Talk:2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Talk:2022 Nord Stream gas leaks
)

Poland

WSJ is under paywall, but RFE/RL article, which refers to WSJ, says (Google translation) "Sources of The Wall Street Journal believe that such behavior may indicate Poland's involvement in the Nord Stream bombings." This whole reference is about Poland (it is entitled "Nord Stream Probe Faces Resistance From Poland"). And if the "theory" by WSJ was correct, that indeed means that Poland has willingly dispatched a group of foreign terrorists to blow up the Russian pipeline. If true, this is an act of war. Therefore, one needs to place this to a subsection about Poland or "other countries", as I did. Please do not revert it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I already wrote you once, the WSJ article is readable and the link is already on the page.[1] For me, we can also create a separate section, but the WSJ article also talks about the Ukrainian trail. It says that Poland may have collaborated with Ukraine to carry out the sabotage. So it concerns both sections. Mhorg (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing this link! There are two issues here. First, as this article say, these "investigators" only have "suspicions". Secondly, the article does not name any "European investigators". By remaining anonymous, these "investigators" avoid responsibility for their words. Therefore, I would trust more to statements by people who are named and whose words can be therefore properly attributed. What these named people say in the article?
In September, Stanislaw Zaryn, a senior Polish official then involved in overseeing Poland’s security services, dismissed the findings that the Andromeda crew was behind the sabotage, saying the crew had no military training and were merely tourists “looking for fun.” Around the same time, Poland’s internal security service circulated with European investigators alleged intelligence that the Andromeda had links with Russian espionage, which they alleged was behind the attack. Some investigators said they considered this to be disinformation. Zaryn, who left office following the election, said in a recent interview that any Polish involvement was unlikely as Russia was plausibly behind the sabotage.
.
I do not know who is right here, but the views by both sides should be presented, and this is not for the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for Wikipedia editors to judge what the first-class media report. These "investigators" have also been quoted by other newspapers, and we have to write this. Mhorg (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not include exact quotations ("...") by the unnamed "investigators". There is nothing really to quote. My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exact quotations are never needed, what matters is what the first-class source reports. Mhorg (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even with a
WP:RS there can apparently be a need to be skeptical. How is it possible to write "European investigators" (who specifically criticize "Polish officials") without actually stating from which European country these investigators originate? From the usual unnamed agents to now investigators that are not even from a specific country, this is really at a new level of poor journalism. If anything, citing this source serves to undermine the credibility of the "European investigators" that attempt to track the "Ukrainian saboteurs". If this text is to remain as it is, a {{clarify}} to point to this glaring lack of specificity is called for. Further, this article is rated as "High‑importance" by no less than 6 WikiProjects. So we need some kind of minimum editing standard and not for example have a separate subsection that simply refers to "the yacht", since readers cannot be assumed to have read the other subsections where a named yacht is mentioned. Lklundin (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NPOV I fixed that, citing a more specific source. The structure of the subsection on Poland as I left it thus makes sense: First there is Poland's official position on "Andromeda", then there is this (non-specific) reaction from "European investigators" on Poland's handling of Andromeda. The two pieces are in chronological and logical order. So if this needs to be changed, then please come up with a good justification here. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
My intention was to better explain that European investigators understood Poland's dual behaviour as something suspicious. This is well explained in the Wall Street Journal article. If information was lost in this process, I agree to restore it. Mhorg (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lklundin do you think the text is understandable now? Mhorg (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS to establish that Russia had naval assets in the area that were suitable for preparing the sabotage. So the statements from Zaryn are logical and consistent. Furthermore, Zaryn has made his statements on the record as a government official with knowledge of his country's investigation of the sabotage. It is actually rare (if not unique) that a government official goes on the record with a statement on the Nord Stream Sabotage and the Andromeda yacht. His statements are therefore notable and by themselves pertinent to the article. As such I am going to reintroduce them (along with the source for them). Now, subsequent to his statements it will then be fitting to place the reaction from the "European investigators" to Zaryn's statements and to Poland's overall (non?-)handling of the Andromeda (something which could very well disappoint investigators in another country), per the WSJ. So it is important to A) not misinterpret Zaryn's statements, and B) not see them as secondary to the reaction from the "European investigators". Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC) PS. There is a lot of information in the cited WSJ article regarding the skepticism of the Polish investigation. You (and anyone else) should feel free (naturally) to quote more from it. Lklundin (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
WSJ:[2] "In September, Stanislaw Zaryn, a senior Polish official then involved in overseeing Poland's security services, dismissed the findings that the Andromeda crew was behind the sabotage, saying the crew had no military training and were merely tourists "looking for fun." Around the same time, Poland's internal security service circulated with European investigators alleged intelligence that the Andromeda had links with Russian espionage, which they alleged was behind the attack. Some investigators said they considered this to be disinformation."
From what I read here, while Zaryn said the crew were tourists 'looking fo fun', Polish security services told investigators that the crew was connected to the Russian state. So either they are tourists or they are connected to the Russian state. From what I read, the investigators understood this as suspicious behaviour by Poland. Mhorg (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lklundin that we should follow logical and chronological order in this section. My very best wishes (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not what the cited Tagesschau article nor what the cited WSJ article says. What the official Polish allegation is (per the cited sources), is that the yacht "Andromeda" has links to Russian espionage - and that the crew are tourists without the training relevant for the sabotage. There is no contradiction in this. In fact, in the context of the theory presented by some
WP:RS that the "Andromeda" is a false-flag, then it makes perfect sense. And all it takes is for Russian intelligence services to pay someone with links to e.g. Ukrainians that are willing to go sailing and then this someone rents the yacht and navigates it to certain pre-specified coordinates on certain dates. That someone is given a spray and told to use it on the tables inside the yacht afterwards to "disinfect" it (but actually spreading a chemical that can later be found by investigators and determined to be an explosive). Who knows what actually happened? We do not, but we cannot jump to conclusions. Lklundin (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC) PS. Per the two cited sources, it is actually only per the unnamed "European investigators" that Poland has made a non-public allegation that the "Andromeda" is connected to "Russian espionage". But given Poland's official position, that part in the WSJ article seems plausible. Lklundin (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The claim about the "false flag" should be included to the page. Yes, there is no contradiction between the "false flag" claim by Andreas Umland (see [3]) and the claims by Polish intelligence about Russian connection. Quite the opposite. In addition, this revert by Mhorg [4] is unhelpful for the reasons I explained in edit summaries, i.e. "European investigators" is not a single person; different investigators have different opinions per WSJ. The WSJ article also does not say tht they "follow the trail of ..."; this is also a duplication. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable, given the available
WP:RS. Done. Lklundin (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Dubious statements related to Poland cited from a WSJ article

