by Thomas Fazi
Wednesday, 28
September 2022
Analysis
13:22

Who was behind the Nord Stream attacks?

The attack marks a dangerous escalation between the West and Russia
by Thomas Fazi
A gas leak in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline

On Tuesday afternoon the Danish Armed Forces released on Twitter disturbing aerial footage of a huge area of bubbling water in the Baltic Sea, near the Danish island of Bornholm, caused by gas leaks on both the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines.

Nord Stream 1, which was inaugurated in 2011, stretches 1,200 kilometres under the Baltic Sea from the Russian coast near Saint Petersburg to north-eastern Germany. Until recently, it was by far the biggest Russian gas pipeline to Europe. However, it hasn’t transported any gas since August, when Russia closed it down, officially due to “maintenance” reasons (Moscow says the sanctions have made it impossible to maintain the gas infrastructure properly, while Western governments have accused Russia of deliberately closing it down in retaliation for the West’s sanctions and support for Ukraine).

Nord Stream 2 is a parallel pipeline that was completed in 2021 and was expected to enter into service in 2022 — though Germany halted the project after the Russian invasion of Ukraine began. Neither pipeline was therefore operational at the time of the leaks, so the latter won’t have any immediate impact on supplies, even though they’re expected to further drive up gas prices.

However, the longer-term implications are massive. Especially if we consider the wide agreement that this was no accident, but rather a deliberate act of sabotage. The Swedish, Danish and Polish governments have been very clear about this, and even EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen agrees the leaks were caused by sabotage. Indeed, the Swedish National Seismic Network said two “probable explosions” had been recorded in the area of the gas leaks. Apparently, the CIA warned the German government about possible attacks on gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea weeks ago.

The United States, Russia and Germany have all raised the possibility of a targeted attack but haven’t yet taken a definitive stand on the matter.

If it was a deliberate act, the question is, of course — who did it? Despite the lack of evidence, the finger-pointing has already begun. Ukraine, somewhat unsurprisingly, has accused Russia of causing the leaks in what it described as a “terrorist attack” and “an act of aggression against the EU”.

However, it’s unclear exactly how Russia would benefit from causing serious damage to a pipeline that cost €15 billion to build, when, if its aim is to hurt Europe, it could simply turn off the tap — as some claim it has already done. Besides, just over a week before the leaks, Putin had said that that if Europe wants to solve the gas issue, all it has to do is lift the sanctions and open up the Nord Steam 2 pipeline. “Just push the button and everything will get going,” Putin said.

Moreover, the Nord Stream pipeline is part-German-owned, and the “attack” occurred in Danish territorial waters. Therefore, it effectively amounts to an aggression against two NATO countries. If Russia wanted to trigger World War III, there are less roundabout ways to do it.

It’s perhaps not surprising, then, that an alternative theory has been making the rounds on social media — that the United States itself might be behind the sabotage. Many have pointed to a press conference in February where US president Biden said: “If Russia invades… then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring it to an end”. When asked by a reporter “But how will you do that exactly, since… the project is in Germany’s control?”, Biden replied: “I promise you, we will be able to do that”.

Now, it is certainly true that Biden could have meant many things by this comment. But it’s also no secret that the US has always been opposed to the Nord Stream 2, which it saw as paving the way to stronger Russian-European relations. Even some figures in Europe are suspicious, with Radek Sikorski — Poland’s former foreign minister and current chairman of the European Parliament’s EU-US delegation — tweeting an image of the leak along with the words “Thank you, USA”.

However, if the objective was putting an end to Nord Stream 2, it had arguably already been attained: just the other day the German economy minister Robert Habeck stated that he didn’t see “a scenario, or no foreseeable scenario where Nord Stream 2 would play a role for Germany’s energy security”. So while there’s always the possibility that the US might have wanted to drive an even bigger stake into the heart of the project, taking Biden’s words as an admission of guilt is a bit of a stretch.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely we’ll ever know who the real culprit is. One thing is clear, though: the attack marks a dangerous escalation in the West’s proxy war with Russia.

Join the discussion


To join the discussion, get the free daily email and read more articles like this, sign up.

It's simple, quick and free.

Sign me up
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
92 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
2 months ago

Biden threatened to do it and Nuland threatened to do it. (both with the subtlety of a mob protection racket) If Putin wanted to shutdown Nordstream (a major source of his leverage on Western Europe) all he had to do was turn off the spigot. Come on! Who do you think the obvious suspect is?

