Finnish President Says Undersea Gas and Telecom Cables Damaged By 'External Activity' (apnews.com) 88
Damage to an undersea gas pipeline and telecommunications cable connecting Finland and Estonia appears to have been caused by "external activity," Finnish officials said Tuesday, adding that authorities were investigating. From a report: Finnish and Estonian gas system operators on Sunday said they noted an unusual drop in pressure in the Balticconnector pipeline after which they shut down the gas flow. The Finnish government on Tuesday said there was damage both to the gas pipeline and to a telecommunications cable between the two NATO countries. Speaking at a news conference Tuesday, Prime Minister Petteri Orpo stopped short of calling the pipeline leak sabotage, but said it could not have been caused by regular operations. "According to a preliminary assessment, the observed damage could not have occurred as a result of normal use of the pipe or pressure fluctuations. It is likely that the damage is the result of external activity," Orpo said. Finland's National Bureau of Investigation was leading an investigation into the leak, Orpo said, adding that the leak occurred in Finland's economic zone.
Russia did it (Score:3)
Re:Russia did it (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Russia did it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's not the idiots hanging around on slashdot you should be worried about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nordstream, the pipe that Russia sabotaged also?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, the one which had US Navy diving ships dwelling nearby immediately prior to and during when the damage occurred.
Re: Russia did it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The Russians spent billions building those pipelines. They financed like 50% of their construction. And if they wanted to cut the gas supply they just needed to close the taps. Why bother destroying the pipelines.
I think it is fairly clear who sabotaged Nord Stream. Just follow the money. Who earned the most from the closure of Nord Stream? Who said that Nord Stream wouldn't stay operational if Russia attacked Ukraine?
It is pretty obvious the US blew up Nord Stream 1/2. And it is pretty obvious the Russians
Re: (Score:1)
Given the recent "NATO" activities, it's more likely to have been the US.
Re: (Score:1)
Current information (Score:5, Informative)
Currently, we don't know for sure, because investigation hasn't really started yet. It will take a few days to get relevant resources to suspected site where it's damaged. Telecommunications is fine, because those get damaged all the time and will probably be fixed pretty quickly.
Natgas one is the actual problem of the two. With it out, and with Russian connection stopped since Ukraine war start, the only remaining source of gas is floating LNG terminal which sits at the same place as where this cable used to terminate. Security has probably been increased significantly around it. Problem is that pipe is one of those natgas pipes that are heavily armored and covered with rock and it's a pretty new one, so accidental damage is extremely unlikely. This is why some are already stating that it's all but certain to be an outside actor who did it.
Just in time for winter usage spike too, so Russia is someone with a motive and capability, and this is the first winter in Finland as a member of NATO. So it was expected that Russia would begin to test new security arrangements to see where new limits are. Considering the precedent with someone blowing up Nord Stream severing Russian options to try to blackmail Germany into abandoning pro-Ukrainian alliance last year, it makes logical sense that Russia would see it as acceptable to do same thing by damaging pipelines within the alliance.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Current information (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Current information (Score:4, Insightful)
just like you guys did Nordstream... remember Nordstream ?
Re: Current information (Score:2)
Good points
Re: (Score:1)
Know who else has motive? Exxon, BP, Conoco, Shell, and Chevron, the five largest LNG exporters in the world. People mistakenly think that only governments are capable of sabotage, but that's not true at all.
Re: (Score:3)
LNG market is bought out right now, to the point where if you have spares, Pakistan will take it immediately.
There's really no shortage of demand. It's the supply side that is constrained right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Shortages raise prices, dire shortages raise prices dramatically, in case you haven't noticed. LNG is already expensive, it can go to stupidly expensive and the vendors won't mind a bit. The sunk cost that their customers and the end users have in equipment means that they're going to have to pay it, they're a captive audience. That pipeline terminated at the LNG terminal, where both feed into the distribution network. If Russia/Iran/Al Qaeda/China/boogieman-of-the-day wanted to damage Finland they woul
Re: (Score:2)
Not the way insulated high entry cost markets with alternatives function. LNG is inflexible in demand because to take it, you need very expensive, long build time facilities. Or you need to rent one of the existing floating docks that are included in the current market already (as we did here in Finland).
What happened is not that price blew up, because amount of entities capable of taking gas did't meaningfully increase. What happened is that floating docks were moved around, and places like Pakistan lost c
Re: (Score:2)
No, demand is based on combination of being able to receive shipments and move them and price. Natgas is a gas. You can't just store it on the ground or in a simple tank. You need to have hardware that can keep it cold while stored in a sealed container, then gasify it slowly and feed into some kind of a pipeline that already exists as it's converted into gas.
It's not a good that is easy to move around, so it's not very flexible in either supply or demand. That makes price of it reasonably stable compared t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I assumed IQ above room temperature. That was my only mistake so far in this thread. Best of luck with the rest of your life.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh come on, Russia did this last year with Nordstream 2. There are pictures of a Russian ship lowering a minisub directly in that area 4 days before the pipe sabotage, it's pretty obvious in that case who did it. Nordstream 2 was sabotaged right before winter also, just like this one. Why assume it isn't Russia today, given that they're just as beligerant as always and their leader shows no sign of regaining mental stability. Putin is still shitting bricks because Finland joined NATO, he's not just goin
Re:Current information (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? You actually think that Russia would damage its own infrastructure (well, 50% its own) and throw away 500+ million cubic meters of unsold natural gas worth billions because, well, why? They couldn't figure out how to turn off the tap? Russians are naturally evil? Russians are too stupid to comprehend the consequences? I have yet to hear a rational explanation of why it would have been in their interest, nothing beyond basic racism and, "That's what the State Department says." (As if the State Department hadn't lied about every conflict the US has been in since the Spanish-American War.) Did you know that it's going to take longer and cost almost as much to de-water the lines as to repair them? Why the frack would they have destroyed the pipeline that kept Europe on their side? It makes no sense at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have yet to hear a rational explanation of why it would have been in their interest
Invading Ukraine drove Finland and Sweden into NATO, which was very definitely not in their interest, and was a very foreseeable outcome. You're assuming Putin behaves rationally when all evidence suggests otherwise.
Re:Current information (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia damaged it's own Nordstream 2 pipeline already, there's pretty strong evidence pointing that directlly, far stronger evidence that that the west sabotaged it as a false flag. Putin gets more from causing Finns to shiver in the winter than he'll get from the money. Putin wants Europeans to shiver, he wants them to know that he should be the one dictating policies and what they stand to lose. It's not necessarily logical, but Putin seems to be acting on emotion instead of logic. Putin doesn't behave like a national political leader, he behaves like a mob boss, and very often mob bosses are their own worst enemies.
Europe is NOT on Russia's side, not since he invaded Ukraine. Europe was not really even on his side before then either, they were just hoping to mollify him and were naive to think he might become civilized. Putin knows he's lost Europe, he knows he has lost Finland, even if in his small head he thinks they were ever on his side earlier. Finland switched to NATO which is the unforgivable sin to Putin, the primary reason he's invading Ukraine is because it made overtures to the west and NATO and kicked out his puppet.
No, Russians are not naturally evil. However, Putin is! Putin calls 100% of the shots, no one else makes a decision overriding his micromanagement. This is why the "special military operation" is going so badly, because Putin called the shots and had it executed by yes-men general.
Re: (Score:3)
Ukraine didn't have the capacity to take out the pipelines, and the boat that it's claimed they used didn't even have the ability to carry the quantity of explosives used much less the specialized equipment needed for diving at that depth. That whole claim has been a nonstarter from the get-go.
Re: Current information (Score:2)
Russia views geopolitics as a zero-sum game. It doesn't matter if they lose some as long as others lose even more. The pipeline had never been opened, was not going to be anywhere in the near future, if even ever (Europe doesn't want to depend on russia for the foreseeable future), and russia already was limiting gas flow on other pipelines and electricity sales as well.
So what harm did russia do with the sabotage, and what did it lose? Like I pointed out, in the foreseeable future, it did not lose any mone
Re: (Score:2)
They have lost a shitload of money - about half of Gazprom revenues. So much, in fact, that Russia had to demand a "voluntary" one time payment from their largest companies. Putin did not expect to lose this game of chicken with the EU, but here we are. Unfortunately for us the only way he is able to react to losses is escalation of commitment.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the UN the civilian death toll is still under 10,000, so fewer than the US killed just in Fallujah. That's the lowest civilian/combatant death ratio of any conflict that I've heard of for at least a century. In part that's a tribute to the accuracy of modern munitions, but mostly it's restraint on the part of the Russian forces.
Why is it that when Russia moves civilians out of the zone of conflict that it's "kidnapping", but when Ukraine does the same thing it's called "humanitarian"? Would
Re: (Score:2)
so fewer than the US killed just in Fallujah
Yeah, that's bullshit, and five seconds on Google confirms it. It was hundreds, between both battles of Fallujah, which is lamentable, but there's very clearly a difference between civilians caught in the crossfire (not a war crime if military necessity, distinction, and proportionality were all met) and Russia fucking aiming their weapons at civilians .
Go ahead, find something like this [wikipedia.org] in the Iraq War, preferably not something sourced from Russia Today. We'll wait.
The only thing keeping Putin and his
Re: (Score:3)
Unlikely, as contracts for LNG have been signed for a while now. Far too late to get new ones, and Finland isn't really big enough nor consume enough gas for that level of effort.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would the US sabotage the energy infrastructure of its closest and most important allies? You do know that increased LNG exports have harmed the American domestic energy market, right? My retail cost for natural gas, which I use to heat my home, went up nearly 40%. Happy to pay that price if it means my friends in the EU don't freeze through winter but it's pretty laughable to think there was any financial or political motive for the US to do this.
You might also consider that the Baltic Sea is essen
Re: Current information (Score:4, Insightful)
My retail cost for natural gas, which I use to heat my home, went up nearly 40%.
And why on Earth do you think that the natural gas companies are disappointed by that? Why do you think that destroying the single most valuable thing keeping western Europe tied to Russia was not in NATO's interest?
There was an entire NATO fleet in the Baltic just days before the explosions, including ships and staff which would have been competent to set the charges, for an annual exercise called BALTOPS. The 2023 exercise just ended Sept. 24.
Re: (Score:2)
As a Soviet general told writer Farley Mowat in the '70s, "The difference between American propaganda and Soviet propaganda is that we don't believe ours."
Re: Current information (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that destroying the single most valuable thing keeping western Europe tied to Russia was not in NATO's interest?
You don't know how NATO works, do you? It operates by consensus. Every member has to agree. You think the Russian puppets/apologists in Budapest and Ankara would go along with this? You think the Greens within the Danish/Finnish/Swedish Governments would keep this quiet? The German Government with huge financial stake? Do you think the large number of people that would have to be involved, at all levels, not ONE of them would leak it to the press? Have you ever been on a warship? They're pretty smal
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really mean to say that Americans and western Europeans can't keep a secret but Russians can? Have you never met any Russians? Or any Special Forces personnel from any country?
Operation Northwoods was a plan to carry out false flag attacks against Americans and American assets to be blamed on Cuba in order to justify an invasion. It was approved by the entire Joint Chiefs until shot down by an appalled President Kennedy, a process which would have involved scores of people, and yet it was never ex
False, false, flag operation (Score:3)
Sure in some Guy Rtichie movie it could be the oil cartels, or some secret NATO op, or the militant wing of Greenpeace. But c'mon...its the Russians. Twitter guy noted this: https://twitter.com/konrad_muz... [twitter.com]?
The only reason not to think it's the Russians is that this and Nordstream attacks were actually successful.
The other operation that has been successful for Russia is keeping energy independence out of Europe blocking implementation of nuclear power. The Western world had decades to replace fossil fuel with nuclear, and then replace some of nuclear with wind and solar as technology improved and costs lowered. Sabine's 'Dunkleflaute' Youtube video is a good one in realistically comparing options for electricity generation. tldr; U-235 contains 24 GWh per kg.
But the bizarro politics around all of this resulted in increasing fossil fuel use instead. In the US such energy independence would have avoided multiple wars in the Middle East, healthier citizens, better, cleaner world, money spent domestically instead of being sent to places that hate us.
Re: (Score:1)
everyone knows Nordstream was the CIA's doing. time to stop pretending it was anybody else
Re: False, false, flag operation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, Russia was seen lowering a minisub right very close to that location just 4 days before the sabotage occured. I know some people want to defend Russia, but it was pretty obvious it was them. Russia knows the sanctions won't be lifted, at least until they withdraw from their neighbors and get rid of Putin.
Re: False, false, flag operation (Score:5, Insightful)
Nordstream certainly isn't sabotaged by the Russians as it's against their best interest
Because Putin always makes rational decisions grounded in the best interest of the Russian people?
Is that why he launched a war of aggression that drove Finland into NATO, putting Russia's second largest city within 100 miles of the alliance whose expansion he has consistently decried as an existential threat to Russia?
There isn't a rational neuron in Putin's brain. He's not playing chess while he play checkers. He's just a thug. Ask yourself what Tony Soprano would do in a given situation and there's a decent chance the answer also applies to Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, if you get stabbed while walking through gang territory, the smart bet is that it was a gang member who stabbed you, not the government, or police, or the bank, or the illuminati, or aliens. In this case, Occam's Razor points to Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
Occam's Razor does not come out to "Every bad thing that happens in eastern Europe is due to this one guy."
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to not be Putin it's a big stretch in logic with lots of hand waving and bowing to conspiracy theories. We know Putin wants to punish Finland, and has damage a pipeline last year around the same time. Making it the US as a false flag is an absurd leap in logic. Number one possibility, the simplest barring more evidence, is that Russia did this. Number two, when evidence comes out, it's possibly an accident of some type and the extra protection didn't help.
Re: (Score:2)
Occam's Razor says, " if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one"
In this case, we have two competing ideas, one being that this was a US led false flag operation and the second being that it was executed at the behest of an international war criminal that promised to punish Finland for joining NATO. Which of those do you suppose is the simpler explanation?
The notion that the US would conduct a false flag operation at the expense of a NATO Ally -- whe
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about Nordstream, which was pretty clearly a US or US-led operation, not this attack.
Why would Russia attack Finland? Finland is already shoveling all the spare weapons they have into Ukraine (including a Maxim machine gun from a military museum), why would the Russians invite the Finns to get actively involved by a direct attack? They remember the last time they fought the Finns, that conflict was responsible for the invention of the phrase 'Molotov cocktail', thousands of Russian deaths an
Re: (Score:2)
"Everyone knows"? Why? What did they actually gain? You continue to say "they had the most to gain", but there's no rational explanation of what that gain was supposed to be.
The "part that mysteriously didn't get blown up" was half of the already-functioning Nordstream 1 pipeline. It had charges detonated against it, the same as the others, but was only damaged and not destroyed. It was closed for inspections, which showed that it could be reopened if the Russians felt like supplying more gas that they
Re: (Score:2)
So no actual rational explanation as to what they had to gain other than "evil bad guys do evil thing!!!11!" And you've just displayed your ignorance of what happened even further. We're done here.
The urchins did it (Score:2)
Research Ship Sibiryakov Coincidence? (Score:3)
Ya know, some things occur to me. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ya know, some things occur to me. (Score:5, Interesting)
They've been content to commit petty atrocities for generations, but suddenly they do something "baroquely evil" on 9/11 scale like this a year after the Ukraine invasion, while the Kremlin has become dependent on Iranian hardware? There's no way that happens spontaneously. The middle east was content in its mutual hatreds; this suggests external influences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
External activity? Well duh (Score:2)
Damage to telecommunication cables rarely comes from internal activity.