Stupid Shit in Kyiv

Hi Elvis, You have to subscribe to Hersh's substack to read the article, which I'm too lazy to do. He apparently based the story on a single source. The WSJ article is based on conversations with at least four "senior Ukrainian defense and security officials who either participated in or had direct knowledge of the plot," in addition to Germans and Dutch who investigated the case. Germany has DNA samples, fingerprints, and email, mobile and satellite communications linking the Ukrainians to the sabotage. It also has issued a warrant for the arrest of one of the Ukrainians, and several Ukrainians slipped out of foreign countries and returned to Ukraine to avoid prosecution or investigation.

I'd be very surprised if the WSJ article isn't substantially correct.

I agree that Zelensky may have been involved. I however also believe the USA Did indeed ask Ukraine to pull the plug on the operation. The sabotage was contrary to the best interests of the USA's ally, Germany and a number of other European countries. Prior to the attack, European natural gas prices were over $50/ MMBTU. Compare to around $2. 30/ MMBTU in the USA right now. Please recall the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which was operational, was sabotaged, in addition to the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline. I don't think it made sense from the western European perspective to knock out the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. The loss of the pipeline was a blow to the continent's energy security, and along with the loss of additional supplies from Russia resulted in hardship and probably deaths. People were bankrupted by their electric bills in 2022.

I'm reading "Recreational dives typically reach about 130 feet, and technical dives often reach as deep as 260 feet." The group included four experienced deep-sea divers. The WSJ notes, "Ukraine has a long history of training top civilian and military divers. A naval base on the Crimean Peninsula in the past trained deep-sea divers for the purposes of sabotage and demining. It also kept combat dolphins trained to attack enemy divers and blow up ships, according to two senior Ukrainian officers." The Ukrainians wouldn't have been drunk when conducting the operation, and if they were partying in port, it was probably to provide cover that they were vacationers on holiday. Finally, although this was a shoestring operation, the saboteurs had the support of the Ukrainian military, including the commander in chief. The skipper and I believe other participants were Ukrainian military.

We both agree, it definitely wasn't Russia that did this. That was fiction spread by Ukraine and the neoconservatives. And Ukraine knew better.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2937889]

We both agree, it definitely wasn't Russia that did this. That was fiction spread by Ukraine and the neoconservatives[/QUOTE]Don't forget Russia is bombing the ZNPP as well LOL. So basically the Russians are bombing themselves. This fiction is hilarious. But what's funnier is that there are people dumb enough to believe it.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2937889]Hi Elvis, You have to subscribe to Hersh's substack to read the article, which I'm too lazy to do. He apparently based the story on a single source.[/QUOTE]Well, the flight plan was not a single source. The text sent by the English PM saying "it is done" was probably a Russian hack much like the infamous "fuck the EU" line was.

As for the Germans, they were the first ones who claimed the Russians did it. The USA exported a lot of natural gas so it benefitted us. Norway actually exports natural gas so they would have benefitted from the attack as well. There are two different groups in Germany: business which was likely furious at the bombing and the Germans in NATO who were happy about it. The countries that participated in the Sy Hersh story I do not believe were getting Russian natural gas. The other countries mentioned were England and the Netherlands.

Of course, patsies had to be cooked up. Yeah, there would be evidence, but I am not so sure how good it is.

We cannot know for sure, but I think that a lot of the pilots of "Ukrainian" unmanned drones are from NATO / the USA. The hardest parts of the operation were not getting to 250 feet but locating the pipeline, selecting the right spot to attack, and remotely detonating the bombs. NATO / the USA could have done the whole operation and had the Ukrainians involved as patsies.

The innocence of the Biden administration, Zelensky, and CIA is hard to stomach as is the yacht flying the Ukrainian flag. We agree the Russians did not do it, but I trust that Biden meant it when he said he was going to knock out that pipeline.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2937952] We agree the Russians did not do it, but I trust that Biden meant it when he said he was going to knock out that pipeline.[/QUOTE]OK Elvis, The spot price in Europe of natural gas is $50/ MMBTU. Gazprom is selling gas under contract through Nord Stream 1 pipeline at, say, $7. 00/ MMBTU, and Europe is building storage for the cold winter ahead. The price of imported coal is $400 a ton, up from $100 a year earlier. Europe is smack dab in the middle of its biggest energy crisis in history. So is Biden a big enough dumb ass to take out the Nord Stream pipelines? You bet he is. That doesn't mean the USA actually did it though.

