Europe used to buy a lot of natural gas from russia via these pipelines. Now that they're gone, they will have to buy from someone else. The united states has a lot of natural gas to sell them.

edit: nice stealth edit. the original comment was just "what would the motive be?" which imo is a perfectly fine question to ask. the "conspiratorial" line has me wondering though: what would a non conspiratorial theory be?

One of the NS2 strings is still operable, and Russia is still offering to sell gas to Germany through it.

That seems like an odd offer from a nation that allegedly attempted to destroy the pipeline.

Invading Ukraine and blowing up your most lucrative export relationships also seemed pretty odd to most observers. I don't really know how to judge what's "odd" anymore.

While this is true, it seems to be only incidentally true--i.e., the intent was to blow up all the pipes.

Both pipelines were not operating for a while. They’d be helpful after the war to get gas as reparations though.

The theory is that the US did a Cortez and burned the hypothetical escape route Europe had for its NatGas problem. Now they are committed to the Ukrainian cause because they won’t get their gas either way.

... but spectacularly failed to blow up one of the two Nord Stream 2 pipes.

Instead, they put two holes in one of them, and a hole in each of the two Nord Stream 1 pipes.

Lest anyone forget, Nord Stream 1 is the pipeline which Russia had been throttling and shutting off and on for months, before finally stating that it wouldn't be reopened until sanctions are lifted - which is obviously not going to happen anytime soon - while Nord Stream 2 is the brand new pipeline which Germany declined to authorize for use following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

As pointed out by Putin, that leaves Nord Stream 2 ready to start sending sweet, sweet Russian gas to Germany as soon as they say so.

Incidentally, the attacks were carried out just in time for the inauguration of the Baltic Pipe from Norway to Poland and close to its southward bend off Bornholm, in the Danish EEZ, AND half a kilometer from the SwePol cable between Sweden and Poland, in the Swedish EEZ.

I guess besides aiding Putin's stick-and-carrot gas policy in Germany, the US also wanted to send a really strong message to Ukraine-supporting Poland and NATO-hopeful Sweden.

> The theory is that the US did a Cortez and burned the hypothetical escape route Europe had for its NatGas problem. Now they are committed to the Ukrainian cause because they won’t get their gas either way.

That's pure bollocks because the pipelines through Poland/Belarus and Austria/Hungary/Ukraine still exist and work. They were able to handle the entire European gas supply before Germany decided to build NordStream to reduce the leverage of these transit countries.

I wasn’t endorsing the notion, but thats the motive being assigned when the US is blamed.

I wouldn’t say its an unrealistic POV though, Ukraine and Poland would likely block gas if the alternative was letting Russia win the war.

The point is to remove a direct source of gas. Just because there is an indirect source doesn't mean it's reliable or a full replacement; leverage can be exerted on those transit countries just as easily, or those countries may, on their own, decide to join Russia's economic sphere of influence.

-Eliminate any leverage Russia had with Germany and EU. -Supply more LNG from US

Biden publicly stated that he will shut down the nord stream if Russia attacked Ukraine[0], so he’s sticking to his word.

[0]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FVbEoZXhCrM

whether the US was involved or not, i hope people are starting to see what a dangerous idiot he is to have in power

that stupid smirk on his face really makes it look like he's eager to blow it up

especially compared to completely rational stable genius in the Kremlin, right?

what?

No one’s arguing that Russia is a rational actor. Wouldn’t you feel more comfortable if you had a commander in chief in the US who didn’t appear half senile?

To prevent Germany from caving to Russia in the middle of winter when it is suffering an extreme energy crisis.

Also to shift European dependence away from Russian gas and on to American LNG.

The gas storage is >95% full and it looks like households are reducing their gas usage significantly so far. So the outlook for this winter is not too bad. Unless something really big happens that changes this the situation is nowhere even close to being bad enough to cause any change in Germany's policy regarding Russia and Ukraine.

95% full is enough to last two months in an averagely bad winter.

That might stretch to 4 if you ration.

I hear this a lot, but my understanding is that shipping LNG across oceans is very inefficient and would require far more terminals to receive LNG than exist. My impression is it's not even close to a 1:1 substitution.

Nowhere near. Right now that's more of a Germany problem than a USA problem though.

America would like Europe to build more LNG terminals to accomodate its growing gas surplus but first investors will want to feel confident that that tap wont be switched on again soon coz LNG wont ever be able to compete with a pipeline.

Disrupting Nord Stream 1/2, which the US has wanted and been very explicit and vocal about since day one. Why? The theory goes that they want to sell gas to Europe rather instead of Russia. That seems plausible if not obvious, but what's definitely true in any case is they did not want Europe buying gas from Russia. The official propaganda is that it was for Europe's own security (which we see now is not completely invalid.)

Bringing Europe to heel.

Ask the British and French what sort of ally the US was during the Suez Crisis.

Since people don't seem to get it: Europe will now be an energy subsidiary of the US. When the next US president says that they need to contribute 4% of GDP to Nato it will come with the promise of an unpleasant winter if they don't.

> Ask the British and French what sort of ally the US was during the Suez Crisis.

The Suez Crisis is when the British, French, and Israeli governments conspired behind the back of the US to invade Egypt and install a puppet regime. With the goal of stealing their oil supply.

Pretty much the same thing Putin just attempted in Ukraine.

It's to Eisenhower's credit that he didn't back their immoral attack. And one of the big wins for the morality of US foreign policy in the 20th century.

> With the goal of stealing their oil supply.

And control of the Suez Canal...

Hah yes, of course, I deleted that part somehow.

True, with one tid bit: it was more about the Suez Canal then oil. Oh yeah, and the US was pissed not because of the conspiracy but rather because it interfered with US plans. And because the US didn't get any of the spoils if it would have worked out.

> And because the US didn't get any of the spoils if it would have worked out.

That may be true of some people in his administration but I don't think that was Eisenhower's view.

>It's to Eisenhower's credit that he didn't back their immoral attack. And one of the big wins for the morality of US foreign policy in the 20th century.

Oh wait, you're seriously using a moral argument about the cold war. Let me laugh harder.

The bigger issue was how Egypt unilaterally seized the Suez Canal Company (jointly owned by the British and the French). Egypt then banned Israel from using the Straits of Tiran for shipping, effectively imposing a blockade. Attempting regime change was likely unwise, but all three countries were quite thoroughly provoked by Nasser.

> ...all three countries were quite thoroughly provoked by Nasser.

FYI "provoked" is the exact word used by many to rationalize Putin's invasion of Ukraine. One could just as easily say Nasser was provoked to his actions by decades of foreign domination and exploitation.

This stuff is complex but at the end of day those three countries were clearly wrong to invade a sovereign country.