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 -
The US did it. They wanted to punish Russia and take pressure to cave off of German politicians.
The Swedish Security Service is doing an investigation, they've confirmed it was a detonation. So Methane Hydrate plugs are out.
The other European countries you mentioned don't have teams trained to do exactly this sort of thing. The US does. They are just way ahead of everyone else at undersea operations.
There's no evidence of China being in the area. They could pull something like this off in the South China Sea, but the explosions happened just outside of Danish (Bornholm) territorial waters.
It's a heavily NATO controlled area. If the US didn't do it then they know exactly who did.
Other quotes in favor:
“one way, or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” - Victoria Neuland
"If Russia invades,” said Biden, “then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
Polish MEP & Former Defense Minister Radosław Sikorski tweeted out "Thank you, USA"
It's certainly possible that the US did it, but it feels like it would be a rather weird act to me. The US already has a ton of levers to pull to influence things in NATO countries, especially in the face of an active Russian invasion. So why would they take the diplomatic risk of physically blowing up the pipelines? Doing that feels like the act of somebody who fears that they have no other way to influence the situation. If the US did it, you'd have to wonder if somebody feels like the situation is slipping out of their control or something.
That's why my money is on one of the NATO baltic states having done it. It still feels a little high risk and desperate, but since they're already not the big dog on the block, they're at least not risking being seen as not as powerful as people thought. Of course, if one of them did do it, the US would probably have had to actively look the other way and not attempt to stop them or provide any information on it.
In fact, if the US did actively want to blow it up, it would probably be a better move to lean on one of those countries to do it and then look the other way afterwards.
The US has a lot of allies in the German government, but the German people don't care enough about Ukraine to freeze in the dark this winter.
Blowing up the pipeline takes pressure off of their allies in the German government since it's now impossible to reopen the pipelines.
The situation is slipping out of their control. They though that control of the global financial system gave them control over all governments. But it turns out that Europe needed to buy Russian gas more than Russia needed to sell it. The German government would likely have folded from domestic pressure if the pipeline was still an option in the winter.
It doesn't seem like a terribly popular view on here but I think you're totally in the right on this issue. Germany simply cannot cut off Russian fossil fuels without undergoing an economic contraction and reduction in quality of life so severe that the political system will be unable to prevent outsiders and nationalist politicians from gaining power. I pay a lot of attention to energy and fossil fuel issues and I really can't see any other plausible explanation for what's happening or why the pipelines were destroyed.
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe... still feels like a stretch though. Why do it now? Is there some active pressure on the German government now that I'm not aware of?
It all seems awful speculative. Like, maybe Germany will end up being critically low on energy this winter, but that's not established yet. Maybe they won't be able to think of any solution better than buying Russian gas after all, but ditto not established yet. Maybe they will / would have come under powerful enough political pressure to cave on that, but ditto. And maybe the US would be worried enough about Germany caving on this and unable to otherwise help them or pressure them to carry out a risky act of sabotage, but ditto.
Which all leads back to, why do it now, when the only possible benefit to the US is after 5 or so things all happen in the right way in the next 6 months or so? I'd buy it more if it happened after all of those things actually did happen and the German government was actively looking to cut a deal. It all feels a little loopy and desperate.
It's not speculative at this point. They know how much gas they typically burn for power and heating in the winter. They know that they don't have it.
It's already mid October. They certainly don't have any plan they can roll out in two months and people are going to be cold in December.
The German energy crisis isn't six months away. It's happening now.
https://apnews.com/article/business-germany-government-and-politics-0e2a5f4bb528bd71128c0278650a410c
[...]
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energy-crisis
https://www.spiegel.de/international/business/growing-energy-crisis-a-grave-threat-to-industry-in-germany-a-9152547c-a31d-483e-a70c-242c280cab23
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd read his comment as "the political class of Poland takes it for granted that the US did it".
He's the sort of person who goes to dinner parties with a lot of people who would know secret details. Presumably he's noticed that they don't seem confused or concerned about who did it.
More options
Context Copy link
My priors are distinctly that anything the US does in that part of the world, no matter how secret, is aided by Poland in some capacity.
How is a Polish MEP publicly attributing a secret US activity Poland aiding the US in said secret activity?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The quotes are pretty meaningless. "Bring an end to it" meant to get it decertified. And it wasn't said about Nord Stream 1. The Thank you, only implies that he believed that the US did it and is happy that (he thinks) they did. Just one person's opinion. As for heavily controlled, while its not an ocean, there is still a lot of water out there. A sub, or a nondescript looking boat with divers could go the area without attracting notice. Confirmed that there was an explosion != confirmed that someone planted explosives or used a weapon against it. And explosion is a rapid expansion of material, which can happen without C4, TNT, ect. The size of the explosion could be an argument against methane hydrates but not just that there was an explosion.
You changed detonation to explosion, then argued that explosion can mean anything.
But articles about the Swedish probe have been specifically using the word detonation. eg https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/nord-stream-leaks-detonation-sweden-probe
A detonation is a supersonic explosion from an exothermic reaction. They wouldn't have used that word for a methyl hydrate pipe burst.
That's a matter of opinion. Here's video of the quote.
https://twitter.com/realchasegeiser/status/1576413365127155712
When asked to explain how he'd end it he didn't say anything about decertification. He just gave an ominous "We will, uh, I promise you we will be able to do it."
The decertification explanation just sounds like his staff trying to walk back his threat.
I think you're underestimating the complexity and the likelihood of being caught. Multiple bombs at multiple sites. A very high risk operation for the Russians.
Sure, it could have been a frame job, but that's not the most likely option.
The Russians have been working on weird and wonderful new kinds of submarine; there was an incident a few years back where Sweden found evidence of a tracked submarine having crawled around the Baltic, and there's the Poseidon robot sub.
It's not obvious that anything found would be conclusively identifiable as Russian.
...A tracked submarine? As in, a sub with treads on it?
Yes - they found tracks on the seafloor in 2014.
The Baltic's quite shallow (average depth 55m according to WP), so normal subs have issues with accidentally crashing into the seafloor. A tracked submarine avoids this; it's already on the bottom. Tracks also, obviously, don't generate propeller noise, so listening stations set to detect normal subs won't detect them. Obviously, there are downsides as well (inability to manoeuvre in 3D being the most obvious), but for this kind of op it'd be ideal.
pretty sure the russians have been using tracked mini-subs since the cold-war days. I remember reading about something similar being used to fuck with the SOSUS net.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What jurisdiction does the US have re: certification of Nord Stream ? They can twist German arms, that's about it.
More options
Context Copy link
To be a frame job we have to actually pin it on someone first. We are not even to that point.
More options
Context Copy link
The "he meant I'd blow it up" explanation sounds like trying to fit in a more spectacular or otherwise preferred explanation in. Biden had been trying to get it decertified, and it was in fact decertified. Is it possible he meant something else? Sure. But there isn't any good reason to think so. And trying to get it decertified fits more with talking about it, than a covert operation that you would want to keep covert.
As for multiple bombs being difficult to keep completely secret, to the extent that's true it applies to everyone.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link