An alternative POV is that somebody (USA?) does not trust Europe/Germany/... to not "relapse" to the "gas needle" when the things get dire.

The only way Putin has a remote chance of winning the war at this point is if western support stops, destroying the one mechanism that might actually do that seems counterproductive.

I'm not saying I believe this is the cause, mind you. I'm firmly undecided on that one.

If there was a greater interest at play Russia would be a very different place, and Ukraine would willingly join their sphere of influence.

Which is always to stay in power (and maximize their power).

So I agree as short-sighted and bad it would be for Russia to do this, if it helps Putin stay in power right now, it makes sense.

And honestly, who else would do it?

Q: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"

Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."

Add to that the Polish FM (husband of The Atlantic hack Anne Applebaum) thanking the US for destroying the pipeline on Twitter. Maybe you could try doing your own research-- outside of the security state stenographers like WaPo and Wikipedia.

Well, a few things first:

1- NS1 along NS2 are (were) shutdown and clearly these were not going to re-open, not before the end of the war - not politically acceptable for Putin, even less for Germany

2- The war is going to last for many more months (best case scenario) or a year or two or ... No matter how long it will really last, Europe, after having survived Winter 2022 will not be reliant to Russian gas anymore. It's clear to everyone that NS1 / NS2 will likely never re-open again.

3- Based on #2, you can assume that NS2 like NS1 are just dead ...

So again, who profits from the crime?

1- USA: why would they take the risk to destroy the pipeline knowing Germans won't buy Russian gas in the foreseeable future? Their utmost priority is that Ukraine defeats Russia to send a strong message to China. They can't care less about NS2 at the moment, but they care most about unity among western countries, that's how Russia will lose and that's how they will win. Of course, Germany becoming dependent on US gas is a good thing for them, but it's not really a strategic objective, at most tactical ...

2- Russia: they are losing the war and now throwing conscripts with not a day of training on the front. That's pretty desperate move to say the least. Whenever they escalate, they see that as a chance to break unity among the west. Blowing up their (now useless) pipeline is in line with another desperate move: at least try to make something useful out of it. If Russia loses the war, Putin is just dead (at least politically). He can't care less about Russia economy at the moment.

3- Eastern Europe: their hate for Russia is very strong and they obviously welcome such a move. But like for the US, they want very hard Ukraine to win, and blowing up such a pipeline is not clear the immediate benefit. Besides, it's still a risky operation and it's not clear whether they just have the capacity to carry out such an operation without taking the risk of being detected.

We can agree that most EU countries will not support such an incident. The only two countries who have the technical capability and the political reasons are the USA and Russia. Both are evil and ready to blow the world for their own gains.

> why would they take the risk to destroy the pipeline knowing Germans won't buy Russian gas in the foreseeable future?

Because they know their "allies" will cave. They've been trying to push them from Russian gas for a long time now but it didn't work.

> Their utmost priority is that Ukraine defeats Russia to send a strong message to China.

They are not trying to send a message to China. They are being engaged in a proxy war with Russia since the cold war. Now things are heating up again as they are closing in on their prey.

Sure, right now. When the winter comes and heating bills skyrocket, there will be those in Germany who want to turn the gas back on. Or... would have been. That option is gone now, at least for this winter. That's what the US might have gotten out of it.

> It would be a tremendous risk to be discovered

The US has taken more severe risks before, such as tapping the undersea cables in the territorial waters of their nuclear armed adversary during the Cold War, in principle risking global nuclear annihilation. The primary rule clandestine submarine operations play by is "don't get caught". If the US did it and did it properly, nothing will ever be conclusively pinned on America.

> Denmark could trigger Article 5 against the United States.

Fantasy scenario, get real.

As said before, it would be to prevent Germany from caving and turning the taps back on in winter when they are desperate for gas.

Another option is that somebody wanted to plant explosive devices for future use, and something went wrong. Hard to see how both pipelines would blow up then, but maybe a possibility.

Whoever did it picked pretty much the perfect time from the perspective of deniability.

This isn't really a counterpoint, since it's all the same risk for every potential suspect.

Its not what I want but an attempt at an unbiased assessment.

2. EU is trying to stop being reliant on Russian gas, so far it isn't fait accompli.

3. Based on 1+2 we could assume someone wants to push EU as far away from Russia as possible as fast as possible(regarding gas supplying, to be clear)

So again, who profits and has the means to do accomplish such feat: 1. USA: very vocal against NS2, wouldn't be affected by such destruction of foreign infrastructure, stands to gain when adversaries lose. Germany becoming dependent on US gas is a massive bonus. Imagine being able to control EU's largest economy on a whim.

2. Russia: assuming they would want to destroy the pipes, and not the much easier land infrastructure, why not let the world know about it ASAP?

3. Eastern Europe: only Poland has the means and maybe motivation to do so.

How hard is it to destroy a pipeline? Do you actually need an underwater UAV, or might lowering explosives on a rope and a timer from a small boat do the job?

Remember - water transmits compression waves really well, and the pipe is the only compressible thing around. The sea there is only 200 meters deep, so lowering it on a rope at slack tide and with a good GPS on the boat, I'd imagine you'd be able to get explosives landing within 10 meters or so of the pipe.

I suppose Austria, Hungary, Romania, Czechia, et al do not have the resources to pull this off. Remember, it's only been a couple of months that this gas stand-off is this tense. The only countries in Europe who have the means to act fast on this are the UK, France, Italy, Spain, maybe Greece (I don't think any of them would do it - there's no reason for it whatsoever), and Poland.

What about the Baltic countries

No, some Germans were asking for NS2. Here is one article after a very quick search from 8/19: https://www.politico.eu/article/vice-president-of-the-german...

Another:

https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/europe/germanys-kla...

"Meanwhile, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has criticised German leaders' calls to initiate talks regarding Nord Stream 2. "Calls by some German politicians to launch NS2 for a little while and close it later are totally irrational. This resembles drug addiction when a person says “Just one last time!” without realizing the devastating consequences of each “last time”."

So there is political support for German government if they needed it. And it was in play. Important people were tweeting about it. :}

> Not politically acceptable to Putin.

I think he is not happy today, at all. Russians are supposedly running to borders to leave, the famous Operation is a shitzkrieg, his last move is dig in, annex, and hope and pray Medvedev's mad russian act has convinced opposite number psychos over here who are in charge of our end of world weapons that "we are not bluffing".

Imagine the PR if great Uncle Vodya like father christmas opens the pipes to a freezing Germany ("gratis!" Its our gift). Is the German goverment going to say "Nein"?

To sum, you must be joking. This Nord Stream was Russia's ace in the hole. Now it is gone.

You forgot to mention how Russia is supposed to profit from this whole situation.

> Blowing up their (now useless) pipeline is in line with another desperate move: at least try to make something useful out of it

Specifically what?

Not exactly, as it's a serious double payoff. We want to break Russia too - that's what the Middle East wars have been about (including Syria, Libya and Iraq). We just expected their military to be considerably more potent than it actually is.

PS: US has blown up Soviet gas pipelines covertly before while condemning the act the same time. Read "At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War".

But all this speculation depends on how damaged the pipeline is. I haven't seen any info on how long a repair would take.

The physical pipeline is still there and mostly fine. Fixing the holes is expensive and requires the right expertise and equipment, but most experts I've seen quoted in the media seem to agree that it could definitely be done within a year, and probably faster, if everybody involved really wanted to.

Edit: Other experts are now claiming that the damage is more substantial and that repairs might not be possible

As for timelines, the media is saying several months, if not years.

Russia isn't losing the war; they have a temporary setback. They have completely won the south but only have ~80k troops total in the country which limits their ability to organizationally maneuver and defensively hold territory simultaneously in the North. The HIMARS introductions has damaged Russia's logistical ability to resupply the large number of arty rounds needed to prosecute an arty heavy war.

Some of the Russian mobilization impacts those with previous military experience, and their reserve forces.

Remember, until this recent collapse in the North, they were rototilling the Ukrainian Army into the ground with Arty each day.

300k conscripts gives them the defensive force they need to hold space, freeing up their Army and Wagner to handle the offensive side of the campaigns.

With new Iranian drones entering the fray, and North Korea potentially entering the campaign to gain combat experience, this is likely to continue a great deal. Because North Korea uses Russian style artillery tactics, they are an instant fold-in to Russia's conventional arty dominant war.

The real question from a combat perspective is whether or not the mobilization of forces will enable the Russian supply lines to better hold.

The biggest gamechanger still on the table is that we haven't seen yet the introduction of true strategic (non-nuclear) weaponry on the Russian side, or, the targetting of Ukrainian infrastructure. The latter is likely to happen soon because the West is exploiting the Russian's soft touch towards seizing Ukrainian territory by sending a nonstop stream of heavy weaponry and resupply.

The Russian gas pipelines were just destroyed; meaning that for Europe, yielding to Putin's energy blackmail is not even an option anymore, he has nothing to offer now. They will support Ukraine as they find other energy partners. Italy just secured a source from N. Africa. The US will now become a major energy supplier to Europe, costing the Russians long term. The Russian economy is flailing and they cannot even replace parts required to keep their vehicles running.

Most importantly on a global scale, the illusion that they are a near US military peer has been destroyed. Sweden and Finland shrugged at Russian threats and joined NATO. Russia has been exposed as a weak, poorly led military that would get steam rolled by Europe even without US boots on the ground. The united states would obliterate them. The only card they have is nukes, besides that they are weak. Russia likely becomes a vassal state to China.

If this is Russia winning then yes, you are correct.

Alternate take: Russia is behaving so irrationally and dangerously, their actions persuaded the Swedes to break two centuries of neutrality to cozy up with a defensive pact. They could have joined NATO in the 90s when the threat was nil, but instead they maintained their neutrality until things got dicey.

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-War-Against-Sweden-Submarine/d...

What the battlefield figures point to is that while Russia can hold a line, it's using much more ammo to do it, and this strains their supply logistics, which are further pressured by long-range missle systems. Adding more troops when you're already supply-constrained means falling back on a Soviet-era strategy of throwing bodies at every problem and, most likely, letting some freeze to death stranded without even entering combat.

However, modern Russia doesn't have the demographics necessary to hold out in a meatgrinder. The Red Army was able to do that successfully because they were drawing from a younger and more agrarian population that could be "born to die". As soon as your draft starts eating into older urbanites with skills, careers, and families, unrest is going to get out of control and put national sovereignty at threat.

There's a reason why modern armies have moved towards a professionalized approach since the mid-20th century: it's a lower-footprint method that sustains high tech industries, and therefore is easier to gain support for. The entire narrative changed when it stopped being a "special military operation" and they announced mobilization: there's no more illusion of it being a professional war.

The West has near-infinite appetite to provide arms to the Ukraine. Why?

- the military industrial complex gets profit - Putin is a ghoul and disliked throughout all levels of Western governments - there is strong popular support for Ukraine - strategically a strong buffer state of Ukraine neutralizes Russia long term - once Ukraine wins, Belarus will be surrounded by NATO or just-as-good-as-NATO nations, and Lukashenko will be toppled, and a NATO friendly government installed. So that's not just Ukraine as a buffer state, that is the Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine. Westernized, trained, militarily capable, integrated with NATO.

The conscripts are useless, have no equipment, and are being delivered to the front for WINTER. They won't have winter equipment. They won't be supplied. Existing forces aren't being supplied. This will be a humanitarian disaster. Supply lines? Russia won't supply them, and that which is sent will be plundered or redirected.

The elite of Russia's armed forces have already been gutted and defeated.

Theses strategic weapons... are they like Russia's air force? What heavy weaponry? The heavy weapons that were sent are destroyed, the artillery is being neutralized by superior HIMARS. Russia knows each escalation of weaponry results in better arms being sent to Ukraine, and a more militarily capable Ukraine in the long run.

Why are you portraying the South as a permanent victory? Were you portraying the North as a permanent victory as well a month ago? Russia's southern victory is temporary. Russia lost the north because they sent all their forces to the South... where 20,000 soldiers reportedly were abandoned or trapped across a river.

And... does Putin have cancer? He does appear increasing ill.

While winter will slow a counterattack, likely it will further devastate Russian morale.

