Jump to content

Talk:Nord Stream pipelines sabotage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speculation

[edit]

The speculation section should have a summery. Benjamin (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should have a wintery too. 37.188.144.68 (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ report

[edit]

I briefly mentioned some key details from the WSJ report.[1] Feel free to add any other details I've missed. Mellk (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be mentioned in the lede of the article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Alaexis¿question? 21:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That story by WSJ is almost certainly fabricated by unnamed Ukrainian officials mentioned as "sources" in the publication (as explained here, for example). Just saying. My very best wishes (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot cast doubt on the WSJ report (which appears in agreement with the German investigation) because of ramblings on YouTube posted by a former KGB spy turned conspiracy theorist. That is a non-starter. Endwise (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except there are no on-the-record results from the "German investigation", instead the stories from WSJ and others are based on anonymous leaks and anonymous sources. So we should be careful to represent these media reports as relying on trustworthy sources. And find some actual on-the-record statements from actually knowledgeable people. Lklundin (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WSJ is a reliable source. We should rely on them to evaluate the evidence rather than Wikipedia editors and YouTubers. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline against reports based on anonymous sources. — JFHutson (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except "distrust anonymous sources, unconfirmed reports, and reports attributed to other news media" is suggested in WP:RS's section on breaking news - highly relevant for the current, sensational claims absent of official on-the-record sources. Lklundin (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event happened two years ago. It’s not breaking news. There’s an obvious difference between a reliable source publishing something questionable in the midst of an event and an investigative piece two years later after comparing several sources.— JFHutson (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lklundin. Yes we can use WSJ here (I never suggested that we do not), but it must be used with care and certainly not as "the truth" because it is based on anonymous (mostly Ukrainian) sources. That claim was denied by everyone allegedly involved, from Zelenskiy (some time ago) to Zaluzny (recently). It was also denied by Polish government [2]. This is just an accusation based on unnamed sources that was denied by officials of at least two countries. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a reliable source. The reason for this is because NO information was released on the findings of the investigation. The article is only contains assumptions, not facts. 172.59.77.209 (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The closest to an official, on-the-record statement regarding the Andromeda's thus Ukraine's involvement is Roderich Kiesewetter who 'believes that investigators have not yet communicated any results because the “evidence is far too thin.”'[3] As such, we are doing this important topic a disservice by relying so heavily on (journalists citing) anonymous sources. Lklundin (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More details: [4]. 152.130.15.113 (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 August 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage → Nord Stream pipelines sabotage – The previous requested move was procedural closed because the user who requested it was not yet extended confirmed. However, I agree with the reasoning and therefor I am doing the proposal again. There were two pipelines sabotaged, so it should be plural. The year disambiguation is not needed. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some official statements regarding claims of Ukraine's involvement ?

[edit]

