Mystery leaks hit Russian undersea gas pipelines to Europe

[Gweiloman]

By the way, no one has given a credible reason as to why Putin would send a message that he is capable of taking out the Baltic pipeline. What would it achieve? Is Europe likely to be intimidated by this signal?

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

So what he said is that he would retaliate accordingly, meaning it won’t be a first strike. I think that’s fair. Biden said something similar.

Can you show me where Biden specifically indicated he was considering using use nuclear weapons?

[Gweiloman]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

lol, I thought you said stick to the facts, you are funny

You misunderstand. You are entitled to your opinions but not your facts.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Gweiloman said:

By the way, no one has given a credible reason as to why Putin would send a message that he is capable of taking out the Baltic pipeline. What would it achieve? Is Europe likely to be intimidated by this signal?

Because he's losing, all he has left is threats

[Gweiloman]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Can you show me where Biden specifically indicated he was considering using use nuclear weapons?

Have you been drinking? First you made some very uncharacteristic spelling errors. Now you seem to be miscomprehending (is there such a word) my posts.

 

I never said Biden considered using nuclear weapons, god forbid. I said he indicated something similar to what Putin said, which is reacting accordingly.

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

You misunderstand. You are entitled to your opinions but not your facts.

So your opinion then

 

"Who is to say that Germany wasn’t having backdoor discussions with Kremlin to reinstate Nord Stream 2?"

 

Rubbish as I said unless you have any facts or evidence to back up such a wild speculation?

Edited September 29, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

By the way, no one has given a credible reason as to why Putin would send a message that he is capable of taking out the Baltic pipeline. What would it achieve? Is Europe likely to be intimidated by this signal?

Well, unlike Putin, I would hope that Europe wouldn't be intimidated by a hostile signal.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Gweiloman said:

Have you been drinking? First you made some very uncharacteristic spelling errors. Now you seem to be miscomprehending (is there such a word) my posts.

 

I never said Biden considered using nuclear weapons, god forbid. I said he indicated something similar to what Putin said, which is reacting accordingly.

Biden did not say something similar to what Putin said. Putin unequivocally indicated he was willing to use nuclear weapons. Biden has not.

[Gweiloman]

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Because he's losing, all he has left is threats

Hmmm. Not a credible reason, imo. And he’s losing, according to western msm. Annexing 15% of a country doesn’t sound like a loss to me.

[Gweiloman]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, unlike Putin, I would hope that Europe wouldn't be intimidated by a hostile signal.

Exactly. Europe won’t be intimidated by a hostile signal so it doesn’t seem credible to me that Putin sabotaged the pipelines.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Gweiloman said:

Hmmm. Not a credible reason, imo. And he’s losing, according to western msm. Annexing 15% of a country doesn’t sound like a loss to me.

Sept 12th:  In four days, Ukraine nullified four months of Russia's 'success'

 

MSM? No he's losing according to Russian media as well, I take it you do not keep up with Russian state TV or missed the 1 million call up mobilization

[Gweiloman]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Biden did not say something similar to what Putin said. Putin unequivocally indicated he was willing to use nuclear weapons. Biden has not.

Wow, we are being very careful with words now. Putin unequivocally indicated…

Well, Biden said don’t, just don’t. Anyone can read whatever they like into that. To me, the meaning is also crystal clear.

[placeholder]

Just now, Gweiloman said:

Exactly. Europe won’t be intimidated by a hostile signal so it doesn’t seem credible to me that Putin sabotaged the pipelines.

I don't know what you think you are agreeing to. I said I would hope so. Not that it would be the case. As for Putin, why wouldn't he try to intimidate the Europeans. His position is desperate. His war in Ukraine is not going well at all.

[Gweiloman]

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Sept 12th:  In four days, Ukraine nullified four months of Russia's 'success'

 

MSM? No he's losing according to Russian media as well, I take it you do not keep up with Russian state TV or missed the 1 million call up mobilization

I caught the 300,000 mobilisation, must have missed the 1 million call up.

 

How do we know that the Russian retreat was not strategic? I saw some analysis which seemed logical. However, not being a military expert, I cannot comment.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Gweiloman said:

I caught the 300,000 mobilisation, must have missed the 1 million call up.

 

How do we know that the Russian retreat was not strategic? I saw some analysis which seemed logical. However, not being a military expert, I cannot comment.

Oh you missed the 1 million, take a look

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Gweiloman said:

Wow, we are being very careful with words now. Putin unequivocally indicated…

Well, Biden said don’t, just don’t. Anyone can read whatever they like into that. To me, the meaning is also crystal clear.

Nice try. Putin claimed without offering evidence that western nations were threatening nuclear war. Then he said the weathervane can turn. There is no rational way to construe this other than as a nuclear threat. 

[Gweiloman]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I don't know what you think you are agreeing to. I said I would hope so. Not that it would be the case. As for Putin, why wouldn't he try to intimidate the Europeans. His position is desperate. His war in Ukraine is not going well at all.