In WWII, the Russian conscripts were trapped between Russian machine guns if they retreated, or annihilation by the Germans. The Ukrainians will accept them as POWs, and provide aid. This is a key difference. What percentage of conscripts will simply surrender as soon as possible?

Russia's soft touch is debatable: is it restraint, or a non-functioning military? So far it appears to be non-functional.

If Russia keeps saber-rattling on nukes, and the west views Ukraine as a functional state, NATO can provide Ukraine with nukes. But I suspect Putin will be toppled if he continues to threaten nuclear armageddon.

  Why is Putin direct interest destroy a source of income and leverage to the country!?!? 

- Spreads discontent in Germany (and elsewhere). While the EU is okay shutting down NS 1+2 for now if things are particularly bad this winter (weather, value against the dollar, inflation) being able to turn on pipeline again is a relief valve. Blowing it up and blaming the Americans makes it easy to push a narrative that lack of independence from America is putting the EU (especially Germany) at risk.

- While it would be really hard to spin an American attack on NS 1+2 as a rationalization for escalating the war (e.g. nukes), it does create a nice narrative that America is actively hurting Russia unfairly. Sanctions are a lot easier to lift than that pipeline is to repair. That kind of narrative could help popularize recruitment.

Look. Russia is already losing their war badly. The Russian draft is wildly unpopular and the US stands to lose a lot by antagonizing the American left (over environmental issues), Germany, and even Russia. If blaming America can help staunch the mass exodus in Russia and undermine NATO unity then blowing up the pipeline is a small price to pay.

Usually it's Russia doing this kind of rhetorical judo move.

But this clearly benefits Norway, Ukraine, the US and maybe the Baltics in roughly that order, and hurts Russia, Germany and to some extent Netherlands. If you think the US is too noble to play dirty on a powerful European ally, I've got an Airbus to sell you.

Russia has condemned it and called it a terrorist act. The US, conspicuously, has not. At least one prominent US commentator has suggested that the US did it and that this was good.

The sabotage happened in Swedish and Danish waters, not in Russian ones. No evidence implicating Russia has been presented, although we know that the US and allies are much better than Russia at presenting evidence - when they want to.

Think about what you're saying here: Vladimir Putin, famously corrupt head of a mafia state, doesn't care about money!

Clandestine adventurism is not the USA's, really???

> we

Oh, that explains it. Cuz "we" are always the good guys!

Not this ambitious, no.

The sabotage ensures Europe can't back off from the US sanctions now.

Wrecks Germany's economy, thereby eliminating a rival. VW et al are already talking about moving production to the US.

And Biden promised to take care of NS 2 back in February itself.

https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8

To be clear, with our current information, the sabotage makes sense for nobody, not for the US, not for Russia. The only reason people are attributing it to Russia is because, of all the people currently in the room, Putin is the one acting the most generally irrational. But if we assume irrationality, it could just as easily be any random entity; Iran, or North Korea, or Greenpeace, or mermaids, or the shambling, zombified corpse of Abraham Lincoln.

Of course there are many factors at play and a lot we don’t know.

The arguments in your post carry a hint of denial in them. Read other posts that outline the benefits to the US position after the sabotage, and consider them without bias. Not saying its the only explanation- but the case is worth considering.

Let's see who benefits from this sabotage.

1. Russia doesn't benefit as it disabled their property and removed an important negotiating tool from their portfolio.

2. Germany doesn't benefit for obvious reasons. Now even if they wanted to, they can't try to get gas from Russia.

3. The US on the other hand benefits both by wrecking Germany's industry and opening up a market for their LNG.

4. Ukraine gets to demand more freebies and weapons from NATO. Benefit.

5. NATO gets to dump their own inventory on Ukraine. Benefit.

6. The US weapons manufacturers get new orders. Lots of benefits.

Take a step back and apply some common sense.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Nord Stream is the largest pipeline, but by no means the only one. Despite the fact that Nord Stream has been shut down for over a month, Germany continued and still continues to buy Russian gas.

> The US on the other hand benefits both by wrecking Germany's industry and opening up a market for their LNG.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The US is a beneficiary of German industry, it has no financial motive to wreck their industry, let alone the geopolitical implications of wrecking the industry of their key ally. And the US has already been selling gas to Europe literally as fast as it can. There's no new market to open up, the status quo continues.

And the last half of your points appear to be completely irrelevant? None of the sabotage here will have any noticeable effect on the war in Ukraine, let alone have the effect of extending it, which is what you appear to be suggesting.

That doesn’t mean Putin is an agent for America.

What's with the authoritative tone? You have no clue what American submarines have been up to, and if you did know, you'd be breaking the law by telling us anything about it. And it's absurd to pretend that the premise of submarines doing clandestine illegal stuff underwater is an outlandish "Q-style" 'conspiracy'.

In practice there's not a single state on Earth that benefits from the temporary disabling of this unused pipeline, but of all the states that have something to lose from being discovered as the perpetrator, the US is near the top of the list.

> In practice there's not a single state on Earth that benefits from the temporary disabling of this unused pipeline,

Severing this tie between Germany and Russia benefits America. If you don't understand this then you haven't been paying attention. Furthermore, doing it in a way that takes the blame off the German government is beneficial to the German government. The German people will be uncomfortable in the short term, but in the long run severing this link between their country and Russia will be good in the long run for them and the rest of NATO.

No, the German government knows it needs to weather the winter, and have been relying (and continue to rely upon) Russian gas to fill their reserves. Their goal was to have their gas reserves filled to 95% capacity by November, and they appear to have been at around 75% before Russia started playing games with Nord Stream 1 last month. Of all the states most negatively impacted by this, Germany is probably #1 (yes, even more than Russia).

Obviously a rhetorical flourish but Iran and North Korea would have substantially less capability for an attack of this nature. It’s not impossible but certainly there are more likely perpetrators.

I also don't think the US sees Germany as a "rival" in this way at all, they are a strong trading partner.

The motivations are not that clear for any actor really. Someone wanted to burn a potential bridge between the EU and Russia, but it's not clear to me why the US would want to lose their biggest carrot (immediately dumping cash into Russia if sanctions were lifted and gas could be bought), or why Russia would want to lose a pipeline they invested so much into, sitting there and just tempting the west to Germany to ease sanctions.

Reminds of of a story about a person from US visiting South Africa and at some point referring to black people in the audience as African Americans.

Now Roma aside, the only Ukrainian law about this covers Tatars, Krymchaks and Karaim in occupied Crimea (not even Hutsuls) so basically they wrote the law because EU told them to, and in such a way so they wouldn’t have to lift a finger

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/europe/students-allege-racism...

I don't buy it. The blowback potential would be enormous. It's also not America's style. Coups? Sure. Unjustified military action? Absolutely. Directly destroying infrastructure of critical importance to supposed allies? I have trouble seeing it.

If this is by human action (which seems entirely possible) then Russia seems the most likely suspect. The counterargument is that why would Russia destroy something that they're dependant on? Sure Russia isn't selling gas today but the possiblity of them selling it in the future has value (to Russia and Europe).

But Russia, like probably every country and certainly the US, is not a monolith. There are competing interests. Putin is reportedly facing dissent for how badly the war in Ukraine is going. Russia has hardline nationalists, those who are anti-war and other factions.

The example I'm reminded of from history is Cortez who 500 years ago upon arriving in South America burned his ships. Why? So there'd be no way out. There could be no mutiny if there was no means of escape.

So sabotaging the pipeline could be to undermine the anti-war movement who might seek to oust Putin and resume trade with Europe. It might well solidify any wavering nationalists. Who knows?

Another theory: Russia is demonstrating a capability. I think that makes less sense.

The whole pipeline is still there, this is damaged sections. This would be a known risk of an undersea pipeline: stuff undersea gets damaged by ships all the time [1].

I would wager, were we in normal circumstances, we'd be talking 6 months. There'd be big money at stake, vital infrastructure, and that's about as long as you've got till winter in Europe normally. We would have spare pipe sections, we've still got all the plant and equipment for putting them in place. Basically, this is not unplanned for event.

But does Russia, Putin specifically, think the pipeline will be of any benefit to them over the next 6 months? If Russia withdraws from Ukraine, sure. But why would that happen? Because Putin has been deposed (and is probably dead) - and the main way to accrue the sort of allies you'd need to do it would be to promise them a bigger cut of the new revenue to the state provided they played ball.

Taking the pipelines out of circulation in the short term cuts off internal negotiating power for would be usurpers for Putin specifically. Which for current day Russia, is the only consideration that matters.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamchatka_(ship)

I won't pretend to understand the motivations here but it definitely further drives the wedge between the EU and Russia.

those countries didnt want ns2 because it cut out their middle man charges. most likely culprit is any of those countries (cough poland cough)

That supply, of note, has been running this whole time through the war[1] - but suddenly there is a reason to start breaking contracts right as a bunch of pipelines explode?

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-keep...

EDIT: Although on closer review, this might be coincidental since it's "just" arguments over payment. Conversely, the timing is a heck of a thing and Russia has escalated payment disputes into "and so we're cutting gas" previously.

The USA would be entirely right not to trust Germany, but the risks of blowback should it be caught would make it too risky, and Biden doesn’t strike me as a gambler, unlike some.

Ukraine would be a good potential suspect but probably doesn’t have the capability. China could also be, turning Russia into a permanent vassal state would have its advantages, but it’s far-fetched.

This reminds me of the persons unknown who have been sabotaging Egyptian undersea fiber optic cables.

If the war stops, deliveries will resume through the overland pipelines, so Nordstream is largely irrelevant so far as Putin's rivals are concerned.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/world/europe/cia-nord-str...

PS: All the reasons you mentioned also went through my head when I heard about it and it will be very interesting to see where this leads

Not recently. Recently, they pulled out a string of excuses to send less and less gas over (turbine bing repaired, sanctions, etc.) to show Europe their leverage. They don't feel any lack of money currently, and they know with current hydrocarbon prices, they have options to sell, even if at discount, and no money shortages currently. So they're betting on European population being weak and European energy infrastructure being dependent on Russian hydrocarbons, and thus citizens pushing the politicians to make nice with Russia.

The fact that they invested a lot of money in it means nothing. They have money. They have oil and gas that they can sell for money. What they need is for the West not to send so much weapons and ammunition to Ukraine that Russian army, numerous but weak and disorganized, will be completely crushed and expelled from Ukraine. Cutting off the flow directly would expose them to contractual sanctions, which can be leveraged against assets Russia still has in the West. But cutting off the flow by "mysterious explosion" reaches the same goal while providing Russians with tiny veiled plausible deniability. That's how they always operate. I'm sure in 5 years or so they'd admit it openly. Just as they admitted that "insurgents" in East Ukraine and Crimea were actually Russian military and intelligence officers, or Putin's private military "Wagner Group" exists, was created by a close Putin ally - which they were denying for years - and is operating in Ukraine.

Now, both pipelines have been blown up. It doesn't make any sense for it to have been Russia.

Also, they have one more pipeline left. Which they are also threatening to - guess what? - shut down.

https://www-moscowtimes-ru.translate.goog/2022/09/27/gazprom...

Doesn't make sense for it to be Russia? Or does it now?

However, them being destroyed for now will take a lot of pressure to appease Russia out of German domestic politics, lots of political figures were gearing up for trench warfare on opening NS2, and Russia could have used NS1 as a bargaining chip to get Germany to desert Ukraine. There's good reason to suspect the German electorate might have been quite open to such an arrangement by late winter, and imagine what that would have done to western unity. Why throw away such leverage, especially as you can still blow them up later?

This also takes any plan B involving Russia off the table entirely, meaning that Germany will absolutely have to double down on LNG and renewables and restructure its industry, with obvious consequences for future business opportunities.

Frozen Russian assets, AFAIK, for now remain frozen. They could be un-frozen and directed to other owners. There's pretty much zero political risk towards Russia - nobody cares what they think anymore - but there's a problem that the Western legal system isn't really happy with just taking somebody's property because you hate them, and establishing such precedent might not be politically good. But if you have some good reason - e.g. voluntary violation of contracts - then it's different business.

> as a bargaining chip to get Germany to desert Ukraine

Germany didn't really "sert" Ukraine that much. They just recently declared they won't - on the 8th month of war, when Russia is mobilizing its reserves - give Ukraine any tanks because it's too hard for Ukrainians to operate them and it'd take too long to teach them. I mean, they are giving some things, but way below their capabilities and try to slow-walk it a lot. Of course, they could stop completely, but that'd probably be political suicide for whoever is in control. "Work as much as you have to not be fired, but not even a little more" is the strategy here. Would it be ever non-suicidal for German government to openly cave to Russians (with the full knowledge that from now on and forever, they are Russia's bitch)? I don't think so.

> Germany will absolutely have to double down on LNG and renewables and restructure its industry,

They really don't have much choice here, if they're not going the "Russia's bitch" road. The war is not really done, and it's not going well for Putin, so he'll squeeze anything that can be squeezed. He's cashing in (did I mention the mobilization?). There's no long term soft influence plan anymore - there's the fire sale plan now. If Germany does not capitulate - and I don't think Germans are inclined to - Russia will squeeze them and they'd have to find the alternative.

And what's good for Putin right now is not having an easy source of income for someone to distribute to his keys to power in exchange for supporting a coup (plus side-benefits like all the people leaping to blame the US).

Because they had spend years and huge monetary investments to build it.

That would be one insanely expensive spectacle.

Qui bono?

NS2 still has an intact set of pipe and can operate-- if the West falls on its sword and allows NS2 to open.

And a clear statement of capability has been made: whomever has done this can also target pipelines in the North Sea that provide Europe's remaining gas.

Also, if someone is thinking of succeeding Putin, this step makes it hard to think one can walk back to the status quo (especially if the last NS2 parallel segment is rigged to blow).

1. Putin seriously cite Dugin[1]. Putin acts like he believes this bullshit.

2. There was a lot of people who on different occasions told "Putin wouldn't do that, it would make no sense", so then Putin could prove them wrong later by doing it. This war is one of examples of that kind. Or MH17: why to hit a plane with a missile? There was no sense in it. But it just happened. Why to massacre people in Bucha? It makes no sense.

So, when you talk about Russia the argument "makes no sense" doesn't mean anything. If it made no sense in an alternate reality were Putin resides, then it might be an interesting argument. But in his alternate reality it makes perfect sense to stop selling gas to EU.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin

What makes little sense is then blowing up the pipeline. Russia were already not selling gas, why would they take the extra step of blowing up the pipeline? That removes it as possible leverage for future negotiations.

And if you have the capability to blow up pipelines, why not blow up all the other pipelines transporting gas from Scandinavia to the rest of the EU? Make Nordstream the only option.

It actually makes more sense for Germany or one of their allies to have blown up Nordstream, to remove the temptation to for Germany to open it back up in the middle of winter when they are suffering massive gas shortages.

But Putin has been operating with good internal logic this entire time (even if the assumptions driving that logic have been flawed at points).

And I'm not really sure what logic would cause him to attack Nordstream. The two best ideas I have are:

1. He wants to remove an option of retreat for Germany. Putin things that with Nordstream inactive, Germany can wait until they get low on gas in the middle of winter before crawling back to Russia and conceding in exchange for gas. But if it's damaged, Germany kind of need to start repairing it now, and Putin can force them to concede sooner. And Putin probably feels short on time.

2. Putin is already planning for a civil war, and doesn't think he will control Nordstream during a civil war. By destroying Nordstream, it will be harder for some civil war faction to turn it back on.

Neither are great theories. At least without some extra evidence to suggest Putin is thinking along one (or both) of these lines.

The correct question is: Does Putin think that people who he things might stage a coup might be taking the Nordstream pipeline into account.

We are so many levels deep with this line of thinking, it gets really hard to reason about.

Oh, and it's less about what the the new ruler might offer to Europe, but how the new ruler is planning to get funding.

It makes all the sense. The problem is that most don't care for reality or other side's points, but would rather make assumptions based on impressions, based on propaganda narratives.

Obviously, the more the assertions are based on values and politics rather than reality, the less sense it would make.

> 1. Putin seriously cite Dugin[1]. Putin acts like he believes this bullshit.

You didn't link an actual reference, just Dugin's wikipedia page.

> Or MH17: why to hit a plane with a missile? There was no sense in it. But it just happened.

Ukraine had been conducting air strikes over that territory at that time.

"If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the -- the border of Ukraine again, then there will be -- there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2," Biden said during the press conference with Scholz, who did not go as far as Biden, but insisted the U.S. and Germany remain "absolutely united."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-meet-german-chancellor...

We have no information to reason about how it was meant to be achieved then or how far would one go in case of some contingency.

We can infer though that the circumstances had changed (Russian mobilization and referendums) and that the US ends up profiting the most now that the NS1/2 can't be turned back on.

The more sensible interpretation is that Biden was threatening to fully support Germany's plans to become energy independent. And that's, so far, what we've seen the US commit to.

Or, alternatively, it's a strategic benefit to Russia to plant the idea of US treachery in the minds of the Germans.

I have no opinion and doubt we'll ever know what actually happened. Definitely sabotage, though.

(1) An understanding of the facts of how successful the EU has been at diversifying away from Russian gas and whether NS2's natural demise was all but an inevitability.

(2) How much the repairs will cost.

If the repair costs are low, it's probably Russia, because of the propaganda value.

If NS2's demise was highly likely, again probably Russia because they're leveraging a sunk cost to their benefit which is just smart.

But so many people are making confident assumptions about (1) and (2) in this thread. If you don't know the answer to those questions, stop forming strong opinions!

My opinion was solely that quote is weak evidence.

I don't think that Biden was threatening to blow up the pipeline, but what you've given is a somewhat sugar-coated version of the American approach towards Germany and Nord Stream 2.

Long before the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, the US began sanctioning German companies involved in NS2. The American approach to NS2 has been rather blunt, given that Germany is a close ally that usually toes the line, even to its own detriment.

At the time, I read Biden's statement as a promise that the US would sharpen sanctions on German companies involved in the project if the Germans did not willingly exit the project themselves.

While I don't doubt the factuality of this, I didn't get that from this specific briefing (given that it was with Scholz, who expressed unity with the US's position).

