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?
IF the Russians did it they get ;
1.Blowing up NS1&2 creates more energy and gas uncertainty in Europe in a period where they need to put on the pressure and try to limit military support for Ukraine as they are loosing the war in Ukraine. Its an assertive move.
2.They get to do big power signaling with a direct threat to other infrastructure in the north sea which is significant and all of which supplies Europe with gas.
I would also like to point out that the Russians [unconfirmed but its basically what went down] sank the passenger ferry Estonia with 852 dead because it was used in the transport of stolen military hardware.
So these explosions is not out of the realm of possibility - quite the opposite - I would say that it is basically how the Russians operate - with force.
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!
The logic isn't unreasonable. Nordstream is very clearly NOT a source of income, currently. But it could be, if Putin were deposed. Now the Russian gas interests are stuck with Putin, they don't win anything (in the near term) via a coup.
Add to that that clandestine adventurism like this is very much Putin's MO and not the USA's (we do our adventurism with giant flags and 24/7 news coverage), and... it seems the most reasonable guess.
Really the US doesn't have that much interest here, certainly not enough to provoke further escalation. If Ukraine were to straight up fall to Russia, we'd deal with it. That's what we all assumed was going to happen back in the spring anyway.
Clandestine adventurism is not the USA's, really???
> we
Oh, that explains it. Cuz "we" are always the good guys!
Not this ambitious, no.
i.e. if a car jacker threatens to shoot you if you don't hand over your car that doesn't mean handing over your car was a great outcome.
In this hypothetical Putin had the choice between having a higher chance of accidentally falling down the stairs/out a window, or weakening his country economically. Putin doesn't mind watching Russia suffer more if it means a better personal outcome for him so the hypothetical choice is easy.
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.
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.
And you do? Ad hominem make for great debating skills.
And the other points are lost on you, since you appear to be completely taken in by your regime's propaganda.
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
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.
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.
It's the same risk for every suspect, so it's not really a counterpoint.
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
On the other hand, perhaps it's in Putin's interest to destroy his own pipelines for some reason.
It’s like Cirque de Soleil.
It is also a classic propaganda technique to differenciate between the awful dictator and its poor people/country.
I do not know what happened and if it was deliberate it is not obvious who did it. People should be prudent and not buy into propaganda from either side.
And you're right, pointing out that there's a difference between a dictator and their country is a common propaganda technique. But it's also just true, and if it's not part of your analysis you're probably doing it wrong.
And to be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of either side, I don't have any clue who did this and I'm not trying to pretend I do.
The West is effectively part of the war so we cannot trust anything we're told there, either.
The only thing we can do is think for ourselves.
Oh and I've just realised that my initial comment has been flagged! You could not make this up... Very disappointing.
And yeah, there will be propaganda on both sides. That doesn't really change what I said tho.
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.
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]
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.
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.
Or it's really Putin's way of saying "I'm not bluffing, in fact, here's how serious I am, see these pipes for that possible future gas sale?". If he really is destroying something that could make him money in the future, maybe he's really in an "If I can't win then let me flip the board" mood. Which I'd extrapolate to him being in a "Get the nukes warmed up" mood.
I wonder what discussion inside the intelligence community is like currently. It'd be amazing. Maybe watch what the senators connected to the intelligence committee are buying/selling.
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.
A Polish member of the European Parliament has thanked the US: https://twitter.com/radeksikorski/status/1574800653724966915
(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.
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.
Especially when the person who gave the orders (e.g. Putin) interests may not be the same as the countries interests.
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.
(Just reading "green man" :D).
So it is at least plausible.
I said that they surely had military trained in that sort of thing. Actually they even seem to have a 1st Underwater demolitions Unit, so...
It's getting those people to the Baltic that seems trivial to me. That does not mean I am accusing them, but that means they are on my list of suspects.
Not accusing the SeALs just the force I'm most familiar with.
A pipeline is impossible to guard so it's so so easy, it's a cakewalk. The real challenge is the impunity, you don't want to get accused like eg Allended accused CIA of blowing up its pipelines in Chile (gasoductos y olioductos) and the train line. It's a one-dimensional structure that is vulnerable along the entire distance, and more valuable the greater the distance it covers, so more valuable as it is more vulnerable.
Really to protect a one-dimensional resource conveyor, you need retal. There's nothing else. Everybody talks about protecting themselves, yeah and what wear a helmet to cross the street? No, no helmets! Yeah then make the pipeline's steel a meter thick, to protect it.
Retal.
America does that, when terrorists blow up its pipelines in Iraq for instance, they hunt them down and make them regret doing so. Not say they're sorry, make sure it turns out to have been a bad decision in hindsight. Those pipelines don't need to be any thicker. It's the thickness of the initiator's skull that must be overcome.
It's nothing. Not a whole lotta guards from the Kremlin with their evil faces like movie bad guys (they're never not the bad guy) the whole time watching over the pipeline, let me tell you.
That's an interesting way to describe a country defending itself on its own soil.
Western Ukrainians firebombed Trade Union with the ~300 Ethnic Russians (Eastern Ukrainians) in it, and they were burned alive, in Odessa. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/ukraine-dead-o...
Warning - these are very grisly photos!
https://www.exposingtruth.com/media-wont-tell-odessa-massacr...
Pres. Biden: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
Reporter: "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." abcn.ws/3B5SScx
Russia wasn't supplying gas via Nord Stream 1, claiming it needs maintenance and sanctions preventing this maintenance. Which is well...true[2]? Six turbines were stuck in Canada due to sanctions.
There are many ways to not supply gas to Germany and not break the contract that does not involve damaging nearly 20 billion dollar infrastructure (NS1 + NS2).
There a reasons and motives to do so, buy IMO none of them outweigh the damage.
> That possibility is long gone.
No, it's not. You contradict yourself in the very next sentence.
[1]: https://graphics.reuters.com/UKRAINE-CRISIS/EUROPE-GAS/zdvxo...
[2]: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-says...
Norway is in high alert right now. Can you guess why? https://mobile.twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/157479814778362...
We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't, regardless of how wrong another comment is or you feel it is.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Russia made tons of money in past months on oil and gas due to elevated prices. Money ain't what they need desperately now, rather massive civil unrest in EU to weaken Ukraine support and punish. Those who decide have stellar-size egos which are getting continuously humiliated by recent development. Don't underestimate pettiness of a ego-maniac person who has tremendous power and thinks about themselves as somebody larger-than-life and on a life mission. Anyway financial consequences of not selling gas anymore won't affect anyhow the folks on top, and clearly russian population is just cannon fodder for them.
Its political and military move. Realistically only US and Russia have the capacity to do 3 attacks like this simultaneously. This all benefits US too in some ways, but if I have to decide between those 2 options, for me personally its a no brainer.
Has anybody checked Russian reaction? Sometimes its quite obvious from how they say things / what they don't say whats really happening and how much they actually care. For me its not easy to see this in western media and I don't speak russian to check source directly.
Russia looses massive leverage by no longer being able to deliver gas, even if they wanted to.
Prior to this, if the public got cold enough, they could tell their government "forget Ukraine, we need gas. Go agree to get it or we will vote you out ASAP". Now.... There's no point in settling anything with Russia, since you're not going to get their gas anyway.
We as regular citizens have limited info, really we don't know what's going on. But don't assume it definitely isn't Russia because of whatever reason that happens to seem plausible to you.
There's a very real possibility that the actual goal of this entire mess is/was for Putin to get into the history textbooks as one of the great Russian leaders before he dies from cancer (or whatever it is that he has).
On the other side, Ukraine destroying the pipeline and making sure EU members don't give it to Russia in order to restore the flow of gas makes pretty good sense.. as long as you don't care about the EU citizens.
Argument in favor: It's obvious sabotage. If Ukraine, the USA, et al did it, it would have been in their interests to make it look less deliberate.
1. To do the repair EU needs to lift sanctions
2. Gas prices spiked = short term monetary gain
3. Not so subtle message: hey Norway-Poland nice pipeline you opened here today, you should hope that nothing bad can happen to it.
I'm no military expert but why? From reading about the pipeline, sections of it are between 80 meters and 110 meters deep which technical scuba divers can reach and the subsea blasts were equivalent to 100kg of dynamite.
Seems to me basically any country could wrangle up a decent sized boat, a few technical divers, 3 100kg bombs, and some time delayed chargers and planted bombs on the pipelines weeks or even months ago.
> have the capacity to do 3 attacks like this simultaneously.
No need to do 3 attacks simultaneously. An attacker could have placed explosives there some time ago and the detonated it remotely now.
Formar Naval Special Operator and now teacher in marine engineering and doctoral student at the Swedish Försvarshögskolan, Patrik Hulterström, alleged that "An experienced diver can in theory manage it himself" according to https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/4ozy8o/orlogskaptein-tr... ( in Norwegian).
This is incorrect for a different reason and it has nothing to do with capability, but instead, deniability.
Anyone could do it. But deniability and covertness is different.
Deniability for this requires covert operators with access to a top notch with great submarine with excellent acoustics (really lackthereof) for an underwater insertion and recovery.
Ding Ding Ding.
Suddenly the list of countries capable of doing became a great deal shorter
To generate more fear and distrust in the european population?
If there was any way to bet on these things, i would love put some money on it.
But maybe there really is another involved actor who risked such a stupid move (some radical polish or baltic actors?)
EU has been adamant that this was not the good time to go all-coal for example.
They could have done just that but no, the whole population and the politics are against (except in a few illiberal "democracies").
Even in the US there is a lot of work done recently to patch the methane leaks in gas fields, for example, which have been spotted as big emitters (by negligence or lack of enforcement).
This sounds like a business sustainability decision rather than out of concern for the environment.
"Sustainability" (but not in the planet-preserving / extinction-event-avoiding meaning) of fossil fuel over the next century is not at all a problem, if we wished so.
/s but not really...
Please. If Russia wanted to keep selling gas to the EU they could have, you know, stopped invading Ukraine.
Also, comment history is nearly 100% pro-Russian talking points.
Provide counter-arguments, sources and materials that can help educate the people you think are wrong in their analysis and research
I do my best to document and source my claims, and you know that since you checked my past comments, i do my homework
And no i'm not pro-russian, it's called impartiality
2. The United States is already at max capacity for its export capabilities. There is no incremental supply to satisfy demand.
3. Destroying foreign supply when demand can't be met only serves to destroy demand because it forces the market to move to alternatives (case in point: OPEC and how they try to not let oil prices get too high or low).
It's ludicrous to suggest the US has a significant economic interest in executing some sort of industrial sabotage on NS1/2.
Your link doesn't support your claim that this is economically motivated.
"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,"
Even if it were a threat to destroy the pipeline if Russia invaded, Russia invaded. So now what would you expect to happen?
It's only just the beginning
Quickening the cut from gazprom is in their plan, considering: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/gazprom-says-groups-...
We can all pretend and not see what's happening, but then you have this: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-keep...
So the question is, why it is fine to let gas transit from Ukraine, is that to let them get their juicy royalties? so this sparks the question of corruption, who fuel and allow that corruption?
I do not pretend to know everything, but i read a lot and that's the best conclusion i can make, so far, there is clear evidence that the US doesn't want the EU to get their supply from elsewhere, Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict is yet another evidence, wich is where EU wanted to get some of their supply
Worse, US's gas production is illegal in the EU, they don't allow the production within their soil, so it's clear evidence that they were forced to buy US's supply
I can also predict the future, the US will build nuclear power plants int the EU, instead of EU getting them from France, all started when the US built them for ukraine back in the days, the motive was clear
Wich is why France sold their companies to the US, and had to loose some due to some shaddy stuff (Alstom), it's clear current French government works with US's interests in mind, same for Ursula von der Leyen and her team of european bureaucrats
Yeah, coz of the war. Before the war they couldnt shift it.
>The US has tried to talk the europeans out of depending on russian gas for decades. Of course we want all the customers we can find, but there's no shortage of customers!
There was in 2021. LNG is particularly unappealing to countries with a pipeline.
There's a reason that, much to America's chagrin, Germany have zero LNG port capacity.
Sure, but it's not like they can build large LNG cargo ships overnight.
Per Wikpedia: "According to SIGTTO data, in 2019 there were 154 LNG carriers on order, and 584 operating LNG carriers" -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG_carrier
So sounds like they were already backordered ridiculously. Something tells me it has only gotten worse since.
Cha-Ching!
The US gets all of his uranium mostly from that region of the world: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uraniu...
The US also has a documented history for such thing, both in the middle east, asia, and in south america (eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...)
The timing is too perfect, maybe gas is not the motive, maybe it is to expand OTAN over there? who knows
Do you remember the failed coup in Turkey? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
This region of the world is for sure very hectic, a lot of data to dissect and analyse
Israel is a little bit too silent these days imo, i need to dig deeper maybe
The termination of their operation has been a done deal for a while. The US has no interest in sabotaging them: it's already a done deal that the US will supply the EU with gas instead of Russia:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/europe-is...
These facts won't prevent Russian bots from spreading conspiracy theories, in the service of Putin's murderous regime, of course.
https://www.thelocal.dk/20220407/danish-pm-rebuts-russian-am...
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/422733/us-military-makes-histo...
Who are they? are they russian by identity, american by faith?
US military was there, in the baltic sea
Like bruh, my name is from Trinidad. Entirely different continent from India/Asia.
So this means you have found potential justifications for crimes against Humanity?
Also stop mixing facts of past governments and past eras with judging present nations.
Also, I don't have anything against Indians (on the contrary, I like India I even learned a little bit of Hindi, and I love bhajans), I just hate the part of this nation that thinks that the West is an enemy.
So please don't pull my leg saying that "it was a xenophobic slur" or whatever.
Your list of submissions nailed the coffin about what I think of you. Sorry dude.
The US invests trillions in reducing global warming yet you think they'd leak thousands of tons of methane in the air just like that??? .......
The whole free world wants to reduce global warming, so democratic governments want too, in agreement with the population wish.
Same in France, where ecology has been a huge point of debate during the elections.
Same in many countries, etc...
While you're at it, why not speak of Petain and collaboration with Nazis? What is holding you back?
Why are you speaking of different times with a different government? And times when there was not at all the sense of climate crisis we have now?
The Macron government has been elected in the light of the AGW emergency (even if Macron is still trying to save the growth "en meme temps", but oh well).
The whole population, the mainstream politicians, and the media, have a total different mindset than at the time of the greenpeace ship bombing.
Not at all on a large scale. In France only one single plant is prepared to be restarted, among a lot of criticism from the population. This has nothing to do with "restarting coal" in a broad meaning.
> LNG
Lots of hesitation about that from the governments, too. Very criticized, but the rationale they are proposing is that the LNG infrastructure would be useful for hydrogen later (not my words), and that they are still doing the energy transition towards renewable, only it will not be done in time so they need the gas.
You see, the West (except some illiberal outsiders) is completely sure that the energy transition towards renewables is the solution.
The only variable is time, and whether the various populations are ready and willing to suffer during the first few winters or not.
> propaganda in the west
I'm sorry I think you are not seeing the reality: tons of diverse opinions in the West. But false claims are not just equal to true claims, in that fewer people believe them and fewer relay them. That is why most people are against fossil fuels, as they understand the mechanisms underlying AGW.
But on the other hand is there propaganda in India? Are the media free? Is Modi an illiberal?
Aren't you tired of your own pro-Russian anti-Ukrainian propaganda? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32745602
Who are you? Do you really hate so much the West that you would side with an aggressor? Or does the BJP pay you?
If you continue to post like this, we will ban you, so please stop posting like this. Ideological hell battle is not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
If you continue to post like this, we will ban you, so please stop posting like this. Ideological hell battle is not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
The government and their politicians never get judged by their results, but by the means they put in place. They will go harder next time and request more money, stricter regulations, and more power to fight global warming.
Source since i made some people angry:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-07/the-us-is...
Russia did built it but they weren't gaining anything from having a non-operational pipeline. Just as much gas is being sold now as it was yesterday, and with all the investment and political effort going into the European energy grid right now, it is very unlikely that those pipelines will ever be operational again. No country in EU will ever want to become dependent on Russia again after this winter.
Who might gain from a perceived attack? Is there a country that is known to spin this kind of thing for political gain?
And last, who has a history of having submarines in this region and a reputation for repeatably ignoring and intruding into Swedish and Danish territorial waters?
Hungary and possibly Austria. Hungary even signed a deal with Rosatom to extend their Pecs nuclear powerplant.
https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-approves-constructio...
Sure, it will still be hard to separated Rosatom from those power plants but it not impossible.
The Russians.
> It doesn't seem like something in Russia's interest, they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved and operational.
Once their invasion faltered, and with the recent escalation, they had no hope of that happening. The current Russian regime will never be able to repair relations with the west to the extent that will allow the Nordstream pipelines to resume operations. You don't come back from nuclear threats and committing massive massacres on this scale.
The next regime might be able to repair relations, but the current regime doesn't care about that: they'll be dead or imprisoned for life before any new regime can take over.
This is the Russian regime's way of abandoning the project while causing the worst possible damage to the hated Europeans who are supporting Ukraine against their illegal, atrocious invasion.
> That's an intriguing mystery.
Nope. Clearly the Russians.
Destroying the infrastructure doesn't give Russia an additional capability (degree of freedom). It removes the degree of freedom to restart supplying gas. And thus removes this option for Russia to use as a bargaining chip in negotiations.
I would say this is either the US, Ukraine or a EU state. To remove the threat that the EU later in the winter falters in negotations due to public pressure to turn the heat back on (literally).
The US has the additional incentive that they want to become the only gas provider to the EU via LNG terminals. That gives them an edge over the EU both economically and politically.
The Ukraine has the additional incentive that the remaining pipelines from Russia to the EU run through Ukraine. Removing the alternative options keeps the EU allied through dependence.
Remember the many deaths of important people in Russia but also abroad?
It could very well be about "sending a message" while maintaining plausible deniability. Just like when the Russian oligarch was murdered in Spain a few months ago, and his whole family. Russia had nothing to do with it! But all the others got the message - you are not safe anywhere.
Similar here. There are a lot of other pipelines. If you look at the news, Poland opened a new pipeline from Norway exactly now! What a coincidence in timing?
The threat is that they can destroy any important infrastructure, cables and pipelines, under the sea, and there is no way to prove it was Russia.
It fist very well with how Russia operated this year. The many many different threats, direct and indirect, and demonstrations to actually carry them out.
To me, it's plausible. Much more so than "the US did it", or even Ukraine. Neither has any reason to stupidly risk their relationship with the Europeans for that, Ukraine least of all, and the US is already set to be the main supplier of LNG (German article: https://www.merkur.de/wirtschaft/usa-wird-wohl-wichtigster-l...). Gas exports for the US are nice to have, but not nearly essential, I think the US's own independence was the main driver in investing into domestic fossil fuel extraction, exports are a distant second. And they already got them, as I pointed out, no need for such a stupidly risky thing. Russia on the other hand does not need to gain anything, they can be content setting up a bigger threat scenario now that Putin escalated almost as much as he will be able to excluding using "WMD".
By the way, Der Spiegel is reporting that the CIA warned the German Government that an attack on the pipelines might be imminent. (Paywall and German -https://www.spiegel.de/politik/beschaedigte-gasleitungen-cia...)
It's not a bad strategy per se. As the parent comment said, this could be done to limit the choices that the future government of Russia will have. And in the present, this fact being public could be used by some political forces to create extra leverage.
There was a good game-theoretic example explaining why limiting your own future choices can be a good strategy which I can't find right now. So I'll try to re-tell it. Suppose you want to buy X, and you're willing to pay as much as $20 for it. You know that the seller is likely to agree even on $10, and they know that they know that you're likely to pay more for it. So for both of you the bargain happening is better than not happening as long as the price is within the range $10-20, but both of you know that both of you know this, so you both will be trying to squeeze as much as you can out of this deal.
In this case, artificially reducing your own capabilities and making it public can help convince the seller to sell it to you for less than $20. Say, you can sign an agreement with a third party saying that if you pay more than $10 for X, you will have to pay 11$ more to the third party. Now your possibilities are limited and you can't buy X for $20 anymore, so the only acceptable price for you is 10$, to which the seller has to agree because they know that otherwise the deal won't happen and they will lose.
It gets funnier if both you and seller sign these kind of contracts quietly, and then announce together making the deal impossible.
Or UK ?
Have you been following the news? The current Russian regime is threatening the use of nuclear weapons, and massacring thousands in war crimes in Ukraine.
The EU has already set up permanent alternatives to Russian gas: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/europe-is...
The current Russian regime will never be able to repair relations with the west to the extent that will allow the Nordstream pipelines to resume operations.
The next regime might be able to repair relations, but the current regime doesn't care about that: they'll be dead or imprisoned for life before any new regime can take over.
With the EU shifting to other permanent sources for its energy supply, it's doubtful they'll want to switch back to Russian gas ever. Getting burned once by a rogue regime using gas supply for leverage is quite enough.
The new supply chain isn't yet ready to a sufficient level. The pain inflicted by missing gas could become high enough for some "moral flexibility".
Apparently some state actor did see a greater-zero-chance for resumed operations. Otherwise, why blow up the pipeline...
False flags are Putin’s MO. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/11/22/finally-we-know-...
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-1999-russian-apartme...
Never say never.
That's frankly absurd.
Russia almost certainly sabotaged a LNG terminal in Texas a few months ago (industrial cyberattack). This act was almost certainly done by Washington or their proxies. It drives the wedge further between EU and Russia and makes the EU further dependent on Washington. The cui bono is pretty clear.
There will be no salvaging the relationship between Germany and Russia for a long time unless Putin gets replaced, even during winter. The absolute worst case scenario (the only one I see where Germany could have gone to Russia for gas) where people die from cold in their homes is never going to happen. Only yesterday BloombergNEF published a report saying Europe was ready for a complete cut off from Russian gas from October 1, and that includes commercial uses too which take up a big chunk and would obviously be redirected should there be any threat of people dying of cold.
> Russia almost certainly sabotaged a LNG terminal in Texas a few months ago
What evidence is there for this?
> It drives the wedge further between EU and Russia
On the contrary, should the EU find that the US was behind the explosions it would cause an absolute rift between the US-EU relationship, and in particular with Germany.
Have you genuinely attempted to understand the Russian perspective in all this? Like listened to what Moscow has been saying for the last decade? Have you ever read a single one of Putin's speeches, for example?
Reading Anne Applebaum screeds in The Atlantic is not seeking understanding, by the way.
How can you understand something if you don't attempt to understand it?
> What evidence is there for this?
No smoking gun, just cui bono + timing + no other plausible explanation has been put forth
> On the contrary, should the EU find that the US was behind the explosions it would cause an absolute rift between the US-EU relationship, and in particular with Germany.
If Europe had strong leadership. Even Merkel didn't really stand up to the spying revelations.
The nuclear brinkmanship is textbook deterrence. Whenever Russia escalates, expect nuclear threats to deter a full-blown NATO entry.
All the energy related decisions in the past 20 years seems to have been made with the purpose to make Germany dependent on Russia (Nuclear, lack of LPG terminals, etc), and to make sure that countries included in the imperialistic ambitions of Moscow (like Ukraine) could affect influence this relationship (NS1, NS2)
He's a compulsive liar.
2. We did not invade Ukraine.
3. We are not at war with Ukraine.
It takes a special kind of stupid to take Putin’s words seriously at this point.
You know what, I’m actually disappointed you only asked for three. There’s a mountain of knee-slappers even just from this year.
“We’ve lost nothing” after 50,000 of his soldiers died.
It’s like the guy is a fucking five year old.
Do you have any examples that don't require clear technical misinterpretations?
Alright, you dismiss my first three examples. Care to explain the fourth example I provided?
What I'm really after is if you have any evidence of Putin (or Lavrov, now that you mention him) lying on the scale of "Saddam is gonna nuke the West" or "NATO will not expand one inch eastward". Or has Putin ever openly boasted about his lying prowess, as fmr Secretary Pompeo and fmr Ambassador McFaul did recently? These would be convincing examples.
Good day sir.
Come on, propagandist. We can do this all day.
However, taking just from his recent speech announcing the mobilization (I don't speak Russian and am relying on a translation from the Kremlin's transcript, but at least two independent translations are similar enough):
- Repeated claims that the purpose of the "special military operation" is to liberate Donbas from the "neo-Nazi regime" holding power in Ukraine
The Ukrainian government is not neo-Nazi. Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish. (It might be common rhetoric in Russia since the Soviet Union and WWII days to claim opponents as "Nazis", but that's not what the word means to anybody else.) Repeatedly claiming that a country is being ruled by neo-Nazis with no reason or evidence, especially when there's reason not to believe that, is a lie. The claim of Ukraine being ruled by neo-Nazis is repeated enough in just that single speech that this claim alone would more than suffice.
- Claims of genocide in eastern Ukraine, and of a government in Ukraine being the result of a coup
There has been no evidence of a genocide (which is a rather strong term and claim to make in the first place), and there has been no coup. There have, of course, been governments unfavourable to and disliked by the current Russian regime. But that doesn't make their election a coup.
- Reference to the "Kyiv occupation regime"
An occupation regime is one that's occupying a country other than their own, or acting as a puppet of an occupying country, or possibly (at a stretch) a military regime holding power over their own country with force against the will of the people's majority. An elected government in their own country is none of these. Even if some parts of a population in a part of a country would prefer a differently aligned government, that doesn't make the government an occupation regime.
- The claim that the "Kyiv regime" announced a desire for obtaining nuclear weapons
An individual member of the parliament in Ukraine apparently expressed regret that Ukraine had given up Soviet-era nuclear armaments, or that (in his view) Ukraine might need to pursue them again. An individual member of a parliament (who AFAIK was not part of the government) expressing a view does not by any stretch mean the same as a government announcing that view. The difference is obvious to anybody who understands how democracy works.
I don't know how common it is in Ukraine nowadays to wish the country had nuclear weapons, although I wouldn't be surprised if that had increased as a result of Russian aggression and war. Either way, claiming a government has announced something when they haven't said anything to that effect is a lie.
--
There also lots of other claims in the speech, intended to gain the support of its audience, that amount to dishonesty or lying regardless of technical nitpicking. I'm not going to list them all here, as there are too many and there's no point, but an example would be the claim that western governments have resorted to "nuclear blackmail". Putin refers to "statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using [nuclear weapons] against Russia". While it's hard to track down every statement made by every representative of a NATO country and prove that none of them ever said anything in that direction, the essence of claiming that western governments or countries are making nuclear threats against Russia is blatantly and obviously false.
Watching things from Europe, the only references to nuclear threat I have seen are concerns that Putin's regime is making them, even if vaguely, and concerns of the safety of nuclear power plants amidst the war. Absolutely zero governments are making any suggestions towards threatening Russia with anything nuclear. Nobody's also crazy or stupid enough to do so, and if an individual representative or politician actually did that, it would obviously get condemned immediately, because none of those governments would be crazy or stupid enough not to condemn it.
There are lots of statements and claims like that in the mobilization speech alone. And all of this is just from a single speech. Every speech Putin has given this year that I've seen or read about has been filled with untruths of varying degrees.
Many of his claims are either somewhat vague or otherwise difficult to absolutely verify as lies with mathematical precision. Some of them might not be lies from Putin's perspective. For example, he might well feel that his conservative regime is being threatened by a liberal opposition encouraged by western influence or western countries. The claims that Russia (as he understands it) is being threatened by the west may be true from his perspective.
However, many of the claims he makes in support of that view or to justify the war are simply dishonest, such as the allusions to nuclear threat from the west. There's no way those could be considered anything but either delusions or lies.
Generally, so many of Putin's claims are some kind of a combination of simply not true, baseless, and obviously motivated, that the whole definitely amounts to him lying or twisting the truth whenever it suits his purposes.
What is it that makes him seem more truthful to you?
I have also lived in Russia. It can be awkward when the Ukrainians see my old Russian visa in my passport when I cross the border.
Where do you live? Ukraine? Russia? How close are you to this issue personally? Got any skin in the game? How many blatant lies are you going to ignore so your Nazi-apologist worldview isn’t compromised?
How would you like to see this notification near enough every day, sometimes several times a day?
В ОДЕССЕ И ОБЛАСТИ ОБЪЯВЛЕНА ВОЗДУШНАЯ ТРЕВОГА, ВСЕ В УКРЫТИЕ
ЧИТАТЕЛИ СООБЩАЮТ, О ВЗРЫВАХ В ОДЕССЕ И ПРИГОРОДЕ. Уточняем информацию
ПРЕДВАРИТЕЛЬНО ЕСТЬ СБИТИЕ 2-х РАКЕТ
The Russian perspective is basically, "we had an awesome empire, now we want it back". All the rhetoric about teh evil NATO etc is just dressing that up.
Blowing up their own gas line makes no sense as it destroys any possible leverage. The only ones that have anything to gain is the US or other associated allies.
Any analysis predicated on "the enemy is perfectly irrational and will not act according their interests" is not analysis. It's untethered from reality, which is convenient, because you can support any conclusion you desire.
Robert McNamara's #1 life lesson was "empathize with your enemy" (he dealt with the Cuban Missile Crisis). Sun Tzu said "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." This timeless wisdom has basis in reality.
Unfortunately, realism in Washington has been replaced with insane, petulant ideologues like Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland" and Michael "Of course we lied" McFaul.
Yeah, let's just forget all about Occam's' razor.
>If you read Twitter trends you already see an army of Russian bots pushing the theory that the US has done this.