Last edited 2 months ago by Matt Hindman
martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Russia, naturally.
It’s the only use he can get from his now useless pipeline.
West Siberian gas is now worthless, since he can never sell it, and it would take years to build a pipeline to Chian, even if teh Russians had the expertise.

Last edited 2 months ago by Martin Logan
martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

And thanks for agreeing with me!

Paul Walsh
Paul Walsh
2 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Who knows, the most surprising thing is that gas is leaking out of the pipeline.

Greg Travis
Greg Travis
2 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

I keep reading your replies. None of them make any sense. No rationality to them at all and ignorant of diplomacy and risk reward among others. Further, no knowledge of the oil and gas markets and how and under what conditions such can and is transported. Perhaps, if you understood markets and the oil and gas industry better, you might temper your comments with less certainty.

Elizabeth Pease
Elizabeth Pease
2 months ago
Reply to  Greg Travis

So? What’s your idea?

JR Stoker
JR Stoker
2 months ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Smersh dirty tricks department, out go to.get Putin

Justin Clark
Justin Clark
2 months ago

Good thing that Denmark, Poland and Norway just finished completion of their own gas pipeline. This could have been really inconvenient for them. (How timely!)

Aaron James
Aaron James
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Clark

As a conspiracy loon I think it was done by Klaus Schwab, using a dolphin called Mr Bigglesworth that Yuval Noah Harari had implanted with microchip brain implants, strapped explosives to – and sent out to the pipeline where he exploded both the poor creature, and the pipeline. Classic Dr Evil stuff.

Hendrik Mentz
Hendrik Mentz
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Clark

Certainly puts paid to the theory Russia would blow up their own pipeline, when crossing immediately overhead at right angles in the vicinity of the three explosions was the newly opened Baltic pipeline from Denmark, to which you refer.

martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago
Reply to  Hendrik Mentz

Au contraire it shows that this was a warning to every European nation that depends on undersea gas.
Vova will try more dumb tricks in future.

Last edited 2 months ago by Martin Logan
Elizabeth Pease
Elizabeth Pease
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Clark

True. Is there a reason why such little nations would go out of their way to irritate Russia and the EU?

Jim R
Jim R
2 months ago

It’s hard not to think of Cortes ordering that his own ships all be burned on arriving in the new world, in order to eliminate the possibility of returning home for his men. Now a return to reliance on Russian gas is off the table. Cui Bono?

Last edited 2 months ago by Jim R
martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim R

Russia, of course.
He knows he can never sell gas to Europe again.

Edwin Blake
Edwin Blake
2 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

And that works how? Is this a sort of cutting off nose to spite face argument?

martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago
Reply to  Edwin Blake

It sends Putin’s threat to all of Europe–without creating a cause for war with NATO.
If Putin actually attacked a western pipeline, it would be an act of war.
The best plan Vova’s tiny mind could come up with.

martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago
Reply to  Edwin Blake

Thanks for agreeing!

M C
M C
2 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

I wondered if it may also be a scorched earth tactic towards internal threats – as in Putin may want to make it harder for any potential successor to make use of such infrastructure, if he were to be deposed. He wouldn’t want to make it easy for Russia to be better off without him. Like taking your ball and going home – but, you know, also destroying your home and everyone left in it.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
2 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

It was obviously Uncle Sam. It would be entirely consistent with the way has behaved over the last 100 years.
As the writer points out, all Russia has to do is turn off the tap. Sooner or later (and probably sooner) Europe would have relented and reverted to buying Russian gas. This prevents, or at least significantly delays, this backsliding

Elizabeth Pease
Elizabeth Pease
2 months ago

What, exactly do we get out of it? Besides irritating the urine out of our allies?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 month ago

You get to stop your ‘allies’ backtracking when things get really tough and reaching a deal with Putin. It also gives you a guaranteed market for highly priced LPG.
That is 2 thins for starters and 2 more things than Russia gets out of it.

Benjamin Holm
Benjamin Holm
2 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

He could just turn off the taps, there’d be no reason for him to do this.

mark terry
mark terry
2 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

That makes no sense. Of course he wants to sell gas to Europe. And its the only bargaining chip he has to get the Herman’s to fold when t SHF thus winter. Why would he irrevocably give it up and throw 15G euro away. The pipes cannot be repaired now that the salt is in there.

Edwin Blake
Edwin Blake
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim R

The only beneficiary is the USA. Russia has lost the lever of threatening to cut off gas. It could turn gas on and off as it chose. As winter progressed, particularly if it was cold, Germany would come under public pressure to compromise with Russia. Loosing this important tool at this stage is very much against Russia’s own interests.

For the US however it is a clear win. No more income going to Russia. No more possibility of Russia blackmailing Germany and Europe. Side benefit of increased LNG sales.

John McKee
John McKee
2 months ago
Reply to  Edwin Blake

Yes indeed!

Glyn R
Glyn R
2 months ago
Reply to  Edwin Blake

The news media quickly went very quiet on this once it realised a rather large number of people were not unquestioningly swallowing the Putin did it narrative and those videos of Biden and Nuland promising to destroy NS started doing the rounds.

Johnny Ramone
Johnny Ramone
2 months ago
Reply to  Edwin Blake

If it benefits the USA, then that would be a good thing.
All’s fair in love and war and Putin started a war.

Elizabeth Pease
Elizabeth Pease
2 months ago
Reply to  Edwin Blake

How exactly? Shipping our gas to Europe so our prices would go up to 6.00$ plus? Or for California, 8.00$. It is already going to be a 55% plus chance that Republicans will take the Senate. They will already take the House. What Biden gains, is nothing. What the D’s gain is less than nothing. All politics are local, after all. On the other hand, Biden has always been stupid. He could be this stupid.

And it does not have to be a state actor. It could be a none state actor colluding with a state. “Enviros with Iran,” perhaps? Just tossing a thought bomb.

Garth lovelace
Garth lovelace
2 months ago

There is only one country that would benefit and has the capability of doing this and that is the US. Did they do it? Will we ever know the truth?

Steve White
Steve White
2 months ago

I think Russia thought that a cold dark winter would adjust some EU nations mindsets… Now that option is no longer on the table… So, who benifits from that? I think we all know who…

D Walsh
D Walsh
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

If the Russians want to sell gas mainly to China and India, then in theory still having a working pipelines to Germany/Europe means they can get a better price, I don’t see any up side for the Russians damaging or destroying their own pipelines

Will be interesting to watch the German reaction, I expect them to continue to lick the boots of the neocons. SAD
Its amazing that we have reached the point that the neocons can openly commit attacks on their own allies and get away with it

Last edited 2 months ago by D Walsh
Steve White
Steve White
2 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

Interesting… As far as what Germany licks… There are no Neocons in power in the US right now. Prior to the Urkaine conflict they were licking other things.

D Walsh
D Walsh
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

There are none so blind as those who will not see

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

….it’s called the military industrial complex. It’s been in power since the 50’s.

martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

If you don’t see neo-cons–they must be there!
Just as Biden’s exit from Afghanistan was a clever ruse to take Ukraine from Russia.
And now Putin gets the blame for the pipeline that Sleepy Joe destroyed!
Which rather suggests that a man on the edge of senility can still outsmart Vova ?!
Life is NOT fair…

Elizabeth Pease
Elizabeth Pease
2 months ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

Hmmmm…. A couple of Nuclear weapons is not in their interest.

mark terry
mark terry
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

This admin is neocons. See nuland and look at our overall posture in Ukraine. There is no strategic interest just power politics.

Elizabeth Pease
Elizabeth Pease
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Really? You don’t know your warmongers very well do you.

martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

I think “neo-cons” says it all.
They always consciously work against their own interests.

mark terry
mark terry
2 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

Agree. This is neoconservatives. Russia can’t just sell gas to China and India. Gas is very hard to move relative oil. It would take a decade or more to get the pipelines in place and would be completely uneconomic. It took nordstream 1 over a decade and it was a short technically easy pipe. The could do LNG but again expensive and time consuming.

Jason Highley
Jason Highley
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Ukraine

Martin Johnson
Martin Johnson
2 months ago

Who benefits, has means, motive, and opportunity?

Poland, riding high since the invasion and which inaugurated its pipeline for Norwegian gas on the same day that the NordStream leaks started, and the US to keep Germany and others “on side” this winter.

Obviously.

Ukraine has motive but lacks means and opportunity unless they hired a very specialized firm that could keep it secret. Maybe possible but unlikely.

Russia lacks motive, has means, but opportunity far from home and in NATO waters is doubtful. If they wanted to destroy their own asset and major bargaining chip, they could have done it at far less risk near St Petersburg; or, just faked something there. If you believe it was Russia you probably still believe the Steele Dossier and you are just hopeless.

martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago
Reply to  Martin Johnson

Simply a warning:
“Nice pipelines you have here. I just broke my own–and I can break yours too!”

Cassander Antipatru
Cassander Antipatru
2 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

And remove one of his main sources of leverage against Western Europe?
What’s next — shooting himself in the foot to prove he can shoot you too?

martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago

And the US wants to deprive Europe of gas…to do… what…exactly?
Give Hunter Biden a few more bucks????
This just brings Marx’ idea about the “contradictions of Capitalism” bringing it down to its ridiculous, illogical conclusion.
Sadly, this still shapes the views of many–including Vova himself.
And it will destroy Russia.

mark terry
mark terry
2 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

The US doesn’t want to deprive them of gas they want to deprive them of Russian gas.

Elizabeth Pease
Elizabeth Pease
2 months ago
Reply to  mark terry

Four words: November Elections, Democrats loose.

Greg Travis
Greg Travis
2 months ago
Reply to  Martin Johnson

Well reasoned

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
2 months ago

The US could benefit by bombing it if they could plausibly blame the attack on Russia, and Russia could benefit similarly if they blamed the attack on America. They could even both benefit by jointly agreeing to blow it up and blaming each other, which is what I suspect will ultimately happen regardless (blaming each other that is). We the people will never know who actually blew it up, but the Russians will say the Americans did it, and the Americans will say the Russians did it, and both will use their media to promote that narrative. I suspect the European nations will just accept the US narrative since they’ve already picked a side and there’s no upside to pissing off the Americans at this point.

Iris C
Iris C
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Your argument is flawed because it is the Russians who will have to pay for it to be repaired, not the Americans

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
2 months ago
Reply to  Iris C

Except they won’t bother to repair it since the Europeans won’t lift the sanctions anyway. Honestly, if Russia did this, it has to be with their domestic audience in mind, so they could plausibly blame the Americans and stir up patriotism in their population and/or undermine any of Putin’s oligarchs who might conceivably conspire with Europeans to overthrow his government so the Europeans can have their gas and the oligarchs can have their economy and their international bank accounts back. I grant that this sounds ridiculous, but it would not be out of character for Russia, historically speaking. The analogy of Cortes burning his ships mentioned above is an apt one.

Last edited 2 months ago by Steve Jolly
mark terry
mark terry
2 months ago
Reply to  Iris C

It can’t be repaired. Beyond the structural integrity issues the salt water will have corroded the pipe enough to render the entire 15G pipe useless.

Fred Austere
Fred Austere
2 months ago

Plainly, the US did it.

Peter B
Peter B
2 months ago

Look, none of you know anything about this right now and frankly you’re all wasting your time speculating.

Jason Highley
Jason Highley
2 months ago

There are obvious fractures within the NATO alliance, although most members have done a decent job keeping the grumblings out of the public view. Clearly, facing a currency crisis heading into winter (storage isn’t the issue, the PRICE necessary to balance energy supply and demand is a much more looming issue), the NATO countries were looking for creative ways to draw down the conflict (especially given recent Ukranian gains) and declare at least a détente as an excuse to lift sanctions. Wouldn’t be surprised if certain countries wanted to take some of those options off the table. Not the least of which could be Ukraine itself. It’s curious why the US is being so readily fed up as a culprit compared to Ukraine. Of course, if the U.S. new Ukraine was going to do this, or now somehow has credible intel that they are responsible, I would expect them to say about as much as they have about it given how compromised our politicians are by the entire Ukrainian mess (both before and after conflict).

martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago
Reply to  Jason Highley

Just how did Ukraine send a ship through the Turkish straits, evade all detection, and then blew up two pipelines?

Sir Jethro michaelz16@hotmail.com
Sir Jethro [email protected]
2 months ago

The idea that Russia sabotaged their own pipeline can only be caused by Russia Derangement Syndrome at its wackiest.
Russia wants the sanctions dropped. It is using the natural gas shutoff as leverage against the EU. The destruction of the pipeline has greatly reduced Russian leverage as it makes it more difficult to resume shipments.
The USA is on record as saying that the pipeline must be destroyed.
As a commenter stated below, Cui bono?