Respectfully, your hypothesis that Biden's government would do it because it was in the best interest of the USA natural gas industry is wrong. He and his Progressive minders would do it because they're dumb asses. If they had their way, they'd shut down the domestic industry, throwing hundreds of thousands out of jobs, all in the quest to reduce carbon emissions. Which ironically would actually increase carbon emissions as coal replaced natural gas, but that's off topic. The only thing that has stopped them was domestic political considerations. If people in purple states and Congressional districts have to pay California prices for electricity, Democrats are toast come election time. Still, the Biden Administration has put a stop to issuance of permits for new LNG export facilities, figuring I guess that won't affect their party's electoral prospects for the next ten years or so.

Here's another example. When the war broke out, Europe and the USA impounded Russian sovereign assets, being dollars and Euros and bonds and the like, owned by the Russian government and held with western financial institutions. About $6 billion is held in the USA, and around $250 billion in Europe. With almost unanimous support from Democrats, and the votes of a lot of Republicans, Biden pushed through legislation that gives him the power to steal the $6 billion in impounded assets, sell them, and send the money to Ukraine. Now, assets held by USA Companies and institutions and individuals in Russia are far higher than Russian assets held in the USA. I imagine there are over $100 billion in Russian assets held by USA interests. So what does Russia do? It passes a law that if Biden actually steals Russian assets, then the Russian state, companies and individuals can go after assets held by Americans in Russia. And, again, the assets held by the Americans are much larger. Not only that, but if the Europeans and Americans actually liquidate Russian sovereign assets, it's going to make it harder to negotiate a peace agreement. Will that stop Biden from expropriating Russian assets? Hell no, because he's a dumb ass.

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You've pointed out circumstantial evidence against the USA and Norway. IMO the direct evidence unearthed by the WSJ reporters outweighs that, and I don't believe the USA played a part in the sabotage of the pipeline. The Ukrainians beat Biden to it. I would hope that if Biden did try to blow up the pipelines, cooler heads in the USA Defense and State Departments would have prevailed, but who knows.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2938065]... He and his Progressive minders would do it because they're dumb asses...Will that stop Biden from expropriating Russian assets? Hell no, because he's a dumb ass...[/QUOTE]Then, who do you regard as a clever strategist and as being intelligent?

[QUOTE=JohnClayton;2938076]Then, who do you regard as a clever strategist and as being intelligent?[/QUOTE]Blood Red.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2938090]Blood Red.[/QUOTE]Excellent!

[QUOTE=Questner;2937872]Doubling down against a house in a casino game to recoup losses is a proven strategy to get broke.[/QUOTE]Couldn't agree more, but Russia is not the house here, LOL.

Russia is a bum who went into the casino, put every penny she had on red, and lost.

The end is coming.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2937668]It is nothing but a PR stunt, the Kursk incursion.[/QUOTE]How nice! Why can't Russians occupiers come up with stunts like this, I wonder. Just don't tell me that Russians don't like PR because they live for it.

Why have the Russians taken less territory in the last three months than Ukrainians in one week?

Why did Ukrainian civilians go against the invaders with everything they got: from axes to Molotov cocktails to tractors, while Russian civilians either flee or yell "Glory to Ukraine"?

Any way you cut it, this whole thing has been a disaster for Putin! He totally miscalculated and has gotten himself into far more than he ever bargained for:

[URL]https://www.businessinsider.com/maps-show-russian-territory-ukraine-said-captured-kursk-advances-2024-8[/URL]

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2938150]

Why have the Russians taken less territory in the last three months than Ukrainians in one week?[/QUOTE]Hi Xpartan,

Seeing that you have a third-grade education, I will answer this silly question.

