• AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The Finnish president has said damage to an undersea gas pipeline and communications cable connecting Finland and Estonia appears to be deliberate.

    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!

  • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

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

      • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    82
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Squizzy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

          • Raxiel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ah yes, because Russia is simultaneously an authoritarian regime where Putin holds all power and an oligarchy where the Kremlin is feckless. If he wanted to prevent the taps from turning on, he could have just arranged for a false flag strike on the terminals or sabotaged the terminals in some other way (which, by the way, would be on Russian soil).

          • Hyperreality@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

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

      • zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • wandermind@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.