I don't think anyone doubted that this was sabotage. The interesting thing will be to see if it can be determined which party was actually responsible - there are valid reasons to suspect most of those involved in the war.
I hate this kind of takes. Any rational person will have doubts facing incomplete information, and saying "no one doubted" makes them look like crazies. Nope, it's the way of logic in the absence of data.
I don't think anyone rational ruled out sabotage, or was confident that it was sabotage, though.
NS2 was already dead in the water at that point and Russia had already turned off the tap on NS1.
Also only one of the two NS2 pipes were destroyed, while both NS1 pipes were destroyed.
I think that pretty much rules out the US as a culprit.
And Russia has something to gain by blowing up NS1: Possibly getting out of some long-term contracts that would involve some hefty fines for non-delivery (without just voiding contracts outright which would look bad for potential new customers).
The ostensible motivation of a possible US/UK/Polish operation, as I understand it, was poisoning the well on peace negotiations. By removing the optionality of turning the lines back on, there is less for the Germans and Russians to work with, and therefore less to motivate diplomatic talks in the first place. The Germans may be committed to getting off Russian gas permanently, but they still have to get there from here without losing their economy.
The UK would create unnecessary pressure on its own gas market by taking it down, so no. If the US did it, then it was most likely a CIA op done through third parties and they won't get caught, not anytime soon anyway. But the US does things professionally and they would have blown up all the pipes as opposed to 3 out of 4, so it's probably not them. Poland? Possibly, but it takes a lot of guts. If they did it, na zdrowie to them. I'd say that it's most probably Russia who did it in order to blackmail Western Europe during the winter
and be able to declare force majeure on the contracts and also blame the UK/anglo saxons. Also how it was done, sloppy, with lots of explosives is typically Russian.
Interesting take— have you seen what the US has done in the Middle East lately?
At the end of the day, if Russia were involved, no one would be holding their tongues about the results of their investigations. The only reason the results are being kept secret is because the European vassal states are afraid of publicly accusing the US. Which, given that the US was at least complicit in an attack on Germany, I can’t really blame them.
I think they were speaking in terms of operational proficiency, not strategic wisdom. Whether or not you think assassinating Qasem Soleimani was a good idea, we inarguably did a very good job of it.
Illegally assassinating a foreign official on another country’s territory, in a place where any military activity is prohibited, is not only ill-advised, it’s extremely unimpressive. And we all know very well whose help was involved.
> But the US does things professionally and they would have blown up all the pipes as opposed to 3 out of 4
That's a shakey presumption. 3 out of 4 may have been a compromise between the arguments for taking out the pipelines and the arguments against it. We cannot know for certain how many pipelines the attacker, whoever it was, intended to destroy.
What do you mean it was dead in the water? It was ready to go. Only reason it wasn’t operational was because Germany didn’t certify the project yet— under pressure from the US. Germany and Russia were secretly negotiating and so the US had the pipeline taken care of permanently.
It was never gonna get certified after the invasion, which is what I meant with dead in the water.
And Germany and Russia negotiating over opening NS2?
That makes no sense whatsoever.
If Russia wanted to deliver gas it could have just continued with NS1 or one of the other three alternative pipelines that were available.
It would most certainly have been certified without US strong-arm tactics. And why on earth would it want to just continue with NS1 given that it traverses Ukraine? Ukraine extracted rent from NS1, siphoned gas from it, and could (further) sabotage it.
Got any evidence for the first statement? Germany stopped the certification process of NS2 the second Russia invaded Ukraine in February of this year.
The rest is also complete nonsense - NS1 doesn't go anywhere near Ukraine. It's a subsea pipeline in the Baltic sea.
Ukraine borders the Black sea and not the Baltic sea.
Also NS2 is right next to NS1..
Sorry, I misspoke— NS1 doesn’t go through Ukraine. I was alluding to the pipelines that do carry Russian gas through Ukraine, from which it extracts billions of dollars— all the more reason for US/UK/Ukrainian sabotage of Nordstream pipelines. As for Germany not certifying the pipeline, that’s all political theater.
Restarting the NS2 certification process was nowhere to be seen on the horizon, so there is no real point to blow it up from the standpoint of the US (nevermind that actually blowing it up would be insane for the US.. the reality would be diplomatic and soft-power options, of which the US has plenty).
It was dead already.
Also all signs were pointing towards NS1 and NS2 being dead in the water for the future too, since the gas storage was filling up despite no more imports at all from Russia, the new LNG terminals making good progress, existing LNG import terminals running at capacity.
And would still like to see any kind of evidence from you that Germany would have certified NS2 if the US hadn't said anything.
It was the threat that it would be turned back on that is the reason that rules in US as a culprit. It was already not being used! Russia would blow it up to get out of some contract? Does that sound like a serious idea to you? Do any contracts even matter between Russia and Europe at this point.
Then explain to me why the US would not blow up both pipes of NS2? And instead blew up NS1 completely?
That makes no sense for anyone but Russia (leave the option slightly ajar for selling gas later on).
And the contracts would not quite be irrelevant since they could then try to seize more assets from Russia.
Also a Norway-Poland gas pipeline was opened up just one day before the NS attacks, so could also be sending a message.
Seems unlikely. The US has successfully engaged in much more difficult, intricate operations successfully in the past. Here the attacker didn't even have to worry about collateral damage.
A former Navy SEAL was interviewed and stated pipelines are what they called (IIRC) "friendly targets" — it doesn't take much explosive to take them out (I imagine their pressurization helps, but I don't have subject matter knowledge).
> Do any contracts even matter between Russia and Europe at this point.
Doubtful. I think the most rational reason Russia might have done it was to remove a bargaining chip from any Russian challengers to Putin. But this seems like a stretch; if Putin thought some gazprom executive was going to use the pipeline to negotiate a peace with Europe, he'd probably just order that executive and his family murdered. That seems to be the way he operates.
Self-sabotage to preempt coups is not unheard of though. The organizational dysfunction and poorly trained state of several militaries around the world is probably attributable in part to self-sabotage, by politicians who fear military coups.
