ATACMS have not been sent to Ukraine, and in any case I doubt just one ATACMS could do all that damage. Also is improbable for a missile attack to be launched with just one missile (one wants to saturate enemy air defences) and I have seen no reports of Russain air defence launches. The missile(s) would have been tracked by innumerable radars. Improbable I think.
- Truck bomb? But it should have been a big truck bomb indeed to destroy the bridge detonating from above, and vehicles are controlled at checkpoints before being allowed on the bridge (there's even footage around the Internet of military personnel checking, supposedly, the very truck which blew up). And planting some hundred kilograms of explosive on a truck bound for the bridge from the Russian side, escaping alla controls, looks quite improbable to me.
- Special operation forces? That is to say: Ukrainian sappers reached the bridge, mined it with explosive and then bailed out before the explosion. That would explain the scale of the damage, but it's unbeliaveble Ukrainian SOF could manage such a feat under the nose of Russians. Not even if they had underwater assets able to ferry the sappers, which they don't have.
- A drone ship? Someone say a wave which can be seen under the bridge span when the explosion starts, indicates some naval asset (filled with explosives) was used for the attack. I think this would explain the damage, and recently there has been a report about an unmanned, unidentified sea vehicle washed up near Sevastopol, so not totally impossible, but yet again I think it should have had to dive underwater in order to escape Russia's surveillance, so something pretty much innovative, to say the least.
 

qed

Senior Member
The operation was only a partial success. I think this will help us work out who/how.

If repeated soon, then probably a missile/drone and not a covert special operation of some kind.

If not repeated soon, then probably a covert special operation that will now be difficult to repeat.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Can we call "Russia did it" a conspiracy theory with respect to the bridge explosion? Here it is:
Article:
Mykhailo Podolyak, an advisor to the [Ukrainian] President’s Office, said that the explosion that occurred at the Crimean Bridge on Oct. 8 is the result of a conflict between Russia's Security Service (FSB) and private military companies on one side, and Russia’s Defense Ministry and General Staff on the other.

In a comment to the Ukrainska Pravda media outlet, Podolyak said that the truck that exploded on the bridge that links occupied Crimea with Russia came from Russia.


Source: https://twitter.com/Podolyak_M/status/1578714525867859969
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Surveillance footage of bridge explosion
Source: https://www.imgur.com/gallery/KXaAu3y


browse (arrow on the right) to second image:
Source: https://www.imgur.com/gallery/MAmmIeA


aftermath closeup
Source: https://www.imgur.com/gallery/1aNSznV
I keep hearing about a "truck explosion", but in that first video (although it's hard to pinpoint the source) it gives the impression of an explosion off the right side of the bridge, not from a vehicle on the bridge itself.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Can we call "Russia did it" a conspiracy theory with respect to the bridge explosion?

Russia proper, yes, but this is a more complicated conflict than that. The source mentions Wagner, and there's been a lot of reports that Russia doesn't have much of a leash on the PMC, including violence against Russian regulars and civilians (both actually Russian and Ukrainians in annexed territory) and so forth. Hitting a bridge is a HUGE step up for them, though, the step from "not actually helping" to "actively sabotaging" is a big one. This isn't just lighting up a random friendly patrol and taking their stuff.

Ukraine is really good at the propaganda game and this wouldn't be the first time they ran with a line seemingly designed to get some target oligarch defenestrated.

However, there's also Ukrainian partisans, whatever groups in Russia keep torching important buildings, and Russia's weakness has emboldened many of their enemies (as well as enemies of their allies and even a few of their allies).

CNN and BBC both had experts this morning believing it was an attack from below, which if true would be well in line with any of those kinds of groups.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
CNN and BBC both had experts this morning believing it was an attack from below,
Al Jazeera:
Article:
Meanwhile, Alexandre Vautravers, the editor-in-chief of Swiss Military Review, cast doubt that a truck was indeed solely behind the explosion, saying a vehicle carrying explosives “is probably not going to produce this much damage” without other explosives being planted on the bridge.

“I think we need to take with a grain of salt the story that is being told to us about how this truck arrived there and all of a sudden produced all of this damage,” he told Al Jazeera.

“The most realistic are two explanations: One would be a laser guided bomb of at least 125 kilos and the other possibility would be sabotage from special forces or from partisans and I think this is something to explore.”

