We'd better think of the strategic implications - which are not being televised. Remember that real games are being, and have always been, played unnoticed by the masses.
A number of years ago, I read some article that argued that navy is largely useless in modern warfare, since it is so easily defeated by air force. The real purpose of modern navies (according to this article) is to secure safe passage for cargo ships, which would be attacked by pirates in the absence of a strong navy presence. Well, maybe navies have suddenly found a new justification for their existence: destroy underwater civilian infrastructure. We live in interesting times...
This may be the first shot in a new round of unrestricted submarine warfare.
Cables and pipelines are, unless the perpetrators are positively identified and publicly punished, now fair game for any and all nations and groups with the capability.
It is also a quite safe tactic, since you pretty much would have to catch the drone, UUV, or divers or sub in the act to prove anything at all.
Here's a thought massmedia is very careful to avoid: swedish, danish, german, polish and more importantly US naval units move in the area more or less constantly. And the swedish navy has lots of experience with tracking subs, due to the repeated violations in the 1980s, from both NATO and Warsaw pact.
Does it seem at all plausible that a russian submarine or other underwater vehicle, divers from a russian boat or ship or similar, could be anywhere in this area of Östersjön without a sinlge one of the mentioned states' marine forces noticing?
Because that would mean that either are the russians so skilled, technologcally advanced and sneaky so they can infiltrate and demolish the pipelines right under the nose of units that recently participated in Balt Ops, or that the western units there are incapable of detecting intruders (or a combination).
Whereas Russia has no ability in that part of Österjön to detect such an act of sabotage from the local forces who move around the area anyway.
Also, remember that several US leaders, including Biden, has several times before the Russia-Ukraine war made clear that the US will not allow the NS pipeline to become fully operational. The US wants Germany dependent on US oil and gas, not russian.
I fully expect a similar event hitting the Turkstream pipeline, as well as the transport used by Italy to secure gas from Algeria and Egypt. And the same for the Baltic Pipeline.
The US do not want Europe to be strong or united. The US does not need another pretender when desperately trying to figure out how to handle China when China is outmaneuvering them across all fronts. It is really starting to look, despite the reprieve of the Trump administration, that (some of the major comptrollers of) the US is dead set on a modern version of both the Morgenthau plan and the Kalergi plan - though I would be delighted to be wrong about that.
And as for who does the actual deed for the US? Perfidious Albion earned it's name time and again, rmember. Britain considers itself apart and above "the Continent" after all, and has never approved of "the Hun" achieving much of anything.
"The US does not need another pretender when desperately trying to figure out how to handle China when China is outmaneuvering them across all fronts."
Maybe, but this sort of thing creates a huge incentive for Russia and China to cooperate, since they share a long land border, meaning that the Americans cannot easily target the infrastructure between them. Do they (the Americans) really want to encourage Sino-Russian cooperation in that way? Well, maybe they just haven't looked that far ahead...
I'm sorry, should have made clear I'm not counting on the US as a unilateral force. I'm quite certain there are competing factions in both US politics and industry/capital, pulling every which way.
So one such faction, influential enough under the current regime, may have been able to actin their immediate interests, all the while a different faction in trying to swing elections and weighty players to go back to Trump's style of deal-brokering.
I do not think this will push China in any way, really. There's nothing they gain from closer tis with Russia, that they don't get at the current level of co-opration. Rather, sticking to their "let him and you fight"-approach re: US/EU/Russia is in theirbest interest. They have the manufactories, they have the energy, they can show their people and their dependencies that the chinese way is peacful and prosperous whereas the western way means war, and so on.
And China has nothing to fear military from anyone. No-one can destroy enough of their infrastructure, invade or occupy. Not even India has the manpower required. This of course discounts nuclear weapons, but with nuclear weapons actually in play all bets are off.
Why I say no-one can defeat China in the traditional sense? Look how China handled the Korean war and the war in Indochina/Vietnam. Lose 20 for 1? No problem. We have more chinese than they have bullets.
