10 ms·
Assuming the explosions are relevant, some possible causes, ordered somewhat (but not entirely) by my personal estimation of likelihood: * Ecoterrorists -- I d
by jcranmer 4y ago
Assuming the explosions are relevant, some possible causes, ordered somewhat (but not entirely) by my personal estimation of likelihood:
* Ecoterrorists -- I discount this mostly on the basis that they would have claimed responsibility by now.
* NATO sabotage -- this reduces strategic options for several EU countries (albeit a strategic option that isn't really being exercised and is almost universally disfavored).
* Russia sabotage -- this isn't terribly rational for Russia, but Russia has been unwilling to pursue rational options for a while. I can see someone in Russia thinking this will stoke anger in Germany (and the rest of Europe) that may create European pressure to force Ukraine to end the war (which is the most viable path I see at this point for Russia winning the war).
* Ukrainian sabotage -- pretty much the only actor for whom sabotage makes rational sense. Especially if it is a demonstration of Ukrainian cyberwarfare capabilities.
* Poor maintenance -- this strikes me as unlikely because NS1 is quite new infrastructure (2011), so it would have to be extremely substandard to have failed this quickly, and I believe most of the construction was done by European and not Russian firms, so I don't think that's at all plausible. But there may be some failure modes I'm not thinking of here.
- NeverFade 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ShivShankaran 4y ago
- jcranmer 4y ago> The Siberian pipeline was also sabotaged by the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage I'm skeptical of that claim. It is sourced entirely from an autobiography, and there's no corroborating evidence of the explosion from any other source. > Russia has been pressuring Germany to re-open NordStrom 2 for weeks now. Maybe, but Germany hasn't been close to yielding to that pressure.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago> Maybe, but Germany hasn't been close to yielding to that pressure. It doesn't have to be close to yielding, or even particularly likely to be close in the future. Planning and accounting for unlikely contingencies is prudent. Suppose analysts calculated a mere 5% chance Germany considers yielding to pressure this winter. Why take that risk? Blow up the pipe and bring that risk down to 0%.
- megous 4y agoHave you read what you're linking to? :D "The Siberian pipeline" article is pretty much disproving what you're claiming.
- kodah 4y agoSpread of Stuxnet is easily tracked: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet Iran had the most infections and the virus is designed to attack centrifuges. Israel took over the code base during the Obama administration and made the virus more viral, but the targeting remained the same. Essentially what you've written here is not only inaccurate but I'd say a conspiracy theory in that you're implying the US took custodianship of the code back and began using it again, which is entirely unfounded.
- henearkr 4y agoThe "ecoterrorist" option is just ridiculous, the methane leak is disaster for the climate.
- 411111111111111 4y agoecoterrorism doesnt mean that its beneficial for the environment. It means that they want to terrorize polluters, regardless of the consequences.
- henearkr 4y agoThey have no incentive to do actions that damage the environment: Ecology activist organizations are funded by donations, which would dry up completely at the instant they are proven to be involved in such a disastrous leak.
- Anderkent 4y agohasn't stopped 'green' parties from shutting down nuclear power, so it's all a question of PR
- henearkr 4y agoThey did that so that it gets replaced by renewables (but it did not go according to the plan...). And in all honesty, between renewables and nuclear (fission), renewables are clearly a better investment.
- gruez 4y agoWhat makes you think that ecoterrorist organizations would be the sort of organizations that are registered 501(c)(3) charities and run TV commercials of cute pandas?
- henearkr 4y agoBecause funds.
- yread 4y agoOne reason for Russia to sabotage it is as a show of force. "If we can hit our pipeline we can hit your pipeline, too". In unrelated news a brand new pipeline going from Norway to Poland through the Baltic sea opened just yesterday https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/27/baltic-pipe-norway-poland-gas-pipeline-opens-in-key-move-to-cut-dependency-on-russia https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/27/baltic-pipe-norway-polan... Talking about poor maintenance in a thread about registered underwater explosions sounds like FUD
- lizardactivist 4y agoSort of like invading your own country, or shooting yourself with a gun would be an effective show of force?
- ovalite 4y agoSimilar to shooting down your own satellites.
- tablespoon 4y ago>> Sort of like invading your own country, or shooting yourself with a gun would be an effective show of force? > Similar to shooting down your own satellites. No. When they do that as a show of force, they shoot down some worthless EOL satellite they don't plan to use ever again. IIRC, the US actually shot down one that was damaged and out of control: a show of force with a "safety" pretext. You don't shoot down valuable, active infrastructure as a show of force. Russia blowing up Nord Stream would be like the US shooting down brand new GPS or spy satellites.
- 5560675260 4y agoNS2 wasn't an "active" infrastructure, NS1 was also less than active since august.
- tablespoon 4y ago
- tgv 4y agoNone of these make much sense. It's pretty idle to speculate, and the list is most likely incomplete and inaccurate. It only feeds the trolls. Then again, this whole thread is full of fingerpointing without evidence. If HN can't contain itself, what won't the twitter and facebook, and –may God forget– Truth Social do?
- pphysch 4y agoNo evidence? What do you think Biden meant when he replied "I promise you, we will be able to do it" [1] when asked about stopping NS2 just before the war this year? Also note the recent pro-NS2 protests in Germany, whose energy costs have skyrocketed before winter. [1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/07/biden-says-nord-stream-2-wont-go-forward-if-russia-invades-ukraine-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/07/biden-says-nord-stream-2-won...
- mlztrpg 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- origin_path 4y agoNote that NS2 has also been destroyed, and that's even more recent than NS1. It was definitely sabotage, it can't be anything else given the timing, and it has to be state sponsored given that the pipelines are under the ocean. Berlin apparently thinks it would require submarines or special forces. US / Ukraine are unfortunately the only states for which this makes sense (perhaps US with back-room permission from some people in the German government): 1. Biden stated flat out he would never allow NS2 to go live. "There will no longer be a NS2, we will end it" and when asked by a reporter "how will you do that exactly" he replied "i promise you we will be able to do it". This makes the USA the prime suspect by far, worryingly and alarmingly. https://twitter.com/ah114088/status/1574435558675316737 https://twitter.com/ah114088/status/1574435558675316737 2. Ukraine wants to keep Europe from supporting Russia via gas purchases but if the attack is traced back to them it would immediately kill public support for them, this would be an insanely risky and counter-productive move. 3. Russia has no reason to blow up its own pipelines and every reason not to. They were hoping Europe goes back to buying their gas, maybe even ending sanctions to get it. This ends that possibility for a while. We do really need to cut it out with the absurd "Putin is a 4D chess grandmaster" explanations, they make the west look collectively crazy.
- Gatsky 4y agoWhat about a country currently buying cheap Russian gas who wants to keep it that way.
- pmontra 4y ago> * Ukrainian sabotage -- pretty much the only actor for whom sabotage makes rational sense. Especially if it is a demonstration of Ukrainian cyberwarfare capabilities. How can cyberwarfare blast something some km close to an underwater gas pipe? remote controlled submarine?
- jcranmer 4y agoSabotage the control system so that it blows up instead. There are a couple of previous claimed cyberwarfare attacks on pipelines that resulted in pipelines blowing up (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Abyss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Abyss, although that's one that I do not believe to be true).
- pmontra 4y agoInteresting, thank you. TL;DR > "The pipeline software that was to run the pumps, turbines and valves was programmed to go haywire, to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to the pipeline joints and welds. The result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space."
- justinzollars 4y agoWhat about US sabotage? What if peace was about to break out, and this is the United States way of eliminating the option of restoring energy to Europe this winter?
