Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Actually, not to be pedantic, but there are tanks in Estonia.

"As of 23 February 2022, there are 43 Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles and 18 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks deployed in Estonia. "

UK Defence Weekly.

They probably refer to a repositioning of the British armour to the border.

This is the leaks seen from a Danish F16,

Something like 1km across

Not necessarily. An attack on the Black Sea Fleet would certainly be part of a wider attack on Russian forces across Ukraine, together with Russian Command and Control.

Personally, I don't think it will come to this. The Russian Generals are not stupid. Through the established secret back channels between Russia and the US, I strongly believe that if things were about to come to a head, the Russian military would err on the side of caution. They certainly don't want to see the destruction of their country, their population ( civil and military), what remains of their forces and their cultural and heritage sites. At that stage, when the US gives them a heads-up ( and they will) and an ultimatum of the upcoming destruction, I believe that Putin will be compromised and a time-out will finally be called. Russia has too much to lose at this stage.

Oh dear.

So Swedish 'renewables' is counting hydro and mudered trees.

A powerful military industrial complex, needs enemies in order to justify it's existence. (one of many theories espoused)

I think Putin made tentative overtures for Russia to join NATO during the Clinton administration, but nothing ever came of it. He was quoted as saying that Clinton was open to such discussions, but the rest of the US delegation "got very nervous". Whatever that means exactly.

But then George Bush happened, and relations started to go south from this point. Big surprise there. I think it was around this time that Putin started using much more bullish rhetoric, like saying "Ukraine is not a country" etc. in response to planned NATO enlargement.

And to think, all bush ever really got was a shoe thrown at his head. Remarkable really when you think about it.

I rather agree with you, so the correct US response to the use of a nuke in Ukraine should probably be an all out first strike on Mordor. and their ballistic missile subs.

Ah no, an attack by Russia on commercial tankers could only happen in the context of open war with the 'west'. Many steps to that and events that could intervene.

Russia blowing up LNG tankers, especially just off the cost with casualties on land, would be considered an act of war against the country to which the gas is destined. We've quite a long way to go before anything like that could be considered a possibility.

Why would anyone else bother do it either, and who would be reckless enough to take an action like that?

If it emerges it is not an accident/natural, maybe they needed to get rid of (more of) their gas or something?

They can't store it all and can't sell it now and they don't want to close up the wells I suppose (if that is even possible).

Maybe they are having trouble burning it off or venting it to the air, so they can now discharge it into the sea via the big pipes they have (now) blown holes in if that is what they did + make it Germany's/Denmark's problem.

Russia's leadership (Putin) don't really give a f-ck about anyone else, and there seems to be no bottom there.

Yes but all those theories have been plucked from nowhere and are all a bit of a stretch.

There's plenty of reason why others would do it, Russia are one of the few who wouldn't benefit from this in the long run. I just can't see why they would do it.

So your saying Russia deliberately sabotaged nordstream as a threat to show what they could potentially do to other pipelines feeding Europe?

Bit extreme as surely it would have made more sense to leave nordstream as a viable gas provider and sabotage the other pipelines leaving Europe with a choice to make?

There were plenty of enemies for the US to choose from, far more formidable than the Russian military post USSR collapse in the 1990's

I think it was the out and out corruption in Russia that thwarted their efforts to join as opposed to the fact that "It's Russia"

In relation to the Ukraine thing, I think it was only recently that he began to say that, as separatists began to take control/ask for help (I think they are an armed minority as opposed to majority)

It was only just over 30 years ago that Luhansk and Donetsk voted to leave the USSR and form Ukraine with over 83% of the Yes vote and and a rough 65% turnout (Crimea is different 54%, with only 37% turnout) It should also be noted that 55% of ethnic Russians voted for Ukrainian independence.

It actually kinda sends shivers down my spine a bit when I think about how opinions on borders can change (if indeed they have changed) in as little as 30 years. I say that with reference to our own border poll which is now likely to happen in the next 10 years.

Next you'll be telling me there is no prospect of Russia invading Ukraine or of them ever mobilising or of them using nuclear weapons as a threat.

No one is going to start lobbing nukes at Russia if an LNG tanker semi-mysteriously blows up. Anyway, I don't think it likely until after other cards have been played, like Norwegian piplines springing leaks. It was just an afterthought speculation.

Links?