Any serious opposition to Putin is actually more hawkish than he is. Not quite something that is covered often in our press. There is no neo Yeltsin lurking in the shadows.
The idea here is that the (NATO) drone on the second pipeline had the wires cut and so failed to detonate, and Sweden recovered it and defused it. Therefore Sweden has the physical evidence and immediately shut down the investigation. The same thing happened in 2015, a NATO explosive drone was found under NS1, Sweden recovered and defused it. Both Sweden and Germany have said they know who the culprit is, but they can't reveal the name for reasons of "national security". Germany said that even speculating about who might have done it in public is a threat to national security, so that public debates about this are also banned there.
That - plus basic cui bono logic - rules Russia out, and it certainly points to another NATO member. Primarily UK with assistance from Poland and coordination and tech gear provided by the US. But it's easy to sheep dip a soldier, you swear them in and they officially become members of the Polish army, they maneover the drone, and then they revert to being British. Then the UK can legally say none of their soldiers did anything, and Poland can say they don't have the technical means, etc. In this way, you can deny everything to the press while not technically lying, even though everyone knows who is responsible.
In a German poll, 95% of the public believed the US was responsible. It's shocking how uninformed Americans are about the actions of their own government, and how differently the US is perceived by the rest of the world vis-a-vis its own people. A similar principle applies to perceptions of NATO (which has only ever fought offensive wars) by people within NATO countries vis-a-vis those without.
In this battle of perceptions, there is a split between the 1 billion in the West and the 7 billion in the rest of the world, with the latter having positive views of Russia and negative views of NATO, while the former have it reversed. This is studied in a Cambridge report entitled "A World Divided" [pdf warning]: https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/20...
Page 12 and 13 have some striking graphs on how these two groups, which used to have approximately the same opinions about Russia and the US, are now moving very far apart, basically living in opposite realities. This is why people can say with a straight face that Russia chose to blow up its own pipeline, whereas the US, which threatened to stop the pipeline and has blown up pipelines twice in the past, and was caught planting explosives under the very same pipeline in 2015, is "ruled out" by some in the West. To anyone outside the West, it's absolutely clear who is responsible. And also to 95% of Germans.
> In a German poll, 95% of the public believed the US was responsible.
Citation needed. That doesn't square my personal perception.
And the only nordstream related polls I managed to find where in regards to opening NS2 post-invasion, where > 50% where against it [1].
I heard this on the Duran podcast, which is a good source of geopolitics from a realist perspective, as they follow official readouts fairly diligently (so I don't have to).
They got this from a German government press conference about the investigation being closed. I emailed them if there is an online link to a transcript (it will be in German, but that's fine). If I get a response, I will update. You can search german transcripts of press conferences from Oct 16-17 on the subject of ending the investigation.
>the Duran podcast, which is a good source of geopolitics from a realist perspective
The Duran is a heavily pro-Kremlin source:
>Founded in 2016, The Duran is a strongly right-leaning news and opinion website with ties to Russian state media. Based in Cyprus, the website’s editor is Alexander Mercouris, who in 2012 was disbarred as an attorney in London. According to the Telegraph, he then went on to become a “pro-Russian commentator on world affairs for Russian TV news outlets and websites.”
>In review, The Duran publishes news and opinions with a conservative and pro-Russian perspective
I can't find any statement of the German government anywhere declaring this "closed", much less that they "know who did it". (It'd also be a pretty weird statement to make, given the Swedes, who are leading the investigation since its their territory, only a few days ago formally confirmed that they could prove that explosives were used)
17th October (EDIT: or the days before, slightly conflicting info) apparently the German ships that took part in the first official inspection came back, but ... that's not "ending the investigation"!
I think by that he meant something along the lines of:
“You can’t use American banks or the dollar to pay for this gas, and if you use Euros we’ll not allow our banks to use it as a currency” or something. Far, far more powerful than trying to go and physically blow them up.
Obviously. There was some mild deflection attempts, but they were risible at best.
They don't want to advertise their capabilities in an official manner, even though they were the ones threatening all the internet cables around. Not sure if Sweden's investigation proved it was from outside or inside, but of course, if it's from inside then it really limits who could have done it.
"I see zero reasons why Russia would attack its own infrastructure" only points at one's lack of imagination or intellectual honesty really.
> "I see zero reasons why Russia would attack its own infrastructure" only points at one's lack of imagination or intellectual honesty really.
Imagination can help one paint any kind of picture in their head indeed, but maybe lets keep it in check at least to the point of basic sanity and reason?
I think there is a non-zero chance the culprit has already been identified privately, but won't be identified publicly (at least for many years) for political reasons. There is little to no utility in publicly naming and shaming the culprit if the culprit is your ally or partner; doing so won't bring the pipe back, and would weaken public support for the alliance. Besides a principled commitment to truth for the sake of truth, there would be no rational reason to publicly blame your ally even if you're certain your ally did it.
yeah it’s probably the US that benefits most from it and the CIA certainly isn’t above this kind of thing, but a Western govt coming out and accusing the US of this would be a very poor choice
- have a history of blowing up pipelines, including previously blowing up a Russian pipeline?
- had a chief executive declare that said they "have the means" to put an end to the pipeline, even though it was not in their territorial waters and they had no legal means to do it?
I mean, you can argue that it's speculation, but to argue that it's speculation without basis is false. This is a highly monitored part of the Baltic Sea, right next to a Danish island, in the Swedish exclusive economic zone, and close to a Polish NATO base. It's not the middle of nowhere. It's not some place where we don't know who was there. We know who had ships there at the time of the sabotage, and who had the technical means to do it. That's when you start getting into debates about US versus UK, but not Azerbaijan versus Venezuela.
In the exercise took part Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
and how many terroristic acts of the younger past interestingly happened at the same time and place where some exercises/drills from official side were executed to prevent these.
False flags.
Am I a conspiracy nut now, or what? Crazy? Kassandros? Or just coldly analytical, even while fucking drunk?
I assure you that I'm not 'inventing' this after the fact.
I said these things in a timeframe of maybe two to three hours during the early evening,
while having five glasses of that 'punch'.
With an extra shot of berry 'schnaps' from Estonia.
(Very yummie btw.!)
Deutschland schafft sich ab!
IN VINO VERITAS!
HARR!
Edit: I'm really tired of you naive nay-sayers. You really deserve this shit. Can't be helped.
Edit: Can you imagine how I felt when I've read this a few days after release?
Wasn't meant to say I predicted Baltops, I've been unaware of the specifics at the time. Just that almost no matter where and when, that there are such things, and therefore could easisly be used as cover for whatever.
I'm as a paranoid about the CIA as the next guy but the idea that they would try something like this without political cover seems unlikely to me. Further the idea the Joe Biden would even come close to signing off on this doesn't seem like any version of him. Maybe if he's genuinely off the rails and K. Harris or the Sec. Def. really is running things - maybe then I'd believe this but failing that I can't imagine him being that kind of person or anyone in the chain signing off on this without him on board.
If it was the US - and I think the chance of it not coming to light if it was to be vanishingly small - I would be really interested in the details. I would expect someone handing it to Biden as a fair acompli and him just going with it.
The US is probably the biggest beneficiary but might have asked friends to help out so they weren't so obvious. I'm not totally ruling out the Russian allegation that it was a UK/Ukrainian job, presumably with the UK advising and Ukraine doing. Still who knows?
ukraine itself (or perhaps a close intelligence ally like lithuania), with its constant pressuring of the west to escalate the conflict (including calls for direct strikes on russia), seems like the most likely candidate. there were backchannel efforts between germany and russia to open negotiations prior to the sabotage -- removing NS gas from the equation entirely for germany takes some of the wind out of those sails. besides this we have seen a great deal of ukrainian sabotage of other russian assets and infrastructure in recent months.
Possible, though that would require sending Ukrainian ships and agents a very very far way away. I don't think a clandestine Ukrainian operation on the other side of Europe is very likely in the middle of a war on their own territory.
spiegel posted this a few months ago, claiming that the CIA warned the germans that the russians had intelligence that the ukrainians were planning to sabotage NS:
>The Germans were warned in summer by the CIA about a possible attack scenario on the Nord Stream pipelines. U.S. intelligence claimed to have intercepted Russian communications in which concerns were expressed about possible Ukrainian attacks on Western infrastructure. The Ukrainians allegedly tried to rent a boat in Sweden for this purpose. The CIA did not consider the scenario of a Ukrainian attack to be very credible, but the mere fact that the possibility of an attack on Western infrastructure was mentioned by the Russian side prompted the Americans to warn the Germans about the scenario.
UK was the most active one in supplying and teaching Ukraine to use sea drones for sabotage. Recent attack on Sevastopol and other Russian ports were done by these drones. UK is also known to operate submersible sabotage drones. So it’s basically the moat probable scenario, that UK provided ships, drones and explosives, and some Ukrainian pressed the button.
one of the leading german publications published a claim about german intelligence and and a diplomatic exchange. you can find it compelling or not, but it is not some kind of dubious rumor
It's dubious rumour by German intelligence if the publication is correct. The claimed original source of the intel - Russian intelligence - is already extremely unreliable and adversarial. And then we add Chinese whispers game on top.
It's silly to give any credibility to this type of rumour. We should all wait for hard evidence and if there are none or if it can't be made public, then for courts verdicts.
I think Ukraine isn't as backwards as people assume. And also has legal justification since they are at war with Russia. A crass motive is blowing up a pipeline that wasn't being used forces Russia to devote military resources to protect their oil and gas infrastructure elsewhere.
Western support of Ukraine is supposedly conditioned to defense of their own territory, not attacking Russian territory. This would be outside of that condition, so if they did it, it's best to keep it under.
It's more telling if they don't say, that would mean a Russian or Russian-allied operation is unlikely, because there is no political cost for shaming them even more.
Still outside of Ukrainian territory, the condition for NATO support. And it only transports gas from Russia to Germany, with the winter approaching. Even more telling, the US statement in reaction to this was "a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy".
hmm, maybe someone should tell nato about the assassination attempt on alexander dugin inside russia, the suicide bomb attack on russian infrastructure, the helicopter raids into russian territory, etc
i don't think this attack is really as sophisticated as you seem to; the pipeline was about 80-100m underwater -- the ukrainians have (or had) oil platforms in the black sea which would require divers capable of operating at such depths. getting away with it is definitely impressive though.
for purely economic self-interest, it would be a terrible choice. perhaps if the EU got together and came out with a statement, it would be viable. but pissing off the Americans is on no lone Western state's bucket list
escalation of the crises in Europe, which historically - see: WW2 - has massively benefited the US. more incentive to import American gas. damage Russia; the US objected to Nord Stream in the first place. also can be used as justification to increase support for what is essentially a proxy war in Ukraine
the EU/US economic stratosphere is not necessarily a zero-sum game, but in general if Europe’s economy separately takes a hit, the US gets stronger
Prevent negotiations between Russia and Germany particularly. Then sell exorbitantly priced US LNG to a captive Europe. All of which is basically happening now.
Russia benefits if they can spin it as US action, as the damage to US alliance and trust relationships are huge and definitely strategic goals and gains for them. For a while in the beginning, when it wasn't clear that a functioning (but unused) pipeline remained, Russia was off the suspect list. But it turned out the sabotage missed a pipe and that fact keeps Russia high on the suspect list.
As for US, Germany had already given in to the US pressure and nixed the pipeline and made the gas deals. Why would US go and blow it up? It is possible, but makes little sense.
Whoever did this did so knowing that US will ultimately be blamed. Biden kinda set US up for that with veiled threats regarding NS before the Russian invasion. It's either Russia or UK/Ukraine, is my guess.
Most Baltic basin states, except Germany sort of, benefit by reduced reliance of Europe on Russian gas. Russia is constantly making threats to all of it's neighbours in that region but keeps discord in Europe via the gas blackmail. Similar story for Ukraine.
