Comments by "Miriam Weller" (@miriamweller812) on "The Grayzone"
channel.
-
80
-
61
-
48
-
39
-
30
-
29
-
Saw an analysis of the damage to the pipeline.
The cut that was seen on a drone video was done afterwards, because Sweden cleaned up the whole place and cut off the destroyed ending for analysis.
Overall the pipeline was 'stomped' into the ground, means an explosion from below or inward is impossible.
It was also explained, that the way a pipeline worokds makes it impossible to just put something inside, that would massively hinder the gasflow for which you even got a coating on the inside to reduce friction to a minimum (that's also a reason why just replacing the damage segments is not enough, because seawater flowing into the now open pipeline will damage the coating).
The expert for explosives also said, that this wasn't just destruction of the pipeline, it was a message, since it could have done far better with way less, so little, that no one would have detected the explosion itself.
15kg of special explosives would have been enough to cut it, but instead half a ton or more was used.
That's also something a combat diver can't transport anymore or a small ship.To place such a mass needs way more infrastructure than that.
Most likely it was something alike a "(sea) ground mine" used for it or something alike.
The idea, that Russia could have put explosives there with the idea to detonate it at any point makes little sense, since the way explosives work would make it unlikely to function. Exposives aren't very stable, they decay, you would have to switch the detonator every now and then and all that being underwater makes it not only harder in general to do that, but overall more likely to fail.
It's not unusual that explosives fail, especially in such depths. You got a failure rate of 20% and more.
20
-
14
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1