site banner
tfowler11  1yr ago (text post)   4257 thread views

What caused the Nord Stream pipline explosions?

None of the explanations makes a lot of sense to me. Either there was a very weird and unlucky combination of things that created an accident or accidents or someone took an action that doesn't make a lot of sense IMO, or someone stepped up and managed to pull something off that would seem beyond their capabilities.

Ships and aircraft of various countries were near the area at times before the explosion but that's pretty meaningless. The Baltic has a lot of civilian and military traffic it isn't some obscure patch of distant Ocean that no one really cares about.

Theories -

1 . Russia did it -

They certainly had the capability. Wouldn't even need to put a ship or sub or aircraft anywhere near where the explosion happened, they could transport explosives through the pipeline. They could of course just turn it off (and in fact had done so for Nord Stream 1 (2 was shutdown on the Germany side). They were not getting any revenue from the pipelines anyway. OTOH that was partially their choice (they shut down #1) and while there prospect fro revenue in the future was dim, it wasn't zero so you would think they would hold up some hope. A 10 percent chance of many billions is worth a lot of money. Why would they do it? Well they might avoid liability for not meeting contractual obligations. Could be a "burn your ships" or "burn your bridges" type of action showing contempt for the west and internally making an internal political signal that there can be no backing down. Could be a threat that other important pipelines and at sea infrastructure are vulnerable. Could be an attempt to make people think the US did it to try to sew division within NATO. Could be an attempt to block the Germans fro musing the part of the pipeline in German waters for an offshore LNG terminal.

2 - Anti-war Russian saboteurs did it -

From a perspective of motivation this perhaps makes the most sense. Perhaps an anarchist anti-war and anti-government group, trying to harm Russia. But they are the least likely to have the capability. I doubt they could pull off getting to the site of the damage with a large explosive. Maybe they had people working in Gazprom and sent explosives through the pipeline? That's possible but it seems unlikely they would have that access.

3 - Germany did it -

All the theories seem unlikely to me (although it did off course happen, so something unlikely happened) but this perhaps the least likely. Like Russia they could destroy it through the pipeline without needing to get close to the area of the explosion. But Germany while they decertified Nord Stream 2, actually wanted to continue to get gas from Nord Stream 1 for a time. Also they might use the parts of Nord Stream 2 in German for an offshore terminal (not sure if the plan was to use 1 or 2, but eventually both could have been used). Why would they do it? The government could have thought that they may face pressure to open up Nord Stream 2 this winter, and didn't want to go back on their decision to close it so they closed off that possibility. But than why also blow up Nord Stream 1. Some faction in the intel services or some saboteurs who worked for Nord Stream AG? Not impossible but it also seems one of the least likely answers.

4 - US did it -

Why would they do it? Well there could have been a thought that Germany would cave on allowing Nord Stream 2 operations and this closes that option. Maybe 1 was hit as well because the Russians could always decide to send gas that way and the Americans didn't want the Germans buying Russian gas? Also the US supplies LNG, while currently the exports are at capacity since the Freeport terminal explosion, there may be the thought that NG prices generally and specifically LNG would go up with an exploded major pipeline, and/or that Germany would be more locked in to buying US LNG in the long run. But it would require an extraordinary amount of willingness to take serious diplomatic risks, for a pretty modest gain.

5 - Ukraine did it -

It would lock out the possibility of Russia receiving funds from selling gas through the pipelines. Also maybe they could hope Russia would be blamed. Still this seems one of the least likely possibilities. Russia wasn't getting any revenue through those pipelines at the moment and it seems unlikely they would ever get revenue through #2. Ukraine would seem to have less ability to pull it off than the other countries listed, they aren't near the pipeline, and their countries resources are going in to the war effort. And the risk would be enormous. There is a good chance it eventually would get out and some chance it would get out quickly, which could devastate support for Ukraine within Germany and harm support elsewhere, and that support is very important to them. The gains would be very small compared to the potential harm.

6 - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Poland did it -

They have easy access to the area and a strong dislike for Russia. But while their downside isn't as large as Ukraine's it still seems too reckless. I can see them taking the risk for an action that would at one stroke mean Russia's defeat (if any such action existed) but not for such modest potential Russian down side. It doesn't really impact Russia's war.

7 - China did it -

Maybe they wanted to make things even crazier for Europe and hoped the US would be blamed? This is another one of the least likely possibilities IMO.

8 - Some other country did it - Who? Why? Can't think of any scenarios that seem to make much sense.

9 - It was an explosion caused by underwater live munitions from previous wars. Apparently there were such munitions near the Nord Stream 2 breach. But what would cause them to shift to where the pipeline is and blow up now? Also it seems a Nord Stream 1 breach was not near any known location of underwater munitions.

10 - Methane Hydrate plugs - See https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html

Such plugs are apparently more likely to form when the gas is sitting in place, like it was in Nord Stream. And they could cause pipeline ruptures. But both pipelines at pretty much the same time? Also unless there was more than the normally very low level of oxygen in the pipelines (which is monitored to avoid corrosion and at higher levels combustion risk) that would allow for combustion I don't see how you would get explosions as large as those that were detected.

11 - Other - Different causes for each pipeline (different countries sabotaged each one, or one was an accident and one was sabotage), eco-terrorism (would they have the ability and would they want to release that much methane), aliens, etc. No real reason to seriously consider any of these without some specific evidence. They are all a bunch of wacky theories, that I'm not taking seriously. Something I haven't even considered? Well of course that's possible but what?

22
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Other explanations: any country that wants to sell gas to Europe, like eg Norway. Any country that wants to sell nuclear power plants, like eg France. Any country (or company) that wants to sell submarine surveillance drones.

By the way, I do not agree with your cost analysis. It seems to me that it could be profitable for a lot of actors: Russia, to send a message (we are ready for anything); US, to hurt Russia. You say they risk to get caught, but even if they were, then what? Europe needs the US to help Ukraine. Would it be worse than when the US spied on Merkel and nothing happened? Same for other countries.

Can we hijack this to get everyone's educated opinions on what caused the Crimean Bridge explosion? Early reports seem to point to a Ukro-Aligned, possibly Crimean Tatar, suicide truck bomber. Other theories include boat bombs (theoretical), missiles (evidence free), explosives planted by SOF on supports (insanely difficult).

I guess you could hijack this, or if you have some more to say about it you could make your own post. Personally I have very little idea what caused it at this point. Could be a truck suicide bomber but everything happens so fast and its not a high speed camera. The truck was obviously blown up but its unclear whether its actually the source of the explosion.

One thing I'm interested in is how much capacity they can get out of the bridges (road and rail) and how long it takes them to do it. Right now they seem to have one lane, light vehicles only, for the road bridge. Rail bridge is down. Russia is claiming they can have it up pretty quickly. We'll see. It may be possible if you ignore normal safety margins, and perhaps send fewer and less heavily loaded trains over it. But even that would have an impact on Russian logistics in the southern front. Worst case and the damage is less then it seems and they get it fully running, it would still have caused some temporary problems for them. Best case the rail side is down for a long time (the rail side is more important to war logistics), and the road side can't handle heavy trucks for a long time. That would have a serious impact.

10 - Methane Hydrate plugs - See https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html

Such plugs are apparently more likely to form when the gas is sitting in place, like it was in Nord Stream. And they could cause pipeline ruptures. But both pipelines at pretty much the same time? Also unless there was more than the normally very low level of oxygen in the pipelines (which is monitored to avoid corrosion and at higher levels combustion risk) that would allow for combustion I don't see how you would get explosions as large as those that were detected.

Doesn't that fellow hypothesize that they happened approximately similar times (apparently 17hr apart) due to someone attempting to test/ clear both at approximately the same time?

Agreed though thar i dont understand how you get the actual explosion though.

How sure are we that it was an actual explosion though and not a high pressure burst? I would think they'd look fairly similar to the untrained eye. I'm not sure anyone with serious expertise in distinguishing these things through whatever types of sensor data we have to examine deep underwater events has weighed in. God knows there's no shortage of actors and commentators who'd love to declare that it's definitely an explosion and definitely caused by whoever they hate the most.

Swedish investigators have been examining the sites and they've said it was cause by "detonations". So that's a blow against the burst theory.