Russia’s transport industry said late Saturday that rail traffic had been cleared to resume on the Kerch bridge.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Article:
Russian and occupation administration officials continued measures to remove Ukrainian children from their homes in Russian-occupied territories on October 8. The Head of the Kherson Occupation Administration Vladimir Saldo reported that Russian-occupied Crimea agreed to take over 5,000 children from Kherson Oblast “on vacation” and that 1,500 of those children have already arrived in Crimea.[82] Vladimir Saldo also announced that the governors of Krasnodar Krai and Stavropol Krai stated that their administrations are ready to accept up to 10,000 children from Kherson Oblast. Saldo did not specify a duration for such offers or “vacations.”[83] Vladimir Saldo stated that the children’s parents would be able to join their children in the territories to which they are sent.[84]
 

Duke

Active Member
Over the past couple days in the "Baltic Pipeline Discussion" thread, the topic of what types of NATO aircraft have been conducting ISR flights near the war zone was discussed. To provide examples, here are two screenshots (both taken at approximately 1415 GMT today, 10 Oct) of two Flightradar24 aircraft tracks showing a USAF RQ-4D (drone) over the Black Sea and a RAF RC-135 over Romania.

Screenshot_20221010-101716_Flightradar24.jpgScreenshot_20221010-101733_Flightradar24.jpg
https://fr24.com/apps
 

Duke

Active Member
the question in the pipeline context is what types of aircraft conduct night patrols over the Baltic sea

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/baltic-pipeline-discussion-current-events.12685/post-281348

As can been seen in the link above, I offered to post screenshots of NATO aircraft found in the region when looking at the Flightradar24 app. (I was advised posting them in the pipeline thread was off topic, so they are posted here instead.) This is what was there when I looked a little more than an hour ago.

I can tell you any of the ISR aircraft types can be on station in the area anytime day or night. They are equally capable in daylight or dark. What's deployed and when is a function of aircraft availability, specific type of intelligence sought, and what's going on tactically at the time. This isn't a day shift/night shift, time clock punching deal.

I'll be happy to post similar screenshots in the area during their local overnight when I see NATO ISR while looking at the app.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
As can been seen in the link above, I offered to post screenshots of NATO aircraft found in the region when looking at the Flightradar24 app. (I was advised posting them in the pipeline thread was off topic, so they are posted here instead.) This is what was there when I looked a little more than an hour ago.
I'm not sure they mean much at this point, EU said they wanted to step up surveillance after the pipeline explosions.
 

Duke

Active Member
I'm not sure they mean much at this point, EU said they wanted to step up surveillance after the pipeline explosions.
*shrug* I put them up in response to one of your posts, after I pointed out they'd been there continuously since at least a few weeks before the invasion. If you're not interested in seeing them now I'll not waste my time. Just wanted to help out a right-brained layman. ;)

Anyone with a knowledge of the specific aircraft types and their missions can gain insight into what NATO is looking at/for and therefore what's going on. I'm hoping we don't see one of the WC-135 aircraft designed to "sniff" for nuclear radiation in theater.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
If you're not interested in seeing them now I'll not waste my time.
i'm only one person. maybe others are interested in that data. I'm more curious what the military flight patterns were in the 6 months prior, but we would need someone with a subscription. and alot of time to go back and collate.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Article:
Russian forces conducted a massive missile strike attack against over 20 cities, including Kyiv, on October 10. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces launched over 84 cruise missiles and 24 drone attacks, 13 of which were carried out with Iranian-made Shahed-136 drones.[1] Ukrainian air defense shot down 43 cruise missiles, 10 Shahed-136 drones, and 3 unspecified drones. Russian forces launched missiles from 10 strategic bombers operating in the Caspian Sea and from Nizhny Novgorod, Iskander short-range ballistic missile systems, and 6 missile carriers in the Black Sea.[2] Russian forces launched the Shahed-136 drones from Crimea and Belarus.[3] Ukrainian media reported that Russian missile strikes hit 70 targets, including 29 critical infrastructure facilities, 4 high-rise buildings, 35 residential buildings, and a school.[4]

Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed to have ordered the missile strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure in retaliation for a “terrorist act” at the Kerch Strait Bridge, likely in part to curry favor with the Russian pro-war nationalist camp that has been demanding such retaliation.[5] Putin accused Ukraine during his meeting with the Russian Security Council of conducting terrorist acts against Russian civilian and critical infrastructure, namely against the Kerch Strait Bridge, the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), and segments of the Turkish Stream gas transmission system.[6] Ukrainian officials have not formally taken responsibility for the explosion at the Kerch Strait Bridge.[7] The Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) also reported that Putin has been planning this attack prior to the Kerch Strait Bridge explosion, and if true, could indicate that Putin planned this attack for the deflection of the Kharkiv-Izyum-Lyman failures.[8]

Putin emphasized that he would conduct proportional escalation in any future retaliatory actions. He stated that if Ukraine continues to carry out “terrorist attacks against [Russian] territory, then Russian responses will be harsh, and their scale will correspond to the level of the threat to the Russian Federation.” This declaration of proportionality suggests that Putin intends to continue climbing the escalation ladder rung by rung and cautiously rather than jumping to more dramatic measures such as the use of nuclear weapons.