In other words: unless Scholz is saying one thing and doing another, there would be no specific need to threaten German companies with additional US sanctions; Germany's government would (and eventually did) take action on its own.

(I don't mean to sugar-coat the US's foreign policy, which can be succinctly and accurately described as "uniformly nasty until we get what we want.")

I wouldn't read too much into Scholz' expression of unity with the US position. The German government almost never criticizes the US government (with some very rare exceptions, such as in 2003, in the lead-up to the Iraq War). If you ever want to hear German government spokespeople tying themselves into knots, just listen to them try to explain their position on the US prosecution of Assange,[0] or on whether Germany would give asylum to Snowden.[1]

0. https://youtu.be/tyRKt_3RJpg

1. https://youtu.be/-pitc_FWm2Q

NS2 still has an intact set of pipe and can operate-- if the West falls on its sword and allows NS2 to open.

And a clear statement of capability has been made: whomever has done this can also target pipelines in the North Sea that provide Europe's remaining gas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSPfXLPUJHM

Otherwise: Agreed.

However, considering the war and today's sabotage purely from a global warming perspective, it could be net positive in the long run. Accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels.

NS2 never entering service was settled for good over 200 days ago.

NS1 has been shut down by Russia, but it was at best dubious before this whether it would ever be used operationally again.

Clearly, whoever has attacked these pipelines knew perfectly well that the story about Russia being unwilling to sell gas was nonsense, and also knew perfectly well that European sanctions would collapse in the face of rotating blackouts. Apparently someone very powerful cares more about fucking Russia than fucking Europeans.

The protests were made up of AfD supporters and Russian/Serbian immigrants, and the the only politicians saying it needs to be opened are from the AfD.

They are not representative of German public and political sentiments.

They were probably right.

Ah yeah Wagenknecht is part of the AfD now?

https://www.kreiszeitung.de/lokales/schleswig-holstein/fehma...

Their assets would be property of their inheritors, just as everywhere else.

I am a Dane. I think I may be able to offer a perspective on this that non-Danes will simply miss.

While being a regular reader, for posting this I have created a new account that will not be used again.

Please excuse me for being a bit verbose, as this is not simple:

ONE First, I am not positive if this technically happened inside our territorial waters or just outside, but it seems at least some of it happened inside. Meaning: We didn't defend our own waters properly.

The area as of now has been blocked for traffic, and we have sent a minor military vessel there (a fregate) to at least signal that the matter is of some interest. We can not boast of a large navy or a particularly large military at that.

TWO The only part of our military that is in some way of significance is... our Divers Corps. We have excellent divers, which are given tasks comparable to those of the more well known US Seals (only more specialized as the Divers Corps is smaller than the Seals Force and not able to span such a large set of roles). Suffice to say that they sould be considered competent in all things on and below water.

These competent people will most likely be capable of investigating the technical side of this matter fully and rather quickly if they are allowed to, which it does not seem like.

THREE In stead it seems like our intelligence agencies (in cooperation with our so-called "allies") will be tasked with that job. We all know by now how these information exchanges work (thanks, Snowden) and if there is even a remote possibility that one of these "allies" have been involved, we should not expect that to surface from any investigation.

FOUR Our intelligence agencies... (we have two: A Police Intelligence Agency and a Defence Intelligence Agency) are more or less at war. The civilian agency (Police) has literally arrested the head of the military intelligence agency on charges somewhat similar to "high treason" for what amounts to be evidence falling totally apart (or so it seems).

FIVE Also, we are facing a general election. Very soon. The government is going to fall in less than two weeks - we know this for sure as it has been declared by their support party. Why?

SIX Our head of government and the whole administration has tecnically broken the constitution (on a matter entirely unrelated to Gas or Ukraine).

SEVEN It seeems there is at lest 50% chance that our current government will not get re-elected

EIGHT We operate a multiple-party system, and this election will see at least two new parties of unknown -- possibly big -- impact (as they were formed recently by some voter magnets that broke out from previous parties and have a less than complete policy in place)

NINE Our current government is dominated by a party (Social Democrats) which is notoriously "America Friendly". They have sold out critical infrastructure, engaged widely with the likes of Boston Consulting Group, etc. and ..well, let's just say examples are legio. This netted a former Head of State a very well paid job in some Facebook Ethical Committee, and other former ministers have also been rewarded for their support of American interests in similar fashions.

TEN So, we have a coastline. A significant harbour (Esbjerg) is right now being refactored in order to be able to receive the largest American Navy vessels with the stated aim of arming Eastern Europe. A pretty large US ship, IIRC, "Endeavour" recently practiced unloading of tanks and other stuff there. [0]

ELEVEN The deal has been struck betweeen the government and NATO and/or USA. The population as such was not consulted on the matter, as we have what is known as "representative democracy". It was hasted through in the aftermath of the Ukraine invasion as if it was a necessity for Danmark.

TWELVE Our defence minister visited the USA a few weeks ago (Sept 1). In extreme secrecy our government is negotiating a deal with the US that will allow USA to set up permanent military presence ("bases") on our soil.

TWELVE (B) This is the same government that will fall in a few weeks, and be replaced by who-knows-what

THIRTEEN One possible relevant location of one of these bases has been mentioned to be... the island of Bornholm

FOURTEEN This island lies strategically at the entrance to the Baltic Sea. You can not enter or exit the Baltic Sea without passing it.

FIFTEEN Russia is not amused. Especially since American forces were preacticing "extended fire capabilities" there in May. Russia claims that it is a violation of an agreement tat the Danish govenment as well as USA does not seem to recognize [1][2]

SIXTEEN This island is in the general neighborood of the damaged pipelines. That is, very close.

SEVENTEEN Few monts ago a large Naval excercise called BALTOPS22 took place in the general vicinity of said island. The US navy participated [3] eg. "by executing complex multi-vehicle UUV missions with modified U.S. Navy fleet assets." - allegedly in the field of mine detection.

EIGHTEEN UUV means "unmanned underwater vehicle". In [3] it is stated that increasing the distance these UUVs can be controlled from was important.