Western Europe - it's also not inconceivable. For example France is a net exporter of energy to Germany, and probably also doesn't like the Russian gas blackmail (while being less susceptible to it herself).
So literally anyone has some kind of incentive. Except perhaps Germany. You could still argue that Germany benefits in the long run as that reliance is bad for them, as it turns out, but it's harder to see them going cold turkey on themselves.
Yes there is. Government is not supposed to be a self-serving entity. Government is there to serve the people. Democracy is meaningless without transparency.
That's basically just a restatement of the "principled commitment to truth for the sake of truth" motive for naming your own ally as the culprit. I think/hope Germany/Sweden/etc are too smart for that.
The Poland missile thing was Ukraine, not Russia (probably accidentally), this is actually already known. Only Ukraine actually ever claimed it was Russia, and the claims were quite suspect (since Russia wasn't bombing close to that area).
Polish government members were literally saying it was a Russian missile, US sources told the AP it was a Russian missile, only after Biden met with Polish officials did everyone change their tune.
And it still hasn't been officially confirmed where the missile came from, the investigation is ongoing.
Not weakness. A proxy war is much safer than an overt war between nuclear powers. It would be irrational to escalate unless there was no other choice. Since feigning ignorance is a choice, that's preferable to escalation. The ability to maintain this status quo, in which Russia depletes itself in a quagmire, is very advantageous to NATO. Maintaining this status quo is a show of NATO's strength.
If NATO let itself get baited into an overt war with Russia, that would be weakness.
Blowing up its own pipeline that cost billions and years to build, effectively weakening its strategic position and limiting bargain options with Europe?
> You really haven't paid attention to anything Russia's done for the last 20 years, have you?
> They love letting the west know they can "touch" us while maintaining plausible deniability...
This is just a feeling of self-importance having a crossover with years of typical boogeyman narratives.
Reality doesn't function that way, nobody will be losing sleep and precious resources just for the kicks and to stick it to the westerners, without any substantial gain - let's keep it sane and reasonable.
> Also, it's not the only pipeline to Europe...
And? Please be specific, it's impossible to guess what someone is imagining and implying.
> And the US could have pressured EU allies into not purchasing Russian gas regardless of what Russia did.
Not sure what you mean. They tried and failed. Not that they tried too hard - it would have been impossible anyway. NordStream pipelines weren't even the biggest carriers of Russian gas to Europe.
By destroying the pipeline the US ensures that their “allies” (some may call them vassals) will toe the line. After all, those who were dependent on Russia are now dependent on the US.
Those with independent minds won’t suspend reason just because “Mikeb85” said it twice on hackernews.
i suspect this is all about buying more time for the world to get over the shock of this terrorist attack, thereby hopefully preventing for a few more days the end of the world.
as for 'valid reasons' -- i can't think of any.
as for likely suspects, only one country that could do it and expect to get away with it without any serious repercussions -- the US.
and, by extension, our protected partners in aggression -- the UK, in particular. also Nato.
Israel, i suspect, would be out because of close ties to Russia, but you never know.
Russia has officially said the UK was involved in the attack. the UK has offered the Shaggy defense.
the US had the most to gain, and Russia had the most to lose.
so the official word, so far, from most western media including every mainstream pr firm has been:
Russia did it! Self-sabotage! They're so dastardly with their false flags!
Russia has the most to gain because they'll simply sell the natural gas to Asia or through another pipeline, meanwhile they want to pressure Europe into not supporting Ukraine any longer.
The Ukraine war could literally end modern Russia as we know it, more defeats and the entire current government and structure could collapse. If somehow they survive the war, years of sanctions will. The Ukraine war is an existential threat for the Putin government...
And that's not even counting the fact they love false flags and blaming others...
That would require either pipelines or port facilities for loading LNG transport ships in Russia and in China, either of which would take years to implement.
The gas fields are in North-Western Siberia, which is closer to Europe than to China.
A targeted attack against a strategic resource, during a war, with no [direct] civilian casualties. This doesn't meet the common definitions of terrorism. This is equivalent to bombing train yards, not city centers. The best argument for it being terrorism is the civilians who may freeze to death this winter, but even that is dubious.
i would argue, if any party, group, organization, state intentionally blows up civilian infrastructure, it is either a terrorist attack and/or a war crime.
if it is by a state, then it could be considered 'aggression' -- the 'supreme international crime'.
as for the no direct / immediate civilian casualties part ("dubious") -- we can think of myriad examples of terror attacks and war crimes where the vast majority of civilians dying as a result of said attacks came later, even from 'indirect' causes -- dresden, hiroshima, nagasaki, al-shifa, etc.
but whether you decide to classify it as a terror attack, terrorism, war crime, or something better or worse, i think we should be consistent, regardless of who the perpetrator(s) is/are.
Destroying "civilian" airports, bridges, ports, transformers, water towers etc infrastructure is sort of standard practice in war though -- I doubt the states actually waging war are willing to consider those war crimes.
It’s extremely obvious who was responsible. It’s a testament to how badly US/Western media is beholden to its war machine that there’s any question. It’s especially absurd that Russia was ever even considered a suspect. What a time to be alive. Orwell couldn’t have crafted such a ridiculous situation.
In the link you provide, I don't understand why Russia couldn't just turn the gas flow off rather than destroy the lines, if the purpose is blackmail.
Also, if you look at the two recent times the US accused Syria of chemical attacks, both turned out to be misinformation, as determined by the international body that investigates these things. Yet the first time it "happened" was called back to as evidence that they "did it" the second time, even though neither even occurred.
Russia had suspect excuses for those cuts as well. Never once did they say “we’re shutting this off because fuck you”. They always left room for diplomatic deniability.
> Also, if you look at the two recent times the US accused Syria of chemical attacks, both turned out to be misinformation, as determined by the international body that investigates these things. Yet the first time it "happened" was called back to as evidence that they "did it" the second time, even though neither even occurred.
That’s a misleading summary of their findings. The OPCW was prevented from conducting any on site investigations in Saraqib, meaning it could not conclusively prove the use of chemical weapons. That doesn’t make the claims ‘misinformation’. In Aleppo the claim was made by the Syrian government against rebels, not by the US government.
