Leaks in the pipeline - Nord Stream 1 & 2
-
@Renauda said in Leaks in the pipeline - Nord Stream 1 & 2:
I've seen some estimates it'll take us three years to catch up our inventories.
How credible are the sources and estimates?
Here’s one and it seems credible. It also suggests that matters are in hand and are being addressed:
In the article you are citing, it talks about 36 month continuous production, non-competitive contracts...That's three years production. And it also says some Stinger components are not even available, pushing any Stinger manufacturing to sometime in 2023.
I'm not sure if the numbers cited in the article take into account a constant flow of munitions to Ukraine, or anything to Taiwan.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in Leaks in the pipeline - Nord Stream 1 & 2:
Yeah, but don't let the Chinese pick it.
I suspect the Chinese are taking a very long look at the economic and political consequences of Russia's invasion, and western solidarity. I doubt they wish to experience something similar.
-
@Jolly said in Leaks in the pipeline - Nord Stream 1 & 2:
@George-K said in Leaks in the pipeline - Nord Stream 1 & 2:
@Renauda said in Leaks in the pipeline - Nord Stream 1 & 2:
Regardless of the outcome that is a legitimate concern. There’s still the Carlson/Gabbard tag team fanboi/appeasers out there.
I'm not sure if I'd characterize either them as "fanbois." Support skeptics, to be sure, but fans of Putin? I don't think so.
Skeptical from an America First perspective. Entanglements in foreign wars, etc...
That was the GOP’s precise argument for not standing up to Hitler, right down to the branding.
-
I get that.
So how else do you propose Putin is contained and kept out of expanding deeper into Eastern and ultimately into the Baltics and Central Europe? Contrary to Kremlin propaganda, Putin has no intention to accept any terms with Ukraine short of total capitulation and forfeiture of national sovereignty.
Not unlike Chamberlain’s dilemma in 1938. He could have made a deal with Stalin to protect Czechoslovakia from Hitler. Behind the scenes Britain, France, Czechoslovakia and the USSR discussed this. It didn’t happen though, because neither Britain or France knew how to get Stalin out of Central Europe once he was there.
Of course present day situation is very different. Not least because Ukraine is willing to fight to the last person to remain sovereign and independent of Moscow. Too bad, because the Ukrainians are following the example of the Poles in 1939 when first Hitler then Stalin, two weeks later, wiped their country off the map of Europe.
-
I think we need to take a really hard look at what it takes to keep Ukraine supplied. A lot of their equipment is Soviet or Russian based and I think the former Soviet Bloc countries should divest themselves of anything left that's decent and send it to Ukraine. That means that NATO has to do a couple of things:
-
We have to resupply with NATO-friendly weapons any of the weapons those former Soviet satellites are donating, with an eye on as much standardization as possible. We also have to continue to supply Ukraine with munitions and parts for those Western armaments already in country.
-
We also have to have a coordinated NATO effort to manufacture what is needed. Maybe Turkey takes the lead in small arms. Germany makes some pretty good mobile artillery. Scandinavia makes good fighter jets and Britain's Challenger is a very, very good tank. The U.S. has Stingers, smart rounds, F-16's, etc. It's going to take everybody working together in both funding and production to pull this off, but we need a clear vision of what we need and how we need to get there.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
-
I agree with all your points. My understanding is that the former WP members are doing just that - divesting themselves of Soviet era equipment by sending it to the Ukrainians. Makes sense too, the Ukrainians do not need any training to use it in the field. They are essentially turn key weapon transfers to Ukraine.
-
@Mik said in Leaks in the pipeline - Nord Stream 1 & 2:
Compared to the trillions of dollars we poured own the rathole in the past three years, Ukraine aid is a bargain, and actually goes toward an end we want. A vitally important one.
Putin stuck his dick in the meat grinder. Let's make sure he can't pull it back out unharmed, much less be rewarded for it.
I agree!
-
How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline
Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.
Two of the pipelines, which were known collectively as Nord Stream 1, had been providing Germany and much of Western Europe with cheap Russian natural gas for more than a decade. A second pair of pipelines, called Nord Stream 2, had been built but were not yet operational. Now, with Russian troops massing on the Ukrainian border and the bloodiest war in Europe since 1945 looming, President Joseph Biden saw the pipelines as a vehicle for Vladimir Putin to weaponize natural gas for his political and territorial ambitions.
Asked for comment, Adrienne Watson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email, “This is false and complete fiction.” Tammy Thorp, a spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly wrote: “This claim is completely and utterly false.”
Biden’s decision to sabotage the pipelines came after more than nine months of highly secret back and forth debate inside Washington’s national security community about how to best achieve that goal. For much of that time, the issue was not whether to do the mission, but how to get it done with no overt clue as to who was responsible.
There was a vital bureaucratic reason for relying on the graduates of the center’s hardcore diving school in Panama City. The divers were Navy only, and not members of America’s Special Forces Command, whose covert operations must be reported to Congress and briefed in advance to the Senate and House leadership—the so-called Gang of Eight. The Biden Administration was doing everything possible to avoid leaks as the planning took place late in 2021 and into the first months of 2022.
-
Wait, what?
-
-
@jon-nyc said in Leaks in the pipeline - Nord Stream 1 & 2:
Jesus, he’s still alive?
I was surprised to see his name also. He's 85 years old.
I haven’t put much stock in his writings in decades.
Hersh first gained recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai Massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. During the 1970s, Hersh covered the Watergate scandal for The New York Times and revealed the clandestine bombing of Cambodia. In 2004, he reported on the U.S. military's mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. He has also won two National Magazine Awards and five George Polk Awards. In 2004, he received the George Orwell Award.
Critics have accused Hersh of being a conspiracy theorist. He has been criticised for contradicting the official account of the killing of Osama Bin Laden and for questioning the claim that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on Syrian civilians.In 2015, Vox's Max Fisher wrote that "Hersh has appeared increasingly to have gone off the rails. His stories, often alleging vast and shadowy conspiracies, have made startling — and often internally inconsistent — accusations, based on little or no proof beyond a handful of anonymous "officials".
-
-
Well the Kremlin is applauding Hersh’s attempt at “investigative journalism” with this report:
Who knows, but perhaps the Kremlin commissioned the report?
