I don't think that's very comparable. First, pipelines are much less common than cables, so the opportunity for retaliation in kind is less. Second, pipelines only go through relatively shallow waters; cables run across the ocean, so the type of attacks used are different. Third, whoever attacked the pipeline is concerned sufficiently about retaliation that they disguised their actions (by injuring both Russian and German interests) and denied responsibility. By contrast, this harms the West exclusively (Estonia is strongly pro-Western, and speaks a Finnic language), and if it were confirmed that the cable was attacked, the culprit is clear.
Attempting to stop an incomplete pipeline commercial deal that the US was already protesting long before the war is different than bombing an existing pipeline involving one of NATOs most important members, on sea territory of another NATO member, just because a war started.
It’s plausible but highly unlikely.
The evidence points to Ukrainian saboteurs on a rented yacht anyway.
Blowing something up isn't the only way to get rid of something (just ask the mice formerly inhabiting my basement); the actual quote can easily be read as "we'll sanction them and anyone else who does business with them into the stone age".
And the commander in chief of the world's strongest military does this on TV? And not through, I don't know, existing channels, official and otherwise?
There's no doubt someone gave an order. What's in question is who, and the list of people with means, motive, and opportunity is fairly long, including the option of a false flag operation. Claiming Biden "literally" promised to blow it up is a clear falsehood.
It's not a deep fake. It (ahem) literally doesn't say what's asserted upthread.
"Sanctions" are means and a way to stop something. The West ended Nord Stream 2 by March of 2022; the company went into insolvency, fired its workers, had its pipeline decertified, and was sanctioned into the ground.
Politicians use this sort of language regularly. For example:
Listen to the way Biden says it, and ask yourself, which of these scenarios is more likely:
1. Biden is accidentally leaking a plan to blow up the pipeline that won't be put into action for another 8 months in the event of a conflict which most people expect will only last about a month in the hot phase.
2. Biden is giving a politician's "I don't want to answer that question" answer.
Nothing in the extended quote changes the point. At no point did Biden say how this would be performed, and again, Nord Stream 2 was "ended" - bankrupt, sanctioned, workers fired, and decertified - by March.
Note that the reporter's objection was the pipeline being "within Germany's control", to which the answer is pretty obviously "put diplomatic pressure on Germany". Which is precisely what happened:
> As I said when I met with Chancellor Scholz earlier this month, Germany has been a leader in that effort, and we have closely coordinated our efforts to stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline if Russia further invaded Ukraine. Yesterday, after further close consultations between our two governments, Germany announced that it would halt certification of the pipeline.
Its certification being suspended was just that - a suspension, which could have been reenabled at the German government's discretion. Since Germany has tried to operate without cheap Russian gas, their economy has since fallen into recession with some extreme inflation, such as ~20% for foodstuffs. And these consequences could have been, more or less, foreseen.
If that pipeline was there, there would would be major political pressure on Scholz to get the gas flowing. But without it? Not only was it a severe economic blow to Russia, but it left Germany dependent upon the US for gas, and also helped minimize the risk of internal pressures pushing Germany to cooperate with Russia.
"In October 2022, Russia confirmed that Pipe B of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline escaped destruction, and offered to resume gas supply to Europe (which was promptly declined by Berlin)."
"A clear majority of German voters want the [current] ruling coalition to be dissolved in favour of a snap election, according to a poll. More than 75 per cent of Germans are dissatisfied with the government’s performance and over 50 per cent say they want fundamentally new approaches to immigration, housing, energy and welfare policy." [1]
Apparently the prophesized pressure on Scholz's government is indeed coming to pass. The ruling party is getting walloped by their local populist right wingers, who don't seem particularly offended by the idea of working with Russia. [2] Of course the "U" word is never once directly mentioned, so far I can see, in the media articles, but such is the state of the media now a days. I'm quite curious if most Germans know of the B pipeline?
Absolutely agreed, but self interest is. Populist and nationalist parties like AfD are rising throughout Europe [1], and most of the Western world. IMO this is not because of geopolitical positions, but in contradiction to them. It's not about doing what is good or bad to some foreign country, but about doing what is good for your own country and your own people.
The difference between "stash of oppo" and "identifying a viewpoint" is going to come down to intent, imho. These conversations are already more ephemeral than I'd like them to be and context matters. I want to know who I'm talking to and what their deal is in real life, too.
The ideal, at least in my mind, is to judge statements based on their content. If a view is supported and logical? Cool. If it's making extreme claims with no supporting evidence? Not so cool, even more so if it's appealing to emotion or bias which are tell tale signs of BS. So for instance in the above statement where our local stalker chose to claim I "think Russian elections in Crimea are fair and accurate", do feel free to read what I wrote. [1]
Shortly following the Ukrainian referendum, numerous Western organizations began carrying out their own, arguably adversarial, polls (linked in the linked post). And they all ended up showing similar numbers, taking into account that the original referendum was boycotted by those in support of staying in Ukraine. Had Gallup/Pew/etc not carried out their own polls, or even if they somehow felt the authorities were interfering with their polling, then I think there would be reasonable room for belief in the conspiracy. But when everybody keeps coming up with the same numbers?
I don't really understand the mindset in opposition to things like this. It's like people want to believe fake things. I mean just because the election results were valid doesn't mean you suddenly have to start waving a Russian tricolor. If somebody wants to take the position that the election was, nonetheless, invalid because it ran contrary to Ukraine's constitution? More power to them. There's some subjective debates to have there, but it's an absolutely valid and factually supported position to hold.
How? I made the assumption least favorable to Russia's position by assuming that that 100% of people who did not vote would have voted against the referendum. Russia got 97% yes with 83% turnout. Gallup got 82.8% agreeing that 'the referendum represents the will of the people.' Factor in 17% who didn't vote in the official referendum as no's, and you get pretty much the exact same numbers.
Yip. Sampling size can be counter-intuitive, but 500 for a population of 2.3 million is going to be well more than needed. For contrast the typical election poll in the US generally has from 500 to 2000 people, for a nation of 340 million.
Here's a calculator [1]. To get a 95% level of confidence, they would have needed a sample size of 217 people. This is assuming a population of 2.3 million and a response distribution of 83%. If the response distribution was 50% (which maximizes the necessary sample size) they'd have needed 385 people.
The referendum that was conducted by illegal occupation authorities obviously can not be trusted. So those numbers are made up propaganda.
With 500 people the sample size needs to be very carefully selected to eliminate bias and it is really easy to influence the results however way you want.
Gallup is more or less synonymous with careful polling. However, the final thing I'd add is that it wasn't just Gallup either. Russia claimed a total of 82.9% yes (if we assume 100% who did not vote would have voted no), Gallup found 82.8%, GFK (German polling firm) found 82%. The only 'outlier' (so much as 5% can be called an outlier) is Pew who found 88%.
If any of these organizations' operations had been impeded in any way they would have made a big stink of it in their reporting. US and German organizations were not there to support Russia's claims, but to challenge them! But ultimately everybody's numbers ended up the same.
Of course. I think this is a very important point to make.
I also think that even if with the best of intentions when people are calling for not discrediting others views disinfo needs to be called out and challenged as without doing that the gullible might find some new "hidden truth". It's effectiveness should not be overvalued tho.
He said something in the lines of "there will be no longer a North Stream 2, we will bring an end to it". He did not say how, just "I promise you we'll be able to do it".