N T
N T
2 months ago

The quiet on this topic from Moscow seems odd. That is not an accusation. It just seems odd that they have not expressed some sort of emotion.
Claiming that Biden, an obviously senile old man, is speaking rationally at THIS MOMENT is folly. He might have been, at that moment, but seriously, people, he’s a meme for a reason. That isn’t saying the USA isn’t the culprit. Biden just isn’t cogent enough, often enough, to have anything he says be taken literally.

Last edited 2 months ago by N T
Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
2 months ago
Reply to  N T

Right, Joe has been crackers since before the election when his puppeteers kept him under cover for fear his very clear senile dementia was disqualifying.

martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago
Reply to  N T

He does seem to have been lucid enough to destroy much of Russia’s forces in Kharkiv.
And now he’s getting weapons for Ukraine from South Korea.
Wish I had that kind of senility…

Troels Heeger
Troels Heeger
2 months ago

Footage comes from Danish Armed Forces

Justin Clark
Justin Clark
2 months ago

I understand this is in International waters and not the waters of a NATO member…

Troels Heeger
Troels Heeger
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Clark

That is true. Not in Danish sea territory – just outside of it.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Clark

Indeed. The leaks are in the Danish and Swedish Exclusive Economic Zones (200 miles) but outside territorial waters. Also the pipelines are (majority) owned by Gazprom, making them Russian property. The Danish Prime Minister concludes that this does not constitute an attack on Denmark.

It would be interesting to know which nations were technically capable of this. Since no one has yet accused Ukraine, can we assume that they did not have the means to do this?

Eric Zuesse
Eric Zuesse
2 months ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

The U.S. could have had them do it, just like the U.S. had Ukraine down the MH17 airliner over the Donbass conflict zone on 17 July 2017 and pin it on Russia, all so as to get Merkel finally to agree to back Obama’s hike on anti-Russia sanctions so that the IMF would provide the next tranche of loans to Ukraine. That worked out fine for the regime in Washington. They got what they wanted from it.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
2 months ago
Reply to  Eric Zuesse

How is the weather in Moscow?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
2 months ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I wouldn’t imagine they’d have the means, and they certainly wouldn’t do it without the blessing of the western nations. Although if those pipes are now destroyed I’d imagine the bulk of Russian gas to Europe would now have to travel through Ukraine, earning them large transit fees. It could have been a way for the west to indirectly fund the Ukrainians while not completely plunging Europe into darkness

Gene Quong
Gene Quong
2 months ago

It does not matter who blew up the pipelines. Russia may
decide to never to reopen these pipelines since they know that either Ukraine, Poland, or the US blew up a underwater pipeline.
The Russians have no interest in blowing up any pipeline or oil tanker since that is their livelihood.
They may conclude that they will only build pipelines which
overland. The Russian computer hackers are very very good they may launch cyber attacks against the US Electric grid.
The Russia hackers can attack the California electric grid and cause a complete blackout for weeks by using the Stuxnet virus. This virus was used by the American CIA to destroy the Iranian equipment used to enrich uranium. This virus can be modified and inserted into PLC controllers and the computers which control the Electric Grid in any nation.
They would have complete deniability since the attack can occur in any country which has the Internet.
It could even be launched in Ukraine. This would many deaths in California. But it would be in self-defense.
In the US if you invade any real estate it is legal for the homeowner to shoot you dead.
I have bought a Bestek 200 watt 12 VDC to 120 VAC inverter in the event of a blackout which can provide about 16 hours of power to my Frigidaire freezer using the cigarette lighter in my 2017 forte. I may buy a backup car battery to provide 32 hours
of backup power. If you want more backup then buy a Generac 10 Kilowatt backup generator which can use natural gas and maybe propane as a fuel.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
2 months ago
Reply to  Gene Quong

California needs something to wake it up and smell the end coming, either by desertification, earthquake, or the mad schemes of its left-wing rulers.

Theodore Oule
Theodore Oule
2 months ago

I’ll buy the Biden administration being behind them sabotage.

Remember, Jake Sullivan comes out of the Clinton school of political mayhem. This is exactly the sort of dirty trick a Clinton might pull, and Potato Joe desperately needs Clinton support, even though such support may not be in the best interest of the USA.

