Talk:2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qayqran (talk | contribs) at 22:44, 14 April 2023 (→‎Reordering the "Speculation" section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Suggested edit: Split largest sections along current subsections

helsinkitimes

US and Norway blew up the Nord Stream Pipelines: Seymour Hersh https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/22973-us-and-norway-blew-up-the-nord-stream-pipelines-seymour-hersh.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:800C:1806:6567:14F2:B6CD:E6FD:932D (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 7, 2022: During a joint news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in the Whitehouse, President Biden is asked about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
PRESIDENT BIDEN: The first question first. If Germany — if Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the — the border of Ukraine again — then there will be — we — there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.
Q But how will you — how will you do that exactly, since the project and control of the project is within Germany’s control?
PRESIDENT BIDEN: We will — I promise you, we’ll be able to do it. "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." When asked how, the president says, "I promise you, we will be able do that."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/07/remarks-by-president-biden-and-chancellor-scholz-of-the-federal-republic-of-germany-at-press-conference/
C-SPAN 1.21M subscribers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 81.241.224.173 (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


To ease navigation, I propose splitting up the large sections titled "Cause" and "Aftermath" by changing the subsections "Investigations" "Speculation" and "Environmental Impact" into top level sections. This would also change the subsubsections into subsections. In doing so I propose no changes to the actual contents. Naturally this would have to be done by a privileged editor due to the justified protection against adding one-sided narratives. Jbohmdk (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Investigations and Speculation refer both to the cause. I agree with having Environmental impact separately, though. — kashmīrī TALK 17:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The remaining "Cause" section isn't really about the cause, merely public reactions to the event. Anyway, the large section about "Investigations", if lifted to top level, might be renamed to "Investigations of cause", if you insist on that. Jbohmdk (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. I agree with Kashmiri that the Cause section is fine as-is, and that environmental impact should be its own top-level section. Jbohmdk, please ping me when you reply to this thread. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer recall what wizards or templates I used when trying to comply with the rules for protected pages, however I deliberately titled this a "suggested edit" to invite discussion to obtain a variant with consensus behind it, and I have tried to argue accordingly with very few responses besides Actualcpscm's bureaucratic complaint about procedure. Thus I would like to keep the discussion open foe now. Jbohmdk (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jbohmdk In this case, the issue is that there is an editor who objected to your suggestion. You don't need to conjure up 20 editors who agree with you to achieve consensus, but the edit can't be implemented when there is an unresolved explicit disagreement. If I were you, I'd have pinged Kashmiri to get some feedback on your argument. The discussion is open, but using edit request templates to attract discussion is discouraged. If Kashmiri does not get back to us within a reasonable time frame, and nobody else disagrees with your suggestion, then you can re-open the request. Thanks :) Actualcpscm (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gave rewriting the speculation a shot before. please take a look. Fephisto (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing quotes from Victoria Nuland and Anthony Blinken

Why is there censorship and selective reporting going on? Wiki is basically compromised. Please add in these direct quotes about the nord stream explosion by Nuland and Blinken. Quotes and sources below. …

Direct quote by Victoria Nuland to Ted Cruz in a US Senate Hearing, about the ‘hunk of metal’. https://www.newsweek.com/sergei-lavrov-us-nord-stream-pipeline-attack-1778499?amp=1

… Official US State Department statement by Blinken calling Nord Stream destruction a ‘tremendous opportunity’ https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-canadian-foreign-minister-melanie-joly-at-a-joint-press-availability/ Observer157 (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are distorting what was being said. Blinken said the following: Europe itself has taken very significant steps to both decrease demand but also look at ways to pursue the transition to renewables at the same time. And ultimately this is also a tremendous opportunity. It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs. Blinken did not call the explosion a tremendous opportunity. BeŻet (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the full quote reveals a distortion? The "this" in "this is also a tremendous opportunity" is in response to nordstream going offline, no? Spudst3r (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have that the word "this" doesn't refer to the previous sentence in the quote? Jbohmdk (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbohmdk How about the question Blinkin is answering? The question he was answering is precisely about the sabotage of NordStream:
QUESTION: Thank you very much. Thank you both for doing this today. On the subject of Nord Stream, Secretary and Minister, regardless of responsibility, obviously the energy supply situation in Europe is bad and only going to get worse as a result of this. I’m wondering if the two of you spoke at all today about what your two countries can do either independently or collectively to help to ease some of that pressure. And is there a heightened sense of danger in light of that if we’re talking about providing supplies – shipping supplies across the ocean, is it as simple as that or is it more complicated now as a result of these attacks?
Or just look closer at the "this" Blinken is talking about:
And ultimately this is also a tremendous opportunity. It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs. That’s very significant and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come, but meanwhile, we’re determined to do everything we possibly can to make sure that the consequences of all of this are not borne by citizens in our countries or, for that matter, around the world.
The context is clearly about the NordStream pipeline being sabotaged. Spudst3r (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is natural language, not maths, coding, symbols, etc. "This" obviously refers to "this whole new situation" – the guy presented the new situation, of a definitive end of Russian supply to Europe, as an opportunity for the continent. This is a pretty common corpospeak: "Markets are down, but this is also a tremendous opportunity". It's a bit naive to blow it out of proportion, seek hidden codes and messages, etc. — kashmīrī TALK 22:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That may be fair. My sense is that it's best for the article to just quote this notable response in a neutral manner, which accurately presents the reaction of the U.S. to this "whole new situation" and people can make up their own minds. Spudst3r (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gas prices jumped 12 percent

The article states: "On 27 September 2022, European gas prices jumped 12 percent after news spread of the damaged pipelines"

Could anybody submit an angle on that subject to the article. For instance, have there been investigations into suspicious transactions or the construction of positions in equity, futures or options preceding the sabotage?77.60.121.89 (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saturation dives

To dive as deep as needed for this kind of sabotage you need decompression chambers, special dive equipment and compressors. I seriously doubt whether a small team of 6 on a small yacht can perform such a difficult and dangerous task. Unless they didn't care about themselves, but that would be contrary to the theory of ukranian terrorists which states there was a doctor on board.77.60.121.89 (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum to discuss the event, sorry. However, we can talk here about reliable sources and improvements to the article. — kashmīrī TALK 13:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Any fellow Danish friends know of a source we can use to cite the picture of the actual explosion? For example, the photo found here that many other newspapers have cited? Also, there's a picture of the antenna that the Danish authorities have found recently, is there any sources others have encountered for that? Fephisto (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a news site. — kashmīrī TALK 17:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures of the explosion have been around a while now. The one I cited is from 4-5 months ago. Fephisto (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this picture is allegedly from the Swedish investigation of the 2 explosions in their economic zone, not the 2 explosions in the Danish economic zone. So try looking for Swedish government press releases that may include that photo.Jbohmdk (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was able to hunt for some stills this way. It turns out that the pictures of the actual damage came from a private Swedish company, so I don't think we'll be able to use it. I did find a Danish defense photo of the actual gas leak, though. However, I'm trying to find their cc licensing details. Fephisto (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian tracks

https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/aussenpolitik/id_100149758/nord-stream-russia-may-have-operated-a-submarine-before-the-explosions.html

details, arguments, evidence (satellite photos) ... 62.143.251.224 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, this might be worth adding under the Russian section assuming this newspaper meets the inclusion criteria for notability. Spudst3r (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reordering the "Speculation" section

According to the latest news on the matter, I think it is right to give the sub-sections a new order. According to the latest sources, the fact that Russia was behind the sabotage has become among the least plausible,[1] so I think it is correct to move it to last. Mhorg (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does this look any better? Fephisto (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That table was not bad at all. Taking care that there is no OR, for me it could be restored and expanded. Mhorg (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know whether that table is a wiki standard, however. For now, I will proceed with changing the order of the accused countries. Mhorg (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would completely redraft the section into sections and sub-sections based on a temporal timeline. It is confusing for the sections to be "by country". e.g. the first section could be "Initial speculations on Russian responsibility", the Hersh article could be somewhere in the Middle, then the Ukrainian responsibility article on Washington Post and finally Swedish rebuttal.Without the temporal dimension all of this is very confusing. --Qayqran (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage&oldid=1149865311"