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?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
deleted
That's the feeling of your brain growing.
Keep at it, you're doing well!
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.
This is just bitchy and unnecessary
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's impressive. It's almost like you can read her min--
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link