The Fact-Finding Mission wasn’t able to visit the site of the alleged incident or the hospital where injured victims were treated. It had to rely on data including interviews, hospital records and videos and photographs.
Its investigations and analysis “did not allow the FFM to establish whether or not chemicals were used as a weapon,” according to the report issued Friday.
And there is substantial confirmed evidence of the Syrian government using chemical weapons against its own people, such as at Ghouta amongst other places. [0]
Indeed. Nonetheless, that sabotage seems to be a fact. I'd completely forgotten about the story in parent's wikipedia link; the similarities are striking. But in Georgia, they struck Georgian electricity distribution at the same time as pipelines; in the Nordstream attacks, they're not attacking European electricity distribution.
So why blow things up, when you can just turn them off?
Maybe for show. By blowing them up, they demonstrate that they'll never be turned on again. What's that good for? It shows Russia's contempt for the cancellation of NS2, for business with the West in general, and for sanctions. Perhaps it's a muscular display of their power in the field of energy.
How can you show off, if you're going to deny that you did it? Well, it won't be the first time. There has been a number of murders by poisoning recently, just in the UK, that were pretty obviously Russia, that are denied by Russia. But the purpose of those murders was likely meant to intimidate - they needed to be obvious. So I recognize the MO.
I still think it's Biden, based on nothing at all. Except that he more-or-less promised he was going to.
These pipeline explosions ocurred in the "exclusive economic zones" of Sweden and Denmark respectively, so I understand. They are being extremely guarded about their investigation, refusing all requests to observe. Including from Germany, who are part owners. I think that's interesting, given that one early suggestion was that "Sweden done it".
> Perhaps it's a muscular display of their power in the field of energy.
The mere fact that you use "perhaps" and have to imagine an interpretation for what could or could not be regarded as a vague signal, tells us that it's not it.
You know, just by definition of what a "display" is.
Exactly. These people will go through the most insane mental gymnastics to preserve their simplistic worldview. Sad to see so many brains rotted by Russiagate.
What’s naive is entertaining for a second the notion that Russia would blow up its own 10 billion dollar pipeline. Not only does it make NO economic sense, strategically it makes Germany less dependent on Russia, which is a bad thing for Russia. Not to mention the US explicitly threatened to “end” Nordstream as the German head of state was standing right next to Biden. Such a coincidence that the pipeline was blown up as Germany and Russia were negotiating resuming operations.
You're missing the big picture. After Siemens gave Canadian export license that allows Gazprom to "repair" the turbines, there were no more excuses for Gazprom to not respect contractual obligation to provide gas through the pipeline. In short, Gazprom was facing enormous penalties for not providing gas.
I am not saying Gazprom did it, but they had a reason and means (using a PIG) to do it.
Europe is sanctioning the hell out of Russia, and yet Gazprom would pay huge penalties on violating a contract. If anything this story shows why it's unlikely they blew up the pipeline. After that whole legalese theater, they just decided to turn off the tap. As simple as that. And just as simple to refuse to pay any fees.
Things are not so easy, just yesterday there was an article about the financial crises caused by a Korean state not honouring their bond promises.
If Gazprom would simply turn off the gas and say f* off to the fines, they would signal to ask buyers that they are willing to disregard contracts for political reasons. This would significantly undermine confidence in doing business with them, and likely lower prices people would pay for their gas.
Korea isn't in a war (their northern neighbor notwithstanding). They are still ostensibly abiding by the rule of law, so of course they're not going to merely give the finger to anybody who tries to fine them.
Or maybe those courts which could somehow force Russia to pay fines for turning off gas should force Russia to pay fines for invading Ukraine.
Yes it does. Russia's goals was to force Europe's hand (Germany mostly) to certify NS2.
First, in Aug. Russia cuts NS1 to 20% citing supposed repairs: "Gazprom in July cut gas deliveries via NS1 to 20% of maximum capacity, citing turbine repair delays that it blamed on Western sanctions against Russia because of the war."
There, they say "oh hey but look you have NS2 so why don't you certify it".
Then, they turned it off completely:
"The state-controlled firm disclosed Friday flows on NS1 would be closed from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2 during scheduled maintenance on its only currently operating compressor at a key station, Portovaya CS."
Again, they say "well you can always use NS2". But when Europe didn't bite the bullet and surrender to their demands, they made it even more obvious that the only route for gas would be NS2, by blowing NS1.
If this was UK or US sabotage, they would have blown NS2 completely, while possibly leaving NS1 alone.
Except it didn't there was a single pipe of NS2 left untouched, if you think it was the US why did they leave a single pipe for Russia to use as leverage to certify NS2?.
No. Both NS1 and NS2 have nominally the same capacity. And both consist of two pipes each. Both pipes of NS1 were destroyed, but only one of the NS2 pipes was.
I'm not sure you understand how vile the oligarchs of Russia are. The country is a kleptocracy. These guys don't give two shits about the citizens of Russia, never mind anywhere else. They are constantly making insane deals that are terrible for the country and the citizens, but enrich themselves personally.
I'm honestly saddened to see your comment so downvoted - though perhaps the tone was too problematic.
While I don't share the absolute certainty, I also think the most direct story/motivations would be for the USA (perhaps via some ally like the UK) to be behind this.
I don't think Russia can be entirely excluded though - perhaps for some internal political play - but it does seem to require more non-obvious motivations.
It’s not surprising, and I am used to it by now. I agree the tone was combative, but I have been losing patience with the virtually uniform acceptance of every ridiculous proclamation about Russia in the US/Western media, and the ridiculous/pathetic suggestions that anyone who questions that narrative is working for the Kremlin or somehow a Putin admirer. “This time is different, this a good war.” Makes me want to vomit.
Germany and Russia were negotiating resuming pipeline operations when Nordstream was blown up. And oh, I don’t know seems pretty obvious that Russia has ZERO motive to blow up its own 10 billion dollar pipeline.
Where do you get that idea from? There were absolutely no public indications at all that Germany was considering anything there. Russia throttled and then cut off gas delivery via NS1 entirely. This did not change anything about Germany's military support for Ukraine.
> Germany and Russia were negotiating resuming pipeline operations when Nordstream was blown up.
I haven’t heard about this at the time or since. Do you have a source for this information?
> And oh, I don’t know seems pretty obvious that Russia has ZERO motive to blow up its own 10 billion dollar pipeline.
Russia is not a monolithic entity. For example if I were Putin I would fear that someone deposes me, then they makes peace with the West and they quickly resume the gas transit. By making it so the gas transit can’t be quickly resumed one also insures one’s self against such plans by lowering the possible reward of it.
I don't see that the linked article is supporting this particular statement. Namely it does not mention that Germany and Russia were in negotiations about resuming the gas transport before or around the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.
That being said I want to make sure that you don't feel like we are sealioning you.
I think there are more that I agree with you on this topic than what we would disagree on.
I think it is odd that everyone in the media immediately concluded that it must have been Russia with 100% conviction. It seems you also agree with this. (perhaps you would use stronger words than that)
I think we also agree that the USA and the UK had both the means and the motivation. I would also add that there are others with the means and perhaps the motivations. Not sure if you would agree with that.
You seems to be convinced that there were negotiations between Russia and Germany about the resumption of gas transport. I'm not so sure. I just haven't seen proof for it. But! I think it is a pretty safe assumption that there would have been such negotiations once Germany's economy starts to struggle during the winter. So on that we are just disagreeing on the details, not on the fundamentals. (At least that is how it seems to me, don't want to put words into your mouth.)
The fundamental disagreement seems to be in our conclusion. I see your reasoning and I agree that it is enough to warrant a suspicion. But I don't feel that it is enough with what is currently known to say for certain who did it. The tricky bit with logic based speculation is that others can do it too. Some other actor with the means and motivation might have also done the same speculation you just did and concluded that in the case of sabotage the USA and the UK will be blamed.
Not saying that that is what happened. All I am saying is that I don't know who did it. I think we don't know enough. It might come to light soon. It might not come to light during our lifetime. Who knows.
Currently gas storage is at 100% in Germany. The efforts to reduce consumption also seem to have a significant effect. And this is with a blown up pipeline.
Of course the energy situation has economic effects, but it's very far from not surviving the winter.
> Currently gas storage is at 100% in Germany
> And this is with a blown up pipeline.
Most of the storage was filled when the pipeline was operational and pumping gas at full capacity (what did you think they were filling it with?). It was slowly filling with Russian gas for half a year.
Besides, gas storage is only a buffer to temporarily compensate for the difference between supply and consumption (typically in winter).
> but it's very far from not surviving the winter.
And then what? Pump Russian gas like crazy just like this year? Oh wait, they turned off the tap. Guess they'll have to make some kind of deal. Oh wait, someone blew up the pipeline!
I feel like people are overly focused on this winter, rather the next, when the storages are drained, and new pipelines aren't yet built.
The first LNG terminal has just been built (using a ship-based terminal I think, so somewhat different than a completely land-based LNG terminal). The plan is to buy the gas from somewhere else than Russia, and so far we're doing far better than the original predictions. Doesn't mean there won't be problems, but it's certainly not as terrible as expected.
> The first LNG terminal has just been built (using a ship-based terminal I think, so somewhat different than a completely land-based LNG terminal).
Are you implying that LNG carriers are even remotely comparable in terms of economy and bandwidth to a pipeline from one's neighbor?
> The plan is to buy the gas from somewhere else than Russia
It's not really a "plan", it's just a desire. A "plan" involves thought through supply chain, logistics, economics and so on.
This "plan" also implies stopping the gas flow through Ukraine, which is a politically complicated situation.
> so far we're doing far better than the original predictions.
Specifically?
> Doesn't mean there won't be problems, but it's certainly not as terrible as expected.
But nothing has even started yet. There hasn't really even been a real deficit yet. And still some companies already had to shut down production, just cuz it was no longer sustainable.
Thank you for that excellent dose of reality. The fact is also that European leaders (especially Macron caught on hot mic) are terrified that the US essentially had NO realistic/effective plan to replace Russian gas for the EU.
Sorry, but that very real economic harm is an existential threat. When people’s jobs disappear because energy is too expensive for German industry (highly dependent on exports) to be competitive, that’s an existential threat on a personal level, which ripples out to the greater society. And let’s not forget that economic harm inflicted from abroad is precisely what gave rise to WWII.
Germany's economy will suffer significantly, but Germany will survive.
The language "trouble surviving the winter" plainly suggests massive numbers of Germans freezing to death, which isn't going to happen. Even if I grant that this claim is talking about damage to the German economy (I don't) it is unlikely that the German economy will collapse during this winter. The economic ramifications will be felt for many years to come but there is no chance of Germany ceasing to exist this winter as claimed above.
> And let’s not forget that economic harm inflicted from abroad is precisely what gave rise to WWII.
Fear of that sort of scenario should mostly be focused on Russia, who are going to lose a war as Germany lost WW1, and will be looking for scapegoats. Besides Russia, I can think of other countries which have suffered far more economic damage due to this war than Germany. Particularly, the one that actually got invaded. Germany's economy is still strong and healthy compared to Ukraine's.
> The language "trouble surviving the winter" plainly suggests massive numbers of Germans freezing to death
You are arguing semantics of specific words people use in informal internet conversations, which is pointless. There is absolutely nothing implying literal meaning of the word "surviving".
I, for example, always assumed that it meant the collapse of German industry, German cozy way of life, and likely German government.
Obviously people won't be actually dying - that would be completely fucking stupid. Worst case scenario they'll just start burning everything they can get their hands on.
You don't think that the US and UK can jointly plan to do something without holding hands? It doesn't really matter who actually physically did it. What's important is who intended to it, which is probably both of them. Maybe nationals from other countries were involved (maybe Ukranians? Poles? Idk). But the US and UK would actually be planning/administering the operation.
> It doesn't really matter who actually physically did it.
