Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

dustyowl29 said:That was a massive amount of gas. I mean, how much volume can you actually fit into 746 miles just a single pipe?

A single mile? Yeah, that's a massive amount of gas.

addx said:No, that isn't right. You're just drawing conclusions with an unearned sense of certainty.

The pressure in Nord Stream 2 has been there for quite some time, yet not a single cubic meter of gas has actually moved through that pipe.

https://www.offshore-energy.biz/gas-...ring-all-done/

The Germans never issued the operating permit.

So, let’s recap: the fact that the pipe is pressurized simply means it is ready for operation—an operation that was never officially authorized.

Furthermore, the narrative falls apart when you look at the flow rates. Why would everyone be panicking if Nord Stream 2 was functional? The flow from Nord Stream 1 was first throttled down to 20%, then 10%, then cut off entirely. If Nord Stream 2 had been operational, it could have practically supplied all of Germany on its own. There is zero logic in Putin using faulty turbines as a pretext to choke off gas supplies to Germany while simultaneously running massive amounts of gas through Nord Stream 2 on the black market. It makes no sense.

Either that, or a moderator needs to step in and ban someone who is clearly intent on repeating a lie until it eventually becomes "truth."

It seems to me the logic followed this path:
The German side refused to grant permission for Nord Stream 2 purely for political reasons regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Russians decided to play a game to "prove" they could force the issue. They leveraged the alleged malfunction of the Nord Stream 1 turbines to pressure the Germans into fast-tracking the Nord Stream 2 permit under the guise of ensuring energy security. But the Germans—having already committed to blocking Nord Stream 2 for political reasons—couldn't pivot without looking hypocritical. So, the Russians began slowly choking the flow through Nord Stream 1. Eventually, everything ground to a halt. This whole theater about paying for gas in rubles was merely a secondary distraction.
It is worth noting that the Western firms financing Nord Stream 2 lost staggering amounts of money; write-offs were measured in the billions. Meanwhile, the owner of Nord Stream 2 is Nord Stream 2 AG, based in New York City. And the sole owner of Nord Stream 2 AG is ExxonMobil.

Quincy:

Nancy Gomez26 Asks: I concur with the points made. However, we must consider the physics at play here: higher pressure inevitably forces more gas out into the surrounding medium—which, in this instance, is the ocean under lower pressure. Furthermore, the sheer scale of the container matters; given the cross-sectional area of the pipeline multiplied by its length, the volume of gas released into the sea will be substantial. As the internal pressure within the leaking vessel drops, the pressure differential between the pipe and the ocean will narrow, naturally slowing the leak over time. Based on the imagery provided, the initial discharge was incredibly violent; you could see the gas erupting at the surface from a plane flying 100 meters above the site.

Quincy:

Fantasist Asks: So, what’s the move then? The turbines have to keep pumping gas regardless of the loss, just to ensure the ocean doesn't breach the line. It's like trying to keep a leaky dam pressurized just to stop the flood from getting in.

Ultimately, the ball is in the operators' court. From where I stand, this entire situation lacks logic—it’s clearly an act of sabotage. Until we address the issue of the saboteurs themselves, any further action is just spinning wheels. One should also be questioning the facility owner: what exactly are their intentions here? Under US law, owners typically carry specific legal obligations regarding such sites—things like mandatory maintenance protocols, damage remediation requirements, and determining who picks up the tab and from which funds. It's all connected.

I) Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine without having enough force to guarantee a win, yet he brought just enough to keep Ukrainians fighting with everything they had out of pure survival instinct. At one point, Kyiv was under serious threat, Kherson had fallen, and cities like Chernihiv and Sumy were completely surrounded—it was incredibly intense.
Then, after seven months of seeing his primary forces largely decimated and watching the Ukrainians successfully build a winning military, he finally resorted to a mass mobilization.
If he had hit Ukraine with 600,000 troops right at the start, he might not have conquered the whole country, but he likely would have seized the entire eastern side of the Dnieper.
What we’re seeing now is essentially just throwing artillery fodder against highly trained, deeply motivated Ukrainians, which is going to have a negligible impact on the actual outcome of the war.

II) It’s also worth noting that he didn't shut off the pipelines supplying the European Union immediately; instead, he waited six months, gradually turning down the flow before ultimately destroying the pipeline altogether. But most of Europe had already prepared for winter—it's that classic case of "too little, too late" policy-making.

III) And finally, if he goes ahead and annexes these few regions, he’ll actually be doing the Ukrainians a massive favor. By putting Crimea, Kherson, and these newly annexed areas all on the same legal footing, he removes any distinction when Ukrainians eventually liberate parts of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, or Crimea. For the Ukrainians themselves, there isn't much difference, but this way, even the Chinese will see that the Russians don't actually care about losing their own territory.

It’s honestly hard to imagine Putin playing his hand any better against Ukraine.

Michael Davis9 said:I) Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine without having enough force to guarantee a win, yet he brought just enough to keep Ukrainians fighting with everything they had out of pure survival instinct. At one point, Kyiv was under serious threat, Kherson had fallen, and cities like Chernihiv and Sumy were completely surrounded—it was incredibly intense.
Then, after seven months of seeing his primary forces largely decimated and watching the Ukrainians successfully build a winning military, he finally resorted to a mass mobilization.
If he had hit Ukraine with 600,000 troops right at the start, he might not have conquered the whole country, but he likely would have seized the entire eastern side of the Dnieper.
What we’re seeing now is essentially just throwing artillery fodder against highly trained, deeply motivated Ukrainians, which is going to have a negligible impact on the actual outcome of the war.

II) It’s also worth noting that he didn't shut off the pipelines supplying the European Union immediately; instead, he waited six months, gradually turning down the flow before ultimately destroying the pipeline altogether. But most of Europe had already prepared for winter—it's that classic case of "too little, too late" policy-making.

III) And finally, if he goes ahead and annexes these few regions, he’ll actually be doing the Ukrainians a massive favor. By putting Crimea, Kherson, and these newly annexed areas all on the same legal footing, he removes any distinction when Ukrainians eventually liberate parts of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, or Crimea. For the Ukrainians themselves, there isn't much difference, but this way, even the Chinese will see that the Russians don't actually care about losing their own territory.

It’s honestly hard to imagine Putin playing his hand any better against Ukraine.

I find that hard to swallow. I refuse to believe the Russians are so reckless that they’d just sit by and watch their own soil slip away. Sure, they might be the only ones who think that land belongs to them, but from tomorrow onward, it’s officially Russian Federation territory. There are really only two ways to look at this:

1. They honestly believe this latest wave of mobilization will be enough to hold the line.
2. They have a nuclear ace up their sleeve.

There isn't a third option. And it’s not just the Chinese waiting in line for a piece of the pie; the Russian Federation is a "federation" made up of God knows what and whomever. My guess? Plenty of those republics wouldn't mind breaking away from Moscow in a heartbeat.

Joshua Myers432 said:I find that hard to swallow. I refuse to believe the Russians are so reckless that they’d just sit by and watch their own soil slip away. Sure, they might be the only ones who think that land belongs to them, but from tomorrow onward, it’s officially Russian Federation territory. There are really only two ways to look at this:

1. They honestly believe this latest wave of mobilization will be enough to hold the line.
2. They have a nuclear ace up their sleeve.

There isn't a third option. And it’s not just the Chinese waiting in line for a piece of the pie; the Russian Federation is a "federation" made up of God knows what and whomever. My guess? Plenty of those republics wouldn't mind breaking away from Moscow in a heartbeat.

We can speculate all we want, but no serious military analysis gives them any real chance.

Back in school, they drilled it into my head that lower density always means things float to the top—regardless of what the pressure is doing.

crimsoncyclist71 said:We can speculate all we want, but no serious military analysis gives them any real chance.

How so? Go watch some Russian news channels and try to find a single Russian colonel or general who actually believes Ukrainians have a shot.🕺

quietcobra21 said:From what I gather, Russia uses the NS1 and NS2 pipelines to sell gas to the European Union, and they use that cash to fund the war in Ukraine. No pipeline means no gas sales, which means no money for the war. Why would Russia cut off the very branch they’re sitting on?
If someone were actually going to blow up a pipeline, wouldn't it make more sense to hit the one running from Norway toward Poland? That way, they force the European Union to play ball on everything—from energy prices to how much weaponry gets sent to Ukraine. The fewer alternatives you have, the more you're forced to compromise. Simple math.
For years, the Americans have been telling the European Union—specifically the Germans—that they're too dependent on Russian gas and need to scale back. Now, it looks like the "nice" approach failed, so they're doing it the hard way. You even have that Polish politician publicly thanking the Americans for liberating them from Russian gas. I'm assuming the guy is sane and better informed than everyone on this forum combined. Etc, etc. But sure, let's all just pretend Martians did it instead.

Just because Germany was dependent on Russian gas doesn't mean Russia isn't equally reliant on selling that gas to Germany—especially since they've already stopped using it themselves. Just as a reminder, gas exports are pretty much on par with coal briquette exports:

Joshua Myers432 said:How so? Go watch some Russian news channels and try to find a single Russian colonel or general who actually believes Ukrainians have a shot.🕺

I couldn't care less about trolling. Not even a little bit.
I keep watching the analyses and media briefings from people who have dedicated their entire lives to military training. They consistently paint a picture of just how disastrously incompetent the Russian military actually is. None of that changes the fact that they’re mobilizing more people into a catastrophe. If anything, it just scales the disaster up. Besides, their mobilization efforts are already a chaotic mess.

hiddeneagle98 said:People throw all sorts of things around, but it's all just speculation at this point. When I see someone cherry-picking evidence to fit their own narrative—and then adding the claim that some former Polish minister, someone like a high-level advisor in D.C., is getting intel on matters that are inherently top secret—well, then it becomes obvious that the guy is just a mouthpiece looking for a paycheck.

Since the pipeline was under 100 bars of pressure (you can clearly see the sea bubbling and gas escaping to the surface), it means it was full, and I highly doubt the Russians were just giving it away for free; I’d assume they were trying to sell it.

Believe whatever you want, but verifiable facts don't care about your theories. NS2 was full of gas, but it was blocked on the German side; it never actually got the green light to operate.

As for NS1, the Russians shut it down claiming their turbines weren't working properly.

Of course. And if the Norwegian pipeline stays intact, then everything will be perfectly clear, right?

No. If that happens, things are still just as murky as before.

Fine, so we’re just going to ignore the statement from a former Polish defense minister because you don't like what he said? Sure. Not quite the level of Ćorić, but okay.
Here is a quote from the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth. How are you going to debunk that? You going to say he’s senile? That he has no idea what he’s talking about? This was reported by Reuters, not CNN.
https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...ys-2022-02-07/

hiddeneagle98 said:People throw all sorts of things around, but it's all just speculation at this point. When I see someone cherry-picking evidence to fit their own narrative—and then adding the claim that some former Polish minister, someone like a high-level advisor in D.C., is getting intel on matters that are inherently top secret—well, then it becomes obvious that the guy is just a mouthpiece looking for a paycheck.

Since the pipeline was under 100 bars of pressure (you can clearly see the sea bubbling and gas escaping to the surface), it means it was full, and I highly doubt the Russians were just giving it away for free; I’d assume they were trying to sell it.

Believe whatever you want, but verifiable facts don't care about your theories. NS2 was full of gas, but it was blocked on the German side; it never actually got the green light to operate.

As for NS1, the Russians shut it down claiming their turbines weren't working properly.

Of course. And if the Norwegian pipeline stays intact, then everything will be perfectly clear, right?

No. If that happens, things are still just as murky as before.

Mouthpiece?🤣
I actually thought you were the one with the brainwashed, mouthpiece mentality, but I decided to keep that to myself.

hiddeneagle98 said:People throw all sorts of things around, but it's all just speculation at this point. When I see someone cherry-picking evidence to fit their own narrative—and then adding the claim that some former Polish minister, someone like a high-level advisor in D.C., is getting intel on matters that are inherently top secret—well, then it becomes obvious that the guy is just a mouthpiece looking for a paycheck.

Since the pipeline was under 100 bars of pressure (you can clearly see the sea bubbling and gas escaping to the surface), it means it was full, and I highly doubt the Russians were just giving it away for free; I’d assume they were trying to sell it.

Believe whatever you want, but verifiable facts don't care about your theories. NS2 was full of gas, but it was blocked on the German side; it never actually got the green light to operate.

As for NS1, the Russians shut it down claiming their turbines weren't working properly.

Of course. And if the Norwegian pipeline stays intact, then everything will be perfectly clear, right?

No. If that happens, things are still just as murky as before.

Just because it didn't get clearance doesn't mean gas can't flow through it.

hiddeneagle98 said:People throw all sorts of things around, but it's all just speculation at this point. When I see someone cherry-picking evidence to fit their own narrative—and then adding the claim that some former Polish minister, someone like a high-level advisor in D.C., is getting intel on matters that are inherently top secret—well, then it becomes obvious that the guy is just a mouthpiece looking for a paycheck.

Since the pipeline was under 100 bars of pressure (you can clearly see the sea bubbling and gas escaping to the surface), it means it was full, and I highly doubt the Russians were just giving it away for free; I’d assume they were trying to sell it.

Believe whatever you want, but verifiable facts don't care about your theories. NS2 was full of gas, but it was blocked on the German side; it never actually got the green light to operate.

As for NS1, the Russians shut it down claiming their turbines weren't working properly.

Of course. And if the Norwegian pipeline stays intact, then everything will be perfectly clear, right?

No. If that happens, things are still just as murky as before.

Seems like everything looks shady to you.

Joshua Myers432 said:How so? Go watch some Russian news channels and try to find a single Russian colonel or general who actually believes Ukrainians have a shot.🕺

So, you’ve got these self-proclaimed "experts" and military bigshots on TV constantly spinning this narrative, claiming they actually pulled one over on NATO. They’re basically telling everyone that NATO had to stop the bombing because they were outsmarted, acting like they somehow dodged being neutralized while bragging about how many planes they've supposedly shot down every single day. It's honestly pretty wild to watch. 🙏🙏🙏

I haven't even started getting into the mental state of these so-called "experts" yet, let alone their "alternative history" nonsense...

Honestly, I’d probably rather spend my time scrolling through threads from war theory professors or reading stuff from retired NATO and US generals. Those guys were actually calling this whole situation what it is back in March, right when the Ukrainians were defending Kyiv and everything looked like some straight-up sci-fi movie.
I’d say their "crystal ball" is actually working a lot better than that cheap knockoff version the guys over in Mexico are using. 🕺

What’s even the big deal with Nord Stream 2? It’s basically out of commission anyway. I mean, who actually knows who blew it up? Not like we care when we're already cutting ties with Russia as a supplier.

hollowdriver13 said:So, you’ve got these self-proclaimed "experts" and military bigshots on TV constantly spinning this narrative, claiming they actually pulled one over on NATO. They’re basically telling everyone that NATO had to stop the bombing because they were outsmarted, acting like they somehow dodged being neutralized while bragging about how many planes they've supposedly shot down every single day. It's honestly pretty wild to watch. 🙏🙏🙏

I haven't even started getting into the mental state of these so-called "experts" yet, let alone their "alternative history" nonsense...

Honestly, I’d probably rather spend my time scrolling through threads from war theory professors or reading stuff from retired NATO and US generals. Those guys were actually calling this whole situation what it is back in March, right when the Ukrainians were defending Kyiv and everything looked like some straight-up sci-fi movie.
I’d say their "crystal ball" is actually working a lot better than that cheap knockoff version the guys over in Mexico are using. 🕺

Yeah, I saw that. Total WTF moment. You honestly don't believe it until you see it with your own eyes.

analogbear5 said:Just because Germany was dependent on Russian gas doesn't mean Russia isn't equally reliant on selling that gas to Germany—especially since they've already stopped using it themselves. Just as a reminder, gas exports are pretty much on par with coal briquette exports:

I don't think anyone's suggesting it’s worth throwing $11 billion down the drain just so Germans can buy coal briquettes from Russians. Nobody is claiming there isn't a direct link between Germany's need for cheap gas and what Russia is exporting.

quietcobra21 said:I don't think anyone's suggesting it’s worth throwing $11 billion down the drain just so Germans can buy coal briquettes from Russians. Nobody is claiming there isn't a direct link between Germany's need for cheap gas and what Russia is exporting.

Look, if Putin doesn't care about sending hundreds of thousands of his own people to die, he definitely isn't sweating an $11 billion loss.

Lost time is worth way more than that money. But when you're fighting a losing war, your thinking starts getting pretty short-sighted.

quietcobra21 said:I don't think anyone's suggesting it’s worth throwing $11 billion down the drain just so Germans can buy coal briquettes from Russians. Nobody is claiming there isn't a direct link between Germany's need for cheap gas and what Russia is exporting.

Honestly, it's just a lack of vocabulary in the American language. We tend to call everything "coal."

"Coal briquettes" usually refers to industrial coal or lignite briquettes.

"Charcoal briquettes" are those little things you grab at the store for grilling meat.

analogbear5 said:Look, if Putin doesn't care about sending hundreds of thousands of his own people to die, he definitely isn't sweating an $11 billion loss.

Lost time is worth way more than that money. But when you're fighting a losing war, your thinking starts getting pretty short-sighted.

What’s actually worth more than that cash is the political leverage you hold over the economies of the strongest nations in the European Union. Plus, the annual revenue from selling gas isn't exactly pocket change either. That $11 billion comes back fast enough...
I read somewhere that Russia actually made more from selling gas this year at higher prices—even with sanctions—than they did last year when prices were lower and there were no sanctions.

hollowdriver13 said:Honestly, it's just a lack of vocabulary in the American language. We tend to call everything "coal."

"Coal briquettes" usually refers to industrial coal or lignite briquettes.

"Charcoal briquettes" are those little things you grab at the store for grilling meat.

You're quoting the wrong person. I was just repeating what was said.

analogbear5 said:Look, if Putin doesn't care about sending hundreds of thousands of his own people to die, he definitely isn't sweating an $11 billion loss.

Lost time is worth way more than that money. But when you're fighting a losing war, your thinking starts getting pretty short-sighted.

And honestly? I don't think Putin even thinks he's losing.

Nancy Gomez26 said:I find myself in agreement with those points. That said, higher pressure means more gas will be discharged into the surrounding medium—the ocean, in this instance—which exists at a much lower pressure. Naturally, a larger vessel (calculated by the cross-sectional area of the pipeline multiplied by its length) will release an even greater volume of gas into the water. As the pressure differential narrows—because the pressure within the leaking vessel drops while the ambient ocean pressure remains constant—the rate of leakage will inevitably slow down over time. Based on the imagery we've seen, the initial discharge was incredibly intense; from an aircraft, you could clearly see the gas erupting at the surface, 100 meters directly above the breach.

But honestly, that's all just deep theory at this point.
The bottom line is that Europe needs to ditch Russian gas as fast as humanly possible!