The extent of the mining operations remains unknown, but Sergey Bratchuk, a spokesperson for the Odesa regional military administration, says between 400 and 600 mines were thrown into Ukraine’s sea zone by Russia”.Īdditionally, we also know from Hernandez and Duxbury’s report on that: “Two of the leaks were near the double Nord Stream 1 pipeline, to the northeast of Denmark’s Bornholm island, and one leak was reported near the Nord Stream 2 pipeline off the southeastern coast of the island, the Danish Maritime Authority said on Tuesday. Tondo went on to report that, “Kyiv and Moscow have blamed each other for dropping mines in the Black Sea. (Photo: Rosoboronexport)Ī Jreport by journalist Lorenzo Tondo published on reported that, “The Black Sea is infested with hundreds of mines dropped by both sides in Russia’s war on Ukraine, posing a serious threat to people and the reopening of the grain shipping routes halted by Moscow’s sea blockade”. Such a munition could be used to disrupt underwater petrochemical pipeline operations. The mine can be delivered by surface vessel or air dropped over potential targets. A Russian built MOD-1 MDM.2 underwater mine. Mines can be laid by ships sailing at speeds of up to 15 knots, and by aircraft flying at speeds of up to 1,000 km/h from altitudes of not less than 500 m”. The website goes on to say that, “The mine can be planted from aircraft (airborne platforms) fitted with mine racks and safety actuation and release devices, as well as from surface ships equipped with mine-laying rails and ramps or mine-scattering systems. MDM-3-mod.1 sea bottom mine is used in defensive minefields to destroy small-displacement ships and amphibious assault craft”. The official description of the mines’ capabilities and characteristics says that the mines, “are intended for employment in minefields to endanger and destroy ships and surfaced or submerged submarines. The Rosoboron Export (Russian Defense Export) website lists the, “MDM-1 mod.1 and MDM-2 mod.1 sea bottom mines”. And most practically if less glamorous, a surface vessel the size of a fishing trawler could accurately deliver subsurface munitions large enough to cause damage similar to what is being reported now on the Nord Stream pipeline. Additionally, the depth is well within the capability of many small manned and unmanned submersible vehicles. This depth, around 200-feet beneath the surface, is well within the reach of most underwater weapons including mines, torpedoes, depth charges and other sub-surface weapons systems, including some air-delivered systems. In the report, Hernandez and Duxbury write that “Baltic maritime authorities” said the disruptions, “…are at a likely depth of 60 meters to 70 meters”. The report was compiled and written by America Hernandez and Charlie Duxbury. However, a more detailed accounting of the incident surfaced on the website late on Sept. Western reports about the Nord Stream pipeline failures are short on details and seem to contain the same general facts. While no hard evidence exists at this time to support the theory of sabotage in the Nord Stream leak, the capabilities to carry out such sabotage exist in some militaries and have been employed before in similar circumstances. But as of this hour, there is only one problem with these hypotheses: there is no hard evidence of sabotage in the Nord Stream pipeline leak. The reported facts can be collated to support the hypothesis of deliberate action to disrupt the pipeline. The circumstances surrounding the Nord Stream pipeline incident invite a world of speculation, some of it pointing to wilful interdiction of pipeline operations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |