Nato’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said the transatlantic military alliance was “ready to share information about the destruction of Finnish and Estonian underwater infrastructure” and to “support its allies”.

The Finnish government said in a statement that authorities had discovered the damage to the Balticconnector natural gas pipeline, and to a communication cable linking Finland and Estonia, at about 2am local time (0000 BST) on Sunday morning.

It cited unnamed intelligence sources as saying the government “considered it possible that Russia had aimed a sabotage attack” amid sightings of Russian vessels in the vicinity of windfarms and underwater power cables in the Baltic Sea.

Konrad Muzyka, an independent regional defence analyst, said on X that the Russian hydrographic survey vessel Sibiryakov had been detected in the Gulf of Finland near the pipeline and the Estlinks cable in May, August and September.

Finland and Estonia are EU and Nato members that border Russia and stopped importing Russian oil and gas as part of sanctions imposed against Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine.

The original article contains 510 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 4 points 1 year ago

Good bot

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I can't not support the attacks on fossil fuel infrastructure. It's a shame that a communications cable was also affected

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they keep trying this, we’ll get another oil spill

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

That made mw think, what is worst for the environment, an oil spill, that is pretty localized, or the use of the same amount of spilled oil in production of energy and others, that affects the entire planet?

[–] marsokod@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By quantity of oil, I would think an oil spill is more damaging.

However, the damage from the sum of all oil spills pale in comparison to the damage of burned fossil fuels. But that's because we try not to spill oil too much, that's expensive to waste it.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What do you mean by quantity of oil, is the same quantity. One is preprocessed, but very densely localized, the other is the same amount but in it entirely of use.

[–] theragu40@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

He's saying we would never have an oil spill equivalent to the amount of oil that is used because we try very hard not to spill oil. It is expensive and damaging.

If you are asking a hypothetical question comparing the amount of oil in a spill and its damage to the environment vs simply using that oil normally, I think the oil spill wins in a landslide for being the most damaging.

[–] seathru@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I think they mean like a gallon of gasoline burned in a car does less environmental damage than the same gallon of gasoline just released into the environment.

Not saying it is or isn't, just how I took it.

[–] CleoTheWizard@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

Well, an oil spill is still probably worse. Depends on volume of spilled oil. Also depends on if that oil is replaced by using renewables.

The typical spill playbook is to slowly clean this up while also creating emissions elsewhere and also disrupting the environment more to repair the pipeline or whatever alternative they have.

[–] eletes@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

On a long enough time span, that oil disperses throughout the entire ocean. Same goes for the pollution so it's a matter of Ocean toxicity vs greenhouse effect/air quality

[+] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml -71 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I too enjoy waking up to another false flag operation. It's literally the exact same story used for Nordstream, which is incredibly lazy as far as false flag operations go.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 55 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

So, you think Finland launched a false flag attack on their own gas pipeline, in order to do absolutely nothing against Russia. I mean, nobody went to war over Nordstream either, if these are false flag attacks, they're pretty fucking shit at the follow-up, especially considering nobody really needs a reason to do anything against Russian aggression right now.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

No, no, it was ukranian spy, Jakiv Bond. He's so good that he highjacked russian vessel, used it to sabotage the pipeline then returned it without letting the russians know it was even highjacked!

I mean, yeah, it risks the alliance with the west, but that's a risk that Ukraine is willing to take, it's not like it's reliant on their support or anything.

Occam's razor is a hard concept to grasp for some people it seems.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

After MH17 and Salisbury, a Ukrainian could piss in my mouth, and I'd still blame Russia.

[–] JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

🤣

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago

The current prevailing theory supported by organisations like the Telegraph is that this was done by Ukraine though it is not ironclad it is the most likely by significant margin.

[+] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml -18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The West's progressively decreasing support? That support?

The "Russian vessel" story is literally the exact same story told about Nordstream. Russia has full control over Nordstream flow already because one of the terminals of Nordstream is IN RUSSIA. Russia gains no advantage from bombing Nordstream, not even as a false flag, because no Russian gives a fuck about the bombing of German infrastructure.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-tracker-europe-clearly-overtakes-us-with-total-commitments-now-twice-as-large/

Yes... that decreasing support.

Also what have been the effects of the blowing up of the Nord stream? The thing wasn't even in use. But the prices of gas went up. And people are pointing fingers left and right. Sounds like russia trying to destabilize the west.

