> They already showed they are capable of doing terrorist actions on Russian territory while keeping silent about it. Baltic pipeline would be a children play for them, since an army can't protect it.

So far Ukraine has only hit legitimate military targets within Russia, unlike Russia who repeatedly uses it acts of terror, rape, genocide and torture as a active part of its war machine. It's a large stretch to call what Ukraine has done 'terrorist actions'.

> Why forget the obvious, Ukraine?

Because Ukraine has no submarines and they don't have access to the Baltic Sea even if they had any?

Some people are claiming somebody could have dived to it. I don't know if that is the case, but I would assume Ukraine would be capable of sending a couple people who know how to dive a few countries over. They also likely have plenty of explosives.

There is quite a bit of risk involved in a covert operation like this for Ukraine. Let's just imagine they sent a special ops team covertly into Denmark (onto the island of Bornholm which is mostly reached by airplane or ferry) and planted some explosives on the pipeline in a secret dive operation.

There are quite a bit of scenarios in which this could go terribly wrong or be successfully attributed after the facts.

The paramount Ukrainian reliance on western support to have any chance to win this war makes me think that the risk/reward ratio for this operation would make it super unlikely that Ukraine would consider doing this.

Odd that this is downvoted. I do wonder what possible methods could have been use to undertake this. Are there underwater drones that are capable? Could a small private boat have just gotten into position about the pipeline and dropped the explosive?

It’s downvoted because it repeats Rashist propaganda - there were no terrorist attacks by Ukraine.