The October 10 Russian attacks wasted some of Russia’s dwindling precision weapons against civilian targets, as opposed to militarily significant targets. The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) claimed that Russian forces successfully completed the mission of striking Ukrainian military command centers, signal infrastructure, and energy systems in Ukraine.[12] Social media shows that Russians instead hit a children’s playground, a park, a German consulate, and a business center among other non-military targets.[13] Ukrainian air defenses also shot down half of the Russian drones and cruise missiles. Russian attacks on the Ukrainian energy grid will not likely break Ukraine’s will to fight, but Russia’s use of its limited supply of precision weapons in this role may deprive Putin of options to disrupt ongoing Ukrainian counter-offensives in Kherson and Luhansk Oblasts.

A Kyiv Post reporter claimed that Russian soldiers are deploying to Belarus en masse via cattle railcars without mechanized equipment on October 10—a characterization consistent with ISW's assessment.[17] ISW has previously assessed that Ukrainian reports from late September of Belarus preparing to accept 20,000 mobilized Russian men indicate that Russia hopes to use Belarusian military facilities and infrastructure to hold and potentially train newly mobilized Russian forces, but that it remains exceedingly unlikely that these are leading indicators of imminent Belarusian involvement in Ukraine on Russia’s behalf.[18]
 

captancourgette

Active Member
- A drone ship? Someone say a wave which can be seen under the bridge span when the explosion starts, indicates some naval asset (filled with explosives) was used for the attack. I think this would explain the damage, and recently there has been a report about an unmanned, unidentified sea vehicle washed up near Sevastopol, so not totally impossible, but yet again I think it should have had to dive underwater in order to escape Russia's surveillance, so something pretty much innovative, to say the least.
Yes I've seen photos of both of those. The black sea craft was obviously designed to not be easily visible, Im not sure if it was an underwater craft,To me it just looked like it had a very low profile on the waterline. Something black that sits very low in the water would be near impossible to see at night

EDIT: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ashes-up-near-home-of-russias-black-sea-fleet
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
The explosion was almost certainly above the bridge deck and not below.
a920f6fdac7b908d94f04db489ac4107.jpeg.jpg
The far guardrail wouldn't have been blown off in a below-deck explosion because it would have been in the "shadow" of the bridge deck. The below-deck infrastructure would show more damage.

Generally, the "steel box" bridge segments lie loose on the concrete supports, if you hit one hard with a huge blow, there's going to be a wave and a rebound.
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
It's a long shot, but as Russia has used the bridge incident as a pretext for another massive bombardment of Ukrainian cities, we should at least consider the possibility that it was a Russian false flag operation. This may seem unlikely, not only because it has damaged an important military supply route, but because it is personally humiliating to Putin. (Also very embarrassing for those who are responsible for security on the bridge.) But it is reported that there are factional divisions within the Russian military and security regime, and there are some elements who would actively want to promote a nuclear strike on Ukraine. It would be much easier for Russian operatives (maybe from some branch of the FSB, or the Chechen militia) to organise a truck bomb from the Russian side of the bridge than it would for the Ukrainians, no matter how clever they are. Putin himself would not necessarily have been involved.

One point that isn't clear is whether it was also a suicide bombing. Russian sources say that 3 people were killed in the attack, but I have seen any details on their identity. It is natural to assume that they would have included the driver and anyone else in the truck. If they were aware of the intended explosion, that would make it a suicide bombing (unless they planned to jump out before the detonation.) I don't know of any previous examples of suicide bombings by Ukrainians. (Suicidal bravery in battle is a rather different thing.) I think the Christian churches would all regard it as a sin. I don't recall any suicide bombings on either side in the Northern Irish 'Troubles'.