NINETEEN Incidentally, a few years ago, in 2015, the Swedish military actually found a (cable-controlled) drone loaded with explosives near a Nord Stream pipeline. The communications cable was "cut off" so it could not detonate.[4]

TWENTY (and closing) As stated above signifcant US military interests hinges on support from a Danish government that is about to fall in mere weeks. The current government has been "very cooperative" to US interests (to put it politely), and the future government is unknown.

CONCLUDING Feel free to connect these 20 dots as best you can.

---- [0] (in Danish) https://arbejderen.dk/indland/usas-krigsskibe-og-bombefly-in... [1] https://www.thelocal.dk/20220407/danish-pm-rebuts-russian-am... [2] https://www.dvidshub.net/news/422733/us-military-makes-histo... [3] https://seapowermagazine.org/baltops-22-a-perfect-opportunit... [4] https://www.pipeline-journal.net/news/explosive-laden-drone-...

That the current Danish government was behind this to win the elections as the safer bet against Russian aggression?

That the US is behind this to justify a US base in Bornholm island?

How does the timing of explosions fit into all this? Specifically the Norway Poland pipeline coming online and Russian threats to NATO (implying nuclear weapons to defend occupied Ukrainian territories isn't a bluff).

That's because they absolutely are.

There may not be a need for ignition; the news articles are saying pressures in Nordstream 1 dropped from 105 bar (1,522.9 PSI) to 7 bar (101.5 PSI). The water pressure at 100m where the pipe is is ~10 bar, so about a 1377.9 PSI difference in pressure.

A pipe with 1,377.9 PSI difference pipe that's 1.1m in diameter rupturing seems like it would cause a blast even without igniting.

I could also be way off-base. My physics and chemistry classes were a long time ago, and had nothing to do with explosions.

It's an intelligent leveraging of a sunk cost when most don't realize it's a sunk cost or don't understand the concept of sunk costs.

Years and billions were invested in that infrastructure.

IMO, the sheer cost would make that an overly-elaborate spectacle.

If you add factions into the mix, I would say that this might be what makes the most sense.

https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/27/baltic-pipe-norway-polan...

Mind you, this is something russian claims it wants (the war against the west and all that), but actually triggering it or something like it which allows to poor even more weapons into ukraine will result in an even weaker russia.

(Much as I dislike the guy, Sikorski's probably right about the US doing the pipeline bombing [2].)

[1] https://exiledonline.com/anne-applebaum-is-a-dingbat/

[2] https://seapowermagazine.org/baltops-22-a-perfect-opportunit...

No country will complain or do anything. And it'll just be forgotten about like the extraordinary renditions, the May 1947 crises, etc.

You have a much higher standards of the current administration than I do. I haven't noticed any significant morality in the office of the POTUS since I've been alive. Carter was the last even halfway decent president we've had.

Especially when you are aware that the US military is the single largest consumer of petroleum products on the planet and it gets a bigger budget every single year.

Now if the pipelines are destroyed, no matter how cold and angry citizens in the EU get, EU leadership has no reason to give in to Russian since that now won't get the gas turned back on.

If anything, this points to Ukraine or the US doing it.

It can not possibly be in Russia's interest. They could easily nix NS2 at source. And now, even if diplomacy or desperation brings Russia to reach a peace deal with Ukraine, NS2 is out of commission for a long time. Does not compute.

US and UK certainly did not want NS2 and Biden did promise to "end it" if Russia invaded Ukraine. And the same day a Polish pipeline opens. But this is exceptionally risky if forensics turns up evidence that points to them. For one, it's an act of war against a fellow NATO member (Germany) and Russia; two, it sets a precedent that an island nation such as UK (with a lot of strategic pipes running in and out of it under Atlantic) can ill afford. So the risk factor seems to argue against that (though motive and who-benefits are clearly there).

Germany? It is possible that German deep state is not united. There are Atlantists and those who assert that German and Russian coexistence is optimal. The former faction could have done this to basically close that temptation/option to German government.

So that last group is imo the most likely culprit. [Honest question: if CIA acts covertly with say German special services (and not telling the guy in DC, you know, "need to know" and all that /g) and they do this, does that technically mean US committed an act of war or only CIA?]

p.s. whoever did this, it is a great advertisement for LNG delivered by ship escorted by blue water navies. This event just showed that gaspipelines are not and can not be strategically reliable energy conduits. They are trivially taken out of commission and repair (even if possible) will require great deal of time and resources to complete.

It eliminates a potential threat to the present Germany government; their rivals promising to turn the gas back on if they're put in power.

A kilometer wide gas bubble on surface indicates substantial damage. I think it safe to assume that sea water in pipe further damages an additional length of pipeline. German government (or any future one with surprise ala Italy) no longer has the option of giving in to economic and social pressures and making up with Russia before this winter. That option is gone. Russia would be monumentally stupid to lose that option. That was a negotiation card! This is what NS going bye bye means.

Someone mentioned elsewhere that this is the response to the referendums that RF just held. This somehow sounds right.

Generally don't like to be pessimistic, but this action (whoever did it does not matter, unless some random terror group) indicates that whoever did it has already determined that there will be war. [The real thing not the far away affair on social media] They know this but they are not going to announce it to us until absolutely necessary. There is no way there can be global peace after powers start destroying infrastructure at this level. There will be a contest of strength (we're past the will part) after which pipelines and satellites will once again be safe.

p.s. in case it is not clear, I've changed my opinion a bit in this reply. "Risks" may not be relevant because it is understood (and this action was basically a turn in the game with an escalation) that there is going to be, has to be, a showdown. There will be war.

Paying for this with some temporary broken pipeline that wouldnt have been used anyway is most likely acceptable for the siloviki.

'Russia destroys its own pipeline so as to cause fracture in the alliance.' Not sure how is that supposed to work! Care to explain?

Also, would Russia blowing this constitute an act of war on Germany by Russia? Is that like Putin saying "we don't have enough on our plate. Lets go to war with Germany"?

Russia is the -loser- here. Why is this not clear?

Sure, just look at this discussion where the majority opinion is that the US or some other western nation did this. This is gold for all the Orbans and Salvinis in europe to change popular opinion.

See, the US wants us to freeze and pay enormous sums for their LNG. Lets go back to our russian friends with their cheap oil and gas. Who cares about those corrupt Ukrainians anyway.

That is right now far more important for Russia than some temporary shutdown of a pipeline that is not in use anyway.

For me the main indicator is that this is a reckless, desperate and somewhat stupid move. The US is none of that things while Russia...

I see: A false flag by Russia, followed by coordinated propaganda, to convince certain European nations that they just got fucked by US. This then results in a change in popular opinion which forces German government to sit down with Russia and beg for forgiveness.

If RF managed to send special forces in that highly monitored and shallow stretch of waters there will inevitably be forensic evidence. How was it done and what clues remain as to how it was done. Can this be sourced then, right to Russia? So there is the competence issue, and subsequent evidence issue. Not to mention, hey, Russia now is at war with NATO. Something that they are clearly, desperately, trying to avoid.

Second, I honestly don't think this propaganda reaches a majority of the targeted nation's population. (Same for our propaganda). There is basically a usual suspects demographic in any society that eats this stuff up. They are not influential, in general. Sometimes, like in the past 2 decades, excesses of the ruling class effective inflate the number of people who flip to a counter-narrative and it can be a force. Is that the situation in Germany?

Next, you and I disagree about the degree in which "popular opinion" has any influence in immediate and short term strategic decision making by governments. Are Germans going to follow the example of Iranians and revolt in the streets? I just don't see it.

(Long term, sure. Public opinion matters.)

~

"the US wants us to freeze and pay enormous sums for their LNG."

Btw, this is not what US wants. It's not the money. We print that shit since our CB is blessed by heaven so we can print without consequence ... until we lose global power.

No. US wants the EU dependent on energy flows that are subject to the famous "Anglo-Saxons". That would keep EU in line.

The only consequence would be some contradicting statements: We didnt do it, but here is evidence that the US,UK..... spiced up with a video of some CoD game footage showing scuba divers.

Thats the other part of the cui bono argument. What happens if you get caught? That would be pretty devastating for the US who tries to hold this coalition together through the coming winter but for Russia its nothing. There will always be enough doubt, that they themselves created, for them to continue unabated.

I can see some baltic or polish actor doing this but 2:1 my money is on Russia.There have been some suggestions in this thread that the pipelines might be completely destroyed. In that case I would have to reevaluate my position. But it seems to me, that would be a rather fragile pipeline if any wrong anchoring or earthquake could destroy it.

  No. US wants the EU dependent on energy flows that are subject to the famous "Anglo-Saxons". That would keep EU in line.

  Russia now is at war with NATO. Something that they are clearly, desperately, trying to avoid.

Additionally, the assumption that Germany would declare war on Russia unilaterally over something like this is flawed. Sure, if this were a verifiable and identifiable attack on German territory, maybe. To suggest that any attack on international infrastructure in international waters with no mechanism for identifying the actor is intended to do anything other than instill fear is mistaken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania (not state property)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/19150508...

> This is not an act of war with Germany.

It can be construed as such, but certainly not by Germany. They are not strong enough to make a stink about it. Powerful states can take offense at the smallest thing. Weaker nations put up with lots of shit. (Is not, for example, what is done to Russia economic warfare? Do you see them declaring war? No. Because they are weaker.)

So boundary of what constitute an act of war is somewhat fuzzy not completely crisp.

> This happened in international waters.

Yes, and NATO waters.

> The pipeline is already shut down. This does not affect Germany's gas supply, as they were already receiving no gas from Nordstream

Addressed multiple times in this thread. Options closed. Decision trees altered. Game theory.

p.s.

A nice map to go with this thread. The remaining functional gas pipelines from Russia to Germany both go through Poland and Ukraine. Both Poland and Ukraine have 'difficult' relations with Germany and 'hostile' relations with Russia.

https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FFdranneXoAIxgAL.jpg

There is no such thing as NATO waters, only the territorial waters of NATO members, who must choose to invoke Article 5.

I had the same thought regarding passengers as you when posting that item, so your point is well taken. It was in the sense of it doesn't have to be state property: anything that ultimately is deemed a malicious act directed at a nation.

That boat has sailed some time ago - you don't need to destroy something that's guaranteed it won't be used for decades probably, if ever again.

No country in the West will do any trade with Russia under Putin. There's simply no turning back when you throw diplomacy and international laws out the window, and hide under nuclear threat.

In my point of view this was clearly a message that ANY gas that passes through that sea might have the same faith - even in NATO territory.

It wasn't by chance that it happened the same day a new gas pipe was opened between Norway and Poland: https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/27/baltic-pipe-norway-polan...

Not to mention that if anyone wants to PUSH GAS PRICES UP, this is a great way to spread panic in the markets "oh no!!! that door wont open again!!!".

I only see positives to Russia in this event, not a single positive for anyone else.

This is a strong negative for Russia. They had control of the pipeline and thus could dangle the offer of gas, now they cannot. Their leverage is gone.

After that win, it was set in stone that Germany was done with Russian gas.

A government that held the energy sector as an hostage to pressure other countries while they violate international law.

Do you see any possibility of everyone sitting at the table, sign new treaties on top of those that were violated, or new contracts that were torn? Because I don't.

There's no credibility left on one side - Russian government openly stated that they do what ever they want, and no law applies to them because they have nukes. What government on their right mind would do any deal with them? Besides China, India, and Afghanistan, that are getting great deals out of this, while remaining neutral.

>If EU citizens get cold enough and broke enough, they could entice their governments to give in and stop supporting Ukraine and get their gas turned back on.

Whatever may come, we've had it much worse in the past, and we made it through. I doubt anyone will freeze to death, like the propaganda is spreading, at worst some people won't be very cozy.

>Idk about you, but if it came down to my grandmother freezing at home or a Ukrainian grandmother living in east Ukraine having to say she's now Russian, the Ukraine grandmother is going first.

Sometimes it's about doing the right thing, even if it has a cost. You might not want to pay the price, others are, because it's better to stop the warmonger now, than latter at a MUCH higher cost. We should have done it in 2008... or 2014... now we're paying the price for it.

One that really, really needed gas. So, not summer Germany, but winter Germany sure.

But the EU cannot buy gas that doesn't have a pipeline.

Not only will this keep Germany from lapsing in support but it frees all the resources they'd have wasted in-fighting about the issue.