Europe at War

[Herman]

I certainly have no recollection of it.

It's twenty years ago

[Madiel]

It's twenty years ago

That's more than enough time to have lost its relevance. Unless it somehow explains his descent.

[prémont]

It's twenty years ago

It must have been in the old forum which is inaccessible today, so we can't go back and check it. I was here in these old days but don't remember anything about whom the moderators were. I wonder if GURN may refresh our memory?

[Herman]

It must have been in the old forum which is inaccessible today, so we can't go back and check it.

You want to check it for factual truth?
Why would I be making this up?
The first set of mods comprised, as I seem to recall, Gurn, Todd, Knight, me and perhaps a fifth member.
This was a time when The Pink Harp was about the most disruptive member...

I mentioned this because I could imagine it makes for a kind of clemency towards the troll (although the interminable LvB sonata topix may be a factor, too)

[prémont]

You want to check it for factual truth?
Why would I be making this up?
The first set of mods comprised, as I seem to recall, Gurn, Todd, Knight, me and perhaps a fifth member.
This was a time when The Pink Harp was about the most disruptive

Take it easy. I'm not saying that you are making something up, and since nobody else here recall anything about Todd having been a moderator we probably have a faulty memory. Excuse me that I took some time to realize this.

I recall Pink Harp rather well BTW.

I mentioned this because I could imagine it makes for a kind of clemency towards the troll ...

I don't see the relevance here. He can't even moderate himself.

[Florestan]

I recall Pink Harp rather well BTW.

Me too.

[Herman]

I don't see the relevance here. He can't even moderate himself.

The relevance (if any) would be that the current mods would feel reluctant to ban a member that goes back that far and has been one of them long time ago.
But this is all speculation.
I'm not in favor of banning btw.

[Todd]

UN chief fears world is heading toward a wider war

I fear the world is not sleepwalking into a wider war. It is doing so with its eyes wide open.

Tony's right.  Warmongers the world over openly insist on escalating the Russo-Ukrainian war.

[Madiel]

I think we can all agree that if Todd doesn't resist my sale of his house things will be a lot more peaceful.

[Todd]

From the Financial Times: A problem of logistics: is the US sending Ukraine the wrong tank?

From Newsweek: The Weight of NATO Tanks May Pose a Problem in Ukraine

[Todd]

White House says blog post on Nord Stream explosion 'utterly false'

The blog post from Seymour Hersh:

How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline

[Que]

White House says blog post on Nord Stream explosion 'utterly false'

The blog post from Seymour Hersh:

How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline

Self published, apparently no major news putlet wanted to burn its fingers on this.

Never say never, but it would surprise me: even though the disablement of the connection was politically convenient, sabotage would be terribly risky. European allies are not idiots. And Russia accused the British...why not the US?

[Todd]

Self published, apparently no major news putlet wanted to burn its fingers on this.

Sure, but the corporate press is untrustworthy.

Never say never, but it would surprise me: even though the disablement of the connection was politically convenient, sabotage would be terribly risky.

Risky or not, some country or countries did it.  Reflexive Russophobes seriously blamed Russia for the action, though even the corporate press now reports there is no evidence for that.  We may know the truth one day.

[Fëanor]

Never say never, but it would surprise me: even though the disablement of the connection was politically convenient, sabotage would be terribly risky. European allies are not idiots. And Russia accused the British...why not the US?

It's plausible to argue that the USA would like to see the pipeline destroyed.  For a start, US Presidents always opposed the pipeline because it would give Russia suasion over Germany, et al., (which is perfectly true).

But that the USA actually did it is another matter.  For one, as you say, there was/is the risk of being caught.  For another, I wonder about the timing for US a sabotage:  was it good? Or was is bad?  The Russian invasion was already under way, and sanctions were already operative.  Furthermore the pipeline was no longer actively delivering gas at the date of the explosions;  (the pipes must remain pressurized to avoid damage.)  Gas price rose immediately after the damage.  It's fair to ask whether, at that point, Russian had little to loose and perhaps something to gain by destroying the pipeline.

[milk]

White House says blog post on Nord Stream explosion 'utterly false'

The blog post from Seymour Hersh:

How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline

That was quite a read. I wonder if there will be any repercussions to this or if it will be ignored.

[Todd]

It's plausible to argue that the USA would like to see the pipeline destroyed.

People here apparently need a refresher direct from POTUS:

And the official response, from Ukraine policy architect Victoria Nuland, is rather celebratory.

[milk]

It's plausible to argue that the USA would like to see the pipeline destroyed.  For a start, US Presidents always opposed the pipeline because it would give Russia suasion over Germany, et al., (which is perfectly true).

But that the USA actually did it is another matter.  For one, as you say, there was/is the risk of being caught.  For another, I wonder about the timing for US a sabotage:  was it good? Or was is bad?  The Russian invasion was already under way, and sanctions were already operative.  Furthermore the pipeline was no longer actively delivering gas at the date of the explosions;  (the pipes must remain pressurized to avoid damage.)  Gas price rose immediately after the damage.  It's fair to ask whether, at that point, Russian had little to loose and perhaps something to gain by destroying the pipeline.

Hersh gives a lot of details and goes step by step. I assume he has sources and he does have credibility as a journalist. On the other hand, we should always be skeptical and look for other reporting. Plus, the official word is that this is pure fiction, so there's that.

[Todd]

That was quite a read. I wonder if there will be any repercussions to this or if it will be ignored.

Hersh won a Pulitzer, worked at the NYT, and so forth, so maybe other journalists follow-up.  Given the reception of the Columbia Journalism Review summary of the dumpster fire that was Russiagate reporting, also written by a Pultizer Prize winning NYT guy, I have doubts.  Pro-war folks will look the other way.

[Florestan]

If the USA really did it (a possibility that I don't rule out a priori), then they committed an act of state terrorism. I doubt, though, that there'll be any official international investigation, let alone any repercussion for the USA.

[Todd]

Whichever country or combination of countries did it committed an act of war and state act of terrorism.  Only state actors could have pulled off the operation.  It's merely a matter of learning who did it.  If the US did it, it will be interesting to see if moralizing folks defend America's actions.  (They will.)  According to Hersh, the US and Norway are responsible.  Norway has, of course, enjoyed bumper profits from the sale of natural gas, which expanded when the Baltic Pipe began operations right after the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, as in the next day.  It's probably all coincidence. 

The bad guys did it, the good guys remain good, and the war must continue.