Added: According to a Yahoo News report based on unnamed 'Russian media sources', the death toll has increased to 5:

There were four people, three men and a woman, in a car that was driving next to a truck at the point on the bridge where the explosion occurred. The driver of the truck is also believed to be dead.
 
Last edited:

Mauro

Senior Member
The explosion was almost certainly above the bridge deck and not below.

Yes, a big 1000+ Kg truck bomb seems the most probable cause as things now stand. Possible variants I can think of:
  • Ukrainians did it, for obvious military reasons: very much likely a priori, hard to put in practice, a very remarkable operation if this was the case.
  • (Some) Russians did it for some hard-to-say-which reason: very much unlikely a priori, easier to put in practice.
  • Accident (ie.: to a truck carrying fertilizers): not impossible but, incredibly low chances, strains credulity (mine at least)
 

Duke

Active Member
Yes I've seen photos of both of those. The black sea craft was obviously designed to not be easily visible, Im not sure if it was an underwater craft,To me it just looked like it had a very low profile on the waterline. Something black that sits very low in the water would be near impossible to see at night

EDIT: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ashes-up-near-home-of-russias-black-sea-fleet
What you are describing sounds in principle a good deal like the "narco submarines" that have been used to smuggle drugs from Central/South American and the islands to the US (and probably elsewhere) for at least 25 years. Most were not true submarines, but submersibles or low profile vessels (LPVs).

For example:

submarine.jpg
https://nypost.com/2018/12/06/inside-the-capture-of-a-drug-kingpins-cocaine-submarine/amp/
 
Last edited:

Hevach

Senior Member.
It's a long shot, but as Russia has used the bridge incident as a pretext for another massive bombardment of Ukrainian cities, we should at least consider the possibility that it was a Russian false flag operation.
Russia is always bombarding Ukrainian cities, and the pretext is always whatever Ukraine did last when the attack launches (even if it happened after the actual order was given). They don't need to create one because they could use Lyman or the offensive in Kherson or the latest war crime accusations.
 

Duke

Active Member
One point that isn't clear is whether it was also a suicide bombing. Russian sources say that 3 people were killed in the attack, but I have seen any details on their identity. It is natural to assume that they would have included the driver and anyone else in the truck. If they were aware of the intended explosion, that would make it a suicide bombing (unless they planned to jump out before the detonation.) I don't know of any previous examples of suicide bombings by Ukrainians. (Suicidal bravery in battle is a rather different thing.) I think the Christian churches would all regard it as a sin. I don't recall any suicide bombings on either side in the Northern Irish 'Troubles'.
There were what the Brits called "proxy bombings" in Northern Ireland. In these cases, individuals (often suspected collaborators) were coerced/forced by the IRA to drive car bombs into British military facilities and detonate them under threat of killing their families. I know at least one such Northen Ireland incident resulted in the death of the coerced driver when the explosives in the vehicle he was driving were detonated. I remember this particular incident because I was in the Irish Republic when it occurred. It was in late 1990.
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Senior Member
A British army explosives expert (ret.) suggests a clandestine maritime drone which has been witnessed near Crimea in use by Ukraine. More in the linked article.

Article:
"I've seen plenty of large vehicle-borne IEDs [improvised explosive devices] in my time," a former British army explosives expert told me. "This does not look like one."

A more plausible explanation, he said, is a massive explosion below the bridge - probably delivered using some kind of clandestine maritime drone.

"Bridges are generally designed to resist downwards loads on the deck and a certain amount of side loading from the wind," he said. "They are not generally engineered to resist upward loads. I think this fact was exploited in the Ukrainian attack."

Some observers have noted that in one of the other security camera videos, something that looks like the bow wave of a small boat appears next to one of the bridge supports, a split second before the explosion.
 

obiwanbenobi

Active Member
I really doubt it was from underneath because there would have been chunks blown all outwards and upwards and they'd be littering the roadway around the area. i haven't seen much of that at all in any videos that show the explosion or the short time afterwards when there were the emergency services showing up on the scene.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Accident (ie.: to a truck carrying fertilizers): not impossible but, incredibly low chances, strains credulity (mine at least)
it does happen, rarely
Article:
On the morning of August 30, 1972, three young men set off from Stonecroft Station on an everyday job, their truck laden with a delivery of ammonium nitrate. They had barely reached the public road when the truck combusted with such force that it left a two-meter deep, five-meter wide, and 20-meter long crater in the road. What exactly caused this explosion, no one can say. The damage rendered the truck almost beyond recognition. The remains have been found as far as two kilometers away.