Elizabeth Pease
Elizabeth Pease
2 months ago

I can’t be the only one thinking that China is trying to set the dogs on each other as it waltzes to the front of the line? Why not? It does not make much sense for anyone else to have done this.

Sean Farley
Sean Farley
1 month ago

Only an idiot or fervent US propagandist or Russia phobe would argue against the obvious fact of an act of US sabotage. More worring is that the US is attacking the EU generally and Germany specifically. The US is the biggest terrorist state in the world followed by the UK. The people of europe will see the light soon enough and wont put up with the US sanctions for much longer. The US has the most to gain from this and Russia and the EU have most to lose.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
2 months ago

Oh goody, another conspiracy to theorize about.

mark terry
mark terry
2 months ago

Russia has no incentive. This is their only leverage to get the Germans and thus the rest of Europe to drop the sanctions. He already is getting all his oil out. Without the ability to turn the gas on there is no deal space. It was blown up by someone that doesn’t want to see Europe walk away thus winter when the differing really kicks in. Now they’re all boxed in. It even helps the ruling German politicians that want to tell their restive populace they can’t accommodate Russia.

wayne bollinger
wayne bollinger
2 months ago

Neither pipeline was therefore operational at the time of the leaks” – If that is true, where is all the gas coming from and how come it can’t be shut off?

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
2 months ago

A pipeline from St Petersburg to Germany holds a lot of gas, under some kind of pressure. Takes a while for it to empty.

Some GuyInOregon
Some GuyInOregon
2 months ago

Russia could just have turned off the supply (without damaging the long term usability of their asset), and in fact they’ve previously done so under a variety of pretexts — https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/02/nord-stream-1-gazprom-announces-indefinite-shutdown-of-pipeline

The EU could just have turned off the potential demand for Russian gas via sanctions.

The US is currently facing a leadership crisis and can’t even retreat from Afghanistan cleanly. Postulating a sophisticated attack that could have triggered a nuclear response from Russia, and which would hurt American allies in Europe, and contribute to global warming? Yeah, don’t think so.

So who else (other than Russia, the US or the EU) has submarines that could be used to attack those pipelines? One listing: https://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.php

Which of the countries that have submarines would love to simultaneously poke the EU, Russia AND the US?

Who is currently engaged in a massive military modernization, and “sabre rattling?”

Finally, who benefits if Russia can’t eventually resume shipments of natural gas to the EU? As in, “who’s currently getting cheap energy from Russia, and would like to be able to keep doing so?”

If you “follow the money,” there are only a few potential answers.

Last edited 2 months ago by Some GuyInOregon
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
2 months ago

Interesting new idea. Not sure whether you could get Chinese submarine into the Baltic without it getting noticed, though. Might a mini-sub and a normal surface ship do the trick?

All rather murky.

charles lu
charles lu
2 months ago

Ukraine is the most suspicious reality, followed by the United States. Russia is really insane to do this, unlikely and unnecessary.

Jorge Espinha
Jorge Espinha
2 months ago

Judging from some of the comments, we Europeans are hopeless idiots. And we seem to be proud of being stupid. At some point the Americans will get tired of saving our arses.

Last edited 2 months ago by Jorge Espinha
martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago

I think I finally see the “logic.”
The “neo-con” US, more than anything, wants Europe to stay united against Russia. It wants every European to NOT be worried about their energy over the winter. It’s part of their evil Geroge Soros/Vicki Nuland plan to destroy kindly old Vova Putin.
So naturally the US then blows up two pipelines to frighten every European that depends on pipelined gas.
As Tertullian said:
“Credo absurdam”
And thanks for not daring to reply.
It is appreciated!

 Or "трус" as they say...
Last edited 2 months ago by Martin Logan
johan
johan
2 months ago

The Orcs. First attack weak response countries like Sweden and Denmark as a try out, then cut cables on the sea floor and destroy subsurface equipment etc. Blame West for destroying structures also used by Russia. Get bonus points at home and on Unherd.

martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago

As usual, many below are confused by the shiny objects that Putin (like Trump) throws out to confuse the uninitiated.
Both the pipeline attack and the rushed referendum are designed to hide the fact that Vova is losing this war–faster and faster.
The town of Lyman is virtually surrounded, and will soon become a besieged pocket (or kettle as the Russians call it). It will then fall with its garrison to the Ukrainians.
And just beyond is the city of Sievieodonetsk, which destroyed much of the regular Russian army during its capture.
Now, all Vova has left to stop Ukraine are the untrained troops of his “mogilizatsiya.” They will shortly be dying in large numbers–and still won’t stop the Ukrainian offensive.
So, is it any wonder that the Kremlin is resorting to hare-brained schemes to try and deflect and misdirect?
This is Vova’s worst nightmare–and he has absolutely no idea how to turn the tide.