Westerners have lost their appetite for real war, I think. Which would be good if the rest of the world also had.
But don't you think the Americans might go after China's infrastructure as well? I don't mean the infrastructure that's actually in China (that's a big no-on). I mean the infrastructure in international waters. Does China have such infrastructure? Probably(?).
Chinse overseas assets basically amounts to owning real estate, natural resources, and buying influence via media and education (China is heavily invested in influencing western education via the Confucius Institute which is in reality a branch of the chinese governement).
And whatever other infrastructure such as pipelines and cables there is, nothing stops China from doing the same. It's completely impossible to guard and patrol every kilometer of every pipe and cable on the ocan floor, or satellites or oil rigs. Compare it to Soviet partisans attacking railroads, hampering the germans to no end.
All the chinese investments in Africa and it's near frontier are of the character that losing them would be a minor blow, as they are only meant for resource extration and as a means of putting the host nation in debt and dependency of China.
Kind of the same game the old colonial powers used to ply between 1950s and 1990s - they'd "donate" a couple of hundreds or thousands of older model tractors and trucks and trailers as a little incentive for closing a trade deal with whatever dictator ruled whichever banana-republic at present, and said tribal chief could then spread these around his grateful followers, meanwhile making sure that there would be no incentive or basis for any domestic production of any donated materials - Sweden alone managed to wreck Tanzania's clothing industry in the 1960s by donating clothes and materials ensuring domestic demand dropped to rock bottom meaning closures and lo imports/exports with India.
China is just playing the same game, and the US doesn't have reach, save for nuclear weapons, to strike at China's logistics the way they could at Germany's. A US fleet coming to close to the mainland is sunk unless the US has managed to draw China's forces out and destroy them near Japan or further out.
While the US certainly has the world's premier military, it lacks the ability to win wars. The US is great at winning battles though. Imagine the reaction of the US public if/when the death toll of servicemen in a conflict with China climbed to six figures.
It seems fairly obvious that this was an American doing, but I suspect they'll either say they weren't able to determine the culprit, or they'll blame Russia. In the meanwhile, prepare for a cold winter ahead. Although I suppose Norway might do okay in this particular regard, given its own reserves.
I think that's the most likely explanation, in particular as there may be others with that capability apart from the US--incl. Russia and, as I'd suspect, a bunch of oil and gas companies that are active in the area--the US gov't has means, motives, and opportunity.
There as a US naval exercise off--Bornholm--in June, by the way…
I concur, it's a possibility, which would be something like this: pressured from German industry and part of the political-media complex to open Nord Stream 2, Mr. Scholz and his ilk would have it 'taken off the table'.
I wouldn't rule it out, but I would add that I'm unsure these dimwits actually thought that far ahead.
So, my gut feeling is this: it might be that the Germans were 'asked' by the US 'if they would mind us doing this, because there may be too much pressure on the Berlin gov't' or something like this.
I wouldn't rule that out, but then again, Germany has nothing to gain from this event--how would you reconcile these two issues?
Sep 28, 2022·edited Sep 28, 2022Liked by epimetheus
Germany as a country has nothing to gain from it.
but the current government has.
it wants to stay in power for as long as possible to be able to ruin the economy and take germany back to the dark ages, for that is the ultimate goal of the green fascists.
it thinks that, with the possibility of importing russian gas gone, the people will stop taking to the streets demanding the government end the boycott.
Maybe that was why Mr. Scholz couldn't secure more LNG last time he ventured abroad (can't find the link right now), but it would align neatly with the USG promising to 'stand with Germany' on this one…
We'd better think of the strategic implications - which are not being televised. Remember that real games are being, and have always been, played unnoticed by the masses.
Real games are never televised.
What do you think are the strategic implications?
I don't know, of course. However, I am sure Russia will retaliate somehow - or "they" will use Russia as a patsy for further scams.