But two points speak against it:
a) if that was a truck with a dangerous load, some people would've known about it and spoken up by now.
b) low chance for it to happen × low chance for it to happen on the most strategic bridge × low chance for a fuel train to be passing exactly then. (Russia was lucky that the train tracks were elevated in that place, if the blast had caught the train at road height it could've been much worse.) The chance for this to happen accidentally is just too low.
 

Duke

Active Member
I really doubt it was from underneath because there would have been chunks blown all outwards and upwards and they'd be littering the roadway around the area. i haven't seen much of that at all in any videos that show the explosion or the short time afterwards when there were the emergency services showing up on the scene.
You might be right, but keep in mind different types of explosives yield different results in the same application. Something like C-4 or Semtex could do the damage as described/highlighted above, linear shape charges (LSC) would not. To have used LSC in this situation, however, would have required it to have been affixed directly to whatever part of bridge or its supports to be severed to be effective. That would mean combat engineers, informally called "sappers," or at least someone trained in the field. It could not have been employed effectively piled in a truck on the bridge or a boat under the bridge and then detonated.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
You might be right, but keep in mind different types of explosives yield different results in the same application. Something like C-4 or Semtex could do the damage as described/highlighted above, linear shape charges (LSC) would not. To have used LSC in this situation, however, would have required it to have been affixed directly to whatever part of bridge or its supports to be severed to be effective. That would mean combat engineers, informally called "sappers," or at least someone trained in the field. It could not have been employed effectively piled in a truck on the bridge or a boat under the bridge and then detonated.

C4's right out, surely - that was incendiary, spitting molten/fiery globs everywhere? I don't want to call it thermite, but, in the dark, I could confuse it for same. But I agree, any plot that requires engineers to take time and effort to rig something requires *everyone* to be in on it, which decreases its believability for me. Still too many variables and unknowns for me to do anything but shrug, presently. Remembering that pretty much every Russian vehicle has a dashcam, there should be plenty more video evidence that we've not yet seen.
 

Duke

Active Member
C4's right out, surely - that was incendiary, spitting molten/fiery globs everywhere? I don't want to call it thermite, but, in the dark, I could confuse it for same. But I agree, any plot that requires engineers to take time and effort to rig something requires *everyone* to be in on it, which decreases its believability for me. Still too many variables and unknowns for me to do anything but shrug, presently. Remembering that pretty much every Russian vehicle has a dashcam, there should be plenty more video evidence that we've not yet seen.
I wasn't saying this was C-4, I was commenting on what it might have taken to see the type damage @obiwanbenobi said he didn't see.

I agree with you about the incendiary nature of the blast. My first thought when I saw the videos was it reminded me of the gasoline fueled explosions you see for max visual effect in the movies. I'm also having trouble deciding when/if I see secondary explosions. I thought I did initially, but after seeing different views, now I'm not sure.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Thermite burns, it doesn't explode when used normally. Im sure you could cause a flammable dust explosion with it dispersed in the air with a flammable gas or it's components but it would dissipate most of its energy in the air and not in damage. If you look at the aftermath of iron dust explosions in factories, there's not a lot of damage to immovable metal and concrete structures.
 

captancourgette

Active Member
This video ~1:23 shows something going on under the bridge just before explosion. Though I suppose that could be normal wave wash, You need to see clearer video
To me it looks more likely to have come from below and thats what they (military analysts and engineers) tend to think in the above video.

If it was the truck, its either
1. an accident
2. suicide attack (and the guy drove in wrong lane, they would of been stressed so understandable. Wrong lane cause the explosion would of caused more damage in the middle lane)
3. They had no idea there was a bomb
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Another pipeline leak. This time a Polish PERN pipeline carrying oil from Russia.

Article:
Polish pipeline operator PERN detected a leak on Thursday evening on one line of the Druzhba pipeline, which carries oil from Russia, it said on Wednesday.


Taken together with the Nord Stream sabotage, the leak adds further credence to the claim Russia is signalling its capability to harm Europe's energy infrastructure if it keeps arming Ukraine. It's also consistent with Russia's hybrid warfare doctrine. Expect to see more.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Another pipeline leak. This time a Polish PERN pipeline carrying oil from Russia.