That would explain the first problem, I still have an issue with the size of the explosion as well.

OTOH an explosion of that size was hardly needed for sabotage if someone taking it out had direct access to the pipeline they could have cut it open or used a fairly small shaped charge. Even an unshaped charge wouldn't really need to be that big.

Our own @beej67 thinks it was the US. It really doesn't make sense for Putin to blow up his own pipeline designed to bypass the butthurt belt when other pipelines going through explicitly hostile Ukraine are still untouched. Hell, why not blow up Europipe I or II?

Of course, the whole war doesn't make sense in retrospect, and the other half of NS2 is still standing (lying?), so it can be a cunning plan to force Germany to switch to NS2 if they want their natural gas so much.

But apart from stupid rhetorical points, what's the difference between pumping gas through NS2 vs NS1 (after NS1 has been made unusable anyways).

The point about NS2 was AFAIK to basically double the capacity of NS1. So blowing NS1 up to force Germany to use NS2 would have the same result as just using NS1 in the first place.

I am still incredibly puzzled by this whole affair.

I am still incredibly puzzled by this whole affair.

There's zero puzzling things about the affair. The pipes were blown with very large amounts of explosives (hundreds of kilograms per blast) in an area heavily patrolled by NATO aircraft and naval presence in the area.

It's very clear there were either orders to not interfere, or the pipes were themselves targetted with torpedoes. These days these can be even airdropped from 10 km up.

The Nord Stream company cannot even inspect the area until mid october. Even if it was done with torpedoes, by then naval divers can have cleaned up all evidence.

But there are AFAIK no NS1 countries between Russia and Germany. Nord Stream 1 and 2 are -at least when looking at routes, endpoints and even capacity- virtually identical.

That’s why the “only NS2 left intact” part puzzles me so much. Maybe it was not even the intention to leave it intact and whoever did the sabotage just messed that part up.

The US did it. They wanted to punish Russia and take pressure to cave off of German politicians.

The Swedish Security Service is doing an investigation, they've confirmed it was a detonation. So Methane Hydrate plugs are out.

The other European countries you mentioned don't have teams trained to do exactly this sort of thing. The US does. They are just way ahead of everyone else at undersea operations.

There's no evidence of China being in the area. They could pull something like this off in the South China Sea, but the explosions happened just outside of Danish (Bornholm) territorial waters.

It's a heavily NATO controlled area. If the US didn't do it then they know exactly who did.

Other quotes in favor:

“one way, or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” - Victoria Neuland

"If Russia invades,” said Biden, “then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

Polish MEP & Former Defense Minister Radosław Sikorski tweeted out "Thank you, USA"

It's certainly possible that the US did it, but it feels like it would be a rather weird act to me. The US already has a ton of levers to pull to influence things in NATO countries, especially in the face of an active Russian invasion. So why would they take the diplomatic risk of physically blowing up the pipelines? Doing that feels like the act of somebody who fears that they have no other way to influence the situation. If the US did it, you'd have to wonder if somebody feels like the situation is slipping out of their control or something.

That's why my money is on one of the NATO baltic states having done it. It still feels a little high risk and desperate, but since they're already not the big dog on the block, they're at least not risking being seen as not as powerful as people thought. Of course, if one of them did do it, the US would probably have had to actively look the other way and not attempt to stop them or provide any information on it.

In fact, if the US did actively want to blow it up, it would probably be a better move to lean on one of those countries to do it and then look the other way afterwards.

The US has a lot of allies in the German government, but the German people don't care enough about Ukraine to freeze in the dark this winter.

Blowing up the pipeline takes pressure off of their allies in the German government since it's now impossible to reopen the pipelines.

The situation is slipping out of their control. They though that control of the global financial system gave them control over all governments. But it turns out that Europe needed to buy Russian gas more than Russia needed to sell it. The German government would likely have folded from domestic pressure if the pipeline was still an option in the winter.

It doesn't seem like a terribly popular view on here but I think you're totally in the right on this issue. Germany simply cannot cut off Russian fossil fuels without undergoing an economic contraction and reduction in quality of life so severe that the political system will be unable to prevent outsiders and nationalist politicians from gaining power. I pay a lot of attention to energy and fossil fuel issues and I really can't see any other plausible explanation for what's happening or why the pipelines were destroyed.

Maybe... still feels like a stretch though. Why do it now? Is there some active pressure on the German government now that I'm not aware of?

It all seems awful speculative. Like, maybe Germany will end up being critically low on energy this winter, but that's not established yet. Maybe they won't be able to think of any solution better than buying Russian gas after all, but ditto not established yet. Maybe they will / would have come under powerful enough political pressure to cave on that, but ditto. And maybe the US would be worried enough about Germany caving on this and unable to otherwise help them or pressure them to carry out a risky act of sabotage, but ditto.

Which all leads back to, why do it now, when the only possible benefit to the US is after 5 or so things all happen in the right way in the next 6 months or so? I'd buy it more if it happened after all of those things actually did happen and the German government was actively looking to cut a deal. It all feels a little loopy and desperate.

It's not speculative at this point. They know how much gas they typically burn for power and heating in the winter. They know that they don't have it.

It's already mid October. They certainly don't have any plan they can roll out in two months and people are going to be cold in December.

The German energy crisis isn't six months away. It's happening now.

https://apnews.com/article/business-germany-government-and-politics-0e2a5f4bb528bd71128c0278650a410c

Germans are using too much gas to avoid a potential energy “emergency” this winter, the head of Germany’s national network regulator warned Thursday.

[...]

“We will hardly be able to avoid a gas emergency in winter without at least 20% savings in the private, commercial and industrial sectors,” Mueller said. “The situation can become very serious if we do not significantly reduce our gas consumption.”

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energy-crisis

It wasn't supposed to be like this. This coal-fired power plant is one of several nationwide that were scheduled to be shut down by the end of the year, to maintain Germany's commitment to phasing out coal by the end of this decade. But with Russia cutting natural gas deliveries to Europe, and with no quick options to replace that energy, Germany is warily turning to its most reliable — and environmentally polluting — fossil fuel. At least 20 coal-fired power plants nationwide are being resurrected or extended past their closing dates to ensure Germany has enough energy to get through the winter.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/business/growing-energy-crisis-a-grave-threat-to-industry-in-germany-a-9152547c-a31d-483e-a70c-242c280cab23

The questions that executives across the country find themselves faced with are of an existential nature: For how long can we continue to withstand high energy prices? How can we save? Is production in Germany even still worth it any longer? Or is it time to move away to a place where energy prices aren’t as high?

I'd read his comment as "the political class of Poland takes it for granted that the US did it".

He's the sort of person who goes to dinner parties with a lot of people who would know secret details. Presumably he's noticed that they don't seem confused or concerned about who did it.

My priors are distinctly that anything the US does in that part of the world, no matter how secret, is aided by Poland in some capacity.

How is a Polish MEP publicly attributing a secret US activity Poland aiding the US in said secret activity?

The quotes are pretty meaningless. "Bring an end to it" meant to get it decertified. And it wasn't said about Nord Stream 1. The Thank you, only implies that he believed that the US did it and is happy that (he thinks) they did. Just one person's opinion. As for heavily controlled, while its not an ocean, there is still a lot of water out there. A sub, or a nondescript looking boat with divers could go the area without attracting notice. Confirmed that there was an explosion != confirmed that someone planted explosives or used a weapon against it. And explosion is a rapid expansion of material, which can happen without C4, TNT, ect. The size of the explosion could be an argument against methane hydrates but not just that there was an explosion.

You changed detonation to explosion, then argued that explosion can mean anything.

But articles about the Swedish probe have been specifically using the word detonation. eg https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/nord-stream-leaks-detonation-sweden-probe

A detonation is a supersonic explosion from an exothermic reaction. They wouldn't have used that word for a methyl hydrate pipe burst.

"Bring an end to it" meant to get it decertified.

That's a matter of opinion. Here's video of the quote.

https://twitter.com/realchasegeiser/status/1576413365127155712

When asked to explain how he'd end it he didn't say anything about decertification. He just gave an ominous "We will, uh, I promise you we will be able to do it."

The decertification explanation just sounds like his staff trying to walk back his threat.

As for heavily controlled, while its not an ocean, there is still a lot of water out there. A sub, or a nondescript looking boat with divers could go the area without attracting notice

I think you're underestimating the complexity and the likelihood of being caught. Multiple bombs at multiple sites. A very high risk operation for the Russians.

Sure, it could have been a frame job, but that's not the most likely option.

The Russians have been working on weird and wonderful new kinds of submarine; there was an incident a few years back where Sweden found evidence of a tracked submarine having crawled around the Baltic, and there's the Poseidon robot sub.

It's not obvious that anything found would be conclusively identifiable as Russian.

...A tracked submarine? As in, a sub with treads on it?

Yes - they found tracks on the seafloor in 2014.

The Baltic's quite shallow (average depth 55m according to WP), so normal subs have issues with accidentally crashing into the seafloor. A tracked submarine avoids this; it's already on the bottom. Tracks also, obviously, don't generate propeller noise, so listening stations set to detect normal subs won't detect them. Obviously, there are downsides as well (inability to manoeuvre in 3D being the most obvious), but for this kind of op it'd be ideal.

pretty sure the russians have been using tracked mini-subs since the cold-war days. I remember reading about something similar being used to fuck with the SOSUS net.

The decertification explanation just sounds like his staff trying to walk back his threat.

What jurisdiction does the US have re: certification of Nord Stream ? They can twist German arms, that's about it.

it could have been a frame job

To be a frame job we have to actually pin it on someone first. We are not even to that point.

The "he meant I'd blow it up" explanation sounds like trying to fit in a more spectacular or otherwise preferred explanation in. Biden had been trying to get it decertified, and it was in fact decertified. Is it possible he meant something else? Sure. But there isn't any good reason to think so. And trying to get it decertified fits more with talking about it, than a covert operation that you would want to keep covert.

As for multiple bombs being difficult to keep completely secret, to the extent that's true it applies to everyone.

The argument I've heard that most resonates with me is that Putin did it as protection against foreign-influenced regime change in Russia.

The pipeline was off but functional. To get it back on again, you'd have to either have some meeting of the minds between Putin and Europe (Germany) or make Putin not the head of Russia and then have a meeting of the minds. The more that Putin became convinced that Europe was not going to back down, nor did Putin wish to, the more likely that someone might try to take him out to get it turned back on.

Now that option is off the table. It doesn't improve things for Russia going forward, but it seems to improve things for Putin.

FYI, that's the same argument by @shakenvac made below.

I don't find it very credible because it seems to rely on two assumptions that aren't in evidence:

  1. That Putin is at risk of being deposed.

  2. That the pipelines would be hugely valuable to a successor.

To the second point: as I understand it, Nord Stream wasn't created because there was a pipeline capacity shortage, but rather because Putin wanted to cut out middlemen like Poland and Ukraine. But in the hypothetical situation that the war comes to an end (whether by deposing Putin or not) I think Western Europe would want to cut Ukraine in on the gas delivery, to reward them for the sacrifices they made keeping the Russians at bay, and to create a source of funding that allows them to rebuild their country. That implies Nord Stream wasn't going to be reopened either way.

I don't buy this. It only makes sense if Putin is on the absolute knife's edge of losing power already, and if that is the case, I don't think he'd have the power to secretly bomb the pipe without that being stopped or leaked.

Putin is in a precarious position but I think he still has control of many of the levers of power. The pipe existing gives him future options. He can turn it on or keep it off. That gives him leverage. I can't imagine that he would want to shrink his options is he still has the power to make that decision. And again, if he has enough power to blow it up, then he must still have quite a bit of power.

I basically agree, and would also note that it's only if he's on the knife's edge of losing power to a European/western friendly clique specifically who would want to re-open the pipeline as part of a western-friendly realignment. I think that if there is any real risk of him losing power it would be to an even more hardline Russian Nationalist clique.

Not saying you are wrong about this in general, but from your two points:

  • Blowing it up strengthens Putins position.

  • But he can only blow it up as long as he is still firmly in power.

follows that he should blow it up well before he loses the power to do so (unless he miscalculates).

More generally: I think that Putin / the Regime looks pretty locked in with regards to this conflict (through annexation and mobilisation), so realistically the pipeline doesn't give Putin too many additional options unless Europe really comes begging for Gas.

Fair point

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland explicitly said that Nord Stream 2 would be brought to an end if Russia invades Ukraine on the official US State Department account.

https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/1486818088016355336

Yes by decertifying it and never bringing it online, as stated by someone who wanted to sound tough rather than measured and technical.

Nuland is the one that engineered the 2014 coup. We have a leaked phone call from her where she is discussing arranging Ukraine's government without asking them, instead of the democratic process of the Ukrainians doing it. She's not a good person. When she says we're going to end it, she means a state-sponsored terrorist attack.

I'm curious, where did you get the idea about this decertifying it? Mind reading? That's not something that's under America's control. Germany is the enemy here, and the US must not allow them to resume supplies of Russian gas. As they start freezing and deindustrializing this winter, it's going to become an attractive option. Now it's off the table.

Nuland is the one that engineered the 2014 coup.

That is unsupported by the evidence, especially if referencing the Nuland call. The Nuland call was after Yanukovych's 25Jan offer to include opposition members of the government, and discussed... opposition figures who might be approached, in what order, for a viable government with moderate democratic elements within.

Yanukovych fled after his security forces refused to continue violent crack downs against protests, not because the opposition took him on his own offer that he likely hoped would lead to opposition infighting.

We have a leaked phone call from her where she is discussing arranging Ukraine's government without asking them,

The phone call is literally her discussing who in the Ukrainian political sphere should be approached and asked to support a viable government, in the context the ruling party and President's invitation/concession to include members of the opposition into his government.

instead of the democratic process of the Ukrainians doing it.

Even if you wish to subscribe to the coup conspiracy, one of the first actions of the post-Yanukovych government was to continue the concession the Euromaidan opposition itself had wrested from Yanukovych for early elections, which were carried out within 3 months of Yanukovych's flight.

She's not a good person. When she says we're going to end it, she means a state-sponsored terrorist attack.

The second sentence does not follow from the first, let alone the previous ones.

Well, I'd link you to the audio of the phone call, but Youtube has censored it. Weird, eh? It's like they don't want it influencing our discussions.

It's trivial to find other sources and transcripts of it, but you decided not to. Weird, eh? It's like you wanted to rely on innuendo instead of the transcript or the actual context of Ukraine at the time influencing the discussion.

Much like the Hunter Biden laptop, the story quickly becomes about the censorship instead of the original story.

Except your claim was the original story, which you refuse to validate, so...

It was more of a revolution than a coup, and it doesn't seem at all like she engineered it, instead of coming in later and trying to take control and get some credit for what happened.

As for decertifying it, the US had been pressuring Germany to do so. Biden could have said "Germany will decertify it" but he wanted to make a statement where it was the US or him doing something rather than Germany, and also probably wouldn't want to announce Germany's policy before they did. Wanting an active and tough sounding statement he could have said "we'll make Germany decertify it" but that could have pissed off Germany, and possibly have even sabotaged the effort to get it decertified.

As for mind reading, its no closer to that than thinking he meant that it would be blown up.

"Germany is the enemy here" was very unlikely to be what he was thinking.

Germany will have enough gas to not freeze in the winter if they (as I suspect they will) prioritize residential over industry. That will have a heavy short term impact on their industrial production (and risk losing some markets for a smaller long term impact). But its not deindustrializing, which would imply that they would have no industry, or at least much less industry, afterwards.

NATO is here to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down.

Germany is the real enemy here. Here's a good rundown of the idea. Even if you disagree you should be aware of it, and understand how events developing favor this narrative. If you haven't heard of the MacKinder Thesis, now would be a good time to start. Keeping Russia and Germany apart is the crown jewel of American domination overseas.

NATO is here to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down

That might have made some sense in the 50s with memories of WWII fresh. Its thoroughly obsolete now when many of Germany's partners, including the US, would want Germany to do more in terms of building up its defense capabilities not less.

Nah, NATO is still about the same thing. The whole "stop being a freeloader on American defense" was a Trumpian thing. The first thing Biden did was ditch it, like he did all of Trump's policies. Remember when Trump told the Germans to stop freeloading? They laughed at him. To his face! That shows you what the Germans think of this idea.

The MacKinder Thesis tells us that the US must never allow Europe and Asia to work together, as that would be enough to end American hegemony. The mandarins in DC will never let this happen. This isn't crazy conspiracy theory, it's real geopolitics.

The US pushing European powers to handle more of the defense of Europe long precedes Trump as president. Trump just increased (but didn't create) the public statement of the idea.

deleted

It doesn't fit neatly in my pre-existing political compass

That's the feeling of your brain growing.

Keep at it, you're doing well!

is being propped up against the will of the German people (haven't heard of any revolutions there, as of late) as an American puppet

Yeah, pretty much. Germans want the US occupation out. It's pretty widespread, but the German government has to keep the Americans in otherwise the Americans will do very bad things to Germany. Moreover the US troops aren't just there to defend against Russia, but to maintain American access to European markets. Crazy conspiracy theory, right? Well, it comes from Alexander Haig.

Q -- Why is the United States still stationing 70,000 troops in Germany?

A -- A lot of good reasons for that. This presence is the basis for our influence in the European region and for the cooperation of allied nations whose security it enhances. A lot of people forget it is also the bona fide of our economic success. The presence of U.S. troops keeps European markets open to us. If those troops weren't there, those markets would probably be more difficult to access.

Q -- I didn't forget. I just didn't know that if the United States didn't maintain 70,000 troops in Germany, European markets might be closed to American goods and services.

A -- On occasion, even with our presence, we have confronted protectionism in a number of industries, such as automotive and aerospace. In addition to economic benefits derived from our presence in Europe, there is perhaps an even more important diplomatic and political benefit.

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2002/01/07/Text-of-UPI-interview-with-Haig/78831010444063/

There's a lot of this stuff out there which is common knowledge among elites, but not well known to the public. It's out there though, you can find it if you know where to look.

That’s the feeling of your brain growing. Keep at it, you’re doing well!

This is just bitchy and unnecessary

Yeah, pretty much. Germans want the US occupation out. It's pretty widespread

To be clear, this is "a slight majority of Germans approve of US forces leaving". "Germans want the US occupation out" makes it sound like people have strong feelings about this, which is not, I believe, in evidence. Broadly, it's simply not a concern on a level that sways elections.

Re that interview, I might be misunderstanding Haig but I don't really read it as military coercion so much as quid pro quo. And as the interview continues, this is made clearer.

Look at the opinion polls, it's pretty bad. Their disapproval of America is right up there with Islamic countries.

Or it was last I checked. I suppose it's increase ever since we provoked this war. People become popular when they're temporarily useful. Like in WWII, the British suddenly started cheering for the Irish ("There never was a coward where the shamrock grows") or blacks and women became popular in the US because their labor was valuable. But the thing about being temporarily useful is that whenever the emergency comes to an end, it's right back to the old way again.

She's not a good person. When she says we're going to end it, she means a state-sponsored terrorist attack.

That's impressive. It's almost like you can read her min--

I'm curious, where did you get the idea about this decertifying it? Mind reading?

LOL, I see what you did there.

The actions followed the words. It's exactly what you'd expect. She has behaved in a depraved and evil fashion since we became aware of her, and it's not mind-reading to observe that she's depraved and evil.

You didn't actually address any of the claims, like this was done to prevent Germany from crying "uncle" and asking Russia to turn the taps back on this winter. Now that's utterly impossible. What a terrible thing to happen. "Thank you USA" says it all.

Germany has other way to get Russian gas besides Nord Stream. 2 was never brought fully online (it was ready and tested, so it could have been used, but it was decertified and never used). 1 was the biggest pipeline supplying Germany, but not the only one or even the only one that Germany used to buy Russian gas.

One under-discussed thing: the explosions were planned to take place in the economic zones of Sweden and Denmark. What was the point of this? Is it a provocation against Sweden and Denmark? I guess placing them on international waters makes it easier for whoever wants to to investigate (or harder, given how crowded it could get).

EDIT: I suck at geography: all of the Baltic is someones economic zone. But still, why make the effort to drag both Sweden and Denmark into this? The obvious reason is to make the investigation harder by making it cross-national, I guess.

The pipelines are noticeably thinner walled (26mm instead of 41mm of steel) and under lower pressure in this area. It's also the furthest away from areas where Russia can observe and patrol the pipelines easily (e.g. the Finnish gulf).

Interesting note on the thickness and pressure, I didn't know that. And I agree that it makes sense to blow the pipeline in the western Baltic to make the culprit more ambiguous (also, there's more shipping here then e.g. in the Finish gulf which also helps hiding any suspicious activities). But why do it exactly at the border between the economic zones of Sweden and Denmark? And why cluster 3 explosions here while doing a fourth further south?

The first one was on NS2 alone, the later three explosions were in an area where NS1 and NS2 run closely together.

But why do it exactly at the border between the economic zones of Sweden and Denmark?

Standard practice in militaries is to pull shit on the boundaries between areas of responsibility of different entities. It complicates the response.

They (Danes & Swedes) aren't allowing Nord Stream AG to inspect the damage until later this month.

It really smells, and I suspect in the 'joint commission' for investigation, only Germans may plausibly have any real interest in investigating.

why make the effort to drag both Sweden and Denmark into this? The obvious reason is to make the investigation harder by making it cross-national, I guess.

Adding a resistor in parallel lowers the resistance, it doesn't increase it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that cross-national investigation is hard, the safest strategy is to commit crimes in the single jurisdiction A with the worst investigators, for probability pA of getting caught. Adding any additional jurisdiction B with an independent chance of catching you makes your risk 1-(1-pA)(1-pB), strictly larger.

Not if the investigations interfere with each other.

What is your source for this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_gas_leaks#The_leaks

Pipe // Location [of leak]

Nord Stream 2 pipe A // exclusive economic zone of Denmark

Nord Stream 2 pipe A // exclusive economic zone of Sweden

Nord Stream 1 pipe A // exclusive economic zone of Sweden

Nord Stream 1 pipe B // exclusive economic zone of Denmark

If you look at a map, the three clustered explosions sits right at the border between Sweden and Denmarks economic zones. The fourth explosion looks out-of-place, why make the effort to make it happen clearly in the Danish economic zone? And was there a point in putting the three clustered explosions right at the border (maybe someone is a fan of the Bron TV series?)? It might just be that this is where most of the shipping goes so it's a good place to blend in with the crowd though.

Look at the map. They happened just outside the territorial waters of Bornholm which is a Danish island. Some of the explosions were right at the Denmark / Sweden border.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_gas_leaks#/media/File:Nord_Stream_gas_leaks_2022.svg

I think Putin did it. Goal? To force Germany out of support for war. Russia tried some tricks with Germany by pretending that they need some new equipment to start the gas flowing so Germans were supposed to break the embargo and cooperate on reopening of the pipeline. Blowing the pipeline up is a stronger signal, it is not just about turning the flow on, it is about forced cooperation with Russia.

People underestimate to what extent Germans depend on cheap Russian gas. Just BASF chemical plant in Ludwigshafen employs over 30,000 employees and consumes 4% of total German gas consumption. Cheap gas is necessary for renewable energy mix of German electricity production. No access to Russian gas has potential to knock down the very base of the whole complex German supply chain - no basic chemicals and expensive electricity will make export oriented German industry not competitive worldwide an it can lead to deep recession. Any alternatives look grim, for instance Qatar would be able to sign contract for LNG, but they require 20 year contract fixing in high price. Germany is between a rock and the hard place: negotiate with Russians and immediately become pariahs in diplomatic scene not only with US but also with rest of the EU. Do not negotiate with Russians and sacrifice your economy.

So Putin is rising the stakes, it may no longer be possible for Germany to play the double game of supporting Ukraine while holding their nose when buying Russian gas. Putin will ask more commitment from them if they ever want to access cheap gas again. This is a show of strength of sorts, Germany is on the crossroads independent of the outcome of Ukraine war. This is about strategic pivot and ability of Germany to truly turn away from Russia even for upcoming years with huge impact on the structure of their economy but also on their climate strategy and basically everything Germans touted last few decades - it all now hangs on a thread.

This feels like the right take to me. The recent cut of two internet cables, hundreds of miles apart, that resulted in the trains not running for hours in Germany seemed like another flex -- your infrastructure is vulnerable, stop supporting the Ukraine or things will get worse.

I'll admit, this aligns with my bias of the Putin as the bad guy, rather than the US. I do find the idea of the US taking pressure off the German politicians an interesting one. The gas shortfall is not getting as much news attention as I would have expected, yet fairly serious steps (e.g. all public pools and saunas being closed to save heating costs) are being taken, which does suggest a "this is serious, but don't cause a public panic" type approach.

The gas was already turned off at the tap. Why would the Russians blow up their own pipeline?

Biden is on video saying that the pipeline would end. Why's it a surprise that he ordered it blown up?

The problem is that all of your reasons for why Russia would do it are also reasons for why Russia wouldn’t do it, with the added bonus of Russia losing leverage, money, and oil.

Show of force? There are many ways of showing force.

Forcing Germany’s hand? They just blew up the only source of leverage they had. Now there is no motive for Germany to agree on terms for potentially years, when they may have agreed this very winter. Not only that, they’ve made themselves seem like an untrustworthy ally.

What Germany could do better for Russia? Germany sends tiny amounts of weapons to Ukraine. It's US weapons & intel which is a problem for Russia.

They could become neutral. Meaning no transport of goods, no panzerhaubitze 2000 and most importantly a major diplomatic ally for Russia when it comes to diplomacy in the west. It would also throw screws into the whole sanction mechanism given that Germany is together with France the major player when it comes to EU internal politics. Even easing on some of this stuff could serve Putin very well.

Can you really send physical explosives down a pipeline?

Anyone doing sabotage is facing extreme amounts of blowback if it is discovered they did it, so I am skeptical of anyone being at fault. Obviously, though, someone did do it. Pipeline ain't gonna blow itself. EDIT That lawdog essay is pretty good and makes me reconsider and I do not even have the expertise to know if I am being snowed.

A lot of explanations seem to come down to "yes, my outgroup really is that stupid/evil/controlling."

Yes you can send bombs down pipelines. Pipeline "pigs" are sent down all the time. You could attach a bomb to one of those or you could create a new device specifically for the purpose of moving the bomb.

Pipeline "pigs"

But you need flow for moving pigs, don't you. On the other hand, it probably wouldn't be too hard to create something that moves along the inside of a pipeline even without flow.

I think the US did it.

  • It's like Cortez burning the ships for Europe, win with us or die.

  • It hurts Russian interests.

  • It helps Ukrainian and Polish interests (Russian gas must flow through those nations to reach Europe).

  • It locks Europe into buying tons of American LNG.

  • The US sent a Navel vessel into the Baltic for the first time in two decades.

The US sent a Navel vessel into the Baltic for the first time in two decades.

You are misunderstanding, and bordering on misinformation. The US send an* amphibious assault ship* into the Baltic for the first time in two decades. The US sends ships into the Baltic all the time. Quick google example, USS Oak Hill visits Poland in 2018. https://pl.usembassy.gov/oak_gallery/

I'm inclined to think that if you knew the actor, you could puzzle out the most likely motive, and if you knew the motive, you could puzzle out the most likely actor, but the uncertainty in both generates too many options.

Even if you start from a very high level--did the explosion benefit Russia's position?--and conclude "no, it was not in Russia's best interests," you're still missing the case where Russian analysis disagrees on the cost/benefit question. In fact, the whole invasion of Ukraine is a prime example of many actors looking at the same geostrategic equation and coming up with different answers, each of which was obvious at the time, and usually wrong in hindsight!

(Cynical prediction--in the hypothetical future six months from now, where we know who was responsible and why, it will be a consensus opinion in normie-land that "this was obvious the whole time.")

In fact, the whole invasion of Ukraine is a prime example of many actors looking at the same geostrategic equation and coming up with different answers, each of which was obvious at the time, and usually wrong in hindsight!

As I recall, prior to the actual Ukraine invasion, at least 80% or so of the military commentators I could see thought Russia would take over Ukraine with the greatest of ease. Even for the first week or so, there was a lot of commentary to the effect of - these aren't really setbacks, actual invasions take a little longer than this even when they're going great, everything is still going according to plan overall, Russia will still end up stomping Ukraine with trivial losses.

You are massively underestimating the probability that the pipelines would have reopened sometime in the close to mid term future. These aren’t some expandable moral signalling devices for Europe. Our industry pretty much depends on cheap Russian fossil fuels and now those firms are simply going to go bankrupt or move abroad. Germany has spent the last 6 months trying to get Russia to resume the gas flows through Nord Stream 1. It also constructed Nord Stream 2 as a deliberate policy choice knowing how much it angered Poland, Baltics, Ukraine and ultimately the US. I don’t know why everyone is so hell bent on forgetting what Biden openly said about the pipeline not that long ago.

It’s also pretty weak how you dismiss Ukraine as a harmless incapable country which cannot anger Germany. Well why not? What’s Germany going to do? Stop supplying helmets? Ukraine is an American client state now and is fighting an existential war. The Ukrainian military aid from the US likely exceeds the whole yearly Russian military budget since the war started. German support is insignificant in comparison.

Besides Ukraine certainly doesn’t shy away from other risky spy action: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/us/politics/ukraine-russia-dugina-assassination.html. Even if Russia somehow “proves” this, so what? Russia is horribly bad at getting even the most basic talking points out to the western world and it will just get dismissed as Putin propaganda.

For me the biggest possibility by far is that Ukraine (or certain factions of Ukrainian military) has done it either with tacit approval of the US or relying on the American cover after the fact. Intelligence agencies are infamously factional and incoherent so it’s likely some parts of CIA knew about this and assisted in the operation.

The immediate affects are very clear and there is no need to play 4D chess about Putin palace politics. Europe (Germany) has no option of deescelation anymore no matter how tough things get economically. It’s entirely reliant on LNG supplied by countries broadly in the American camp in the coming decade to survive.

Lucky for Europe that they run a gargantuan $60 billion trade surplus with the US. They can easily afford the US gas, and it will be warmly welcomed as helping to pare down that unfair surplus.

Trade is supposed to be equal, with both parties benefiting.

Attacking a target in Russia (assuming it actually was a Ukrainian government operation which I don't think is really a settled issue) is less risky than attacking your benefactors. Germany isn't the top supporter of Ukraine but I think its fourth after the US, Poland, and UK. Also attacking an EU and NATO country isn't exactly going to be positive for the support of the rest of them or probably even the US.

The other problem for Ukraine attacking is that it would be rather hard for them to pull off. Its not like they have assets in the Baltics. Its not impossible, they could have smuggling in some bombs and given them to some expert deep water divers who then go out on some civilian boat in to the area and blow up the pipelines, esp. if they started planning the op months ago. Still it would be more difficult for them than for Russia or Germany (easiest as they have direct access to the pipeline from land), the US, Poland, or the Baltic states.

Also attacking an EU and NATO country isn't exactly going to be positive for the support of the rest of them or probably even the US.

I suggest you take a look at this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

A country that has enough pull or support in American foreign policy and intelligence establishment can get away with virtually anything. Some evidence surfaces against Ukraine? It will be dismissed or classified. The media will basically ignore it and allude to Putin propaganda. Anyone who still remembers any of this will be seen as conspiracy cranks after 1-2 years.

The other problem for Ukraine attacking is that it would be rather hard for them to pull off.

I find this line of argumentation very irrelevant. Ukraine doesn't have to send some warship from Odessa to circumvent Gibraltar and drop depth charges. It is a very lean operation and this sort of underwater infrastructure is notoriously quite fragile. Pretty much the entire area is full of CIA black sites and countries that hate Russia and the Nordstreams at least as much as Ukraine. If there is a will there is definitely a way.

The Liberty incident either was, or if it wasn't can plausibly be presented as, a mistake rather than a plot.

No, it cannot.

Egyptians had no Liberty ship in service. The ship was attacked in spite of being of type Israel's enemies did not have, having a 30 foot American flag, latin designation (unlike Arab ships)

The Israeli torpedo boats supposedly confused it with a destroyer, which makes absolutely zero sense to anyone familiar with warships.

People who know best (those who were there, that is Liberty crewmen) maintain it was a deliberate attack, for an unknown reason.

Sure it can. In fact there is a good chance it was. Having no liberty ship in service really doesn't matter. The fog and friction of war is enough to cover such mistakes. Had it been a huge and highly distinctive ship like a carrier or battleship then you would have a better point (of course then it would have been much better defended).

Confusion and mistakes are rampant in war. Iraq didn't have any M1 tanks, Warrior armored vehicles, Scorpions, Panavia Tornadoes, Challenger 2s, F/A-18 Hornets, Bradleys, M113s, or Spartans, yet all of those were taken out in either the Gulf War or the 2003 Iraq war, despite it all being forces that train with each other (US taking out US weapons systems, US taking out British weapon systems, and the UK taking out their own equipment). That's on the ground or the air, not the sea, but the basic ideas is the same and there is nothing about a Liberty Ship that screams "US war ship" or "couldn't possibly be Egyptian". A Liberty ship is just an old (even at the time it was 22 years old), small (by modern standards) that have been owned by numerous countries and companies around the world.

The fog and friction of war is enough to cover such mistakes.

You cannot possibly confuse a destroyer for a Liberty cargo ship unless you have no idea what ships look like whatsoever.

Which really shouldn't be true of torpedo boat captains.

that have been owned by numerous countries and companies around the world.

At the time, Egypt didn't own any Liberty ships. Israelis knew this, and the misidentification they supposedly had was for a much smaller quite different looking ship.

You cannot possibly confuse a destroyer for a Liberty cargo ship unless you have no idea what ships look like whatsoever.

When your calmly looking at them with no thought of risk or pressure for immediate action, its rather unlikely. In war under certain circumstances is quite possible. Also that isn't even necessarily what happened. The person actually seeing the ship could report it as an enemy ship, and then others could think it was a destroyer.

Egypt might not have owned any liberty ships but they did own small merchant ships and likely enough converted merchants ships or ships similar enough that a flyby might not notice the difference.

And this can be presented as the work of some rogue factions. Possibilities are endless when you control the flow of information to the extent the US government does. Ukraine has no shortage of neo-nazi militias or oligarch private armies to heap the blame on if the necessity arises.

It could be presented as the work of a rogue faction, but not as easily as the Liberty Incident could be presented a mistake (even if it was not, even more so it it was a mistake). Also a rouge faction would not completely remove the diplomatic fallout even if that explanation was believed (although it could possibly reduce it, perhaps significantly).

Mostly though it just doesn't seem to be rational on a risk/reward basis. No gas was being sold through either of those pipelines. Longer term Germany was planning to move away from all Russian gas (even if the Russians are willing to continue to sell) in a couple of years. The gain to Ukraine is zero very short term, looks to be zero long term, and is uncertain and not huge in-between.

going to go bankrupt or move abroad

They can't "move abroad".

You can't simply move the factory to the mid west and somehow find skilled workers for all the positions. They're in short supply in the US as it is now, with boomers retiring and not enough replacements having been trained.

US AWFLs and the likes of AOC would throw an absolute shitfit if government proposed just letting thousands of Germans emigrate to the US with these companies.

There’s a contradiction. One the one hand, germany is insignificant and their backlash can be ignored. On the other, they are so influential they can force ukraine into an unfavourable peace and therefore ukraine needs to blow up a closed pipeline, consequences be damned.

The Germany is influential enough so they can buy a lot of gas from Russia which could translate into supplies for the war

Why does Germany need to force Ukraine to an unfavourable peace to open the pipelines?

The pipes are nowhere near Ukrainian territory. The only obstacle to opening NS2 while the war was going on was the political pressure on the German government. That political pressure could shift massively as the costs of no gas are realised in the coming months. I want to iterate once again, German politicians fought tooth and nail to keep NS1 gas flowing 6 months into the war. It was Russia that closed the flow.

According to russia, because of sanctions. If german politicians were fighting tooth and nail to keep them open, they would have tried to lift the sanctions, as russia unsubtly demanded.

You'd have to go pretty far down the pro-ru rabbit hole to believe germany is close to reopening, even karlin doesn't believe that. In the beginning, putin and pro-russia folks could reasonably believe the gas blackmail would work, but events have not supported that view (and putin closing NS1 is a result of that miscalculation).

Anyway, the original point is, if germany is insignificant, then so is their non-functioning pipeline.

Just spitballing, maybe we can switch the motives, actors and consequences of the different theories around. Did ukraine blow up the pipeline to give russia no way out, weakening the russian peace party, so they can kill more russians ? Makes no sense. What assumption did we miss?

Blowing up the pipeline is blowing up peace. But is it the peace after germany begs for gas, or after russia begs for euros? Which side is closer to breaking? If you believe germany is, germany’s allies are likely culprits, to avoid a pro-russian peace. If you believe germany is ukraine’s firm ally/not breaking, then blowing up the pipeline actually reduces ukraine’s leverage against russia, and makes an advantageous peace more unlikely for the west and the russian peace party. If you believe russia is closer to breaking, then it’s a pro-war party that doesn't like the pro-ukrainian peace, ie putin.

You'd have to go pretty far down the pro-ru rabbit hole to believe germany is close to reopening

Or I can have a look at my energy bills. These events aren't some far away theoretical debate. Just received notice that my bills are likely going to go up 50-70% in the coming months and then who knows what. It is not even cold here yet.

Anyway, the original point is, if germany is insignificant, then so is their non-functioning pipeline.

Direct German support is irrelevant, but European sanctions on Russia are definitely very very relevant. Selling gas and oil to Europeans have been massively profiting Russia since the war began and allowing them to fund the war as well as an economic transition towards the East. Getting rid of this lifeline is crucial for Ukraine otherwise they are fighting a war of attrition where the other side just makes more and more money from the situation.

Did ukraine blow up the pipeline to give russia no way out, weakening the russian peace party, so they can kill more russians ?

You make a strange assumption here and then base your whole next paragraph on this assumption. Ukrainian hardliners do not want any peace that any Russian leader can put their signature and survive. Such a thing does not exist and they know it better than anyone. What "peace party" are you imagining that can sign away Crimea? Ukrainians know that the only way to really achieve their aims is the maximalist way. Russia must be thoroughly destroyed economically, socially and politically. There is no other way out.

Just received notice that my bills are likely going to go up 50-70% in the coming months and then who knows what. It is not even cold here yet.

The state will likely pay for it, sadly. We'll end up buying gas at astronomical prices to keep industry and the population isolated from any problems, despite it not making any economic sense, ie, we would get more out the money if we reduced gas consumption for a couple of years by an amount close to russia's share of the market, and just spent it directly. I think developed economies are very resilient to this kind of schock, if you let markets do their work. There's a lot of slack. Just heat one or two rooms instead of the whole house this winter etc. It's the obvious solution, although I admit I have a spartan disposition.

Ukrainian hardliners do not want any peace that any Russian leader can put their signature and survive.

If the frontline stabilized, putin was removed and his successor said, 'we just want peace and to keep crimea, Ukraine can join nato', then if nothing happened, support for ukraine would drop .

The state will likely pay for it, sadly

They already are. Amounts in the range of tens of billions are already flying around trying to plug the holes. But it is about fundamental real scarcity, so money printing can only shift the affects. I don't expect to literally freeze in the winter, but more likely to become unemployed. I find the focus on warming the households pretty insane when we seem to take it for granted that half the industry will just casually go bankrupt. Another artifact of being ruled by the laptop class?

Just heat one or two rooms instead of the whole house this winter etc

This winter?. Lets say we manage to barely get through this winter with severe rationing of the stocks. Then what? LNG infrastructure will take years to build and it will deliver much more expensive energy anyway. Building nuclear is out of question and takes forever in any case. Renewables are a joke.

If the frontline stabilized, putin was removed and his successor said, 'we just want peace and to keep crimea, Ukraine can join nato',

And then they would attempt to take Crimea anyway? Did you see any hint at all on the Ukrainian official's side that they are willing to let it go?

More importantly, if things got so bad for Russia then why would the Americans just stop with a territorial reset? US hasn't spent close to 100 billion dollars on this war because they love Mariupol. Why not force Russia to pay massive reparations? Nuclear disarmament? Ejection from the UN Security Council? Another series of separatist rebellions in Caucuses? Kazakhstan in NATO? The possibilities are truly endless.

You are keeping to a faulty assumption that all that happened in the last year was some senseless invasion of some shithole Soviet factory towns. The US senses real blood in water to take down Russia as an opponent forever. This war has become truly existential for Russia and they might very well lose it. There is no easy exit Russians can take anymore.

I don't expect to literally freeze in the winter, but more likely to become unemployed. I find the focus on warming the households pretty insane when we seem to take it for granted that half the industry will just casually go bankrupt.

They idled industry during covid, and the state payed for that. No one got fired then. Sadly.

Then what? LNG infrastructure will take years to build and it will deliver much more expensive energy anyway. Building nuclear is out of question and takes forever in any case.

Nuclear bans, fracking bans, limited gas exploitation in holland etc are largely self-imposed. If it got bad, those decisions would be reversed. Even the slowness of building a nuclear power plant is mostly political. Nuclear plants take 16 years on average to build, but Japan builds them in four.. If you went by averages, you would have predicted it would take 10-15 years to come up with a covid vaccine. Building LNG terminals, same thing. My only worry is that the state will so distort the incentives that the urgency will not come through.

And then they would attempt to take Crimea anyway? Did you see any hint at all on the Ukrainian official's side that they are willing to let it go? ... This war has become truly existential for Russia and they might very well lose it.

Then good luck to them fighting an attritional war against russia without american weapons and european money.

Russian officials still claim maximalist goals in Ukraine, ukrainian statements likewise don't mean anything, they're boistering, refusing the opposition's offer, trying to anchor the negotiation to the most favourable starting position.

If western leaders are as bent on russia's destruction as you say, then russia is cooperating massively. It's russia's own fault, they started it, and they keep escalating a losing conflict. Putin didn't have to declare mobilization and annex the provinces. If russia started behaving like it has lost, western doves would win the debate, no matter what some hawks in washington and warsaw want.

I think the issue with these theories is missing information. I will just list a few categories questions that seem pertinent here.

  1. How does this work contractually? That is, how long a contract did Germany sign for NS 1? What are the consequences for Germany for breaking their contractual agreements with Russia aside from not getting gas? Are the payments more like my utility bill, or is there a sum agreed on at the signing of a contract for [X period of time] where Germany pays a fixed amount on some schedule provided Russia isn't found in violation of the contract? What penalties would a force majeure spare Russia, how long can such penalties be stalled/contested, how can they be collected and how do they stack up to the amount of frozen Russian assets or war damages that may be demanded at the conclusion of this conflict?

  2. How badly does Germany need Russian gas? One of the pipelines is undamaged, but it's part of the unapproved NS 2. What parts of its agreement with the U.S. and/or U.S. sanctions would Germany be violating by certifying it? What would doing that mean for U.S. Germany relations? How badly does Russia need the money from these pipelines vs the leverage against Germany?

  3. What was the immediate cause of the explosions? Planted explosives, drones, accident? Which of these options can be excluded from being available to a country like Poland or Estonia? What are the actual surveillance and investigative capabilities of the countries watching the Baltic Sea? What is the outlook on repairing the pipelines - how possible is it, how much can it cost, how quickly can it be done? How possible is it for a party interested in the continued operation of these pipelines to prevent this problem in the future?

Spinning theories through the possible answers to these questions is making my head dizzy. For example, if execution is hard and chance of being found responsible is very low, that narrows it down to Russia or some of the NATO countries. If, furthermore, the certification of NS 2 would be a large cost to Germany-U.S. relations and Russia needs the money far more than they need any leverage over Germany while the latter really needs the gas, and if, furthermore, any contract for gas supply would have to be made for multiple years, and if Germany cannot be expected to force the breaking of such a contract, then it could be a way for Germany to get full gas supply from Russia by making NS 2 politically possible and then also getting gas through NS 1 if it's repaired and making it look like their hands are tied by contracts. On the other hand, there are a lot of variables here that would single-handedly break this theory if the answer is something else.

So some fact gathering that I did...

  • Last year, Nordstream 1 supplied 59 billion cubic meters of gas. A little over its stated capacity.

  • In 2015, a disabled explosive remote controlled vehicle was found near the pipeline off the coast of the island of Öland.

  • Nordstream 2 and Turkstream are viewed by some as strategic projects rather than strictly economic. That is, it is not so much that these pipelines had to be built as much as Russia wished to avoid routing its gas through Ukraine.

  • At least 2 of the leaks occurred in the Swedish economic zone, and Sweden does have and did exercise the right to exclude Russia from investigating the leaks. Sweden stated that they have made seizures on the site which they consider sufficient to make the case for sabotage and are looking into determining whether suspect can be identified based on what was found.

  • Gazprom, in which the Russian government has a 50.002% share also has a 51% share in the distinctly non-slavic sounding Nord Stream project. The remaining 4 shareholders make no mention of any degree of state ownership.

  • The war is expensive for Russia, exports have declined, and estimates are that it's costing Russia $1 billion daily. Forbes estimated the cost at $400 million daily.

  • Germany paid in roubles and earlier this year estimated they would need until at least 2024 to become energy independent of Russia.

  • Gas supply contracts can be signed for a period such as 10 years and even countries at odds such as Russia and Ukraine respect such contracts. So, right now, Gazprom is getting gas through Ukraine even though the two countries are at war and the former is a state-owned enterprise.

  • The remaining Russian pipeline through Ukraine is currently pumping 42 million cubic meters of gas daily, which would come out to something like 14 billion annual capacity - about a quarter of what either of the Nord Streams could pump. Currently, Naftogaz is taking it to arbitration for alleged nonpayment of transit fees while Gazprom categorically denies such charges and is threatening to shut down the last pipeline to Europe aside from Turk Stream if Naftogaz proceeds with the complaint, which supplies southeast Europe at capacity of up to 31.5 billion cubic meters.

  • It seems Gazprom really might not have paid transit fees. This article is quoting Gazprom complaining that Naftogaz had no basis for suspending the Sokhranivka pipeline, which carried 1/3 of Russia gas transit to Ukraine so working backward from the stated capacity it seems Russia was moving around 100 million cubic meters of gas through Ukraine, for about 1 Turk Stream's equivalent of annual transit. Ukraine suspended that pipeline in May by declaring force majeure on account of interference from separatist and Russian force, but pledged to re-route the gas through other pipelines.

  • There seem to have been a suspicious number of suicides among people linked to Gazprom since the start of the conflict.

  • It would seem that long term gas contracts are made well in advance of their start date and be renewed up to at least a decade in advance. Here in a 2008 paper it can be seen that Russia already had multiple gas supply contracts for billions or 10s of billions of cubic meters of gas to several European countries, most of them to last until around 2030.

  • Link in previous point was before either Nord Stream was operational, and at the time it estimated that Russia exported 120 billion cubic meters of gas annually to Europe with 70% of that going through Ukraine. According to the BBC Nord Stream was said to supply 35% of the gas Europe imported from Russia. So given that it pumped nearly 60 billion cubic meters last year, that would make for around 170 bcm.

  • Earlier this year Russia halted shipments to Poland and Bulgaria along the Yamal-Europe pipeline because these countries did not comply with Russia's demand that all payments past April 1 be made in rubles.

  • So far I can't find a written source for this, but it appears that Gazprom refuses arbitration with Naftogaz regarding the Ukrainian pipelines because of "unfriendly jurisdiction" concerns.

I guess after the basic facts I might ask more interesting questions to find more information. Posting it for now as my laptop's running out of memory.

This guy argues it’s definitely russia.

  • they are losing, so are the most likely to do something stupid. I buy that to a degree.

  • the nature of the operation, covert, below the attribution threshold, suggests it’s russia, because other actors would either be more visible (eco-terrorism), or less (US). Imo the argument works for eco-terrorism or anti-war saboteurs, but not for the other side. He bizarrely assumes that the US and other countries (including russia, poland, ukraine) have the capacity to, say, destroy a pipeline, and it won’t even be detected as sabotage.