George Knight
George Knight
2 months ago

Maybe it was simply a message from Putin. Russia can cut the West’s telecoms cables, its pipelines and so on. The Europeans will go to any length to avoid buying Russian gas so, of course, Russia did this.

martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago

Only an idiot has any doubts about this.
–The new pipeline from Norway to Poland was opened the very day of the explosion.
–It can’t be an “accident,” since there were three blasts on two different pipelines.
–The Baltic Fleet is not far away in “Baltiysk” (Pillau, Koenigsburg), and is thoroughly familiar with these waters;
–Finally, it’s very doubtful that either NS1 or NS 2 will ever convey gas again, even after the war ends. Unless Russia gets a radically different govt after Putin’s fall, we will probably have a decade or more of Cold War, with a European boycott of Russian gas from NS.
The only explanation is that Vova destroyed his own now-useless pipelines (which probably will never reopen anyway) to send a warning that all undersea European gas lines are now under direct Russian threat. The added bonus is that it adds to environmental problems.
That the US would have any interest in undermining European resolve this winter, just to earn a few extra bucks for its oil companies, is of course, designed to convince morons that “World Capital”…or “the Neo-Cons”…or the Illuminati consciously do things that harm their own interests.
But I see many people below arguing those very irrational conspiracy theories.

Last edited 2 months ago by Martin Logan
JP Martin
JP Martin
2 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

The potential benefits to the US are obvious, but the potential benefits to Russia are less clear to me. Your suggestion that Putin did this to send a warning and cause environmental damage is hard for me to accept. The cost is, in my opinion, too high. If I had to guess at possible Russian motives, I would be curious to investigate the existing contracts for delivery of Russian energy and what insurance coverage is in place.

Last edited 2 months ago by JP Martin
martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago
Reply to  JP Martin

When Europe is explicitly planning to live without Russian gas, there is no cost for Putin that is too high.
Vova cannot sell any of his west Siberian gas to any other nation.
Why do you think he started flaring gas on Finland’s border?
Read the Russian classics. This is pure Russianess–lash out blindly at your enemy, even when it hurts you far more.

Last edited 2 months ago by Martin Logan
Jake Dee
Jake Dee
2 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

So a man with a gun shoots himself in the foot and then denies he shot himself in order to show the world he has a gun and might shoot someone.
Brilliant.
Once again the evidence against the secret conspiracy becomes evidence for the secret conspiracy and we know that the non-evidence is actually evidence because it’s a secret conspiracy.
It’s a rabbit hole full of fun-house mirrors and Occam’s razor is Kremlin disinformation

martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago
Reply to  Jake Dee

Ingenious!
However, Occam’s razor involves comparing TWO COMPETING hypotheses
So, kindly explain why a man (Sleep Joe) who desperately wants someone to take a long hike with him, would shoot said man in the foot before they set off?
I fear Occam would find that far less likely.
Sorry, to burst your bubble…

Cassander Antipatru
Cassander Antipatru
2 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

That the US would have any interest in undermining European resolve this winter, just to earn a few extra bucks for its oil companies, is of course, designed to convince morons that “World Capital”…or “the Neo-Cons”…or the Illuminati consciously do things that harm their own interests.

Except destroying the pipeline isn’t likely to undermine European resolve, but rather have the opposite effect. Before, there would have been the temptation to stop sending arms to Ukraine in return for Putin turning the gas back on; that kind of deal is no longer an option now.

martin logan
martin logan
2 months ago

Incorrect.
The Europeans are planning to get through the winter with what gas they have. Nobody’s planning to use NS 1 or NS 2 anytime soon.
So, a threat to destroy western pipelines is the only real threat Vova has left.

Last edited 2 months ago by Martin Logan
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
2 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

I am afraid you lost some credibility on this one Martin (regrettably, as we are on the same side). Not saying you might not be right, but there are too many competing, and rather plausible, hypotheses to justify this degree of certainty.