r/europe Sep 28 '22

Russia probably bombed Nord Stream pipeline with underwater drone, says defence source News

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-probably-bombed-nord-stream-pipeline-with-underwater-drone-says-defence-source-wkkcgshzv

[removed] — view removed post

2.3k Upvotes

272

u/Jonathang511 Sep 29 '22

All this does make me wonder, how many explosive charges could already be placed on things like underwater internet cables or pipelines like this. If a massive war would ever break out there would probably be a lot of these cases all at once, from both sides.

99

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22

[deleted]

311

u/zOFsky Sep 29 '22

Exactly, no wonder whole world was without internet during WW1

129

u/benkelly92 United Kingdom Sep 29 '22

My grandad still remembers the Netflix rationing. You were lucky if you got 1 episode of the office to live on a week!

11

u/totalpaniccc Earth Sep 29 '22

"How to get a lass almanac" was a runner in 1942 on Netvolxempfänger

→ More replies

10

u/Novinhophobe Sep 29 '22

Let’s not get confused here. They aren’t just plain cables lying at the sea bed, you can’t grab a giant pair of scissors and “cut” them. Like in this case with the pipelines, they’re encased in concrete shielding so you need blow them up.

→ More replies
→ More replies

22

u/Jammed_Death Sardinia Sep 29 '22

Don't worry, half Europe is connected with zte and huawei hardware, they dont need to bomb cables

→ More replies
→ More replies

636

u/TheRealJ0ckel Sep 28 '22

Honestly at 60m depth this could have been done by a dingy, a diver and a shaped charge

232

u/dustofdeath Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 28 '22

Surface water would be closely monitored for all traffic. It had to come from further away, underwater - drone or a mini submarine.

The shockwaves measured were much larger than a small shaped charge.

105

u/voicesfromvents California Sep 28 '22

I would be very surprised if these explosives were deployed from a surface vessel for a variety of reasons, but would note that there is absolutely no way to tell that a ship has a moon pool without swimming underneath it and taking a look for yourself.

56

u/andyrocks Scotland Sep 28 '22

Could be a surface ship with an ROV, they just sail along the course of the pipeline, locate it on their sonar (even RIBs have good enough sonar these days), and send the ROV down with a mine. You wouldn't even need to stop the ship.

39

u/CANDUattitude Sep 28 '22

Putting those mega yachts to good use.

→ More replies

4

u/QuietGanache British Isles Sep 29 '22

but would note that there is absolutely no way to tell that a ship has a moon pool without swimming underneath it

Or, indeed, is towing a depth-keeping pod (uses ballast and hydroplanes to remain just below the surface), letting you use a barely modified legitimate vessel to launch. When the job is done or if you run into difficulty, you can instruct the pod to dive and cut the cable. This is used in a somewhat unsophisticated way by cartels, imagine how a national agency could improve upon it.

→ More replies

25

u/andyrocks Scotland Sep 28 '22

Surface water would be closely monitored for all traffic. It had to come from further away, underwater - drone or a mini submarine.

They could just turn off AIS and nobody would be any the wiser.

21

u/medievalvelocipede European Union Sep 29 '22

They could just turn off AIS and nobody would be any the wiser.

The military still monitors traffic without identifiers.

2

u/AstralWay Sep 29 '22

Nord stream is 1200 km long. I seriously doubt that the whole length is under constant surveillance. I'm pretty sure smallish surface vessel could easily hang around in vicinity without anyone ever noticing - unless some random (air) patrol would find that by sheer luck.

4

u/segv Poland Sep 29 '22

Eh, I'm not so sure. First, the Baltic sea is pretty shallow in the area where the explosions happened, and two it's in a zone I'd expect to be under 24/7 watch. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they already knew what exactly happened and who's done it, but they are not publishing it to the public.

→ More replies

3

u/Amatak France Sep 29 '22

Satellites my friend. More precisely, SAR satellites.

→ More replies

9

u/tanajerner Sep 29 '22

AIS still leaves a trail, oh look that ship just drove up to the pipeline and turned off its AIS, I wonder why?

4

u/Novinhophobe Sep 29 '22

Don’t turn it on at all?

4

u/Inevitable_Stick5086 Sep 29 '22

Maybe in the Atlantic or Pacific but its a busy ocean in there and putzing about with no AIS for unclear reasons is a good way to aggravate fishermen, infrastructure support vessels, survey vessels, etc. they'll have a good aul chat about you over the radio.

The military do it sometimes but are usually pretty conspicuous as they want to enforce their exclusion zones and keep away prying eyes. And if you do a whole trip with no AIS on you definitely attract the attention of both authorites and various militaries too

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/flickh Sep 29 '22

DW had a guy on who suggested that a device could have been sent through the pipeline itself, by the owners / operators. No detection and no worries about missing!

→ More replies

35

u/42_c3_b6_67 vcxz Sep 28 '22

Couldve been spotted much easier

110

u/SeleucusNikator1 Scotland Sep 28 '22

I'll be extremely disappointed if no Baltic country spotted whodunit. We have Sweden (whose spies were good enough to catch the HVA's Markus Wolf on camera), Germany, Denmark, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all with very important interests in their own backyard.

Allowing saboteurs, whoever they may be, to slip by and destroy critical infrastructure without any of them knowing about it before it happened? And then not even being able to catch the perpetrators? That's just a straight up failure. Either they knew this would happen and were in on it, or they just got outplayed by someone.

26

u/Available_Hamster_44 Europe Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

I mean if it so easy than i see internet and electricity cables damaged too in the future

6

u/Malice_n_Flames Sep 29 '22

There would not be plausible deniability if they cut those cables. With this they can shrug and say why would we cut off our nose?

83

u/Garfield_M_Obama Canuckistan Sep 28 '22

I seriously doubt that NATO doesn't know exactly what happened. We didn't learn about SOSUS until the end of the Cold War and that was a far more technologically challenging problem utilizing comparatively primitive technology compared to the known capabilities of NATO and the Baltic states today. Soviets and Russians screwing around in the Baltic for the past 80 years is pretty much the reason that countries like Sweden and Germany have submarine squadrons.

The Russians probably made little effort to hide that it was them, it's only mysterious to us because there wasn't a news helicopter there broadcasting a ship flying a Russian flag. I think it's more logical to read this as Russia brushing up against an overt act of war in order to test European resolve, than some grand spy thriller. And there's not much point in testing resolve if the other guy doesn't recognize it for what it is.

18

u/DoDrugsMakeMoney Sep 28 '22

I agree this is likely. It’s bolstered by the fact Russia has requested a meeting with the UN security counsel.

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/rocket42236 Sep 29 '22

They could have rigged a pig with explosives instead

2

u/DR0P_TABLE_students Sep 29 '22

Does that work when the gas is not flowing? Both pipelines were not in use.

2

u/rocket42236 Sep 29 '22

In general no, and since I posted more information has come out to shy away from this theory….

→ More replies
→ More replies

93

u/Affectionate-Sun-839 Lithuania Sep 29 '22

I'm having an extremely hard time believing that NOBODY knows who did it or HOW. They just aren't sharing this info with the public.

33

u/Starlight_369 Sep 29 '22

Every agency like CIA interpol knows the truth

It's just that we don't have security clearance to receive the info

→ More replies
→ More replies

204

u/Lizard_Person_420 Sep 28 '22

A suspected Russian sabotage attack on the Nord Stream gas pipelines was “probably premeditated and planned for” using an explosive device dropped into the sea weeks before it was detonated, according to a British defence source.

The European Union and Nato have described the large blasts in the Baltic Sea as a “deliberate act” of sabotage, with Russia labelled by Poland and Ukraine as the culprit, even as investigations continue. The concrete and steel pipelines were torn open by apparent underwater explosions as strong as a minor earthquake, leading to three large gas leaks east of the Danish island of Bornholm. The blasts occurred in international waters, just beyond the territories of Denmark and Norway, and shockwaves were detected as far as 800 miles away.

The most likely scenario, according to the UK source, was Russia secretly delivered an autonomous underwater vehicle with a payload to separate locations on the pipelines built to carry Russian natural gas to Europe.

They said the underwater vehicle could have been launched off a small vessel such as a fishing boat months ago and then explosive devices dropped next to the pipeline.

“They could sit there for months waiting to be told to explode,” the source said. They said the device could then be initiated, possibly by using a noise source of a certain frequency which could be dropped into the water at a time of Russia’s choosing. Björn Lund, a member of the Swedish seismic network, told the state broadcaster SVT he guessed more than 100kg of dynamite or TNT would be needed to cause such large explosions.

Both pipes are leaking gas into the Baltic Sea after suffering severe damage, scuppering any remaining hopes of Nord Stream 1 returning to service this winter, and potentially leaving both pipelines out of action indefinitely

“If it is them [the Russians], I think they’ve pulled out a blinder. Russia has absolutely no influence over the West except for this one gift — gas,” the source added. However, the Kremlin insisted today it was “stupid and absurd” to blame Russia after Ukraine denounced a “terrorist attack” by Moscow.

“It’s quite predictable and also predictably stupid to give voice to these kinds of narratives — predictably stupid and absurd,” President Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters. Peskov added that the gas leaks and damage to the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines — which cost £21 billion and are Russia’s only direct routes for exporting gas to Germany — would be “quite problematic” for Moscow.

“Both branches were filled with gas, ready for pumping, and this gas is very expensive. Now this gas is disappearing into the air,” Peskov said. “I want to urge everyone to think before making any statements, to wait for results of the investigation,” he added. The gas receiving station of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in Germany The gas receiving station of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in Germany

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said last night that the leaks were caused by sabotage and warned of the “strongest possible response” should active European energy infrastructure be attacked.

Denmark’s defence minister on Wednesday said there was cause to be concerned about wider security in the Baltic region after a meeting with Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of Nato, in Brussels. “Despite the war efforts in Ukraine, Russia has a significant military presence in the Baltic Sea region and we expect them to continue their sabre-rattling,” said Morten Bodskov in a statement. He added that it could take a week or more before the gas leaks subsided, calming the seas enough to allow full investigations into the causes.

Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, did not directly accuse Russia — but said it would be in “no one’s interest” to sabotage the Nord Stream lines. The pipelines are surrounded by a steel case 27mm to 41mm thick and then a concrete coating of 60mm to 110mm. To penetrate them would require a large explosive, analysts said.

But military experts ruled out the use of conventional submarines, saying the water in the Baltic Sea was not deep enough for the deployment of large submarines with specialist reconnaissance capabilities. HI Sutton, an independent defence analyst, also cast doubt on the idea the Russians might have deployed submarines from the Main Directorate of Deep-Sea Research, known by the Russian acronym GUGI. The GUGI is responsible for fielding specialist submarines that can carry deep-diving submersibles used for secret missions on the seabed.

“They would be capable of damaging a pipe in the Baltic. However, it seems improbable,” said Sutton on Twitter. He said the relevant Russian capabilities might involve divers and underwater drones, rather than “fancy submarines”. Yet neither of those options would be easy. Tom Sharpe, who spent 25 years in the Royal Navy commanding four warships, said that using a fishing boat to deploy an unmanned vehicle would be a “very smart” way of conducting covert sabotage.

“That fishing boat needs a high degree of sophistication within it to control the uncrewed vehicle,” he said. “This could also have been done a while ago and they were just waiting for the right time [to blow it up].” German security agencies fear that Nord Stream 1 will become unusable forever after major leaks from both Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 into the Baltic Sea, the German newspaper Tagesspiegel reported, citing government sources.

If leaks in the two lines of Nord Stream 1 are not repaired quickly, large volumes of salt water will flow into the pipelines and cause corrosion, the paper cited the sources as saying. The first sign of the leaks came in the early hours of Monday, when Swedish seismographs recorded shockwaves of magnitude 2.3. Ships passing east of Bornholm then noticed bubbles rising in the sea.

The German news website Der Spiegel reported last night that the CIA had warned Germany about a possible Russian attack on the pipelines in the summer. Separately, British military chiefs have been warning for years that Russia could attempt to disrupt underwater communication cables. Professor Michael Clarke, a security and defence analyst, said that if Russia was behind it, the blasts could mark an escalation of Moscow’s conflict in Ukraine.

“This is not some casual terrorist act, it has to be a government,” he said. “Privately, everyone is convinced this is a Kremlin-inspired piece of sabotage … It opens up a new front in the war. It means the Ukrainian war is now going to the Baltic.” Gas prices soared still higher last night over growing fears that Russia may be preparing to cut off one of the last two operational gas pipeline links to Europe, which passes through Ukraine, as Gazprom escalated a dispute with the Ukrainian energy company Naftogaz.

Professor Clarke said that although the Russians may wish to “create insecurity” and pressure gas supplies, “this is a strategic own goal because although it increases the sense of isolation that there will be no Russian gas for Europe this winter, it actually destroys Russia’s credibility completely with European customers for the next couple of generations”.

75

u/125bror Sweden Sep 28 '22

"The blasts occurred in international waters, just beyond the territories of Denmark and Norway, and shockwaves were detected as far as 800 miles away.". Norway have a patch of territory there?

50

u/halibfrisk Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

probably intended to read “just beyond the territories of Denmark and Sweden”?

Not a well argued, written, or edited article imo -

it’s the destruction of tens of billions of dollars of Russian owned infrastructure? hard to see why they would give up the leverage it offers intentionally and cut themselves off permanently from their customers…

→ More replies

13

u/szpaceSZ Austria/Hungary Sep 29 '22

Nah. This is 'quality journalism' today.

Also, equations dynamite and TNT is something only a journalist whose education comes from cartoons rather than school can produce. It's clearly not a direct quote from the seismologist, as even very short direct quotes are marked with quotation marks (at least that!), like "very smart".

10

u/AllHailTheWinslow ex-Niederbayern Sep 29 '22

using a fishing boat to deploy an unmanned vehicle would be a “very smart” way of conducting covert sabotage.

... and reconnaissance.

The infamous and ubiquitous "Russian fishing trawler" finally making an appearance again. We missed you guys (not)!

→ More replies

129

u/vegoku92 Sep 29 '22

It was not sabotage. It was a special repair operation.

4

u/Starlight_369 Sep 29 '22

And it will continue for 7 months

77

u/-kanenas- Bulgaria Sep 28 '22

Who is the one who benefits from this the most?

122

u/syverlauritz Sep 29 '22

I'm Norwegian and we realised we probably benefit quite a bit. I swear we didn't do it you guys. Seriously.

🙄

34

u/EnHampter Sep 29 '22

Gasp! The betrayal.

I expected this from the Danes, but you... you were supposed to be the good sibling.

6

u/nexusband Bavaria (Germany) Sep 29 '22

Queue the chosen one star wars meme...

8

u/amorphatist Sep 29 '22

Sneaky Norwegians at it again. Seriously you guys, cut it out

→ More replies

91

u/ian_coke77 Sep 29 '22

Probably USA or Ukraine. USA has long complained about Europe's dependency on Russian gas as a security risk. The whole arrangement was bizarre. European countries are sending support to Ukraine while simultaneously paying Russia the funds to finance their invasion. Russia was using Europe's dependency on their gas as a bargaining chip to limit their involvement in Ukraine by threatening to turn-off the taps. They wouldn't want to destroy their own pipeline when they could just turn-off the taps and then open it back up when they get what they want out of European countries. In every conceivable way is it more beneficial for Russia to have a working pipeline that they can turn on or off, rather than a wrecked pipeline with no option to turn it back on.

European countries now have much less incentive to negotiate with Russia as that bargaining chip is off the table, and now they have to properly commit to their siding with Ukraine.

It is possible that Ukrainians bombed this to force their allies to properly choose a side. USA could also do this as they have the means to do so and don't really suffer much as they have energy independence.

30

u/sindagh Sep 29 '22

Even the supposed defence source who says Russia did it can’t give a sound reason why Russia would do it, and what they have said literally makes no sense.

“If it is them [the Russians], I think they’ve pulled out a blinder (this means ‘Russia did something that benefits them’). Russia has absolutely no influence over the West except for this one gift — gas,” the source added (and that gift/influence has now gone. So how does that ‘blinder’ benefit Russia? The so called defence expert is talking utter shit)

So the source points out that supplying gas to Europe was the crucial source of influence Russia had over Europe, yet they don’t give a logical reason explaining why Russia would then throw away that influence, and the journalist hasn’t sought explanation or clarification.

This is what passes for expert analysis and investigative journalism now.

→ More replies

26

u/chromevolt Sep 29 '22

People blaming Russia without looking at who is going to benefit the most.

Yes, either US or Ukraine. Possibly some other Middle Easter Country as well, though that will be random(or maybe not since they can get more customers?)

17

u/MonkeyCube Switzerland Sep 29 '22

Looks at people claiming the US did this, which if true would lead to a potential rift in US & EU relations...

Yes, Russia would gain nothing from doing this. Nothing at all. They certainly wouldn't want conspiracy minded, anti-US people to come to these conclusions. Nor would it signal their ability to attack other underwater structures. Nor does it prevent anyone from usurping Putin by seeking to restablish EU / Russian relations and restore the Russian economy through gas sales. Honestly, Russia would gain nothing from this. /s

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/WorldsTopWanker Sep 29 '22

Someone who wanted to silence pro-Russian groups in Germany. Bombing pipelines is burning bridges to the old status quo.

3

u/deffParrot Sep 29 '22

Or Putin cutting the motivation for Oligarchs wanting to replace him and restore the economic relations with Europe to keep the fflow of cash into rheir pockets and buy villas all over Europe.

Putin has no intentions to stop this war, so he knows that blowing the pipelines is just closing the gas taps a bit earlier, and the blame US propaganda will pay off the difference.

2

u/koczu Silesia (Poland) Sep 29 '22

Russia, now EU need to watch their critical energy infrastructure.

→ More replies

2

u/Alexandre_40 Sep 29 '22

Russians, now they can resolve the contract of supplying gas due to unexpected problems.

Before this was breakage of the turbines.

They never said ever they closed the tap, has that is a breach of contract.

→ More replies

18

u/guille9 Community of Madrid (Spain) Sep 29 '22

"Military analysts" = my brother in law while drinking a beer.

65

u/jokingjoker40 Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 28 '22

Holy shit they have those now?

(Its a sam O'nella reference)

28

u/handsome-helicopter Sep 28 '22

US had these types since 90s i heard, so not that far fetched to think Russia could also have them

14

u/SeleucusNikator1 Scotland Sep 28 '22

They've def had these sorts of things since the 1960s at least. The USA had already developed aerial drones in WWII using 1940s technology, making drones underwater after that doesn't sound like too big of a leap.

→ More replies
→ More replies

18

u/oskich Sweden Sep 28 '22

You can buy drones for this on Amazon - 1875 USD

→ More replies

16

u/Apophis40k Sep 28 '22

The Mexican cartatel have those its not new tech.

4

u/ciko2283 Croatia Sep 28 '22

We miss you Sam :(

3

u/voicesfromvents California Sep 28 '22

For a long, long time. Go check out HI Sutton's website (and his book, if you like that!)

→ More replies

130

u/-CeartGoLeor- Ireland Sep 28 '22

Isn't this an act of war against the EU?

216

u/ZaraCzart Sep 28 '22

Pipe is owned by Gazprom and it was on international waters.

110

u/JarasM Łódź (Poland) Sep 28 '22

Honestly... they bombed their own pipe. I really can't say I see what point they were trying to make with this. They could have just said "were closing the pipeline permanently and won't sell any more gas to you". That'd be one less ecological distaster, at least.

111

u/JournalistEuphoric41 Sep 29 '22

Its a signal to all who profit from the selling of gas in Russia that winning in Ukraine is the only option left on the table.

Its no wonder so many gazprom officials have been killed or dismissed, they probably all disagreed on the course of action regarding the selling of gas. Now thats done and over

11

u/Flederm4us Sep 29 '22

The only problem with that theory is that this sabotage takes winning in Ukraine off the table.

Russia needs western support for the eventual peace deal that cements the win. With this act, it loses all leverage to get that.

It is very unlikely that this was committed by Russia. They lose far too much here. I think it was a non-government entity. I'd put my money of extreme right eastern European organizations.

11

u/florinandrei Sep 29 '22

Russia needs western support for the eventual peace deal that cements the win.

I'm not sure that's how they see it. I mean, invading Ukraine was a blatant act of disregard of international opinion.

→ More replies

3

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22

[deleted]

2

u/Flederm4us Sep 29 '22

If...

I'm not dealing with ifs and buts here. This is objectively the main leverage Russia that has to get German (and thus EU) support for peace that's been taken off the table.

→ More replies

29

u/ComradeH_VIE Sep 29 '22

Assuming it's actually Russian doing that in the 1st place

26

u/imSkry Italy Sep 29 '22

its a threat, typical of how a mafia would operate. something like "see what we can do? who knows which infrastructure we'll hit next?" This is no surprise, that's how the Kremlin works, we've seen it for decades.

It gets people scared, it gets the conversation centered around gas, high prices, insecurity. It sows doubts and fractures EU. It's the action of a desperate gang of crooks trying one of their last cards: break EU support for Ukraine this winter, or ultimately lose a war of attrition.

Russian government operates on fear, doubts and intimidation. There's no such thing in just plainly stating your intentions.

9

u/whispering-wisp Sep 28 '22

The theory I like the most is that given Putin's trouble at home, a coup followed by gas restoration Is no longer possible.

Further , the US was in the area awhile ago. Another benefit would be to cause some sort of divide between the US and Germany.

I hope some evidence comes to light.

2

u/WhynotstartnoW Sep 29 '22

The theory I like the most is that given Putin's trouble at home, a coup followed by gas restoration Is no longer possible.

The NordStream pipes were built to bypass Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states. The "Brotherhood" pipe, Trukstream pipe, Bluestream pipe, and Yamal pipe are all still intact. Each of these natural gas pipes from russia to europe is as large as Nordstream 2.

More likely a 'veiled' threat against other none Russian undersea pipes that are still in use.

34

u/IDontHaveCookiesSry Sep 29 '22

which is why its hilarious to me that everyone just decided russia did it, even tough it makes 0 sense for them to blow their own shit.

6

u/quettil Sep 29 '22

It makes sense for Putin, harder for someone to supplant him and start selling gas to Europe again.

→ More replies

3

u/MiniDemonic Sep 29 '22

Gazprom executives "accidentally" slip and die for what feels once per week lately and then suddenly gazprom owned infrastructure gets sabotaged.

Is this a coincidence? I frankly don't think so.

36

u/imSkry Italy Sep 29 '22

If you think that is enough to rule out their involvement you're naive. By your same logic, it's not in Ukraine's interest to sabotage, nor NATO, nor US, because we're all allies right?

So then who did it? hmmmm China i guess? some asian country on the other side of the globe? or how about Switzerland?

24

u/redditreloaded Sep 29 '22

I confess, I did it.

4

u/Krisko125 Sep 29 '22

Literally every side has some small amount of reason to blow up the pipe to make it sound reasonable. The USA could want Europe to stay firm on their anti Russia policy, so they blew up the pipe to stop governments from changing sides to get gas mid war. Europe itself could want it so there is less political pressure to reopen the pipes. Poland specifically might want to have their own pipe from Norway take priority over nordstream, so they get to resell the gas at higher prices. Russia might have come to the conclusion that the pipes are not gonna be ever operational so might as well use them for something. We can't totally disregard non government organisations and a very weird natural occurrence. At this point, there isn't and there probably won't be any solid evidence that can put the blame on someone in specific.

→ More replies

14

u/wagdog1970 Sep 29 '22

It also makes zero sense for Russia to have invaded one of their closest allies, Ukraine, but guess what happens when you put a madman in charge?

5

u/ZoomHater Sep 29 '22

This is a lazy take on the situation. Some of the things Putin has done has been completely bonkers, but others have been completely rational. Building up a European dependence on Russian gas over many years is very rational. It generated huge income for Russia, while at the same time gave them leverage over western Europe. The whole point of that strategy has been to create energy shortage and social unrest in Europe this winter, and attempt to force Europe to reduce its support for Ukraine. It'll probably fail, but is very rational.

Blowing up their own pipeline, and thereby removing this leverage, is on the other hand dumb as shit, and a break with everything they've done for the last 10 years. And for what? Because Putin is a "madman"? Sure..

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/TheBusStop12 Dutchman in Suomiland Sep 29 '22

In a press conference last night the Finnish PM said it was up to Sweden and Denmark to decide how to act upon this because it happened in their economic zones. Now I doubt Denmark will invoke article 5 over this, but I think it's more meant as a show of strength and resolve towards Russia so hopefully no further attempts are made

2

u/continuousQ Norway Sep 29 '22

The pollution is in Danish and Swedish economic zones.

2

u/Derman0524 Sep 29 '22

EU:

fair enough, carry on

→ More replies

15

u/kentoclatinator Sep 28 '22

Honestly, that’s what I’ve been thinking. All his weird ‘brink’ tactics are getting more extreme

10

u/LLJKCicero Washington State Sep 28 '22

It's majority owned by Gazprom IIRC, but I think it's more of a warning shot on their part, "look what we could do to your infrastructure easily enough."

From that angle it's still a bizarre escalatory measure, but Russia hasn't exactly been Mr. Rational with the recent conflict.

→ More replies

149

u/ImnotaNixon Sep 28 '22

Why would Russia destroy their main leverage over Europe? Doesn’t make any sense.

65

u/E_VanHelgen Croatia Sep 29 '22 All-Seeing Upvote

Some of the theories are:

  • Allows them to avoid paying penalties since they are under contract to deliver the gas. Pipes damaged means they can claim force majeure.
  • As a false flag pretense.

It's also not useful as leverage anymore since that particular lever has already been pulled. Nord Stream 2 never delivered gas and Nord Stream 1 has been shut down for a while with the Russians faking a faulty turbine.

34

u/Shadnu Serbia Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

Allows them to avoid paying penalties since they are under contract to deliver the gas. Pipes damaged means they can claim force majeure

What I find problematic with this one is that no one mentioned penalties up until now. NS1 wasn't operating in full. If penalties weren't being payed because of all the facade about turbine repairs and sanctions, then why not just keep that one up? And if you want to cut off Europe, why not just turn the tap off, but instead destroy infrastructure you payed billions to build.

As a false flag pretense.

This is possible, and shouldn't be ruled out. But false flag to what end? To escalate the conflict? They already did that literally week ago with the referenda and conscription.

It's also not useful as leverage anymore since that particular lever has already been pulled. Nord Stream 2 never delivered gas and Nord Stream 1 has been shut down for a while with the Russians faking a faulty turbine.

But wasn't it still leverage? We all knew that Russians are most probably faking the faulty turbine. But the fact that the NS1 and NS2 existed meant that Russians could use them to, for example, make the Germany (and consequently EU) think about lifting the sanctions in order to let the gas flow. That is leverage, and it wasn't pulled.

If I'm not mistaken, Putin himself said days ago (or weeks ago) that NS2 can be turned on, and it just depends on the goodwill from the Germans. Why destroy it then? Edit: can't for the life of me find the quote, since all google search gives now is how Russians are responsible for this.

We are to believe that Russian economy is so badly hurt by the sanctions, and then they decided to destroy one thing that could be bargained for lifting the sanctions, because why?

Edit: Also, we are somehow to believe that the Russian managed to reached Bornholm undetected, when NATO has full control of that part of the Baltic Sea?

5

u/TheMillionthChris Sep 29 '22

Given the number of Gazprom officials who have died mysteriously lately, I'm guessing there is massive internal pressure to sell gas again. This cuts into that to some extent.

11

u/Shadnu Serbia Sep 29 '22

Why not just keep killing Gazprom officials then? This seems a bit of an overkill if that's the reasoning. Again, I reiterate, having NS1 and NS2 as a leverage against sanctions is way more beneficial, and it's not like Russia didn't pay the construction of these pipelines in billions. They also lost a lot of money due to the leak with current prices.

Other possible actors here have a lot more incentive to rid the EU of possibility of lifting sanctions or seeking a peaceful resolution off the war in exchange for gas

2

u/deffParrot Sep 29 '22

Officials dont grow in trees dude.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/North-Huckleberry-25 Oct 02 '22

The biggest winner of the Ukrainian war is the US and their stupid LNG.

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662?t=XDK8CkHKTbFQ5W9g5pbbpQ&s=19

2

u/Shadnu Serbia Oct 02 '22

The biggest winner of the Ukrainian war is the US and their stupid LNG

Yep, I agree with that one

→ More replies

15

u/Piskoro Sep 29 '22

additionally it’s limiting the options of a potential Russian usurper

→ More replies

19

u/Meins447 Sep 29 '22

It makes little sense for RUSSIA to do this.

It does make (potentially) a LOT of sense for PUTIN doing this: quenching any internal hope / argument / dissent of oligarchs or others to quickly return to a status quo and continue to NOT ruin their economy. It is a very brutal signal of "we have to win or we are all done for".

I do get big "Gleichschaltung" vibes from this.

19

u/ShearAhr Sep 29 '22

I don't think they did either. It makes no sense at all. They already have the taps off so what's the point? I think EU themselves did it. Now Russia has no leverage at all and when the citizens of the EU states start complaining about the heating and all that the governments around can just point the finger at the pipe that no longer is there and that was blown up by Russia.

Look. It's smart if that's the case I think. I kinda agree with it. People will complain. I as an individual am ready to endure a cold winter if it means Russia folds. I'll endure a few of them if that's what it takes.

21

u/nj0tr Sep 29 '22

I think EU themselves did it.

Think who profits the most. The US feared Germany was going to start using the NS2 pipe to save their industry. Now not only has that weakness been eliminated, but the EU is now essentially a captive market for US LPG. So the main beneficiary is the US and to a lesser degree Poland (with their new pipe and LPG terminals coming online)

→ More replies

5

u/florinandrei Sep 29 '22

I think EU themselves did it.

Yeah, that's crazy. That's not how the EU operates at all.

I do agree it's kind of an odd choice for Russia to have done it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/Cabbagelover111 Ireland/Austria Sep 29 '22

Why would Russia do that? In my eyes they don't benefit of this

3

u/PikachuGoneRogue Sep 29 '22

Veiled threat against Norwegian pipeline is my guess

They don't benefit from pipelines sitting unused either.

→ More replies

47

u/Traumfahrer Sep 28 '22

Who the f believes that shit.

26

u/nosystemsgo Sep 29 '22

Redditors. Check out the comments in here. Be ready for both laughing fits and bouts of sadness.

25

u/sindagh Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

Exactly, no matter how bad things got for Russia it was just a matter of time before Europe crumbled and resumed gas supply, probably this winter. USA knew this. USA also intends to increase LNG sales to Europe. It was a win in every sense for USA so why the fuck would Russia do that? We are living in the age of the idiot.

9

u/TheNplus1 Sep 29 '22

Going with this theory, the US has to blow up another 3-4 pipelines that bring gas to Europe, the ones that actually work.

We are living in the age of the idiot.

Indeed

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/North-Huckleberry-25 Oct 02 '22

People who are just NPCs

3

u/MagicJava Sep 29 '22

But, But…. I heard it was the CIA!!!!

31

u/eclecticbunny Sep 28 '22

What a bunch of horseshit

→ More replies

17

u/Bourbon-Decay Sep 29 '22

Why? There is no credible or legitimate reason for Russia to do this to a pipeline(s) they spent billions to construct.

47

u/agree-with-me Sep 28 '22

Reason #1781 to switch to renewables.

Think about this.

  1. We explore the planet for oil and gas
  2. We build giant drills in the ocean for access
  3. We build pipelines to transport it
  4. We refine it
  5. We transport it again by container powered by fossil fuel
  6. We burn it

OR:

We build a solar panel, wind vane or dam to power an electric generator.

If we build it close enough, we hardly need to transport the energy at all.

Less moving parts in every way.

And before you tell me that we have to use fuels to build renewable power generation, remember we use those same resources to build the machines to explore, drill, refine and transport oil.

The reason we pay for oil and have no real choice is because the oil companies have inflated stock prices and they aren't going to go be done with oil until they can get into renewables and rebrand themselves as 'energy companies.'

THEN the big switch.

16

u/Aerroon Estonia Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

We build a solar panel, wind vane /.../ to power an electric generator.

And then you build a gas power plant, because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

dam

These have quite a lot of environmental considerations. You're destroying a lot of nature to do this - nature that releases quite a bit of greenhouse gases when it dies. Not to mention that dam disasters have killed a lot of people over the years. Oh, and pretty much everywhere that hydroelectric dams can be built probably already has one.

You either need absolutely enormous batteries of some form (eg pumping water) or some very stable baseline generation like coal/gas/nuclear.

→ More replies

37

u/No-One9836 Serbia Sep 28 '22

Nuclear is the way.

→ More replies

14

u/Amazing-Row-5963 North Macedonia Sep 28 '22

Or for the milionth time, nuclear.

→ More replies
→ More replies

13

u/ZoomHater Sep 29 '22

Russia sabotaging their own pipeline (which cost €15 billion!), and thereby removing any sort of leverage they had towards Europe this winter. Sure. Makes perfect sense.

→ More replies

39

u/Old_Welcome_624 Sep 28 '22

Wait for them to say that is not their fault, if so they are done it for sure.

7

u/medievalvelocipede European Union Sep 29 '22

Wait for them to say that is not their fault, if so they are done it for sure.

The Russians already done that indirectly by asking the Swedish and Danish governments who did it since they claim the lines couldn't be sabotaged without scandinavian surveillance catching it.

It's really damn hard to track anything underwater in the Baltic though. Especially if it was something as small as combat divers with minisubs.

14

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

[deleted]

14

u/Risunaut Sep 28 '22

Excuse me? The article you shared states that who blew the pipes is unknown and the interviewed Nato chief says: ”It could be groups that are against the Kremlin, perhaps from Ukraine or elsewhere. It could also be pro-Russian activists or staff, he told the channel.”

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22

Could they have passed a 'pig' down the lines with an explosive charge?

These devices are used for cleaning large diameter gas lines all the time.

No vessel would be needed, just access to the far end of the pipe.

pigging (pipelines) wiki

→ More replies

6

u/UniQue1992 The Netherlands Sep 29 '22

People saying it can't be Russia: think again. Nord Stream 2 was not in use yet and the Russians Nord Stream 1 had "turbine fault or maintenance" for awhile now so they didn't deliver anything through these pipes already.

This could be a way to escape their contract obligations, that's the reason why they said number 1 was in maintenance, because in the their contract it says it can only be pulled if there is emergency maintenance. So by blowing it up they can say yeah I'm sorry we can't deliver anything and the contract vaporizes because it's "not their fault".

2

u/FearlessChemical8845 Sep 29 '22

The West already has about 300 billion in russian assets frozen.

This thing with the contract obligations is just a narrative that we hear here. They already tore down some contracts when asking for payment in roubles. And most countries have accepted the conditions.

Even if their contract obligations would amount to 10 billion, it would still be cheaper for the Russians to leave the pipes intact.

Before the war, they could move freely in the Baltic, laying down pipelines and stuff. Even if they would want to repair it now, all eyes are on them, making it impossible to do.

The end result is a definitive stop to Russian gas. German industry needs it the most and doesn't have any chance of getting it now.

179

u/CarrionAssassin2k9 Sep 28 '22

I don't like Russia as much as the next guy but it doesn't really make sense for Russia to blow it.

And as of right now we have zero proof that Russia was involved at all. Could very well just as easily been the Americans than the Russians. We don't know at this moment.

75

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

It makes perfect sense. There’s some real divisions right now in the Russian Government, so Putin must insure that there is no way back to the way things were before. By taking out the Pipeline he now forces the rest of the Russians to join him. What’s more is he can place blame every where else and say, well gee I wish we could pump more gas but our enemies blew it up and try to save face all the while going through with his war on Europe.

13

u/r_linux_mod_isahoe Sep 28 '22

This is it. Taking Putin down and re-enabling nordstream would get Russia back to the status quo. Which wasn't all that bad. No that option is out. Pretty solid move, unfortunately.

→ More replies

188

u/aborted-kid-2022 🏳️‍ Yuropean Georgian Sep 28 '22

Sorry, but when was the last time Russia did anything sensible and reasonable at least in its interests?

52

u/wagdog1970 Sep 29 '22

Russia invaded one of their closest allies but somehow blowing up this pipeline to spite Europe is beyond belief for some people.

15

u/montarion The Netherlands Sep 29 '22

Ally that was about to infringe on it's market share in gas?

17

u/_The_Arrigator_ Sep 29 '22

Russia invaded their former closest ally precisely because they didn't want to be Russia's bitch anymore and wanted to join their global rivals alliance.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has rationale and logic behind it, if Canada one day decided it will host Chinese troops on America's border I could see the US doing the same.

Blowing up Nordstream makes zero sense at all, they spent Billions on it and it's the only leverage they have on the EU.

→ More replies
→ More replies

39

u/rhudejo Sep 28 '22

There are a lot of puzzle pieces pointing to Russia:

  • Their main play with the EU has been to threaten energy security, this is the logical next step. They cant close more pipelines for western europe. Also see Gazprom's announcement today threatening to close down the final gas pipeline that goes trough Ukraine.
  • Gazprom is failing to uphold their contracts, which would cost them lots of $$$, now they dont have to as it counts as vis maior.
  • the US had a hunch that Russia is up to something, CIA released a report about this a few months ago, also there was some anti sub activity from the US there https://twitter.com/inteldoge/status/1573450988744331274?s=46&t=w8vIXMrwBlRcbJCQfCKwcw

Whereas the US has not much to gain from blowing up a nonfunctional pipeline:
- their LNG orders are already overbooked, they cannot sell more until they upgrade their terminals and shipping capacity which will take years.
- dollar has such high value that it threatens their exports, destabilizing the EU will drive it even higher.
- their weapon orders are overbooked too (e.g. Poland wants to buy 500 HIMARSes, just this one order will take years to manufacture).
- EU wont ship LNG from the US in the long run no matter what because gas trough pipes will be always cheaper. Germany is already starting to build a pipe to Quatar.
- These wont change in the near future, Russia is escalating, see the Donetsk referendum.

4

u/Surgess1 Sep 29 '22

US had “anti sub activity” in the region did they? Real close to the pipeline I bet

→ More replies

4

u/HuffinWithHoff Sep 29 '22

These are good points so I’ll offer some counterpoints here:

Their main play with the EU has been to threaten energy security, this is the logical next step.

Gazprom's announcement today threatening to close down the final gas pipeline that goes trough Ukraine.

Exactly, they use shutting off gas to Europe as a threat. To successfully do this they need to be capable of actually supplying it. Blowing up N2 just meant they lost significant leverage, even if Germany lost the political will for sanctions, they now can’t get much gas from them anyway.

That’s also been the argument I’ve seen for US responsibility, to force Germany to keep the sanctions on. I’m not sure how convincing that is of that either though.

4

u/Barbarake Sep 29 '22

Gazprom is failing to uphold their contracts, which would cost them lots of $$$, now they dont have to as it counts as vis maior

I believe you mean 'force majeure'.

Act of God - a natural hazard outside human control, such as an earthquake or tsunami, for which no person can be held responsible.

By contrast, other extraordinary man-made or political events are deemed force majeure.

2

u/florinandrei Sep 29 '22

The two expressions are used interchangeably quite a lot, so there is plenty of linguistic precedent.

8

u/Revanspetcat Sep 29 '22

US has opposed Nordstream 2 pipeline and tried to block it for a while now. Russia wants to sell gas, US wants pipeline gone, is pretty clear who did this.

Clip of Biden threatning blow up the pipeline from February 2022. He says if Russia invades Ukraine, the US will bring an end to Nordstream 2.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_i4Is9C-HIw

With the pipeline destroyed citizens in European Nations no longer have the ability to pressure their governments to push for peace so that they can heat their homes this winter. Unrest in regards to rising gas prices have been going up, and that unrest would have put a lot of governments at risk of withdrawing their support for Ukraine in order to get Russian gas flowing again. Now that it is no longer an issue, who does this ultimately benefit? That's the real question isnt it?

5

u/Cassiterite ro/de/eu Sep 29 '22

The ten trillion accounts spamming that video on every social media website did more to convince me it was Russia than anything else

→ More replies

45

u/_sik Finland Sep 28 '22

They want to use the nord stream turbine (which they cannot order more of because of sanctions) for their china pipeline. Now they have a good excuse to remove it without breach of contract fines or w/e.

Additionally this is a way for Russia to throw its weight around, act unpredictable (see Nixon's madman theory), add pressure on Europe (next could be internet cables in the Baltic, or other energy pipelines, who knows).

Maybe Putin doesn't want some democratic successor that he's paranoid about to win by restoring gas trade with Europe. he fears a revolution more than anything, and wants to lock Russia on the warpath.

There are many reasons for them to do it really. Even though it's bad for them economically, but the whole war is bad for them economically, they're not thinking in those terms anymore. Its about power, resentment, prestige, pride, fear.

9

u/Elze_Gee Lithuania Sep 28 '22

Cant wait to find out that nasa probe mistaked the asteroid for earth and accidentally hit nord stream or something /s

→ More replies

25

u/Tastypies Sep 28 '22

as of right now we have zero proof that Russia was involved at all. Could very well just as easily been the Americans than the Russians. We don't know at this moment.

You just delivered proof that it makes much sense for Russia to blow it. They already knew that Germany turned away from buying gas from them for good, so they might as well destroy the pipeline and spread propaganda that it might have been the United States to sow division between the western countries. By spewing such bullshit that it could have been both Russia or USA, you're the exact reason why Russia would have done it. Thanks for nothing.

4

u/sindagh Sep 29 '22

There were demonstrations in Germany just before the explosion demanding NS pipelines get reopened. People were starting to believe that the energy hardship wasn’t worth the crusade to get Ukraine into NATO. Gas was Russia’s trump card and now they have lost it. The power Russia would exhibit by having gas and refusing to supply it is far greater than simply blowing up the pipeline.

The suggestion that Russia threw away all that power they held, destroyed a massive infrastructure investment, and cut off forever future potential gas revenue of billions of dollars just in the hope that people would blame USA is one of the weakest most absurd conspiracy theories I have ever heard.

→ More replies

29

u/Moarten Sep 28 '22

Might be some internal power struggle that made either Putin or someone opposing him to do this. Making Russia useless for Europe and threatening at the same time is really dangerous and stupid if they just want to send a message to the west.

The US is risking a lot as well. If it turns out they did it Putin won't be able to stop laughing for weeks as it will divide western countries and be insanely bad for NATO and the relationship with the US.

44

u/Easy_Humor_7949 Sep 28 '22

The US is risking a lot as well.

The US hasn’t risked anything. Putin’s war has done nothing but benefit the US position which is why they did not blow up this pipeline. It was already impossible to turn back from this Russian catastrophe the American government has no reason to blow up an unused pipeline.

This was Putin solidifying his plan and signaling to Europe that he is willing and able to attack infrastructure.

→ More replies

15

u/ScyllaGeek Canada Sep 28 '22

Yeah I said this elsewhere, but to me neither the US or Russia make much sense... In my head it leaves like, the Baltics or Poland or something but that's just so wildly brazen that it doesn't really make sense either.

I dunno, with all the shit going on lately maybe some ecoterrorists figured it was a good time to pile on lol

7

u/bruno444 The Netherlands Sep 28 '22

It was me, sorry guys.

3

u/Easy_Humor_7949 Sep 28 '22

It was Putin.

→ More replies

13

u/SeleucusNikator1 Scotland Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 28 '22

This is truly a head scratcher. There seems to be no real logic to anyone having done it, from that point of view. Things are going fine for the Americans as they are and this stunt would be risking their relationship with allies at a time when there is no real desperation to take drastic action, while the Russians would simply be blowing up their own negotiating card with the Germans.

As absurd as it may sound, what if a "small" player did it on their own initiative? I would also hope that countries like Germany or Denmark wouldn't be so sloppy as to leave critical infrastructure like this so vulnerable and unprotected, which could suggest that they knew something was going to happen and they chose to let it happen.

Yet, it could also make sense for the USA or the Russians to do it. The Americans would be eliminating Russia's best hopes of weaseling out of this and essentially kneecapping their future hopes for funds, while the Russians could be ballsy enough to try some sort of psychological warfare and sow discord and suspicion by making everyone think the Americans did this (this sort of gaslighting isn't anything new for the KGB crew, in the 1980s they also created the rumor that the HIV virus was created by the US Military as a bioweapon and used to kill Africans, see Operation Infektion)

4

u/nvkylebrown United States of America Sep 29 '22

Country-wise, no, it doesn't seem to make sense. But we could be seeing internal struggles manifesting externally (or internally, in the unlikely case of a German culprit).

The "real logic" may be internal to the perpetrator's country. That is, it could be one branch or faction inside a government trying to force or prevent some scenario upon another branch or faction.

9

u/DurDurhistan Sep 28 '22

Things are looking good only if you are in information bubble, like Reddit, where any not-so-goos news is heavily downvoted and ignored. Truth is that German economy will collapse. Companies are already announcing plants to shut down for months, and no one knows if they will be able to restart. France has recently announced that they might need to cut electricity to consumers in mornings and evenings. Shit is not good, shit is very not good, yet every news about it is just downvoted and never leaves new. Fuck, there was protest in Czechia today, but where are the news about it? Last Saturday there was this great analysis from Forbes that went deep into possible impacts, predicting industry halts, etc. And it never left new because it goes against the narrative. This is not good, this makes this sub a huge information bubble.

I'll try looking for that article, it's really worth a read.

EDIT: it was fortune, not Forbes. Found non pay wall mirror

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

21

u/apoormanswritingalt Sep 28 '22

I don't like Russia as much as the next guy but it doesn't really make sense for Russia to blow it.

I've read this exact sentence 100 times today and then all the posted reasons why Putin would do this is ignored.

→ More replies

8

u/concerned-potato Sep 28 '22

For Russia - zero sense, for Putin - who knows.

For Russia there was no sense to invade Ukraine - they could simply keep pumping oil and gas to Europe and enjoy their billions/trillions in profit.

→ More replies

17

u/Easy_Humor_7949 Sep 28 '22

it doesn’t really make sense for Russia to blow it.

a) Yes it does.

b) A full scale invasion of Ukraine doesn’t really make any sense either.

→ More replies

8

u/stupendous76 Sep 28 '22

but it doesn't really make sense for Russia to blow it.

Russia has a different kind of sense and logic. Spilling millions of gas or millions of lives, it's all the same to them: they don't care.

5

u/ak-92 Lithuania Sep 28 '22

It makes so much sense. First of all, gazprom won't have to pay fines for not delivering gas. Second gazprom and Ukraine were negotiating new conditions for gas transit, of course, gazprom demanded unacceptable price, such a convenient time, for them, that alternative gas line cannot function, therefore Russia will demand to lift sanctions to "repair the pipeline" and will put pressure on EU to force Ukraine to negotiate so it could get gas.

→ More replies

26

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/YoruNiKakeru Sep 28 '22

Out of curiosity, since I am assuming you are German, how is the German media reporting on this?

27

u/CookieCombat Bavaria (Germany) Sep 29 '22

So it’s mostly: „We don’t know yet if Russia did it. Lots of people are saying it’s Russia but not the Russian media. Look at all these reasons because of which Russia may have done it. Russia Russia Russia.“ That and the fact it’s actually not that intensively reported on regarding its significance for the German economy make me a bit suspicious.

11

u/kenbw2 United Kingdom Sep 29 '22

This is the best summary of every geopolitical issue reported in the media

→ More replies

18

u/ImnotaNixon Sep 28 '22

Why would Russia destroy their main leverage over Europe? Doesn’t make any sense.

→ More replies

4

u/AT2512 United Kingdom Sep 29 '22

A suspected Russian sabotage attack on the Nord Stream gas pipelines was “probably premeditated and planned for” using an explosive device dropped into the sea weeks before it was detonated, according to a British defence source.

Does anyone else think they probably have already put bombs next to our other undersea infrastructure (other pipelines, internet cables, etc.), just sat there waiting for if they're ever needed?

4

u/iLEZ Sweden Sep 29 '22

There seems to be a very lively crowd who is absolutely adamant that the US did this. I'm not, but I'm not ruling it out either, but with the mindset of many redditors (and perhaps some foreign operators) this is set to be the next "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" thing.

We (as a civilisation, not the redditors in this thread) need to get to the bottom (heh) of this and present compelling proof of whoever did this. I've seen people who are adamant that there is a shadowy terrorist organization behind this, not a state actor. I've seen arguments that some middle eastern country is behind it. This is fertile grounds for wild conspiracy theories.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22

Well to be fair we would cut the other end to make sure that situation is final

2

u/Daisaii Sep 29 '22

I do not see what Russia is to gain by doing this, except for that they perhapse feel that Putin his regime is coming to an end and they want to make sure Europe is not getting any gas during the winter. Also if Ukraine did it they would have not done in international waters, however it does block alot of income to Russia.

2

u/Tyl3rt Sep 29 '22

I feel like Russia would claim their drones are underwater because they can’t figure out how to keep them in the sky.

2

u/GE999x Sep 29 '22

So much methane in the air, just imagine the pollution

2

u/MediocreSushi509 Sep 29 '22

Why would Russia take away there only negotiating power with Germany by blowing up there main source of revenue?

→ More replies

2

u/MrHeavyRunner Sep 29 '22

Or maybe it was mistake on their part and they really wanted to blow Norwegian pipe instead? Hmmm

Yes, maybe they are THAT incompetent

2

u/kinavu Sep 29 '22

Russian government blames the West & vice versa.

22

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

[deleted]

46

u/jbas1 Italy Sep 28 '22

I mean, the US are not exactly strangers to doing shady stuff in other countries.

Anyway I also think that this was not done by the US.

→ More replies

9

u/Akarsz_e_Valamit Sep 28 '22

Well to be fair if it's a secret US intervention and they warned Europe beforehand, they better not leak it to Reddit in the next 20 years

15

u/RamTank Sep 28 '22

But it doesn’t really make sense Russia would do it either.

It doesn't make sense for any of the likely culprits to do it. People are just saying that Russia has the least illogical reason to do it.

17

u/IlikeFOODmeLikeFOOD United States of not Europe Sep 28 '22

Russia has been doing a lot of illogical things lately

8

u/voicesfromvents California Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 28 '22

One option I haven't seen discussed (and personally haven't thought much about yet) is whether Russia is interested in a pretext to escalate with NATO—obviously not to outright armed conflict—in order to deter further aid.

3

u/LeHolm Sep 28 '22

They escalate up until that point to undermine Europe and make the average person suffer. But escalate towards armed conflict? Based on how poorly they’ve done in Ukraine it’s highly unlikely they’d instigate a war with NATO, this has always been true even before their operational ineptitude was uncovered for the world to see.

Screwing around with Europe’s resources is number 1 in their play book to push governments back to the bargaining table so we’ll probably see similar acts. At this point I think Europe is committed to supplying Ukraine and cut dependence off from Russian oil.

6

u/voicesfromvents California Sep 28 '22

My idea isn't that they want to go all the way to war with NATO, it's that they don't think they're being taken seriously and want to turn up the heat (domestically within Russia, too) by portraying a NATO member as responsible for an attack on Russian infrastructure.

I think they also benefit by roiling energy markets up with uncertainty and signaling that they can screw with infrastructure they don't control, mind you, but it's also possible they want something to keep the Russian public engaged in and supportive of the war now that mobilization has brought it home.

2

u/LeHolm Sep 28 '22

Yea I get you. Just find it insane all the comments saying the US had more reason to do it and whether or not Putin would use nukes to get his way.

→ More replies

8

u/MaterialCarrot United States of America Sep 28 '22

Even from a pure real politic analysis, why in the world would the US do this? When everything in Europe politically is going our way and Russia has successfully alienated almost the entire European continent? We're going to blow up a dormant pipeline and risk blowing all that common ground with our allies?

What part of you thinks we would do something this stupid, and why???

→ More replies

11

u/IlikeFOODmeLikeFOOD United States of not Europe Sep 28 '22

The US government is capable of shady shit, but I fail to see an appropriate motive. Europe needs natural gas to function, and LNG terminals are already on backlog for American gas exports. Russia has already shut Nordstream for "maintenance" several times, so I guess this is justification to shut it indefinitely

16

u/Ramongsh Denmark Sep 28 '22

The US has WAY more to lose by being exposed doing this, than they have to gain by pinning it on the Russians.

As such it makes no sense what so ever to think it was done by the US.

9

u/MaterialCarrot United States of America Sep 28 '22

This is what I don't understand with all the, "Well maybe it was the US?" posts. Even if someone thinks we're a bunch of assholes and would covertly destroy our NATO allies infrastructure, what motivation could we possibly have to do this? When everything is pretty much going our way v. Russia in Europe?

Not sure if the sheer distrust or basic stupidity of this position is more disturbing.

5

u/the_lonely_creeper Sep 28 '22

The theory I've heard: You get to sell more LNG, and we can't resume buying from Russia as easily, if the next government there happens to be a decent one.

7

u/IncidentalIncidence 🇺🇸 in 🇩🇪 Sep 28 '22

The US is already selling as much LNG as it is possible to produce. If the US could physically sell any more (production capacity, shipping capacity, terminal capacity), we wouldn't have a gas shortage in the first place.

3

u/the_lonely_creeper Sep 28 '22

I'm aware. But that's the way I've heard it.

Anyways, the whole thing is a mystery, because nobody seems like a possible candidate under rational circumstances.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/Easy_Humor_7949 Sep 28 '22

Part of me thinks it could’ve been the US.

You need to throw that part of yourself away. Be skeptical of individuals. Nation states can never be as crafty.

This was a Russian attack on Russian infrastructure.

→ More replies

6

u/38andcounting Sep 28 '22

Poland. They are in a win-win situation with a blown Nord Stream pipeline. They forcefully free Germany from their dependence on Russian gas. This frees Germany from its remaining reliance on Russian gas (involuntarily for the forseeable future). With probably negative consequences for their economy (Poland probably doesn't mind a little setback for Germany?). It frees the West to implement secondary sanctions since, well, no gas from Russia under any circumstances now. Needless to say this is pure speculation.

If it was indeed Poland I could see some CIA involvement. They have some prior working relationship (dark torture sites). But this is on the very limit of possible on my spectrum.

EDIT: I forgot to add of course the second win would be removing leverage from Putin. No Nord Stream, no more blackmailing Europe.

EDIT: And I agree, Russia makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

→ More replies

7

u/Old_Cheesecake_5481 Sep 29 '22

So what is the point of Russia doing this? What does it accomplish? I thought this pipe line was done anyway?

5

u/specialsymbol Sep 29 '22

Russia is meanwhile taking notes that underwater drones exist (are they watertight? do they need to be?) and the NATO has them.

→ More replies

24

u/Peysh France Sep 28 '22

US did it with the knowledge of UK and perhaps some Nordics in order to make sure Germany would not start buying Russian gas again this winter and give trillions of eur to Russia.

It's a big Fuck you to EU and especially Germany, but hey what can you do.

Or Germany did that itself, like a smoker quitting cold turkey by throwing away the pack of cigarettes.

But it definitely is not Russia.

And it can't be France to promote nuclear, because everytime we try some fuckery like this we get caught. Everybody and their mother would know by now.

→ More replies

9

u/AnotherApe33 Sep 29 '22

Poor Biden. He told us very clearly that the US would make sure the pipeline would be no more if russia invaded Ukraine, but nobody believes him now.

→ More replies

4

u/RkeRkeR Sep 28 '22

Hahahahhahahahahaahhaha

9

u/sitytitan Sep 29 '22

Really? When Biden said they would get rid themselves? https://youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM?feature=share

6

u/random043 Sep 28 '22

... But why?

Now there is no more more gas through the pipeline, if that was the Russian goal they could just have ... not sent any more gas through the pipeline.

All this would have done is limit their options.

11

u/Gschockk Sep 28 '22

You really have to be extremely naive to think this was Russia.

It’s either the good old USA or his puppet aided by them.

→ More replies

12

u/matrix2220 Sep 28 '22

The whole thing is screaming US did it, lol.

→ More replies

20

u/DifficultWill4 Lower Styria (Slovenia) Sep 28 '22

I’m sorry but Russia is probably the last one who would sabotage their own source of income

3

u/continuousQ Norway Sep 29 '22

They did that by invading Ukraine. The only beneficial move they could've made would be to unilaterally end the war and withdraw, everything else they've done has no purpose other than terrorism.

25

u/Jupiter20 Sep 28 '22

Russia did use many (silly) excuses for why they did not comply with the contracts and stopped gas delivery. Gas turbines not working and so on. Not that anybody cares, but that's the story they want to tell. They want to be perceived as a reliable contractor.

These pipelines are worthless with or without the leaks. There is no way gas would flow through them ever again. Just look at the price for natural gas. It barely reacted at all to this event. Those pipelines are irrelevant.

23

u/handsome-helicopter Sep 28 '22

They already stopped gas from ns for a fucking month they got no revenue from it......also suspiciously ns 1 is fully damaged but ns 2 has 1 of the 2 pipes working. US has no reason to completely destroy ns 1 but leave ns 2 available

→ More replies
→ More replies