He’s also weak on motive. People trying to pin it in on russia give mutually exclusive reasons: it can’t be a false flag meant to sow discord in the alliance and a threat towards other pipelines at the same time.

I'd go with russia, but very weak confidence.

It's nonsense.

The area was swarming with NATO warships. Baltic is called a 'NATO lake'.

There were US navy sea patrol helicopters and aircraft right over the area in the days before.

Baltic is so shallow and well patrolled that anything not condoned by Americans could not have happened there. This wasn't someone bringing in some explosives, altogether maybe half a ton of TNT equivalent.

The Baltic is also full of Russian ships, who operates without their actions being condoned by NATO. Sure, if Russia did it, the US probably has great hydrophone recordings of everything that happened. But they aren't going to go public with that: you don't want to expose your capabilities.

who operates without their actions being condoned by NATO

You can pretty much fucking bet that said NATO ships and planes, all over the area would have recorded activity by Russians near the pipelines and it'd have been on all channels, everywhere.

Nothing so far.

The mediterranean was called a roman lake. Seas are big, and they're swarming with civilians of different nationalities. Ship sighted is such weak evidence, I've seen it used for every possible culprit by now.

The motive part of it gets much easier when you stop thinking in terms of 'Russia' and start thinking in terms of 'Vladimir Putin'. These pipelines were a threat to his power. To a would be successor they represent a huge amount of untapped income and a ready-made olive branch to the west. With the destruction of Nordstream any individual trying to gather support to depose Putin has lost a major advantage.

A threat to his power? The pipelines were a major source of Russian leverage. Now they're gone. Moreover the US has been threatening them for some time. An important Polish politician said "Thank you USA" because nobody informed him that it was supposed to be a secret.

The motive part of it gets much easier when you stop thinking in terms of 'Russia' and start thinking in terms of 'Vladimir Putin'.

I don't understand why so many people ignore this. The whole war on Ukraine makes next to no sense for Russia but much more sense for Putin himself.

I don't understand why so many people ignore this. The whole war on Ukraine makes next to no sense for Russia but much more sense for Putin himself.

Why don't you ask IR people about it ?

Could be a "burn your ships" or "burn your bridges" type of action showing contempt for the west and internally making an internal political signal that there can be no backing down.

First of all people are in the mindset that the US did it forgot that there are rational reasons for the Russians to blow up the pipelines. If Putin senses that his grip on power is getting tenuous he makes sure that those who replace him the new powers that be in Russia doesn't benefit at all nor does Europe. But it is an assumption that we don't have evidence for, but there is sufficient basis for such speculation IMO.

Could be a threat that other important pipelines and at sea infrastructure are vulnerable.

Yes, three of the explosions were near the powertransfer cable between Sweden and Poland. I haven't heard anything of damage or if it is intact since the initial reports that it was close to the explosions. But it is vulnerable infrastructure.

Yes, three of the explosions were near the powertransfer cable between Sweden and Poland. I haven't heard anything of damage or if it is intact since the initial reports that it was close to the explosions. But it is vulnerable infrastructure.

Russia also has history of doing this before. They cut the fiber optic cable between Svalbard and Norway "for the lulz" (iow, to send a message / test their capabilities).

They cut the fiber optic cable between Svalbard and Norway

Is there any good evidence for Russian involvement in that? From my (admittedly cursory) search it seems it's just speculation.

While I think that Pinky, AKA lawdog's, explanation is by far the most likely/plausible explanation, there's part of me that really wants to believe that it was some angry polish fisherman with a boat load of TNT and some diving equipment.

If one pipeline blew up, and then others over weeks following it, maybe.

But three explosions in one spot within a day, with a seismic signature of half a ton of TNT apparently ?

Laughable. Also, the gas in the pipelines wasn't flowing, so theories about hydrate plugs are rather odd looking in such a case.

The size of the explosions and the fact that they were spaced out over 17 hours instead of say 17 minutes, both strike me as evidence in favor of the plug theory.

Likewise LNG sitting stagnant in the pipe rather than flowing flowing normally is what leads to the formation of plugs in the first place.

How would a plug, under minor pressure, behave like half a ton of TNT.

That makes literally no sense. There isn't enough oxygen involved for that amount of energy to be released.

EDIT:

Also, we aren't talking about fucking LNG. Jesus christ.

I think of Ann Coulter law analogy.

More time without any solid evidence presented, increases certainty that US or US-aligned actor did it.

If Russia did it, I wouldn't expect anyone to present solid evidence anytime soon. The Swedish investigation is probably what would announce that, and they are far from done yet. What makes you think otherwise?

The level of evidence needed for the US government to convince the “international media” for aggressive foreign policy against Russia is on par with Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Might be even lower nowadays.

Thanks for posting this. I had been curious what Mottizens thought about this. I pretty much concluded that the US did it, because they're the only party that has both the capabilities to do it, a good reason to do it, and doesn't suffer serious negative consequences from it.

For the "US" argument, I was surprised you didn't mention this video where Joe Biden threatened to shut down Nord Stream 2 if Russia invaded Ukraine.

I think people here understand the importance of following through on threats. If you don't, your future threats are no longer credible. That's important to the US, not just in regards to the recent nuclear threats made by Russia, but also in regards to the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, with Biden promising military support. The US needs to demonstrate that it's willing to follow through on its promises, and the US sabotaging Nord Stream is just following through on a threat Biden made earlier.

Honestly nothing else makes sense to me, but I'm willing to hear other sides to the argument.

By the way: I think you should split up point 6 between Poland and the Baltic countries. Poland is different from the Baltic countries in that Poland, like Russia, but unlike Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, has a gas pipeline from Russia, so it has a direct economic interest in sabotaging Nord Stream, which was created by Russia specifically to bypass countries like Ukraine and Poland. I also feel like Poland is a little bit better equipped in the military sense, so if any of those countries would have done it, it would have been Poland.

Biden was talking about getting Germany to decertify Nord Stream 2, which happened shortly after the Russian attack.

It still speaks to motivation though - the Americans have been happy to threaten NS2 in the past and does not benefit from its existence.

Your motivation was already fulfilled from your own source's context. You need to make an argument that the motivation was to carry out the threat twice, not once, for the 'speaks to motivation' to be relevant to your prior argument.

Your initial and broader argument that it's important to carry out one's threats is rendered moot if the threat has already been carried out. Arguing that the NS explosion was the threat being carried out requires an implicit argument that the prior action- the German decertification under American pressure- was not the Americans carrying out their prior threat.

If it was the American carrying out their motivation, then the stated motivation/threat was already fulfilled. NS2 was stopped. It wasn't in any imminent risk of being reactivated. Further action would require a different justification, because the stated justification- 'you must carry out a threat' - is not the same as 'you much carry out a threat twice', which is required unless you reject the relevance of German decertification under pressure.

The defensible claim is 'the Americans have opposed Nord Stream in the past and threatened to work against it, and their credibility would be worsened if they didn't.' The expansive claim is 'the Americans have to be the ones blowing up the pipelines to maintain credibility, because decertification doesn't count.' This is just a motte and bailey that serves to justify a pre-arrived bias, it doesn't actually support that the (successful!) pressure to decertify and stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline wasn't actually a proof of capability that would meet credibility needs.

Two options you're potentially underweighting:

  1. Germany did it. After tense negotiations with the US, Germany agreed to cancel NS2 in the event Russia invaded, in exchange for a carveout of sanctions to complete construction. Germany's commitments may have exceeded what was disclosed.

  2. West-aligned non-state actor. This was within the capabilities of anyone with a dozen oil drums of ANFO and recreational diving gear. I've heard too many idle musings from people wishing to do essentially this to discount the option out of hand -- particularly because the frustration usually comes from domestic ambivalence, believing that the state's hands are tied by corrupt commercial interests, etc.

I don't think I'd weight any individual option here >50% though which makes for an interesting scenario all round (though the hydrate plug theory is probably closest to that, with simultaneity explained by them suddenly wanting to fix things).

Wildcard: Russian saboteurs, but they intended to blow up the Baltic pipe instead.

Wildcard: Russian saboteurs, but they intended to blow up the Baltic pipe instead.

Wouldn't be the first such howler....

You are ignoring the area is heavily surveilled and lousy with warships.

Non-state actor, sure, if state actors condoned it.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats