quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
I haven’t heard this yet, but “who benefits” from the gas explosion?

All in in China behind this, it just makes sense.

Lets take that thought from the reverse....did China sail a ship into the Baltic and 'linger' for awhile while divers/remotes did their work? The Baltic is heavily monitored, haven't seen anything come up on a 'mystery ship'

Quite easy, lots of Chinese flagged container/bulk traffic to the various Baltic ports. Rather simple for them to insert a team onto of those, no?

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Is this something SEALS are equipped to do? I can see a covert team of ex-SEALS that is off the mil books dragging a few Ukrainians along to help Ukraine do it.

quote:

uropean security officials on Monday and Tuesday observed Russian Navy support ships in the vicinity of leaks in the Nord Stream pipelines likely caused by underwater explosions, according two Western intelligence officials and one other source familiar with the matter.

It’s unclear whether the ships had anything to do with those explosions, these sources and others said – but it’s one of the many factors that investigators will be looking into.

Russian submarines were also observed not far from those areas last week, one of the intelligence officials said.

Three US officials said that the US has no thorough explanation yet for what happened, days after the explosions appeared to cause three separate and simultaneous leaks in the two pipelines on Monday.

Russian ships routinely operate in the area, according to one Danish military official, who emphasized that the presence of the ships doesn’t necessarily indicate that Russia caused the damage.

“We see them every week,” this person said. “Russian activities in the Baltic Sea have increased in recent years. They’re quite often testing our awareness – both at sea and in the air.”

But the sightings still cast further suspicion on Russia, which has drawn the most attention from both European and US officials as the only actor in the region believed to have both the capability and motivation to deliberately damage the pipelines.

US officials declined to comment on the intelligence about the ships on Wednesday.

....

quote:

Sabotage in the Baltic

Attacks Expose Vulnerability of European Infrastructure

The search for the perpetrators has begun following Monday's sabotage attack on the Nord Stream pipelines. Which countries could have been behind it, and how secure is Europe's critical infrastructure at the bottom of the sea?

By Maik Baumgärtner, Markus Becker, Ullrich Fichtner, Matthias Gebauer, Claus Hecking, Martin Knobbe, Marina Kormbaki, Marcel Rosenbach, Fidelius Schmid, Anna-Sophie Schneider und Gerald Traufetter

30.09.2022, 18.37 Uhr

The route of the gas pipelines through the Baltic Sea could have been copied out of a cruise catalogue. From Ust-Luga near St. Petersburg, the route leads through the Gulf of Finland, then south past the Estonian island of Hiiumaa, past Gotland in Sweden, past Bornholm through Danish waters before approaching the German coast and ending in Lubmin in the eastern German state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. It's a route where you wouldn't typically expect anything out of the ordinary to happen, a region intended for comfortable vacations. A place where all was well.

Take the Nord Stream 1 natural gas pipeline, for example, the completion of which wasn't permitted until 2009, when officials finally reached an agreement on contractually stipulated respect for cod spawning periods. The "Core Issues Paper on Fish and Fisheries," which teemed with mentions of sprat, herring and ruffe, was just a part of the environmental impact assessment – and it was 50 pages long on its own. Such papers tell the story of a different, better yesterday, of orderly procedures, of peaceful rule of law, transparent processes and binding treaties. On Monday, however, a little more of that world disappeared.

Contracts don't seem to apply any longer in the Baltic Sea. Russia’s war in Ukraine has, it seems, reached Europe's great inland sea and turned its floor into an offshore war zone. On that day, officials reported shocks from the underwater worlds off Denmark and Sweden, in the Bornholm Basin, baffling damage and large-scale destruction.

Initially, reports spoke of three leaks in the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines, with a fourth added later. It then emerged that the first explosion had taken place in a Russian-built section of the pipeline. The affected pipelines are not currently being used to transport gas, but they were still filled with hundreds of millions of cubic meters of natural gas.

The aerial shots of circles of roiling seawater, a vast whirlpool, immediately became the focus of news reports around the world. But what is the story behind those images? Has Russia really opened up a new front? Did the United States, as immediately discussed by many voices on Twitter and other social media platforms, finally drive a stake in the heart of a pipeline project that it has always strongly opposed? Are Ukrainian forces involved? Is it conceivable that "rogue units" were at work, out-of-control intelligence agencies that wanted to write history on their own? Or was it, as is often reflexively whispered in conspiracy theorist circles when it comes to processing unexpected and perplexing developments, Israeli's Mossad?

[...]

The seabed has been a theater of operations for militaries for decades. The neural pathways of global trade and the pipelines and cables for energy and communications run along the bottom of the sea. The technical term is critical infrastructure. And even though it is extremely difficult to reach, it is also extremely vulnerable and irreplaceable.

Known in military circles as "seabed warfare," several countries have the operational assets and specialized forces for this hostile underwater world, but they are unevenly distributed. Within the EU, Ireland, Portugal and France are particularly active in this realm, according to an analysis commissioned by the European Parliament in June. The primary concern of the analysis was to address the vulnerability of European submarine cables, which the authors concluded is excessively high.

In February, then-French Defense Minister Florence Parly unveiled a comprehensive new seabed-warfare strategy for the French navy. In addition to protecting French resources, it explicitly addresses underwater transport routes for electricity, oil, gas and data. "France wants to defend its sovereignty, its resources and its infrastructure even in the depths of the ocean," Parly said. The minister referred to similar projects by the Chinese and the British. To strengthen its own capabilities down to a depth of 6,000 meters, the French navy plans to invest primarily in autonomous underwater drones and remote-controlled mini submarines.

Officially, it's always about defense capabilities. A leaked 2008 U.S. Department of Homeland Security document that identified critical infrastructure targets at particular risk around the world listed pipelines such as the Druzhba – the two Nord Stream pipelines didn't yet exist at the time – in addition to key submarine cables and their landing points that they deemed to be worthy of protection.

But those countries with the ability to monitor the seabed and defend assets there are, of course, also capable of attacking the undersea assets of others or committing sabotage. The June EU analysis identified "maritime improvised explosive devices" (MIEs) and mines as possible weapons that could cause massive damage underwater. The report provides detailed consideration to only two possible opponents: Russia and China.

NATO says it has been observing increased Russian submarine activity near key cable routes since as early as 2015. Moscow is evidently showing increased interest in the underwater infrastructure of NATO member states, a senior alliance military official is quoted as saying.

On the day of the explosions in the Baltic Sea, German Navy Inspector Jan Christian Kaack pointed to the strategic importance of underwater warfare and the role played in it by the Kremlin in an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt. "Russia has built up significant capacity underwater," he said. "There is quite a bit of critical infrastructure like pipelines or submarine cables for IT on the floor of the Baltic Sea, but also the Atlantic."

German intelligence officials with the BND also believe that Russia's military has the know-how and equipment to operate on the seabed. Western intelligence agencies, for example, know of underwater robots in Russia's inventory that have the capability of traveling from Russia along the pipeline to potential attack sites to plant explosive charges. They are currently trying to determine where these robots were last located. Government sources say that the BND will also now investigate all movements in the Baltic Sea going back to Jan. 1, 2022.

The Germans were warned in summer by the CIA about a possible attack scenario on the Nord Stream pipelines. U.S. intelligence claimed to have intercepted Russian communications in which concerns were expressed about possible Ukrainian attacks on Western infrastructure. The Ukrainians allegedly tried to rent a boat in Sweden for this purpose. The CIA did not consider the scenario of a Ukrainian attack to be very credible, but the mere fact that the possibility of an attack on Western infrastructure was mentioned by the Russian side prompted the Americans to warn the Germans about the scenario.

There were other reasons to suggest Russian responsibility for the attack, they said at a closed-door meeting this week in which intelligence officials briefed the chancellor and other officials. They said the action was intended to throw the gas market into chaos and drive up the price of gas. Perhaps Russia also wanted to show the world that it was capable and determined to carry out such an attack – a warning shot, in other words.

[...]

One rather convoluted theory that nevertheless provides a convincing Russian motive goes as follows: The German BND foreign intelligence agency believes that the destruction of the pipeline could potentially have been undertaken to evade possible lawsuits for damages incurred by the suspension of gas deliveries. In the past, whenever Russia has throttled gas deliveries or used its energy supplies as a political tool, those responsible have always sought to present technical, economic or otherwise unassailable constraints as arguments to ward off potential legal action.

According to this logic, Moscow's motive for destroying its own pipelines stems from the idea that natural gas deliveries aren't possible if the pipelines are destroyed. And if deliveries aren't possible, then Russia cannot fulfil its contractual obligations – and Moscow would not be legally liable. In other words, a ruined pipeline represents force majeure – it's beyond Russia's control. A strange argument, perhaps, but certainly plausible.

Russian energy expert Mikhail Krutikhin, a Russian energy expert who believes that Russia is behind the explosions, believes that the avoidance of contractual penalties is more than just plausible. "Gazprom was apparently ordered long ago to cut deliveries to Europe but to avoid contractual penalties. And for that, one must prove force majeure," Krutikhin told DER SPIEGEL.

Krutikhin says that Gazprom has the technology to damage the pipelines using so-called "piglets," the small robots that are able to move through the pipeline for maintenance or inspection purposes. "Theoretically, it is possible to attach an explosive charge to them."

The analyst is certain that sabotage is in the Gazprom toolbox. The company, he says, tried one month ago to destroy the Ukrainian pipelines. "They upped the pressure without warning the Ukrainians. That could have produced serious damage on the Ukrainian side if they hadn't responded in time." This behavior, he says, is a typical Gazprom tactic which was used as early as 2010 in Turkmenistan.

And yet, intelligence agencies also believe there are strong arguments against Russian involvement. Top officials said this week that irreparably damaging its own pipeline is not in Russia's interest. It is especially nonsensical if Moscow wants to reserve the option of resuming natural gas deliveries to Europe at some point in the future – and to continue using energy as a political lever. Myriad questions remain unanswered.

[...]

The vulnerability of critical infrastructure is something that NATO has long been concerned about. In June 2021, national leaders from the alliance issued a statement called the "Strengthened Resilience Commitment," which today reads like a dark premonition of an energy war with Russia. "We will step up efforts to secure and diversify our supply chains, as well as to ensure the resilience of our critical infrastructure," the statement reads. "We will bolster our efforts to meet challenges to our energy security."

At its June summit this year in Madrid, NATO strengthened its commitment to resilience, and it not only became part of the strategic concept that determines the alliance's future alignment. The summit declaration also mentions "national-developed goals and implementation plans" for the strengthening of infrastructure. It's just that not much has apparently happened since then.

Europe, in particular, is lagging when it comes to the protection of undersea pipelines and cables, because countries have competing views on how important it is. In France, it is seen as a "key issue" in military planning, but in Denmark, it is primarily in the hands of private companies, as an EU analysis published in June makes clear. The report notes that Europe can deal with minor damages but warns that "a number of very vulnerable sites exist." It also says that several countries have the capability and potentially the intent to attack the EU data network. While cables and pipelines are frequently mentioned in EU strategies, the analysis notes, "hardly any actions and programs address the issue directly."

The report's authors believe the risk of a large-scale attack on undersea cables to be low, "considering it could equate to an act of war." Since Monday of this week, however, it seems likely that such views will appear in a different light – and defining what, precisely, constitutes an act of war and identifying appropriate responses is more urgent that ever.

[...]

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
That was a very interesting analysis and something I have not been able to see in the US press. Thank you for posting.

quote:

Originally posted by Tejas421:
I have some experience with subsea demolition. It is easy to take out a pipeline at this depth. You can haul a small submersible out there via a surface vessel (a converted fishing trawler will do) or a sub. The sub takes the divers to the pipeline, the divers exit and place the explosives. Reverse the process and leave the area. Boom.

quote:

Originally posted by Tejas421:
I have some experience with subsea demolition. It is easy to take out a pipeline at this depth. You can haul a small submersible out there via a surface vessel (a converted fishing trawler will do) or a sub. The submersible takes the divers to the pipeline, the divers exit and place the explosives. Reverse the process and leave the area. Boom.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
“Russia has been forced to withdraw troops from a key Ukrainian city this afternoon as Ukraine's eastern counteroffensive recaptures more territory.

Ukrainian forces encircled the strategic eastern city of Lyman on Saturday in a counteroffensive that has humiliated the Kremlin, while Russian bombardments intensified after Moscow illegally annexed a swath of Ukrainian territory in a sharp escalation of the war.

Russia's own Tass and RIA news agencies announced that troops have fled Lyman, citing the Russian defense ministry.

It comes after the Russian leader was pictured grinning and laughing yesterday after he annexed four Ukrainian reasons following what the west has blasted as sham referendums. …”

Full DailyMail article:
https://mol.im/a/11269945

quote:

Maybe Ukraine can maul the Russians the way the Finns did in the Winter War.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
What if Russia starts sending their best troops? Why wouldn't they do that after sending their worst troops, as they apparently currently are, to soften things up?

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
At any rate, there may soon be investigations on scene, as Nord Stream 2 has already stopped outgassing now, earlier than anticipated.