(10-04-2022 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  This is pretty interesting. This dude has been very reliable in the past and seems to have pretty decent sources. Its a short video, but you can jump to about the 3 minute mark for the key point of interest. For those who dont want to watch---the key detail is we apparently know who did it and how they did it. I suspect (pure speculation on my part)---if we know WHO did it this early in the investigation then---its probably because of something simple like the pipeline was destroyed from inside---which immediately limits the suspects to one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUNFTjbjI1E

Yeah since we did it that makes it pretty easy to know who and how.

(10-01-2022 11:11 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Here is an opinion piece by a former DIA intelligence officer.

Opinion immediately discarded.

Bloomberg seemed taken aback by his speculation.


Monkeyworx explains what he believes happened.

https://www.monkeywerxus.com/blog/the-no...e-sabotage

From Jim Kunstler's cluster**** Nation blog.

Quote:Message found in fortune cookie from Panda Take-out reminds us: “The d ildo of consequence is seldom lubricated.” Please apply this ancient wisdom to “Joe Biden’s” sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 natgas pipelines. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spun the deed as a “tremendous opportunity” to reduce fuel use in Euroland, and shift its prior dependence on affordable Russian energy to ruinously-priced American liquid natural gas (LNG) — a supposed boon to US producers. Lucky us and them!

Let’s get a few technical matters straight about natgas. Gas pipelines allow for cheap gas, without costly intervening shipping procedures. Flows are continuous from producer to customer. LNG requires compression of the gas at super-cold temperatures and costly-to-build LNG tanker ships to keep that gas cold and compressed in transit. Each tanker can carry only so-much gas and the flow is not continuous. At each end of the energy-losing journey there is a costly LNG terminal to load and unload the gas. Bottom line: Euroland customers can’t afford US LNG, though for now they’ll be getting it good and hard to struggle through the first winter of a permanent depression that will feel more like the forecourt of a new dark age. Also bear in mind that American shale gas is a finite resource; that we need plenty of it ourselves; and that the earliest-developed US shale gas fields are crapping out one-by-one.

Secretary Blinken pretends that Europe’s deadly predicament will segue crisply into a new “green renewable” disposition of things as well as a stable-and-balanced new cold war between US-led NATO and Russia, like the 1950s. Secretary Blinken is, of course, completely insane. Germany’s industry will now collapse, the Euro currency will collapse with it, and the exchange rate with the dollars Euroland needs to buy in order to purchase US LNG will bankrupt them further. It will also probably blow up the European Union, which is chiefly a trade scaffold. With industrial production sinking, trade sinks too, and the flimsy cooperative arrangements between nations turn into a desperate competition as each nation of Euroland struggles to stay alive.

Quote:What no government official can acknowledge — even among the Euroland victim nations of this awesome stupidity — is that the US demolition of the Nord Streams was an act-of-war against our own allies. By the way, the blogger who styles himself as “Monkey Werx,” notable for tracking the world-wide military flight movements, presents a comprehensive play-by-play of just exactly how the mission was accomplished. I’ll summarize but you can read his full report (click here) for yourself.

MW reports that overnight on the 26th of September, a Navy P8 Poseidon submarine-hunter jet flew out of the US to the Baltic. It did not land in the UK to refuel — thus avoiding any tracking complications — but rather rendezvoused over Grudziadz, Poland, with a US mid-air refueling plane, which it hooked up with for more than an hour. The P8 was equipped with Mk54 air-launched torpedoes. After un-docking from the refueler, the P8 followed a route west along the Nord Stream pipelines, descended to bomb-run altitude, and dropped its weapons. Kaboom. Then, fully refueled, the P8 flew directly back to the USA. Days later, when confronted at the UN by Russia with a yes-or-no question as to US responsibility for the Nord Stream caper, the US representatives refused to answer one way or another. Cute.

So, the questions loom: How many more days before Germany and the rest of Euroland begin to apprehend how they have been hosed by America into an economic collapse scenario? (How many days before a team of competent professionals hunts down Klaus Schwab and his colleagues somewhere in Switzerland?) When will the Eurofolk turn on their idiot government leaders and flush them out of office? When will all (except for psychotic Poland) bail out of the USA’s Ukraine crusade? I will tell you: this will all begin pretty darn soon. And if so, that will be the end of the NATO alliance.

https://kunstler.com/cluster****-nation/...elopments/

(10-05-2022 11:14 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  From Jim Kunstler's cluster**** Nation blog.