- justinzollars 4y agoBiden on destroying Nord Stream (prewar) https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1574685985115607040 https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1574685985115607040
- justinzollars 4y agoMore pre-war threats: https://twitter.com/JD71723577/status/1574822820269391872 https://twitter.com/JD71723577/status/1574822820269391872
- stickfigure 4y agoThere's also "the Sicilian option". Putin, knowing that the pipelines are no longer practically useful, blew them up deliberately to seed mistrust and discontent among NATO allies. It's a mindbender, but he's also a former KGB officer and may have bombed his own people to justify the 2nd Chechen war[1]. He can only succeed in Ukraine if he divides Ukraine's western allies. What other tools does he have? [1] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/614/transcript https://www.thisamericanlife.org/614/transcript
- lurquer 4y ago> It's a mindbender, but he's also a former KGB officer Your speculations are interesting. But the above adds nothing. There’s nothing magical about having been in the KGB and one can’t determine one’s aptitude for ‘sneakiness’ from same. It’s just silly. Putin has been in power for 20+ years. There’s no need to draw conclusions about his character from his KGB days when you have such a rich history since then. As an analogy, I remember when folks said Reagan was a great communicator because he had been an actor. Hogwash. He had been a politician far longer than an actor, served as the governor of California, leadership roles in the party and unions, etc. That is, his skill in communication while President was fostered from these experiences and not some ancient movie acting he did.
- 0x457 4y agoIt's silly. Even if you include training in KGB, he was a politician for longer than the was at KGB. He was president longer than his active KGB career. Plus, his KGB career wasn't all that glorious: counterintelligence here, collecting newspapers there, maybe donated a few guns there.
- techdragon 4y agoI’ve got no proof he did it, but based on his other actions, he’s one of the only people I can believe might do it, for reasons exactly like this. The other candidate in my mind is the USA based on the weirdly vehement comments earlier this year about never letting the Nord Stream 2 happen. It just doesn’t make any sense at all for someone else, it’s either weird, overly convoluted, risky or impossible based on lack of necessary equipment… this isn’t something you can just do a lone wolf terrorist attack against, it’s armoured agains ship anchors, sunk into the seabed, and deep underwater, you can’t just bomb it with some home made depth charges from a fishing boat… which is why this whole thing is so damn weird.
- Const-me 4y ago> it would have to be extremely substandard to have failed this quickly Yes, but that’s assuming proper maintenance. Russia doesn’t have domestic technology to build or maintain complicated infrastructure like these undersea pipelines. International sanctions against Russia are rather wide. For instance, Halliburton (a US oil field service company) no longer operates in Russia: https://www.halliburton.com/en/about-us/press-release/halliburton-completes-sale-russia-operations https://www.halliburton.com/en/about-us/press-release/hallib... It’s possible these sanctions affected the ability of Russians to maintain the pipeline, which might cause that thing to fail prematurely.
- techdragon 4y agoI’m not really sure how they could have both failed explosively (based on seismic evidence) within 24hrs … this is either the one of the unlikeliest un-exploded ordinance event in history… or someone did this deliberately. Seismologists are pretty good at telling explosions from earthquakes and other things because they are one of the most common noises they have to clean out when studying natural events.
- scohesc 4y agoCan one explosion at one place in the pipeline cause vibrations down the pipeline, possibly weakening another joint/seal further on? Not sure. I know nothing about underwater pipelines :P Does all the gas leaking to the surface cause boats to sink if they get too close from the change in density?
- Symbiote 4y agoThere have been three explosions in two different pipelines, North Stream 1 (the older one, which was in normal use until earlier this year) and North Stream 2 (the new one, which was pressurized but never delivered gas commercially).
- lb1lf 4y agoThere is another option which is being discussed in Norwegian media now - that the Russians have used the pipelines essentially for storage of excess gas (Seeing as the pipelines are basically, combined, a 5M cubic meter pressure vessel) That would go a long way towards explaining how several ruptures happened in relatively short succession - pipes being loaded up with too much gas (after all, the more gas stored, the more money in the bank for later on!) Once the first one burst, someone probably re-evaluated that idea, but letting off gas in sufficient quantities fast enough may not have been possible. Of course, if this was indeed the case, I assume it will very soon be very evident - I can't imagine that the rupture caused by an external force will be indistinguishable from that of it rupturing due to overpressure.
