None of the explanations makes a lot of sense to me. Either there was a very weird and unlucky combination of things that created an accident or accidents or someone took an action that doesn't make a lot of sense IMO, or someone stepped up and managed to pull something off that would seem beyond their capabilities.
Ships and aircraft of various countries were near the area at times before the explosion but that's pretty meaningless. The Baltic has a lot of civilian and military traffic it isn't some obscure patch of distant Ocean that no one really cares about.
Theories -
1 . Russia did it -
They certainly had the capability. Wouldn't even need to put a ship or sub or aircraft anywhere near where the explosion happened, they could transport explosives through the pipeline. They could of course just turn it off (and in fact had done so for Nord Stream 1 (2 was shutdown on the Germany side). They were not getting any revenue from the pipelines anyway. OTOH that was partially their choice (they shut down #1) and while there prospect fro revenue in the future was dim, it wasn't zero so you would think they would hold up some hope. A 10 percent chance of many billions is worth a lot of money. Why would they do it? Well they might avoid liability for not meeting contractual obligations. Could be a "burn your ships" or "burn your bridges" type of action showing contempt for the west and internally making an internal political signal that there can be no backing down. Could be a threat that other important pipelines and at sea infrastructure are vulnerable. Could be an attempt to make people think the US did it to try to sew division within NATO. Could be an attempt to block the Germans fro musing the part of the pipeline in German waters for an offshore LNG terminal.
2 - Anti-war Russian saboteurs did it -
From a perspective of motivation this perhaps makes the most sense. Perhaps an anarchist anti-war and anti-government group, trying to harm Russia. But they are the least likely to have the capability. I doubt they could pull off getting to the site of the damage with a large explosive. Maybe they had people working in Gazprom and sent explosives through the pipeline? That's possible but it seems unlikely they would have that access.
3 - Germany did it -
All the theories seem unlikely to me (although it did off course happen, so something unlikely happened) but this perhaps the least likely. Like Russia they could destroy it through the pipeline without needing to get close to the area of the explosion. But Germany while they decertified Nord Stream 2, actually wanted to continue to get gas from Nord Stream 1 for a time. Also they might use the parts of Nord Stream 2 in German for an offshore terminal (not sure if the plan was to use 1 or 2, but eventually both could have been used). Why would they do it? The government could have thought that they may face pressure to open up Nord Stream 2 this winter, and didn't want to go back on their decision to close it so they closed off that possibility. But than why also blow up Nord Stream 1. Some faction in the intel services or some saboteurs who worked for Nord Stream AG? Not impossible but it also seems one of the least likely answers.
4 - US did it -
Why would they do it? Well there could have been a thought that Germany would cave on allowing Nord Stream 2 operations and this closes that option. Maybe 1 was hit as well because the Russians could always decide to send gas that way and the Americans didn't want the Germans buying Russian gas? Also the US supplies LNG, while currently the exports are at capacity since the Freeport terminal explosion, there may be the thought that NG prices generally and specifically LNG would go up with an exploded major pipeline, and/or that Germany would be more locked in to buying US LNG in the long run. But it would require an extraordinary amount of willingness to take serious diplomatic risks, for a pretty modest gain.
5 - Ukraine did it -
It would lock out the possibility of Russia receiving funds from selling gas through the pipelines. Also maybe they could hope Russia would be blamed. Still this seems one of the least likely possibilities. Russia wasn't getting any revenue through those pipelines at the moment and it seems unlikely they would ever get revenue through #2. Ukraine would seem to have less ability to pull it off than the other countries listed, they aren't near the pipeline, and their countries resources are going in to the war effort. And the risk would be enormous. There is a good chance it eventually would get out and some chance it would get out quickly, which could devastate support for Ukraine within Germany and harm support elsewhere, and that support is very important to them. The gains would be very small compared to the potential harm.
6 - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Poland did it -
They have easy access to the area and a strong dislike for Russia. But while their downside isn't as large as Ukraine's it still seems too reckless. I can see them taking the risk for an action that would at one stroke mean Russia's defeat (if any such action existed) but not for such modest potential Russian down side. It doesn't really impact Russia's war.
7 - China did it -
Maybe they wanted to make things even crazier for Europe and hoped the US would be blamed? This is another one of the least likely possibilities IMO.
8 - Some other country did it - Who? Why? Can't think of any scenarios that seem to make much sense.
9 - It was an explosion caused by underwater live munitions from previous wars. Apparently there were such munitions near the Nord Stream 2 breach. But what would cause them to shift to where the pipeline is and blow up now? Also it seems a Nord Stream 1 breach was not near any known location of underwater munitions.
10 - Methane Hydrate plugs - See https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html
Such plugs are apparently more likely to form when the gas is sitting in place, like it was in Nord Stream. And they could cause pipeline ruptures. But both pipelines at pretty much the same time? Also unless there was more than the normally very low level of oxygen in the pipelines (which is monitored to avoid corrosion and at higher levels combustion risk) that would allow for combustion I don't see how you would get explosions as large as those that were detected.
11 - Other - Different causes for each pipeline (different countries sabotaged each one, or one was an accident and one was sabotage), eco-terrorism (would they have the ability and would they want to release that much methane), aliens, etc. No real reason to seriously consider any of these without some specific evidence. They are all a bunch of wacky theories, that I'm not taking seriously. Something I haven't even considered? Well of course that's possible but what?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
According to russia, because of sanctions. If german politicians were fighting tooth and nail to keep them open, they would have tried to lift the sanctions, as russia unsubtly demanded.
You'd have to go pretty far down the pro-ru rabbit hole to believe germany is close to reopening, even karlin doesn't believe that. In the beginning, putin and pro-russia folks could reasonably believe the gas blackmail would work, but events have not supported that view (and putin closing NS1 is a result of that miscalculation).
Anyway, the original point is, if germany is insignificant, then so is their non-functioning pipeline.
Just spitballing, maybe we can switch the motives, actors and consequences of the different theories around. Did ukraine blow up the pipeline to give russia no way out, weakening the russian peace party, so they can kill more russians ? Makes no sense. What assumption did we miss?
Blowing up the pipeline is blowing up peace. But is it the peace after germany begs for gas, or after russia begs for euros? Which side is closer to breaking? If you believe germany is, germany’s allies are likely culprits, to avoid a pro-russian peace. If you believe germany is ukraine’s firm ally/not breaking, then blowing up the pipeline actually reduces ukraine’s leverage against russia, and makes an advantageous peace more unlikely for the west and the russian peace party. If you believe russia is closer to breaking, then it’s a pro-war party that doesn't like the pro-ukrainian peace, ie putin.
Or I can have a look at my energy bills. These events aren't some far away theoretical debate. Just received notice that my bills are likely going to go up 50-70% in the coming months and then who knows what. It is not even cold here yet.
Direct German support is irrelevant, but European sanctions on Russia are definitely very very relevant. Selling gas and oil to Europeans have been massively profiting Russia since the war began and allowing them to fund the war as well as an economic transition towards the East. Getting rid of this lifeline is crucial for Ukraine otherwise they are fighting a war of attrition where the other side just makes more and more money from the situation.
You make a strange assumption here and then base your whole next paragraph on this assumption. Ukrainian hardliners do not want any peace that any Russian leader can put their signature and survive. Such a thing does not exist and they know it better than anyone. What "peace party" are you imagining that can sign away Crimea? Ukrainians know that the only way to really achieve their aims is the maximalist way. Russia must be thoroughly destroyed economically, socially and politically. There is no other way out.
The state will likely pay for it, sadly. We'll end up buying gas at astronomical prices to keep industry and the population isolated from any problems, despite it not making any economic sense, ie, we would get more out the money if we reduced gas consumption for a couple of years by an amount close to russia's share of the market, and just spent it directly. I think developed economies are very resilient to this kind of schock, if you let markets do their work. There's a lot of slack. Just heat one or two rooms instead of the whole house this winter etc. It's the obvious solution, although I admit I have a spartan disposition.
If the frontline stabilized, putin was removed and his successor said, 'we just want peace and to keep crimea, Ukraine can join nato', then if nothing happened, support for ukraine would drop .
They already are. Amounts in the range of tens of billions are already flying around trying to plug the holes. But it is about fundamental real scarcity, so money printing can only shift the affects. I don't expect to literally freeze in the winter, but more likely to become unemployed. I find the focus on warming the households pretty insane when we seem to take it for granted that half the industry will just casually go bankrupt. Another artifact of being ruled by the laptop class?
This winter?. Lets say we manage to barely get through this winter with severe rationing of the stocks. Then what? LNG infrastructure will take years to build and it will deliver much more expensive energy anyway. Building nuclear is out of question and takes forever in any case. Renewables are a joke.
And then they would attempt to take Crimea anyway? Did you see any hint at all on the Ukrainian official's side that they are willing to let it go?
More importantly, if things got so bad for Russia then why would the Americans just stop with a territorial reset? US hasn't spent close to 100 billion dollars on this war because they love Mariupol. Why not force Russia to pay massive reparations? Nuclear disarmament? Ejection from the UN Security Council? Another series of separatist rebellions in Caucuses? Kazakhstan in NATO? The possibilities are truly endless.
You are keeping to a faulty assumption that all that happened in the last year was some senseless invasion of some shithole Soviet factory towns. The US senses real blood in water to take down Russia as an opponent forever. This war has become truly existential for Russia and they might very well lose it. There is no easy exit Russians can take anymore.
They idled industry during covid, and the state payed for that. No one got fired then. Sadly.
Nuclear bans, fracking bans, limited gas exploitation in holland etc are largely self-imposed. If it got bad, those decisions would be reversed. Even the slowness of building a nuclear power plant is mostly political. Nuclear plants take 16 years on average to build, but Japan builds them in four.. If you went by averages, you would have predicted it would take 10-15 years to come up with a covid vaccine. Building LNG terminals, same thing. My only worry is that the state will so distort the incentives that the urgency will not come through.
Then good luck to them fighting an attritional war against russia without american weapons and european money.
Russian officials still claim maximalist goals in Ukraine, ukrainian statements likewise don't mean anything, they're boistering, refusing the opposition's offer, trying to anchor the negotiation to the most favourable starting position.
If western leaders are as bent on russia's destruction as you say, then russia is cooperating massively. It's russia's own fault, they started it, and they keep escalating a losing conflict. Putin didn't have to declare mobilization and annex the provinces. If russia started behaving like it has lost, western doves would win the debate, no matter what some hawks in washington and warsaw want.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link