Quote:Message found in fortune cookie from Panda Take-out reminds us: “The d ildo of consequence is seldom lubricated.” Please apply this ancient wisdom to “Joe Biden’s” sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 natgas pipelines. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spun the deed as a “tremendous opportunity” to reduce fuel use in Euroland, and shift its prior dependence on affordable Russian energy to ruinously-priced American liquid natural gas (LNG) — a supposed boon to US producers. Lucky us and them!

Let’s get a few technical matters straight about natgas. Gas pipelines allow for cheap gas, without costly intervening shipping procedures. Flows are continuous from producer to customer. LNG requires compression of the gas at super-cold temperatures and costly-to-build LNG tanker ships to keep that gas cold and compressed in transit. Each tanker can carry only so-much gas and the flow is not continuous. At each end of the energy-losing journey there is a costly LNG terminal to load and unload the gas. Bottom line: Euroland customers can’t afford US LNG, though for now they’ll be getting it good and hard to struggle through the first winter of a permanent depression that will feel more like the forecourt of a new dark age. Also bear in mind that American shale gas is a finite resource; that we need plenty of it ourselves; and that the earliest-developed US shale gas fields are crapping out one-by-one.

Secretary Blinken pretends that Europe’s deadly predicament will segue crisply into a new “green renewable” disposition of things as well as a stable-and-balanced new cold war between US-led NATO and Russia, like the 1950s. Secretary Blinken is, of course, completely insane. Germany’s industry will now collapse, the Euro currency will collapse with it, and the exchange rate with the dollars Euroland needs to buy in order to purchase US LNG will bankrupt them further. It will also probably blow up the European Union, which is chiefly a trade scaffold. With industrial production sinking, trade sinks too, and the flimsy cooperative arrangements between nations turn into a desperate competition as each nation of Euroland struggles to stay alive.

Quote:What no government official can acknowledge — even among the Euroland victim nations of this awesome stupidity — is that the US demolition of the Nord Streams was an act-of-war against our own allies. By the way, the blogger who styles himself as “Monkey Werx,” notable for tracking the world-wide military flight movements, presents a comprehensive play-by-play of just exactly how the mission was accomplished. I’ll summarize but you can read his full report (click here) for yourself.

MW reports that overnight on the 26th of September, a Navy P8 Poseidon submarine-hunter jet flew out of the US to the Baltic. It did not land in the UK to refuel — thus avoiding any tracking complications — but rather rendezvoused over Grudziadz, Poland, with a US mid-air refueling plane, which it hooked up with for more than an hour. The P8 was equipped with Mk54 air-launched torpedoes. After un-docking from the refueler, the P8 followed a route west along the Nord Stream pipelines, descended to bomb-run altitude, and dropped its weapons. Kaboom. Then, fully refueled, the P8 flew directly back to the USA. Days later, when confronted at the UN by Russia with a yes-or-no question as to US responsibility for the Nord Stream caper, the US representatives refused to answer one way or another. Cute.

So, the questions loom: How many more days before Germany and the rest of Euroland begin to apprehend how they have been hosed by America into an economic collapse scenario? (How many days before a team of competent professionals hunts down Klaus Schwab and his colleagues somewhere in Switzerland?) When will the Eurofolk turn on their idiot government leaders and flush them out of office? When will all (except for psychotic Poland) bail out of the USA’s Ukraine crusade? I will tell you: this will all begin pretty darn soon. And if so, that will be the end of the NATO alliance.

https://kunstler.com/cluster****-nation/...elopments/

lol----Though unintended---this article almost perfectly outlines why the US almost certainly did not take out the pipeline. Of course, any article based on a fortune cookie and somebody called "Monkey Werkus" is hard to take very seriously. That said---the article does show why the US destruction of the Nordstream pipelines would be an incredibly high risk folly with little real pay off for the US to offset all that risk. If the US were found responsible for the destruction----it risks everything from nuclear war to dissolution of NATO. Not much of a payoff considering that kind of risk....and for what? Stopping gas sales that were already stopped?