A number of years ago, I read some article that argued that navy is largely useless in modern warfare, since it is so easily defeated by air force. The real purpose of modern navies (according to this article) is to secure safe passage for cargo ships, which would be attacked by pirates in the absence of a strong navy presence. Well, maybe navies have suddenly found a new justification for their existence: destroy underwater civilian infrastructure. We live in interesting times...
This may be the first shot in a new round of unrestricted submarine warfare.
Cables and pipelines are, unless the perpetrators are positively identified and publicly punished, now fair game for any and all nations and groups with the capability.
It is also a quite safe tactic, since you pretty much would have to catch the drone, UUV, or divers or sub in the act to prove anything at all.
Here's a thought massmedia is very careful to avoid: swedish, danish, german, polish and more importantly US naval units move in the area more or less constantly. And the swedish navy has lots of experience with tracking subs, due to the repeated violations in the 1980s, from both NATO and Warsaw pact.
Does it seem at all plausible that a russian submarine or other underwater vehicle, divers from a russian boat or ship or similar, could be anywhere in this area of Östersjön without a sinlge one of the mentioned states' marine forces noticing?
Because that would mean that either are the russians so skilled, technologcally advanced and sneaky so they can infiltrate and demolish the pipelines right under the nose of units that recently participated in Balt Ops, or that the western units there are incapable of detecting intruders (or a combination).
Whereas Russia has no ability in that part of Österjön to detect such an act of sabotage from the local forces who move around the area anyway.
Also, remember that several US leaders, including Biden, has several times before the Russia-Ukraine war made clear that the US will not allow the NS pipeline to become fully operational. The US wants Germany dependent on US oil and gas, not russian.
I fully expect a similar event hitting the Turkstream pipeline, as well as the transport used by Italy to secure gas from Algeria and Egypt. And the same for the Baltic Pipeline.
The US do not want Europe to be strong or united. The US does not need another pretender when desperately trying to figure out how to handle China when China is outmaneuvering them across all fronts. It is really starting to look, despite the reprieve of the Trump administration, that (some of the major comptrollers of) the US is dead set on a modern version of both the Morgenthau plan and the Kalergi plan - though I would be delighted to be wrong about that.
And as for who does the actual deed for the US? Perfidious Albion earned it's name time and again, rmember. Britain considers itself apart and above "the Continent" after all, and has never approved of "the Hun" achieving much of anything.
"The US does not need another pretender when desperately trying to figure out how to handle China when China is outmaneuvering them across all fronts."
Maybe, but this sort of thing creates a huge incentive for Russia and China to cooperate, since they share a long land border, meaning that the Americans cannot easily target the infrastructure between them. Do they (the Americans) really want to encourage Sino-Russian cooperation in that way? Well, maybe they just haven't looked that far ahead...
I'm sorry, should have made clear I'm not counting on the US as a unilateral force. I'm quite certain there are competing factions in both US politics and industry/capital, pulling every which way.
So one such faction, influential enough under the current regime, may have been able to actin their immediate interests, all the while a different faction in trying to swing elections and weighty players to go back to Trump's style of deal-brokering.
I do not think this will push China in any way, really. There's nothing they gain from closer tis with Russia, that they don't get at the current level of co-opration. Rather, sticking to their "let him and you fight"-approach re: US/EU/Russia is in theirbest interest. They have the manufactories, they have the energy, they can show their people and their dependencies that the chinese way is peacful and prosperous whereas the western way means war, and so on.
And China has nothing to fear military from anyone. No-one can destroy enough of their infrastructure, invade or occupy. Not even India has the manpower required. This of course discounts nuclear weapons, but with nuclear weapons actually in play all bets are off.
Why I say no-one can defeat China in the traditional sense? Look how China handled the Korean war and the war in Indochina/Vietnam. Lose 20 for 1? No problem. We have more chinese than they have bullets.