Some have suggested that the sabotage on NS is to send a signal to Europe. I query what the signal is. It’s not intimidation as you rightly pointed out. So what else can it be? Meaning, can’t be Russia that committed this despicable (using this word from another post) act.

[Gweiloman]

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Oh you missed the 1 million, take a look

Sorry, can’t find it.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Gweiloman said:

Sorry, can’t find it.

Its in Russian media

A hidden clause in Russian President Vladimir Putin's partial mobilization decree permits the country's defense ministry to draft one million reservists, according to a report from Novaya Gazeta

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Some have suggested that the sabotage on NS is to send a signal to Europe. I query what the signal is. It’s not intimidation as you rightly pointed out. So what else can it be? Meaning, can’t be Russia that committed this despicable (using this word from another post) act.

I did not point out that it's not intimidation. Stop making things up. What I said was I hope Europeans wouldn't be intimidated. That is not at all as saying that they wouldn't be intimidated. An expression of hope is not an assertion. But what's more important, that comment did not address Putin's intent in any way. 

[Gweiloman]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Nice try. Putin claimed without offering evidence that western nations were threatening nuclear war. Then he said the weathervane can turn. There is no rational way to construe this other than as a nuclear threat. 

Your Fpresident claimed without offering evidence that the election was stolen (and almost 50% of the populace believes him). Some senator recently claimed on MSNBC without offering evidence that Russia was behind the sabotage of the pipelines as did some other western “experts”  on various other msm. What’s the difference? It’s all a matter of narrative.

[Gweiloman]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Its in Russian media

A hidden clause in Russian President Vladimir Putin's partial mobilization decree permits the country's defense ministry to draft one million reservists, according to a report from Novaya Gazeta

Permits. So is he calling up 300k or 1 million?

[Gweiloman]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I did not point out that it's not intimidation. Stop making things up. What I said was I hope Europeans wouldn't be intimidated. That is not at all as saying that they wouldn't be intimidated. An expression of hope is not an assertion. But what's more important, that comment did not address Putin's intent in any way. 

I see, my apologies. So, do you think the Europeans will be intimidated? Whether Russia is responsible for the sabotage is dependent upon your answer.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Gweiloman said:

Your Fpresident claimed without offering evidence that the election was stolen (and almost 50% of the populace believes him). Some senator recently claimed on MSNBC without offering evidence that Russia was behind the sabotage of the pipelines as did some other western “experts”  on various other msm. What’s the difference? It’s all a matter of narrative.

This is a very sad attempt at deflection. Putin definitely made a threat involving the use of nuclear weapons. As I remarked earlier, his comment can't be construed rationally in any other way.

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Permits. So is he calling up 300k or 1 million?

Make of it what you will

"However, reports in opposition Russian media suggested that up to one million people could be called up, pointing out that one paragraph believed to be about the exact number of the required reservists was omitted (classified) in the published version of Mr Putin's decree on the official Kremlin website."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63036985

Edited September 29, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Its in Russian media

A hidden clause in Russian President Vladimir Putin's partial mobilization decree permits the country's defense ministry to draft one million reservists, according to a report from Novaya Gazeta

I used the google translate function on the first 3 sentences in that article

'The secret seventh paragraph of the decree on mobilization allows the Ministry of Defense to call up one million people. About this to Novaya Gazeta. Europe,” a source in the presidential administration said.

The day before, a scan of Vladimir Putin's decree on the introduction of "partial mobilization" in Russia was published on the website of the legal information portal. The seventh paragraph of the decree is designated "for official use."'

[Gweiloman]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

This is a very sad attempt at deflection. Putin definitely made a threat involving the use of nuclear weapons. As I remarked earlier, his comment can't be construed rationally in any other way.

Well, only 1 country has ever used nuclear weapons in the name of war and it’s not Russia.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

I see, my apologies. So, do you think the Europeans will be intimidated? Whether Russia is responsible for the sabotage is dependent upon your answer.

Given that the price of gas shot up in the wake of the leak, it's clear that were such an act  believed to be done by the Russians, it could have some intimidating effect. But what's relevant isn't my belief but what would Putin's be. Given how badly the war is going for the Russians, he's clearly desperate.

[Gweiloman]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I used the google translate function on the first 3 sentences in that article

'The secret seventh paragraph of the decree on mobilization allows the Ministry of Defense to call up one million people. About this to Novaya Gazeta. Europe,” a source in the presidential administration said.

The day before, a scan of Vladimir Putin's decree on the introduction of "partial mobilization" in Russia was published on the website of the legal information portal. The seventh paragraph of the decree is designated "for official use."'

Allows. Quite different from actually calling up 1 million which is what the other poster claimed (he’s a bit light on facts, if you know what I mean).

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Well, only 1 country has ever used nuclear weapons in the name of war and it’s not Russia.

Ancient history. And in the 21st century very few countries have attacked other countries in order to enlarge their nation. And it's not America. But as for Russia and China...