Because it makes sense? US social media is 100% pro-Ukrainian propaganda and any slight dissent, criticisms or questioning is met seemingly instantly from multiple accounts alleging Russian propaganda. Meanwhile the biggest impact on American social media is American propaganda. Including about our alleged ally, Ukraine. And like Israel, they seem to be more trouble than they're worth as far as the interests of the average American citizen are concerned.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ODELL/status/1574758411392131078?...
There is no "salvaging the relationship" for the current regime. No gas will flow in these pipelines while Putin is in power, and the EU has already prepared alternatives:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/europe-is...
Thus these pipelines are worthless to the current regime, except as means to cause damage to the hated Europeans who are enforcing sanctions against them and arming Ukraine against their invasion.
You may argue that the relationship might be salvaged with the next regime, but Putin doesn't care. He will be dead or imprisoned for life whenever such next regime takes power.
The notion that NS2 would enter operation is absurd. NS2 has been dead in the water for months, and the prospect of entering service have been dubious for some time before the Russians invaded Ukraine.
"NS2 shouldn't exist" is a narrative manufactured in Washington (and delivered to Germany by Baerbock), that goes against basic economics and the interests of both Germans and Russians.
[1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/07/biden-says-nord-stream-2-won...
As I understand it, most of the gas that would be delivered via NS2 would be the gas that wouldn't be delivered through Belarus/Ukraine (depriving them of transit revenue and providing more options for Russia to employ gas politics on its western flank). It rather seems to me that, far from being natural in a world without geopolitical drama, much of its purpose is actually to enable geopolitical drama.
And, of course, the main thrust of the argumentation against NS2 was that it was causing Germany to pursue an economic dependency on Russia that was unwise, given Russia's already-demonstrated penchant for using that economic dependency as a lever in global affairs. NS2 died when Russia's invasion of Ukraine demonstrated the lack of wisdom in pursuing economic dependency on Russia (compounded by Russia withholding gas flows to make Europe came back begging to Mother Russia).
So should Russia be obliged to pay for transit and provide gas to Ukraine? Why wouldn't Ukraine pursue gas supplies from other sources? It had at least 8 years for that, but all the time was spent on opposing NS2.
"that was unwise" is a simplification, not a proper explanation. Russia is a cheap resource supplier, so it was beneficial for European countries to leverage it for their economy to be more competitive with US at least.
Saudi Arabia has its own bunch of issues with democracy (there is none, imagine), human rights (surprise), a war with neighbouring Yemen (sounds familiar?), but for some magical reason no one cares and alienates Saudi Arabia, and everyone is very forgetful and blind about their issues and doesn't interfere.
People's thoughts are literally tunnelled.
For comparison, consider Iraq's attempt to annex Kuwait in the 90s. The world absolutely considered it a five-alarm fire, with the West immediately planning for war and even China and the Soviet Union authorizing a retaliatory blockade. Most people genuinely and strongly feel that the return of territorial conquest as a common practice would be a disaster for the world.
> “there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2"[1]
> “We will bring an end to it.”[1]
> “I promise you: We will be able to do it."[1]
Imagine if they did take credit for this, Russia could respond with nukes or chemical weapons. It could also bite them that deep in the cold of winter, when everyone is wearing coats in doors for months, that the Germans start to resent sending military equipment to Ukraine.
This act will put pressure on Ukraine. Also not super great for the environment. as well. Another often overlooked victim.
What makes it their gas?
People voted and lived in a society where things were handled. You voted and kept your government because things were handled. You voted the way you did because you were satisfied you could keep yourself warm in the winter at a fair price. Eventually, you consider that right yours, since it was described as something you have access to.
Then suddenly someone you voted for decides, "hey, I know my party ran on getting that pipeline approved, and we invested in green energy as a certain ratio based on getting this gas to you when you need it, but guess what.... We've changed our mind. There are outside things more important than your ability to heat your home for a price you can afford."
I'd consider that the politician turning off my access to affordable life sustaining gas.
Just pointing out that it isn’t like you’re talking about your country’s national reserves that are being sold elsewhere instead of to you.
I don’t mean to sound disparaging but a good set of winter clothes will ensure survival through the winter better than whatever gas/price ratio you feel entitled to.
They did after the cold war.
The next question is, who did it? It doesn't seem like something in Russia's interest, they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved and operational. They invested huge sums of money to build it after all. So was this an EU country? The USA? The Ukraine doesn't have resources in the Baltic, right?
That's an intriguing mystery.