Well if someone says it is “extremely obvious who did it” then it kinda does matter if they can then say who did it. The fact that miguelazo couldn’t name who did it indicates that perhaps it is less than extremely obvious who did it.
I agree that both the USA, and the UK has the means to covertly carry out such sabotage. I also agree that both has the motivation too. There are other countries with the means and motivation too.
> maybe Ukranians? Poles? Idk
That last one. That hits it on the head. The correct answer given the publicly available information is that we do not know. We should say that more often. It is a sign of strength, not of weakness.
To be clear, I believe it was the US in command. There were likely others involved, but the other commenter is right— it doesn’t really matter exactly which NATO partner pulled the trigger. The point is that NATO attacked one of its own and that the idea of Russian involvement is ludicrous.
https://thecradle.co/Article/Columns/16307
What I mean to say is that it doesn't matter to know who physically performed the actions, only to know who planned and directed it. Just like we might blame bin Laden for 9/11 even though he didn't fly the planes. He was on the other side of the earth. Or whatever, you get the idea.
But in any case, of course we don't know. But we should attempt to find what is and isn't a reasonable explanation, and what may be most reasonable.
> Were they holding hands? Or one sabotaged one pipe and the other the other?
Yes, that's a distinct possibility. The US and UK are tight, particularly with underwater stuff. They have a history of sharing submarine secrets with each other. Even reactor technology and screw/pumpjet design. That's some of the most secret stuff America and the UK have, and they share it with each other. It's fair to suspect that one may have consulted with the other before doing something like this.
Ukraine also had a rational motive, but has significantly less underwater capability than the US/UK. That said, they're very resourceful, good at finding new ways to apply modern technology. I think it may have been any or a combination of the three. America is obviously the prime suspect, due to Biden's public albeit deniable vague threat.
Certainly a possibility. One advantage of using a submarine is you're less likely to be caught red handed, but that doesn't prove it was done with a submarine.
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
It was Kremlin propaganda for a day to claim that the missiles that hit Poland were Ukrainian. People got flagged. Now it is the official Biden position.
I'm not sure why we in the West cannot adopt the following stance:
Yes, Russia invaded and committed atrocities. But it does not mean that everything they say is a lie. If you are familiar with Soviet propaganda, it is in fact relatively easy to spot the obvious lies (e.g., dirty bomb).
The Nord Stream sabotage is not at all obvious. The increased use of missiles started after the Crimea bridge attack. So they didn't need a false flag Nord Stream operation as an excuse for that.
It was disturbing watching people call for all out anhilation of Russia with nuclear war over those two deaths and then absolutely silence when Biden and Stoltzberg made their remarks. I take it you don't watch TV much either.
Given that Biden has explicitly threatened to sabotage the NS2 pipeline, it's not I would say that the prime suspect has to be the USA. It's true that Russia would be the secondary suspect, just because of their quite erratic behavior.
But it is extremely important to note that Russia always had the option of simply stopping gas delivery even if the pipeline was not destroyed (and Germany similarly could stop delivery at the other end), while other parties had to actually sabotage the pipeline if they wanted to prevent such deals.
Yes, God forbid someone present opposing views. I must be working for the Kremlin. I forgot we were all supposed to take our marching orders from MSNBC. Pretty funny coming from an account that has been here less than a month.
I totally agree. I can’t believe anyone could have seriously thought Russia would sabotage their own infrastructure, yet this was the leading theory on mainstream news
The configuration of blowing up NS1 fully and NS2 half-way has quite a few upsides for Russia: getting out of contracts without voiding them, improving the internal political situation (in case anyone wants to create a coup and then start selling gas again) or sending a message (a norway-poland pipeline was opened just one day before NS was blown up)
I think it's unreasonable to believe that you could intentionally half-way blow up a pipeline. And the only reasonable conclusion here is that the intention was to blow all of it up.
Why would Russia want to even get out of those contracts? If Europe is willing to pay, they will gladly supply gas, as they have done for many many decades. Even at the peak of the cold war, they were reliably supplying gas to Western Germany for example. It is very lucrative for them. And in any case, why do contracts between Russia and Europe even matter at this point. Any party can just do whatever they want.
There is no point is "sending a message", it's very obvious that it is possible to blow up an underwater pipeline. Anyone worth sending a message to would have already known its possible.
The obvious real motivation here is to prevent any negotiation over re-opening the pipeline.
> Why would Russia want to even get out of those contracts? If Europe is willing to pay, they will gladly supply gas, as they have done for many many decades. Even at the peak of the cold war, they were reliably supplying gas to Western Germany for example. It is very lucrative for them. And in any case, why do contracts between Russia and Europe even matter at this point. Any party can just do whatever they want.
Then explain why Russia had already cut off the supply of gas for clearly spurious reasons. And why Russia has used shutting off gas as an economic weapon before, including against Georgia and Ukraine in the past.
I’m not convinced Gazprom would’ve done this to get out of penalties, but your statement is incorrect. Contracts still matter because this isn’t an all out existential war where nothing else matters. Relations will have to normalise at some point, and Gazprom is still selling to other countries and can’t show itself to them as an unreliable partner that doesn’t care about delivery contracts.
Sending a message is not just about demonstrating the capability, as you’ve focused on, but showing the willingness to actually do it.
Each pipeline consists of two strands that are some distance apart. So blowing them up separately is certainly possible. In the end those are 4 pipelines, they're just not all named separately.
Upsides for Russia? Really? Getting out of contracts? LOL!
Pretty sure those would be irrelevant given all the sanctions. Let’s check the upsides for Russia: losing $10 billion+ of investment, billions in future revenue, and ending Germany’s strategic dependence. And you think they care about “contracts”? Amazing.
https://fair.org/home/us-medias-intellectual-no-fly-zone-on-...
Can you stop the hyperbole?! Yes they definitely care about contracts, if they don't honour contracts even in the situation of sanctions confidence in doing business with them would plummet, also in Asia etc.. This is how the modern world works.
You notice that when Russia turned off the gas before, they never said, "because we want to screw you", but instead cited maintanance. If they could just turn off the tap without reason and contracts be damned, why would they do that?