On the other hand, you have the Russians. Why would they do it? Might it have something to do with the same reason they have never officially cut off gas sales to Europe? Sure, supplies had been completely cut off prior to the attack on the pipeline---but the stoppage was was always officially due to "a pipeline problem". Why is it that Russia never was willing to officially just cut off sales and instead insisted it was just a "pipeline problem"?

The reality is you need to figure out who has a motive to take out the ability to transport that gas to Europe but doesnt want to be officially responsible for turning off the gas. Well---thats odd---because that exactly matches the current Russian position.....how fortunate for the Russians that the pipeline has conveniently been struck by sabotage.

(10-06-2022 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2022 11:14 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  From Jim Kunstler's cluster**** Nation blog.

Quote:Message found in fortune cookie from Panda Take-out reminds us: “The d ildo of consequence is seldom lubricated.” Please apply this ancient wisdom to “Joe Biden’s” sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 natgas pipelines. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spun the deed as a “tremendous opportunity” to reduce fuel use in Euroland, and shift its prior dependence on affordable Russian energy to ruinously-priced American liquid natural gas (LNG) — a supposed boon to US producers. Lucky us and them!

Let’s get a few technical matters straight about natgas. Gas pipelines allow for cheap gas, without costly intervening shipping procedures. Flows are continuous from producer to customer. LNG requires compression of the gas at super-cold temperatures and costly-to-build LNG tanker ships to keep that gas cold and compressed in transit. Each tanker can carry only so-much gas and the flow is not continuous. At each end of the energy-losing journey there is a costly LNG terminal to load and unload the gas. Bottom line: Euroland customers can’t afford US LNG, though for now they’ll be getting it good and hard to struggle through the first winter of a permanent depression that will feel more like the forecourt of a new dark age. Also bear in mind that American shale gas is a finite resource; that we need plenty of it ourselves; and that the earliest-developed US shale gas fields are crapping out one-by-one.

Secretary Blinken pretends that Europe’s deadly predicament will segue crisply into a new “green renewable” disposition of things as well as a stable-and-balanced new cold war between US-led NATO and Russia, like the 1950s. Secretary Blinken is, of course, completely insane. Germany’s industry will now collapse, the Euro currency will collapse with it, and the exchange rate with the dollars Euroland needs to buy in order to purchase US LNG will bankrupt them further. It will also probably blow up the European Union, which is chiefly a trade scaffold. With industrial production sinking, trade sinks too, and the flimsy cooperative arrangements between nations turn into a desperate competition as each nation of Euroland struggles to stay alive.

Quote:What no government official can acknowledge — even among the Euroland victim nations of this awesome stupidity — is that the US demolition of the Nord Streams was an act-of-war against our own allies. By the way, the blogger who styles himself as “Monkey Werx,” notable for tracking the world-wide military flight movements, presents a comprehensive play-by-play of just exactly how the mission was accomplished. I’ll summarize but you can read his full report (click here) for yourself.

MW reports that overnight on the 26th of September, a Navy P8 Poseidon submarine-hunter jet flew out of the US to the Baltic. It did not land in the UK to refuel — thus avoiding any tracking complications — but rather rendezvoused over Grudziadz, Poland, with a US mid-air refueling plane, which it hooked up with for more than an hour. The P8 was equipped with Mk54 air-launched torpedoes. After un-docking from the refueler, the P8 followed a route west along the Nord Stream pipelines, descended to bomb-run altitude, and dropped its weapons. Kaboom. Then, fully refueled, the P8 flew directly back to the USA. Days later, when confronted at the UN by Russia with a yes-or-no question as to US responsibility for the Nord Stream caper, the US representatives refused to answer one way or another. Cute.

So, the questions loom: How many more days before Germany and the rest of Euroland begin to apprehend how they have been hosed by America into an economic collapse scenario? (How many days before a team of competent professionals hunts down Klaus Schwab and his colleagues somewhere in Switzerland?) When will the Eurofolk turn on their idiot government leaders and flush them out of office? When will all (except for psychotic Poland) bail out of the USA’s Ukraine crusade? I will tell you: this will all begin pretty darn soon. And if so, that will be the end of the NATO alliance.

https://kunstler.com/cluster****-nation/...elopments/

lol----Though unintended---this article almost perfectly outlines why the US almost certainly did not take out the pipeline. Of course, any article based on a fortune cookie and somebody called "Monkey Werkus" is hard to take very seriously. That said---the article does show why the US destruction of the Nordstream pipelines would be an incredibly high risk folly with little real pay off for the US to offset all that risk. If the US were found responsible for the destruction----it risks everything from nuclear war to dissolution of NATO. Not much of a payoff considering that kind of risk....and for what? Stopping gas sales that were already stopped?

On the other hand, you have the Russians. Why would they do it? Might it have something to do with the same reason they have never officially cut off gas sales to Europe? Sure, supplies had been completely cut off prior to the attack on the pipeline---but the stoppage was was always officially due to "a pipeline problem". Why is it that Russia never was willing to officially just cut off sales and instead insisted it was just a "pipeline problem"?

The reality is you need to figure out who has a motive to take out the ability to transport that gas to Europe but doesnt want to be officially responsible for turning off the gas. Well---thats odd---because that exactly matches the current Russian position.....how fortunate for the Russians that the pipeline has conveniently been struck by sabotage.

You may be correct about Russia doing it to cut off gas sales, but it really does seem like alot of effort and risk when they can just continue to delay.

You may have, however, hit on a much more compelling reason for Russia to commit this act. One of the biggest thorns in Russia's side during this conflict has been the unexpected cohesiveness of NATO, so it would greatly benefit them to turn NATO countries against each other. So is it possible that this is all a setup? Russia attacks the pipeline and leaves behind planted evidence of a US attack (maybe fragments from a US torpedo) and then following the incident blames the US (which they already did).

(10-06-2022 03:52 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  

(10-06-2022 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2022 11:14 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  From Jim Kunstler's cluster**** Nation blog.

Quote:Message found in fortune cookie from Panda Take-out reminds us: “The d ildo of consequence is seldom lubricated.” Please apply this ancient wisdom to “Joe Biden’s” sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 natgas pipelines. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spun the deed as a “tremendous opportunity” to reduce fuel use in Euroland, and shift its prior dependence on affordable Russian energy to ruinously-priced American liquid natural gas (LNG) — a supposed boon to US producers. Lucky us and them!

Let’s get a few technical matters straight about natgas. Gas pipelines allow for cheap gas, without costly intervening shipping procedures. Flows are continuous from producer to customer. LNG requires compression of the gas at super-cold temperatures and costly-to-build LNG tanker ships to keep that gas cold and compressed in transit. Each tanker can carry only so-much gas and the flow is not continuous. At each end of the energy-losing journey there is a costly LNG terminal to load and unload the gas. Bottom line: Euroland customers can’t afford US LNG, though for now they’ll be getting it good and hard to struggle through the first winter of a permanent depression that will feel more like the forecourt of a new dark age. Also bear in mind that American shale gas is a finite resource; that we need plenty of it ourselves; and that the earliest-developed US shale gas fields are crapping out one-by-one.

Secretary Blinken pretends that Europe’s deadly predicament will segue crisply into a new “green renewable” disposition of things as well as a stable-and-balanced new cold war between US-led NATO and Russia, like the 1950s. Secretary Blinken is, of course, completely insane. Germany’s industry will now collapse, the Euro currency will collapse with it, and the exchange rate with the dollars Euroland needs to buy in order to purchase US LNG will bankrupt them further. It will also probably blow up the European Union, which is chiefly a trade scaffold. With industrial production sinking, trade sinks too, and the flimsy cooperative arrangements between nations turn into a desperate competition as each nation of Euroland struggles to stay alive.

Quote:What no government official can acknowledge — even among the Euroland victim nations of this awesome stupidity — is that the US demolition of the Nord Streams was an act-of-war against our own allies. By the way, the blogger who styles himself as “Monkey Werx,” notable for tracking the world-wide military flight movements, presents a comprehensive play-by-play of just exactly how the mission was accomplished. I’ll summarize but you can read his full report (click here) for yourself.

MW reports that overnight on the 26th of September, a Navy P8 Poseidon submarine-hunter jet flew out of the US to the Baltic. It did not land in the UK to refuel — thus avoiding any tracking complications — but rather rendezvoused over Grudziadz, Poland, with a US mid-air refueling plane, which it hooked up with for more than an hour. The P8 was equipped with Mk54 air-launched torpedoes. After un-docking from the refueler, the P8 followed a route west along the Nord Stream pipelines, descended to bomb-run altitude, and dropped its weapons. Kaboom. Then, fully refueled, the P8 flew directly back to the USA. Days later, when confronted at the UN by Russia with a yes-or-no question as to US responsibility for the Nord Stream caper, the US representatives refused to answer one way or another. Cute.

So, the questions loom: How many more days before Germany and the rest of Euroland begin to apprehend how they have been hosed by America into an economic collapse scenario? (How many days before a team of competent professionals hunts down Klaus Schwab and his colleagues somewhere in Switzerland?) When will the Eurofolk turn on their idiot government leaders and flush them out of office? When will all (except for psychotic Poland) bail out of the USA’s Ukraine crusade? I will tell you: this will all begin pretty darn soon. And if so, that will be the end of the NATO alliance.

https://kunstler.com/cluster****-nation/...elopments/

lol----Though unintended---this article almost perfectly outlines why the US almost certainly did not take out the pipeline. Of course, any article based on a fortune cookie and somebody called "Monkey Werkus" is hard to take very seriously. That said---the article does show why the US destruction of the Nordstream pipelines would be an incredibly high risk folly with little real pay off for the US to offset all that risk. If the US were found responsible for the destruction----it risks everything from nuclear war to dissolution of NATO. Not much of a payoff considering that kind of risk....and for what? Stopping gas sales that were already stopped?

On the other hand, you have the Russians. Why would they do it? Might it have something to do with the same reason they have never officially cut off gas sales to Europe? Sure, supplies had been completely cut off prior to the attack on the pipeline---but the stoppage was was always officially due to "a pipeline problem". Why is it that Russia never was willing to officially just cut off sales and instead insisted it was just a "pipeline problem"?

The reality is you need to figure out who has a motive to take out the ability to transport that gas to Europe but doesnt want to be officially responsible for turning off the gas. Well---thats odd---because that exactly matches the current Russian position.....how fortunate for the Russians that the pipeline has conveniently been struck by sabotage.

You may be correct about Russia doing it to cut off gas sales, but it really does seem like alot of effort and risk when they can just continue to delay.

You may have, however, hit on a much more compelling reason for Russia to commit this act. One of the biggest thorns in Russia's side during this conflict has been the unexpected cohesiveness of NATO, so it would greatly benefit them to turn NATO countries against each other. So is it possible that this is all a setup? Russia attacks the pipeline and leaves behind planted evidence of a US attack (maybe fragments from a US torpedo) and then following the incident blames the US (which they already did).

Honestly----to me----it doesnt make a lot of sense for any of the major players to do it. The only reason I think it could be Russia is for some reason Russia has never officially taken responsibility for cutting off the gas. My guess is there are likely very serious financial and contractual consequences for that action---but thats a complete guess on my part.

(10-05-2022 11:14 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  From Jim Kunstler's cluster**** Nation blog.

Quote:Message found in fortune cookie from Panda Take-out reminds us: “The d ildo of consequence is seldom lubricated.” Please apply this ancient wisdom to “Joe Biden’s” sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 natgas pipelines. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spun the deed as a “tremendous opportunity” to reduce fuel use in Euroland, and shift its prior dependence on affordable Russian energy to ruinously-priced American liquid natural gas (LNG) — a supposed boon to US producers. Lucky us and them!

Let’s get a few technical matters straight about natgas. Gas pipelines allow for cheap gas, without costly intervening shipping procedures. Flows are continuous from producer to customer. LNG requires compression of the gas at super-cold temperatures and costly-to-build LNG tanker ships to keep that gas cold and compressed in transit. Each tanker can carry only so-much gas and the flow is not continuous. At each end of the energy-losing journey there is a costly LNG terminal to load and unload the gas. Bottom line: Euroland customers can’t afford US LNG, though for now they’ll be getting it good and hard to struggle through the first winter of a permanent depression that will feel more like the forecourt of a new dark age. Also bear in mind that American shale gas is a finite resource; that we need plenty of it ourselves; and that the earliest-developed US shale gas fields are crapping out one-by-one.

Secretary Blinken pretends that Europe’s deadly predicament will segue crisply into a new “green renewable” disposition of things as well as a stable-and-balanced new cold war between US-led NATO and Russia, like the 1950s. Secretary Blinken is, of course, completely insane. Germany’s industry will now collapse, the Euro currency will collapse with it, and the exchange rate with the dollars Euroland needs to buy in order to purchase US LNG will bankrupt them further. It will also probably blow up the European Union, which is chiefly a trade scaffold. With industrial production sinking, trade sinks too, and the flimsy cooperative arrangements between nations turn into a desperate competition as each nation of Euroland struggles to stay alive.

Quote:What no government official can acknowledge — even among the Euroland victim nations of this awesome stupidity — is that the US demolition of the Nord Streams was an act-of-war against our own allies. By the way, the blogger who styles himself as “Monkey Werx,” notable for tracking the world-wide military flight movements, presents a comprehensive play-by-play of just exactly how the mission was accomplished. I’ll summarize but you can read his full report (click here) for yourself.

MW reports that overnight on the 26th of September, a Navy P8 Poseidon submarine-hunter jet flew out of the US to the Baltic. It did not land in the UK to refuel — thus avoiding any tracking complications — but rather rendezvoused over Grudziadz, Poland, with a US mid-air refueling plane, which it hooked up with for more than an hour. The P8 was equipped with Mk54 air-launched torpedoes. After un-docking from the refueler, the P8 followed a route west along the Nord Stream pipelines, descended to bomb-run altitude, and dropped its weapons. Kaboom. Then, fully refueled, the P8 flew directly back to the USA. Days later, when confronted at the UN by Russia with a yes-or-no question as to US responsibility for the Nord Stream caper, the US representatives refused to answer one way or another. Cute.

So, the questions loom: How many more days before Germany and the rest of Euroland begin to apprehend how they have been hosed by America into an economic collapse scenario? (How many days before a team of competent professionals hunts down Klaus Schwab and his colleagues somewhere in Switzerland?) When will the Eurofolk turn on their idiot government leaders and flush them out of office? When will all (except for psychotic Poland) bail out of the USA’s Ukraine crusade? I will tell you: this will all begin pretty darn soon. And if so, that will be the end of the NATO alliance.

https://kunstler.com/cluster****-nation/...elopments/

The problem, as others have stated, is that it's not this simple:

1) If you wanted to commit this act and not get caught - why use an easily trackable helicopter? I mean this guy as a civilian claims to know where it was, which means all US allies also know exactly where it is. That doesn't make sense when there are much stealthier means available.

2) The P8 helicopter dropped MK54 torpedoes. Ok, but these torpedoes track their targets with both active and passive sonar and the pipeline as I've read is at least 60 ft. under the sea bottom. How would active or passive sonar even be able to guide a torpedo to it?

3) Again with the torpedoes, the MK54 is a lightweight torpedo with a warhead weighing less than 100 lbs. If the pipeline is 60 ft. under the bottom, there's no way you have enough penetration with that small of a warhead to take out the pipeline even if you were to guide it on to it.

(10-06-2022 04:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-06-2022 03:52 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  

(10-06-2022 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2022 11:14 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  From Jim Kunstler's cluster**** Nation blog.

Quote:Message found in fortune cookie from Panda Take-out reminds us: “The d ildo of consequence is seldom lubricated.” Please apply this ancient wisdom to “Joe Biden’s” sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 natgas pipelines. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spun the deed as a “tremendous opportunity” to reduce fuel use in Euroland, and shift its prior dependence on affordable Russian energy to ruinously-priced American liquid natural gas (LNG) — a supposed boon to US producers. Lucky us and them!

Let’s get a few technical matters straight about natgas. Gas pipelines allow for cheap gas, without costly intervening shipping procedures. Flows are continuous from producer to customer. LNG requires compression of the gas at super-cold temperatures and costly-to-build LNG tanker ships to keep that gas cold and compressed in transit. Each tanker can carry only so-much gas and the flow is not continuous. At each end of the energy-losing journey there is a costly LNG terminal to load and unload the gas. Bottom line: Euroland customers can’t afford US LNG, though for now they’ll be getting it good and hard to struggle through the first winter of a permanent depression that will feel more like the forecourt of a new dark age. Also bear in mind that American shale gas is a finite resource; that we need plenty of it ourselves; and that the earliest-developed US shale gas fields are crapping out one-by-one.

Secretary Blinken pretends that Europe’s deadly predicament will segue crisply into a new “green renewable” disposition of things as well as a stable-and-balanced new cold war between US-led NATO and Russia, like the 1950s. Secretary Blinken is, of course, completely insane. Germany’s industry will now collapse, the Euro currency will collapse with it, and the exchange rate with the dollars Euroland needs to buy in order to purchase US LNG will bankrupt them further. It will also probably blow up the European Union, which is chiefly a trade scaffold. With industrial production sinking, trade sinks too, and the flimsy cooperative arrangements between nations turn into a desperate competition as each nation of Euroland struggles to stay alive.

Quote:What no government official can acknowledge — even among the Euroland victim nations of this awesome stupidity — is that the US demolition of the Nord Streams was an act-of-war against our own allies. By the way, the blogger who styles himself as “Monkey Werx,” notable for tracking the world-wide military flight movements, presents a comprehensive play-by-play of just exactly how the mission was accomplished. I’ll summarize but you can read his full report (click here) for yourself.

MW reports that overnight on the 26th of September, a Navy P8 Poseidon submarine-hunter jet flew out of the US to the Baltic. It did not land in the UK to refuel — thus avoiding any tracking complications — but rather rendezvoused over Grudziadz, Poland, with a US mid-air refueling plane, which it hooked up with for more than an hour. The P8 was equipped with Mk54 air-launched torpedoes. After un-docking from the refueler, the P8 followed a route west along the Nord Stream pipelines, descended to bomb-run altitude, and dropped its weapons. Kaboom. Then, fully refueled, the P8 flew directly back to the USA. Days later, when confronted at the UN by Russia with a yes-or-no question as to US responsibility for the Nord Stream caper, the US representatives refused to answer one way or another. Cute.

So, the questions loom: How many more days before Germany and the rest of Euroland begin to apprehend how they have been hosed by America into an economic collapse scenario? (How many days before a team of competent professionals hunts down Klaus Schwab and his colleagues somewhere in Switzerland?) When will the Eurofolk turn on their idiot government leaders and flush them out of office? When will all (except for psychotic Poland) bail out of the USA’s Ukraine crusade? I will tell you: this will all begin pretty darn soon. And if so, that will be the end of the NATO alliance.

https://kunstler.com/cluster****-nation/...elopments/

lol----Though unintended---this article almost perfectly outlines why the US almost certainly did not take out the pipeline. Of course, any article based on a fortune cookie and somebody called "Monkey Werkus" is hard to take very seriously. That said---the article does show why the US destruction of the Nordstream pipelines would be an incredibly high risk folly with little real pay off for the US to offset all that risk. If the US were found responsible for the destruction----it risks everything from nuclear war to dissolution of NATO. Not much of a payoff considering that kind of risk....and for what? Stopping gas sales that were already stopped?

On the other hand, you have the Russians. Why would they do it? Might it have something to do with the same reason they have never officially cut off gas sales to Europe? Sure, supplies had been completely cut off prior to the attack on the pipeline---but the stoppage was was always officially due to "a pipeline problem". Why is it that Russia never was willing to officially just cut off sales and instead insisted it was just a "pipeline problem"?

The reality is you need to figure out who has a motive to take out the ability to transport that gas to Europe but doesnt want to be officially responsible for turning off the gas. Well---thats odd---because that exactly matches the current Russian position.....how fortunate for the Russians that the pipeline has conveniently been struck by sabotage.

You may be correct about Russia doing it to cut off gas sales, but it really does seem like alot of effort and risk when they can just continue to delay.

You may have, however, hit on a much more compelling reason for Russia to commit this act. One of the biggest thorns in Russia's side during this conflict has been the unexpected cohesiveness of NATO, so it would greatly benefit them to turn NATO countries against each other. So is it possible that this is all a setup? Russia attacks the pipeline and leaves behind planted evidence of a US attack (maybe fragments from a US torpedo) and then following the incident blames the US (which they already did).

Honestly----to me----it doesnt make a lot of sense for any of the major players to do it. The only reason I think it could be Russia is for some reason Russia has never officially taken responsibility for cutting off the gas. My guess is there are likely very serious financial and contractual consequences for that action---but thats a complete guess on my part.

I agree, the risk appears to be too high and the value too low for any of the major players to do it. I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but an attempt by Russia to interrupt NATO in the middle of Ukraine conflict is the only thing that I could see as potentially offering enough value to take the risk.