The article has a lengthy subsection on "Ukraine's involvement" and its lede mentions a German arrest warrant for a Ukrainian national. But as of this moment there is no Interpol red notice requested by Germany for a Ukrainian national (of any gender). Considering the sensational claims that even Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was involved it is problematic that the article's information related to Ukraine is based on (journalists citing) anonymous sources. So can we please either substantiate these sensational claims about Ukraine (and a WP:BLP) or reduce the prominence of what is based on (journalists citing) anonymous sources? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Poland denied it [5] and Zaluzny too. I do not know if there are any new official statements by the Ukrainian government about it. Zelensky did deny it in past. My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that there is nothing but talk in the media about the Ukrainian trail, I would say that the section on speculation about Ukraine should keep its current size. Mhorg (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and is WP:NOTOPINION. So how is it for example WP:Encyclopedic that August Hanning who only back in 2005 was head of BND believes (glaubt an eine „Verabredung zwischen den höchsten Spitzen in der Ukraine und in Polen“[6]) that Zelenskyy and Duda had an agreement to sabotage Nord Stream? In 2005 Zelenskyy was a TV show dancer and Duda has also not taken any public office. Lklundin (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sentence about Hanning's claims. Low relevance, mostly speculation. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comes from a reliable source (Die Welt) and this is not some random guy speculating. Until we have the official investigation results speculations is all we have.
Also, in what way are Gerhard Schindler's allegations that Russia was involved different from the part that you've removed? Alaexis¿question? 19:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gerhard Schindler was still heading BND when Russia's use of Nord Stream was sanctioned due to their invasion of Ukraine, so its a comment from a person who has been involved in the matter and his allegations are more specific (and not just a belief that Zelenzkyy and Duda agreed that Nord Stream should be sabotaged). The less specific comments from August Hanning (who headed BND only until 2005) I have moved to the Reactions subsection, where Hanning already has a previous reaction. Lklundin (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that the cited WSJ story also contains two strong denials (that I added). Considering that this article is multiple-topic high-importance under extended confirmed protection it puts my assumption of good faith on the absence of WP:POV-pushing to the test that the responsible Wikipedian oversaw these essential parts of the cited article when they decided to quote from it. Lklundin (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "fog of war". Even Lavrov, a seasoned propagandist, tells that “attempts to blame everything on a group of drunken officers” was nonsense and instead blamed USA [7]. The only fact is that German prosecutors issued arrest warrant for an unnamed "Ukrainian man". Knowing the history of such operations (like Operation Trust, bombings in Moscow and bombings in Moscow again) the "Ukrainian" can well indeed be a Ukrainian, but also on the Russian FSB payroll. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should mention the denials. But that's what they'd say, wouldn't they? Alaexis¿question? 20:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comparison illustrates the WP:NPOV issue with this article. Unlike WP:MRDA Zelenskyy's accusers are not under oath in a court of law, rather these are anonymous individuals as reported by a news paper. Lklundin (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Zaluzhny denial was already mentioned, along with other denials. This reporting is not new. Would you mention "Russia denied this" every time a source is cited in a similar article? In fact, you mentioned speculation of Russia being the "most likely" culprit behind the sabotage in this edit but did not include the denial, which was mentioned in the source after this comment. So, are you pushing a POV then? Mellk (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Russia did the sabotage (with the Andromeda as a decoy) is an accusation from a named member of the Bundestag who has been briefed on the German investigation, so that's different from the media's accusations using anonymous sources. While I cited a source accusing Russia that did not also bring Russia's denial, it is only fair that such a denial has been found and added. As for the multiple denials from Ukraine, this has to do with the media having several times changed the specifics of their accusations. It has been a unnamed rogue group of Ukrainians, then they were reporting to Gen. Zaluzhny, then they were led by a named, former SF colonel, then the plan was approved by Zelenskyy himself. So there are a lot of anonymous sources quoted by the media for Ukraine to deny. So in conclusion, no I think not. Lklundin (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply a denial of any involvement that has been repeated, not different denials of doing something specific. You said that we are doing this important topic a disservice by relying so heavily on (journalists citing) anonymous sources. But, I am not sure why a tweet from a member of the Bundestag should take priority over a WSJ report, which is considered to be generally reliable. There is a political dimension to this, after all. Mellk (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The political dimension to Nord Stream exists since its planning, with especially Ukraine, Poland and the USA warning of its dangers - which is why both politicians and the media are so interested in its (partial) destruction. The accusations from the member of the Bundestag has been reported by WP:RS so the fact that they were made via Twitter is irrelevant. What is relevant is that these accusations came from a named individual who was briefed on the investigation - as opposed to accusations from some anonymous sources, that may or may not be what they claim to be. Lklundin (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is most recent DW article: [8]. Everyone denies or challenges this version: Ukraine, Poland and even ...Russia. There is no official statement from Germany. Unnamed "sources" say the plan to blow up the pipelines was initially approved by Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Then the CIA allegedly got wind of the plan and urged Zelenskyy not to go through with it. Zelenskyy ordered a halt to the scheme, but Ukraine's top general at the time, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, decided to go through with it anyway. Which "sources" would knew this? My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Russian intelligence officer posing as a Western one while disseminating disinformation about Zelenskyy and the Nord Stream sabotage to a journalist seems to have happened at least once. Search for "poor waif in his underwear" for specifics. Lklundin (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change the tense in the speculations section when discussing 2022 speculation?

[edit]

Can we change:

"and numerous European and US officials privately say that Russia may not be to blame after all. Others who still consider Russia a prime suspect said positively attributing the attack — to any country — may be impossible."

To:

"and numerous European and US officials privately said that Russia may not be to blame after all. Others who still considered Russia a prime suspect said positively attributing the attack — to any country — may be impossible." JMM12345 (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lklundin (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lklundin, why did you also remove "The man is now a fugitive and is reportedly in Ukraine"? Alaexis¿question? 12:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With an outstanding arrest warrant from June, it is self-evident that the suspect has not been apprehended. The suspect reportedly fled to Ukraine (in June?). That's not the same as the suspect now being in Ukraine. So the removed sentence was too detailed and too inaccurate for the WP:LEDE - as more or less reflected in the edit summary. Lklundin (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks for the explanation. Alaexis¿question? 19:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nord_Stream_pipelines_sabotage&oldid=1244111652"