Article: Polish pipeline operator PERN detected a leak on Thursday evening on one line of the Druzhba pipeline, which carries oil from Russia, it said on Wednesday. Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/polish-pipeline-operator-pern-says-leak-detected-druzba-oil-pipeline-2022-10-12/

Taken together with the Nord Stream sabotage, the leak adds further credence to the claim Russia is signalling its capability to harm Europe's energy infrastructure if it keeps arming Ukraine. It's also consistent with Russia's hybrid warfare doctrine. Expect to see more.
The headline reads:

Druzhba Russian oil pipeline leak looks like an accident, Poland says


Content from External Source
"Here we can talk about accidental damage," Poland's top official in charge of energy infrastructure Mateusz Berger told Reuters by telephone. He said there were no grounds to believe the leak was caused by sabotage.
Content from External Source
It appears the Reuters article has undergone some revision since @LilWabbit quoted it.
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Senior Member
The headline reads:

Druzhba Russian oil pipeline leak looks like an accident, Poland says


Content from External Source
"Here we can talk about accidental damage," Poland's top official in charge of energy infrastructure Mateusz Berger told Reuters by telephone. He said there were no grounds to believe the leak was caused by sabotage.
Content from External Source
It appears the Reuters article has undergone some revision since @LilWabbit quoted it.

Thanks for the update. However, PERN says the cause of the leak is still unknown.

Article:
The cause of the leak is not yet known, PERN said.


While it's possible it's accidental, the swiftness with which Mateusz Berger would make a statement to that effect whilst the cause of the leak remains unknown is in itself good reason not be naive about his statement.

It's in the interest of Poland and the NATO as a whole to play down a possible Russian role in order to avoid escalation into a broader conflict involving NATO. Unlike Nord Stream which occurred outside NATO territory, if it could be demonstrated that the Polish leak, or the German train network sabotage a few days back, have been orchestrated by Russia, then we're getting dangerously close to triggering Article 5 of NATO. Preserving Russia's plausible deniability would, therefore, be both in Russia's and NATO's interest at this point.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
While it's possible it's accidental, the swiftness with which Mateusz Berger would make a statement to that effect whilst the cause of the leak remains unknown is in itself good reason not be naive about his statement.
You're spinning the facts to suit your narrative. "Cause unknown" means cause unknown, yet you swiftly jump to assume sabotage.

It's a subterranean leak, any act of sabotage is bound to have left obvious clues.
That also means that the cause of an accidental leak wouldn't be discovered until the pipeline is dug up.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
You're spinning the facts to suit your narrative. "Cause unknown" means cause unknown, yet you swiftly jump to assume sabotage.

It's a subterranean leak, any act of sabotage is bound to have left obvious clues.
That also means that the cause of an accidental leak wouldn't be discovered until the pipeline is dug up.
Agreed. This type of logic leap has led to unproductive thread drift many times in the past. Please everyone, use evidence. It's in the Posting Guidelines.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
You're spinning the facts to suit your narrative.

What facts do you think I've spun @Mendel? Pinpoint them and I'll address them.

To not see in the timing of the alleged 'accident' anything curious appears to me as a lack of appreciation of a universe of facts as regards the geopolitical context and regional history. In addition to naivetë in accepting the narrative of 'an accident'. Disclaimer: Me stating all this does not preclude the possibility it actually is an accident.

"Cause unknown" means cause unknown, yet you swiftly jump to assume sabotage.

Unlike Berger who swiftly jumped to claim "accident", I haven't assumed a thing. I have pointed out that this new leak adds credence to Russia's geopolitical signalling claim which, in turn, regards plausible deniability as a given. It's supposed to look like an accident. "Adds credence" is not logically equivalent to "assuming". A historical pattern of activities by a repeat offender adds credence to the claim that a new event seemingly following the same pattern points to the same offender. It's a sensible claim. But it's still unproven.

It's a subterranean leak, any act of sabotage is bound to have left obvious clues.

I think that's a simplistic claim which you do not have the credentials to make authoritatively. Cite an expert. And even if it has left obvious clues, there's reason to deny any existence of such clues on the part of a NATO government as well as Russia at this sensitive and inflammatory juncture of the conflict.

That also means that the cause of an accidental leak wouldn't be discovered until the pipeline is dug up.

That's another simplification which you do not have the credentials to make authoritatively. Cite an expert.

@Landru, while I agree with the guideline on most issues, there's a caveat which I'd like you to consider here.

It gets tricky to converse even at a basic level of exploring relevant hypotheses if we premise it on direct evidence while discussing operations where plausible deniability (i.e. calculated attempts at producing 'no direct evidence') is the prime objective.

But if that's your ruling, I will abide by it.
 
Last edited:
Top