- Tomte 4y ago> Ukrainian sabotage -- pretty much the only actor for whom sabotage makes rational sense. That would be a tragic miscalculation. If it comes out that Ukraine is responsible, German public sentiment will turn hard. No more military shipments, maybe even rapproachement with Russia. If it's a state actor, I'd think about Poland first.
- LatteLazy 4y agoIf...
- scyzoryk_xyz 4y agoWe have indeed been hating NS since the first pipeline was planned and opened. The reason for it's very existence has always been to squeeze us out of the picture. However, it would be an enormous risk for us to alienate NATO in any way. NATO is our only protection and we know it. Without NATO we are extremely easy to conquer - Stalin made sure of that when he drew our current borders. My money would be on a more extreme internal fraction in Putin's Russia. The objective: close the door on any voices in Russia asking to go back to the way things were.
- vintermann 4y agoThat's an interesting possibility I hadn't thought of. Can a faction really blow up an undersea pipeline in three places at once, though?
- sam_lowry_ 4y agoIf that fraction is FSB management, why not? Rumor is, there is enormous pressure on Putin to cede power to Patrushev son. This may be part if a plan to force him into quitting
- int_19h 4y agoI can't help but recall that Igor Strelkov - the guy who, by his own admission, "started the war" (back in 2014, by occupying Slavyansk and Kramatorsk) - is ex-FSB, and ostensibly still very well connected there. And he is very much a hardliner wrt continuing the war, even if it means taking on NATO.
- Tenoke 4y agoI'd at least consider Ukraine-sympathetic non-state actors as a possibility.
- somerandomqaguy 4y agoCould also be shoddy workmanship. Country of origin for the workman is at best a vague hint of quality, and a poor construction can take years if not decades to fail. Keystone's XL decommissioning planned penned out that they expected a minimum of 50 years of service from that pipeline, but over half the pipelines in the US carrying oil and gas are in excess of 60 years old and still operating. Until the investigation is perform though, we simply don't have enough to go on.
- SanjayMehta 4y agoYou left out the obvious culprit. Jump to 1:20. https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8 https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8
- dmix 4y agoThe US is close friends with many of the consumers of those gas lines. That makes as little sense as all the other options but even less so.
- bulbosaur123 4y agoUSA wants to exports its LNG to Europe. It makes a lot of economical sense.
- dmix 4y agoWhich branch of the government do you think does economic warfare? Last I checked only the NSA has done so via hacking in Brazil. But otherwise it's very, very much against US intel-agency policy.
- adventured 4y agoFor what? $30 billion in extra LNG exports to Europe per year? The US is approaching having a $30 trillion economy. Apple does $387b in sales. Who cares about $30 billion at the scale the US operates at? Should the US blow up SAP for the benefit of Microsoft or Oracle? They're a lot more important economically than LNG exports.
- SanjayMehta 4y ago30 billion is peanuts, agreed. But look at the intangible benefits of wrecking Germany's economy. Last week the WSJ reported on industries moving to the US. Easier than getting production back from China, eh? https://www.wsj.com/articles/high-natural-gas-prices-push-european-manufacturers-to-shift-to-the-u-s-11663707594 https://www.wsj.com/articles/high-natural-gas-prices-push-eu...
- 4y ago
- LatteLazy 4y ago* Ukrainian sabotage -- pretty much the only actor for whom sabotage makes rational sense. Especially if it is a demonstration of Ukrainian cyberwarfare capabilities. I mostly agree but... You could make the same argument for bits of the middle east, Norway and the USA (the US refuses to export gas to the EU to make US industrial products more competitive). Sabotage? Maybe! Ukraine? Maybe or maybe others!
- temp-dude-87844 4y agoIf you subscribe to the point of view that Russia's war on Ukraine isn't actually about Ukraine, but about causing lasting pain in Europe, then this action is perfectly rational for Russia. It drives the market prices up (anything that spooks market participants will), and creates an ongoing situation that adds pressure on governments to act.
- vintermann 4y agoExcept that the way Russia wants them to act - "give us concessions and buy our gas" is equally closed off by it.
- MasterYoda 4y agoGas prices had fallen back to the lowest levels in 3 months, but because of the sabotage, prices have gone up again because this has created uncertainty in the energy market. The kremlin wants to deliberately destabilize Europe and make it as difficult as possible with a big energy crisis, so support and aid to Ukraine falls. And its going bad for putin and his war now so he is also desperate, just look at the crazy mobilization of 300.000 russian to the war. The russians already know that these pipelines are dead and the export trough them will end and sabotaging them is very much in the russians interest because of the consequences and as we can see now increased energy costs in EU which benefits the russian agenda. Some say its US because Biden talk. But both pipes was already closed. Nordstream 2 was never used and nordstream 1 was shut down by the russians. The US hade no reason because no gas was flowing. IMHO its no doubt its the russians, they are the only one that gain from this, in their energy war against EU. They also have submarines in the baltic sea. And its shallow waters between Denmark and Sweden (just 11-18m) that big subs from other countries can not easy pass without getting noticed and a lot of traffic that make it risky.
- petre 4y agoI see Biden's talk as soft power rather than threats "they'll shut down NS2 themselves, we'll make sure of that". It's not like the previous administration hasn't warned Germany and the EU about NS1/2, Russian gas bad habits.
- 4bpp 4y agoWhy would keeping the pipelines operational not be a strictly dominant (over blowing the pipelines up) strategy if reducing EU support and aid to Ukraine is the objective? Having the pipeline there but not delivering anything through it results in the same lack of gas, but also adds the option of dangling the possibility of delivering some in return for support and aid being reduced. The most obvious beneficiary of the pipelines being blown are those countries that would stand to lose from the option of resumed delivery being available (and potentially taken) by Germany, that is, Ukraine, Baltic countries (who have a cultural and geopolitical interest in its victory) and the US (which has a geopolitical interest in its victory and a financial interest in selling LNG to Germany). Why do you think that these potential benefits to the countries in question are not real?
- sampo 4y ago> Ukrainian sabotage -- pretty much the only actor for whom sabotage makes rational sense. If you include the risk of getting caught or revealed (and you should), it would absolutely make no sense.
- vintermann 4y agoIt's always risky to assume people are rational. People are really good at discounting the "this could fail" outcome. However, I don't think Ukraine has the capability to pull this off.
- foverzar 4y agoIf you include the risk of getting caught, then it seems like no one did is, as it is the same risk for everyone.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago* Ukrainian or Baltic non-government group. On one hand, it achieves the desired outcome - reduce Russia's income, on the other hand, Germans can't blame Ukrainian government for that.
- vintermann 4y agoBaltic, maybe, but very unlikely I think. It's too hard for a small group to pull off without getting discovered. Ukraine is a long way from the Baltic and very busy getting invaded, so I think the chance of them pulling off something like this without US knowledge is practically zero.
- gambiting 4y agoThere's yet another option that you haven't noted - Poland is only safe in its gas reserves because of the Norway->Poland gas pipeline. Destroying the Nordstream pipeline seems to send a clear message "stay out of this, or the Norway to Poland pipeline ends in the same way"(and then Poland is completely screwed and has no gas this winter).
- vintermann 4y agoRussia wants NATO to stop giving Ukraine weapons, but they also really want to sell their gas to Europe. And they already controlled the spigot of the Nord Stream pipeline, so they wouldn't have to blow up anything to stop deliveries. Yes, the great powers have done some really stupid things, especially Russia, so it's dangerous to assume rationality, but they all like keeping their options open to a fault. "We're committing to belligerence, we won't even keep the option of letting you give up and bribe us" - does that sound like Putin's Russia? The NATO as a whole likewise wouldn't blow up these pipelines, for pretty much the same reason. They love options too. But there's a lot of internal dissent in NATO, and it's quite possible that one member (read: the US) wanted to take away an option from another member (read: Germany), namely that option to cave in during the winter and give concessions to Russia in exchange for critically needed gas. If they did, I'm quite sure Sweden was in on it. Even as a non-NATO member, they have been more deferential to US covert interests than most actual member states, including on torture rendition flights and the persecution of Assange. And it's sadly a bipartisan thing there. Ukraine themselves would be another option. They certainly have an incentive to want to close off Western Europe's option to give concessions to Putin in exchange for gas, far more than any NATO member. But I don't think they have the capability to take out pipelines in the Baltic, especially not without US consent. But no, you can't blow up pipelines with like that cyberwarfare, and it's not going to fail three places at once. I want to wait see who Russia places blame on, who the US places blame on, and most of all the actual evidence they can present. Maybe Russia will present non-laughable evidence for once, since I believe - again, for once! that they're actually not responsible this time. But I wouldn't count on it. Actually I would be shocked.
- mgfist 4y agoIt is pretty interesting. In reality this makes no sense for anyone. It doesn't really make sense for Russia for the reasons you mentioned (tho they often make stupid decisions), but it also doesn't make sense for the West for reputation reasons. If this comes out to be the work of any western country it would have dire consequences for them and I just don't see the risk/reward. Could be some separatist group somewhere.
- bArray 4y agoYou've listed some stakeholders, but there may be more possibilities (assuming sabotage). For example, it may benefit China to have their enemies fight, then offer assistance from the sidelines at a charge. Another option is that an energy supplier competitor did it, knowing that it would send the price of their energy through the roof. Even a few million dollars to have a private submarine sabotage the competitor would result in massive returns, and it would be difficult to trace. The point is, it's far too early to tell. Regarding your specific rational: > Ecoterrorists -- I discount this mostly on the basis that they would have claimed responsibility by now. I discount this on the basis of their capability and funding. > NATO sabotage -- this reduces strategic options for several EU countries It could be that a NATO Country (read: not EU) could want to see the collapse the EU. This would greatly benefit the US for example, as they would then be able to renegotiate all previous trade deals on favorable terms. > Russia sabotage -- this isn't terribly rational for Russia, but Russia has been unwilling to pursue rational options for a while. It wouldn't be, unless they have the ability to fix it easily. > Ukrainian sabotage -- pretty much the only actor for whom sabotage makes rational sense. Especially if it is a demonstration of Ukrainian cyberwarfare capabilities. Cyberwarefare didn't rip a hole in a pipe. Cyberwarefare also didn't create an explosion. I would be also interested to know if Ukraine has any operations submarines right now - because where would they refuel for example? > * Poor maintenance -- this strikes me as unlikely because NS1 is quite new infrastructure (2011), so it would have to be extremely substandard to have failed this quickly, and I believe most of the construction was done by European and not Russian firms, so I don't think that's at all plausible. But there may be some failure modes I'm not thinking of here. Over 10 years even the best infrastructure could deteriorate with abuse. Bridges can collapse if not well maintained within this timescale, and the ocean is a much worse environment.
- bulbosaur123 4y agoWhere is USA sabotage?
- qqqwerty 4y agoJust to add to your list for completeness sake: * China -- Ensures they continue to be the beneficiary of cheap RU gas, which considering their current economic woes, I imagine it is a pretty big deal for them. Broadly, they dislike the Ukraine war because it reduces stability in the region and resulted in deeper western resolve, but strategically a weakened Russia and cheap energy are both beneficial to their interests.