The territory that Ukraine has walked into, occupied, whatever you want to call it, was very lightly guarded by inexperienced border patrol and not by proper battle hardened soldiers. There were also no fortifications really. The area that Ukraine has occupied or claims to occupy has no strategic significance. Now the reason why Russia has taken less territory is because the Russians are fighting in the Donbas to capture the most heavily fortified places where the fighting is ongoing. Starting from Avdivka and to its west, these areas are the lynch pin of the Bandera defenses to the remaining parts of the Donetsk that are still under Ukrainian control (Kramatorks, Sloviansk, Chasiv Yar). Remember how long it took the Russians to capture Bakhmut, another heavily fortified city which the actor Zelensky used to call Fortress Bakhmut. These cities have been heavily fortified since 2014.

Your lesson for today.

King regards,

BR.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2938297]...Now the reason why Russia has taken less territory is because the Russians are fighting in the Donbas ..[/QUOTE]Whatever the strategic objective of the Ukrainian counter offensive actually is, it has already acheived a great success -- discombobulating Russian propaganda. Oh, how wonderful it is to see the Kremlin shills squirm, sweat, obfuscate, twist, tie themselves into knots, back track and lie.

[QUOTE=JohnClayton;2938392]Whatever the strategic objective of the Ukrainian counter offensive actually is, it has already acheived a great success -- discombobulating Russian propaganda. Oh, how wonderful it is to see the Kremlin shills squirm, sweat, obfuscate, twist, tie themselves into knots, back track and lie.[/QUOTE]The Ukrainian incursion into Kursk will have no impact on the final outcome of this war, which will be a Russian victory.

[QUOTE=TheCane;2938235]Any way you cut it, this whole thing has been a disaster for Putin! He totally miscalculated and has gotten himself into far more than he ever bargained for:

[URL]https://www.businessinsider.com/maps-show-russian-territory-ukraine-said-captured-kursk-advances-2024-8[/URL][/QUOTE]Walking into a territory is one thing. Holding it, sustaining it is a whole different ballgame.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2938297]Hi Xpartan,

Seeing that you have a third-grade education, I will answer this silly question.

The territory that Ukraine has walked into, occupied, whatever you want to call it, was very lightly guarded by inexperienced border patrol and not by proper battle hardened soldiers. There were also no fortifications really. The area that Ukraine has occupied or claims to occupy has no strategic significance. Now the reason why Russia has taken less territory is because the Russians are fighting in the Donbas to capture the most heavily fortified places where the fighting is ongoing. Starting from Avdivka and to its west, these areas are the lynch pin of the Bandera defenses to the remaining parts of the Donetsk that are still under Ukrainian control (Kramatorks, Sloviansk, Chasiv Yar). Remember how long it took the Russians to capture Bakhmut, another heavily fortified city which the actor Zelensky used to call Fortress Bakhmut. These cities have been heavily fortified since 2014.

Your lesson for today.

King regards,

BR.[/QUOTE]So, the Ukrainians did build the fortifications in anticipation of Russia's attack, and you didn't?

In other words, Russia fucked up? Thank you for confirming this, since there is no other way to interpret your reply.

You're waging a full-blown war on a neighboring country for almost three years. All your Kyiv in 3 days (2 days / 1 week /2 weeks) phantasies are long gone.

You throw at Ukrainians all you've got leaving your own borders vulnerable.

And yet, instead of building an impenetrable line of defense, you allowed several thousands Ukrainian troops walk in, kill hundreds of your soldiers, take prisoners another 2,000, and capture over 440 square miles of territory.

And it's not like you have no idea how to build defenses. The Surovikhin line held up quite nicely last year.

And it's not like you didn't see the danger. Kursk received 15 billion rubles to build the fortifications. Of course, your rubles are just a pale shadow of what it used to be, but hey, 15 billions is still a nice chunk.

What happened to this money, pray tell?

So, once again thank you for confirming what I already knew, but I don't think your supervisors will be happy with your lesson plans.

And BTW, you've failed to explain why Russian civilians have no desire to fight against Ukrainian liberators. Could you insert this topic in your curriculum?