*** Official Putin Started Shootin' Thread ***

[CoccoBill]

Nobody has responded to the point about the attacks happening in NATO waters.

The leaks are all on international waters, 1 in Swedish economic zone and 2 in Danish. Not any any country's territorial waters. It in fact looks that they made absolutely sure to not do it in waters controlled directly by anyone.

What's more, if Russia did do this, we should be able to prove it, because they would have to sail there, and that isn't something you do in the Baltic Sea without being noticed. This is one reason people are insisting USA is responsible... they had ships in the region at the time. Even USA can't hide their navy from the rest of the world.

Even subs aren't going to go unnoticed in this sea, especially in NATO controlled waters.

The charges could have been remote controlled and planted months or even years ago, by submarines, or by unmanned vehicles. There are strict limits to how far sonars can detect vessels, especially small ones.

Devil's advocate: wouldn't it make sense to do something like this when the US were around and could be blamed for it, to create confusion distrust and fear in the EU. Kinda like Russia's doctrine has been for years, to sow confusion and mistrust. Outright unconditionally ruling out Russia as the culprit is naive, imo.

[OngBonga]

Healthy skepticism means not giving certainty to anything w/o evidence, as well.

Please don't confuse my high confidence with certainty.

A lack of evidence isn't proof of anything.

Again, I'm not claiming proof. I'm claiming that it makes a lot more sense for USA to do this than Russia.

A lot.

I haven't seen any evidence of underwater explosives or depth charges. Have you?

Yes. The Swedish and Danish governments recorded seismic signatures. They are being very careful about what they say regarding who they suspect. All they are saying is that they were explosions and that it wasn't an accident.

I'm making the leap to depth charges, largely because I'm not clued up when it comes to underwater explosives. idk if all underwater explosives are depth charges.

I mean.. you're assuming this had to be done from the outside of the pipe, on location, and that whatever explosives arrived in recent times.

The explosives might not have been placed recently and could have been detonated remotely, I've acknowledged that in my reply to cocco.

[OngBonga]

I mean we don't seem to be talking about Biden promising they would shut down Nord Stream if Russia invaded Ukraine.

If that isn't the most compelling piece of evidence, idk what to say.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah I think you guys are reaching a bit on this one.

Not that that makes Ong being a habitual Putin apologist any less annoying.

[CoccoBill]

I mean we don't seem to be talking about Biden promising they would shut down Nord Stream if Russia invaded Ukraine.

If that isn't the most compelling piece of evidence, idk what to say.

When he said that Germany was buying most of it's natural gas through it. Their intention, as far as I can tell, was to stop that to cut their energy dependence on Russia, and that had been already established before the explosions. Why bomb them now?

Also tbf, I need some more tinfoil to believe that the US would bomb a pipeline on the Baltic to get more gas sales. Without a shadow of a doubt they'd be on the shortlist for imports anyway. I don't claim to know if the US even had a surplus of gas they'd be that desperate to get rid of, I'd wager no.

[Poopadoop]

Also tbf, I need some more tinfoil to believe that the US would bomb a pipeline on the Baltic to get more gas sales.

They invaded a country to get more oil once iirc. Don't think bombing a pipeline is out of the playbook.

Also, it is a convenient distraction from the annexation.

There you have a point.