The subsection "Involvement of Poland" cites a WSJ article with some truly puzzling statements. The journalist's source is "European investigators" who are "working on the case".

  • These "European investigators" say that Warsaw has failed to "fully cooperate" on the Nord Stream sabotage investigation. This is dubious. Denmark and Sweden are two countries that are known to investigate the Nord Stream sabotage. Both of these two countries have cited national security concerns to justify their national investigations _not_ cooperate internationally. So how can Poland's same stance be a problem for these "European investigators"? This makes no sense.
  • How is it even possible for the journalist to actually know that their source is in fact investigators working on the case (and with non-public knowledge of Poland's investigation), without actually knowing their country of origin? This makes no sense.

This source alone (well, currently along with a Russian-language source summarizing the WSJ article) is cited to support the subsection "Involvement of Poland" where it is being implied that Poland _may_ have played a role in the sabotage. The subsection in its current form seems problematic wrt

WP:RS but since the specific, cited WSJ-article contains these supporting statements that are clearly dubious, I am for now going to use the dubious-template on that paragrah. Maybe the subsection can be improved. Otherwise, I would be in favor of removing it altogether. Lklundin (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree "European investigators" is dubious because the article did not name any specific countries the "investigators" came from. I assume they were not from Russia (Moscow is in Europe). There was a response saying that claims in WSJ article were false and that, again, "Investigations have so far failed to establish who was responsible for the pipeline blasts." [5]. But I would not say the WSJ article should be removed from the page. The WSJ article shows that the investigators are working and want to publish their findings ASAP. It is just that they do not have any solid evidence about anything so far, beyond knowing it was indeed a sabotage. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I do think that WSJ-source is insufficient to support the article's implication (even as a possibility) that there was "Involvement of Poland" in the sabotage, that is really an
WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim/possibility. So what should be removed from the page is that subsection (unless the extraordinary claim can be more convincingly supported). Lklundin (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed, I think
WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies to Poland and UK. We now have a couple of mainstream sources about Poland, but one of them is rebuttal. So whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The issue I see with the "Involvement of Poland" is that it is supported by a single, dubious source. A second source in that subsection is also quoted, but as I read it, it directly refers to the WSJ-source so adds nothing, or no?. So what is the second of the mainstream sources about Poland? As for the "Involvement of United Kingdom" there is a
WP:RS, outlandish as the claim itself may be. Lklundin (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I would just remove it. Welcome to restore in any form if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2024, regarding Sweden's closing of its investigation

the last paragraph of the intro is now wrong. Sweden has now closed its investigation. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/world/europe/sweden-nord-stream-pipeline.html Therefore change this:

Three separate investigations were initiated by Denmark, Germany and Sweden.[14] As of January 2024 these investigations are ongoing and, other than to describe the explosions as sabotage,[4][5][6][7] have not yet facilitated official conclusions leaving the perpetrators unknown.[15]

to something like this:

Three separate investigations were initiated by Denmark, Germany and Sweden.[14] As of February 2024 only Sweden's investigation has been closed.[6] These investigations have described the explosions as sabotage[4][5][6][7] and have not yet facilitated official conclusions leaving the perpetrators unknown.[15]

By the way sorry for the formatting. I'm kinda new to Wikipedia and don't know how to do the formatting properly, especially on a talk page. So insert the source properly and don't just copy-paste my change. Theaxeisaxe (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GrayStorm(Talk|Contributions) 01:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Project 865

Teer is now an articel to the russian hydrographic research vessel

Sibirykov. Please add. --Shipyard 061 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

It's a draft right now, please make another request when it's promoted to the article status. Alaexis¿question? 20:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 development

In the French press, the Ukrainian ambassador in London is designated as the operation instigator an investigation from the radio station France info designates Ukraine ambassador in London as responsible of the Nordstream gazoduc sabotage Ukulele (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage&oldid=1217271834"