Westerners have lost their appetite for real war, I think. Which would be good if the rest of the world also had.
But don't you think the Americans might go after China's infrastructure as well? I don't mean the infrastructure that's actually in China (that's a big no-on). I mean the infrastructure in international waters. Does China have such infrastructure? Probably(?).
Chinse overseas assets basically amounts to owning real estate, natural resources, and buying influence via media and education (China is heavily invested in influencing western education via the Confucius Institute which is in reality a branch of the chinese governement).
And whatever other infrastructure such as pipelines and cables there is, nothing stops China from doing the same. It's completely impossible to guard and patrol every kilometer of every pipe and cable on the ocan floor, or satellites or oil rigs. Compare it to Soviet partisans attacking railroads, hampering the germans to no end.
All the chinese investments in Africa and it's near frontier are of the character that losing them would be a minor blow, as they are only meant for resource extration and as a means of putting the host nation in debt and dependency of China.
Kind of the same game the old colonial powers used to ply between 1950s and 1990s - they'd "donate" a couple of hundreds or thousands of older model tractors and trucks and trailers as a little incentive for closing a trade deal with whatever dictator ruled whichever banana-republic at present, and said tribal chief could then spread these around his grateful followers, meanwhile making sure that there would be no incentive or basis for any domestic production of any donated materials - Sweden alone managed to wreck Tanzania's clothing industry in the 1960s by donating clothes and materials ensuring domestic demand dropped to rock bottom meaning closures and lo imports/exports with India.
China is just playing the same game, and the US doesn't have reach, save for nuclear weapons, to strike at China's logistics the way they could at Germany's. A US fleet coming to close to the mainland is sunk unless the US has managed to draw China's forces out and destroy them near Japan or further out.
While the US certainly has the world's premier military, it lacks the ability to win wars. The US is great at winning battles though. Imagine the reaction of the US public if/when the death toll of servicemen in a conflict with China climbed to six figures.
Quantity is a quality in its own right.
It seems fairly obvious that this was an American doing, but I suspect they'll either say they weren't able to determine the culprit, or they'll blame Russia. In the meanwhile, prepare for a cold winter ahead. Although I suppose Norway might do okay in this particular regard, given its own reserves.
I think that's the most likely explanation, in particular as there may be others with that capability apart from the US--incl. Russia and, as I'd suspect, a bunch of oil and gas companies that are active in the area--the US gov't has means, motives, and opportunity.
There as a US naval exercise off--Bornholm--in June, by the way…
if you think about it there i only one logical suspect and it lives in berlin.
I concur, it's a possibility, which would be something like this: pressured from German industry and part of the political-media complex to open Nord Stream 2, Mr. Scholz and his ilk would have it 'taken off the table'.
I wouldn't rule it out, but I would add that I'm unsure these dimwits actually thought that far ahead.
So, my gut feeling is this: it might be that the Germans were 'asked' by the US 'if they would mind us doing this, because there may be too much pressure on the Berlin gov't' or something like this.
I wouldn't rule that out, but then again, Germany has nothing to gain from this event--how would you reconcile these two issues?
Germany as a country has nothing to gain from it.
but the current government has.
it wants to stay in power for as long as possible to be able to ruin the economy and take germany back to the dark ages, for that is the ultimate goal of the green fascists.
it thinks that, with the possibility of importing russian gas gone, the people will stop taking to the streets demanding the government end the boycott.
interesting times are ahead...
If the deal is as you speculate, expect the US to offer Germany discounted gas/oil via tanker and via US-aligned states in the Middle East shortly.
All wrapped up in language about how the US an Germany stand together against Putin's hordes and for the climate.
Molotov and Ribbentrop are sharing a laugh I think.
Maybe that was why Mr. Scholz couldn't secure more LNG last time he ventured abroad (can't find the link right now), but it would align neatly with the USG promising to 'stand with Germany' on this one…