Now again pipeline blows up. Immediately gas prices up again. Again pointing fingers. It sure sounds like the only one benefitting is Russia. And people selling gas, I guess.

[+] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml -10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Slovakia pulled support, Belgium is saying it's F-16s are "too old," Poland is confused, Germany's Leopard 1s are "defective," and the UK has made no indication it plans to send more Challenger 2s after the destruction of the supposedly "invincible" tank on the battlefield back in September.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/military-support-ukraine-2054992

Again you're spewing bullshit. As you can see, another batch of weapons and ammo announced including 38 leopard tanks. That's 18 leopard 2, btw. And 20 leopard 1. Which are only "defective" by German standards. And that was pre-repairs.

Belgium: https://kyivindependent.com/umerov-belgian-defense-minister-discuss-f-16s/

UK doesn't need to announce every other week that it's supporting ukraine. 2023 matched 2022 as far as the UK is concerned. 2.3 billion worth, for the record.

It's cute that you had to mention Slovakia with their new pro-putin lackeys. Every little bit helps, sure, but we're talking about a 0.1% of the total aid here.

And again, you're ignoring actual data with sources and real numbers in favour of your "news". If you actually check the previously linked data website you'll see that 2023 was actually more generous than 2022. Mostly because the bulk of the aid comes from the EU as a while (all the other stuff you're bring up country-level, extra/individual aid) and the US.

Also, I said Russia trying to destabilize, not succeeding. I never said they were capable or anything.

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ukraine rejects defective Leopard 1 tanks from Germany after finding ‘serious faults’

Sure doesn't sound like it's Germany calling them "defective"

Do you enjoy being wrong or are you just oblivious?

For what it's worth, your entire claim is that Russia had no motive but was too stupid to tell... Yawn.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You said, and I quote "Germany's leopard 1 tanks are "defective"". Congrats, you brought up something I wasn't aware of. But how is it not bullshit implying they're all defective when only 10 out of 178+ were rejected?

Bonus from today: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/major-new-package-of-support-for-ukraines-counter-offensive-announced-by-grant-shapps

And out of everything that I've said, that small thing was the only thing you tried to refute. And yet I'm the one in the wrong?

And I don't know where you got the whole "russia's got no motive" thing from. When I clearly pointed out that they're the only ones gaining from the pipelines being blown up

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

You claimed that only Germany was saying that they were defective. Just take the L and call it a day lmao.

[–] Raxiel@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Russia perhaps had no advantage wrecking Nordstream. Putin on the other hand, had the advantage that removing it as an option meant the oligarchy couldn't just oust him, walk back his war, and then use turning the gas to Europe back on to get the money flowing back into their accounts.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Russia gained no advantage from invading Ukraine. Didn't stop them from doing that either. LOL

[+] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml -15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then let's play Occam's razor: who wins if Nordstream is permanently out of commission? Who wins if Balticconnector is permanently out of commission?

It's not Russia, because they're not pumping gas through the pipelines anyway. In fact, it's rather harmful to post-war Russian reintegration with the EU.

The easiest explanation isn't that Russia would attack third-party infrastructure between two NATO countries when, by all accounts, US support is drying up and EU support is dropping like flies.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're reaching multiple conclusion based on zero cited evidence.

It's not Russia, because they're not pumping gas through the pipelines anyway. In fact, it's rather harmful to post-war Russian reintegration with the EU.

Show your work. How is it harmful to post-war Russiam reintegration with the EU? Show us evidence that reintegration is even a goal of the Russian leadership.

[–] wandermind@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree that Russia is really lazy with these false flag operations, where they destroy a pipeline and then try to blame all other countries.

[–] Neon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

now, it is most likely that Russia is actually behind the one in Finland. Probably as retaliation against these two countries he sees as his rightful sphere of influence acting up and as a warning.

However, it seems that Russia was actually not involved in the whole Mess around Nord Stream 2..

Here’s a Documentary from DW (Deutsche Welle), a editorially-independent German state-funded news Organization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFjAqth-EQk

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/watch?v=RFjAqth-EQk

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Putins greatest soldier

[–] Neon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

False Flag would mean that Germany itself commited the Attack in order to retaliate against russia. This was obviously not the Case. However, there have been some interesting revelations.

Here's a Documentary from DW (Deutsche Welle), a editorially-independent German state-funded news Organization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFjAqth-EQk

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/watch?v=RFjAqth-EQk

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.