War and acts of God render most contracts moot. It’s a silly argument. And plenty of countries (smartly) renege on contracts all the time for even less dramatic reasons and do not suffer long, if at all, in the international capital markets. IMF/World Bank are not as important as they used to be. Compared to China, they’re now bit players. This is how the modern world works.
Russia cited maintenance when turning off NS1 because they probably had maintenance to do that was difficult in a war zone. Also, NS1 traverses Ukraine, and they had previously accused Ukraine of siphoning.
You are thinking of the Soyuz or Brotherhood pipelines, which go via Ukraine (and there is a third option: the yamal pipeline that goes via Poland).
NS1 and NS2 go directly from Russia to Germany via the baltic sea, which Ukraine has no direct border with, so are nowhere close to any war zone.
The compressor station, which allegedly had technical issues, is located in mainland Russia (far far away from Ukraine).
Russia doesn’t own the pipeline. And they used the damage to Nordstream 1 as an excuse to demand that Germany accept supply through Nordstream 2. Russia had in any case turned off all supply via NS1 to Germany. So no real harm to Russia and strengthens their energy blackmail position.
While the pipeline is technically owned by some Swiss holding company, Russia still invested billions in its construction and will now lose billions more in lost revenue, not to mention German strategic dependence on Russia. The idea that there’s no real harm to Russia is patently absurd.
They literally destroyed their economy and wiped out decades of diplomacy and trust... and you can't believe they blew up a bit of a pipe to pressure the market and Germany?
I don't think you're seeing things in perspective and the scale of the events.
Pressure the market in what way that isn't accomplished by just turning the pipeline off without blowing it up?
And pressure Germany into what exactly? Think this one through. How does removing the possibility of re-opening the pipeline pressure Germany into anything from the point of view of the Russians?
What Russia would want to pressure Germany into is "stop your sanctions and we will sell you gas". A possibility removed by blowing up the pipeline.
The "Russia blew up the pipeline" idea makes absolutely no sense. And if there was any evidence to support it, you know that the whole of Western media would be shouting it from every rooftop.
But instead we have silence, and concerns over "national security"
Ok so I'll give you the context you seem to have forgotten: when the pipe was blown up Europe was in the market to acquire LNG... and they needed A LOT of gas.
When Russia closed the pipe, it rippled through the market, and made EU pay more for the LNG.
If that's not pressuring the market, I don't know what it is. On top of the increased pressure, they managed to make EU pay even more - on a WAR THAT RUSSIA NEEDS TO END ASAP.
> But instead we have silence, and concerns over "national security"
What good would it be to let everyone know Russia did it? Get people questioning: if this is an act of war? Why are we allowing Russia to attack our infrastructure? What will they attack next?
No one wants to go to war with Russia.
Plus, Russia will deny this anyway, like they denied the attack on the flight MH17, even after evidence proved it was done by Russia - we already knew it was them, but only now there was a verdict - since 2014 this has been investigated.
> The "Russia blew up the pipeline" idea makes absolutely no sense. And if there was any evidence to support it, you know that the whole of Western media would be shouting it from every rooftop. But instead we have silence, and concerns over "national security"
Indeed. With every day that goes by without NATO publicly publishing proof of Russia being the culprit, Russian responsibility seems less likely. If Russia did it, going public with that proof would be great for America/NATO and harmful to Russia.
>Indeed. With every day that goes by without NATO publicly publishing proof of Russia being the culprit, Russian responsibility seems less likely. If Russia did it, going public with that proof would be great for America/NATO and harmful to Russia.
Harmful to Russia?
Do you realize they're invading a country and stealing land? There's no more harm for Russia, they did it to themselves.
The countries that align with Russia have already done, the neutral ones don't care.
Destroyed their economy? The ruble is doing just fine. And it was the West that TRIED to destroy their economy. Tell me how pressuring the market and Germany is somehow a plausible theory?? If the pipeline is gone there is nothing more to negotiate about, which is exactly why the US blew it up (coincidentally while Russia and Germany were negotiating).
https://fair.org/home/us-medias-intellectual-no-fly-zone-on-...
Ruble is a controlled forex currency. You virtually can't sell rubles and exchange them to EUR or USD at the moment. Russian government imposed very strict regulation into buying foreign currencies and banks imposed heavy taxation (1% per month) for holding foreign currencies, forcing people into exchanging USD into RUB. Volume is down substantially as well.
It was a smart thing to do by Russia - it keeps ruble look strong. We'll see how long they can keep it up. Maybe in future we'll even read about it in books how to avoid currency depreciation.
Since the invasion he has made multiple diplomatically problematic misstatements that the state department had to walk back. Banking on American presidents’ “tough talk” will bankrupt you quickly. Given his cognitive state we can’t know, but why would he disclose this if it were actually on the todo list? It just doesn’t work that way.
But really, the question isn’t if we could or would, but if we did. Those are majorly different questions.
Isn’t it amazing how you get downvoted for bringing up obvious facts? The other striking thing about Biden’s declaration that the US would end Nordstream is that the German head of state was standing right next to him when he said it. Tells you everything you need to know about the relationship and sadly, the subservience of the German government.
It's just laughable at this point. You bring up a literal quote and link to the video, they say it was a misstatement. The mental gymnastics is impressive.
This makes no sense. Ukraine is going to magically conjure the gas to put in NS1 for delivery to Europe? Also, you do realize that NS2 isn’t actually owned by Russia? I doubt the Swiss holding company is going to let the “EU court” confiscate its property, damaged or not.
It's a classic. Attack yourself and blame the other guy. This is how wars often start. The problem is that these cases are purely speculative, when executed right.
It's obvious that's what Russia would do. Between their constant shelling of their own positions and launching missiles into Poland to trigger Article 5, they're clearly completely suicidal.
LOL— shelling their own positions? Like the nuclear plant they’re occupying? Wow, the Russiagate brain rot is worse than I thought. And truly embarrassing that you’re still pushing the line that Russia launched the missiles into Poland.
