4 ms·

> they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved and operational Not recently. Recently, they pulled out a string of excuses to send less and less gas over

by smsm42 4y ago

> they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved and operational Not recently. Recently, they pulled out a string of excuses to send less and less gas over (turbine bing repaired, sanctions, etc.) to show Europe their leverage. They don't feel any lack of money currently, and they know with current hydrocarbon prices, they have options to sell, even if at discount, and no money shortages currently. So they're betting on European population being weak and European energy infrastructure being dependent on Russian hydrocarbons, and thus citizens pushing the politicians to make nice with Russia. The fact that they invested a lot of money in it means nothing. They have money. They have oil and gas that they can sell for money. What they need is for the West not to send so much weapons and ammunition to Ukraine that Russian army, numerous but weak and disorganized, will be completely crushed and expelled from Ukraine. Cutting off the flow directly would expose them to contractual sanctions, which can be leveraged against assets Russia still has in the West. But cutting off the flow by "mysterious explosion" reaches the same goal while providing Russians with tiny veiled plausible deniability. That's how they always operate. I'm sure in 5 years or so they'd admit it openly. Just as they admitted that "insurgents" in East Ukraine and Crimea were actually Russian military and intelligence officers, or Putin's private military "Wagner Group" exists, was created by a close Putin ally - which they were denying for years - and is operating in Ukraine.

thiagoharry 4y ago
This makes no sense. Without the gas, Russia loses leverage and there would be no dependence of Russian hydrocarbons. Germany always could buy more expensive gas from Ukraine and USA, and now they have no other choice.
- arisAlexis 4y ago
  The only leverage left to Russia is nukes.
- smsm42 4y ago
  Pipelines can be fixed. If Germany behaves. There's always a choice. Also, there are other ways to get the gas and the oil there.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    Can it? If the seawater had filled the pipeline, it is likely irreparable.
    - smsm42 4y ago
      I don't think this is the case - when pipes are installed, they are exposed to seawater, and they are segmented, and there must be a way to replace the damaged segment without having to redo the whole pipeline. It won't fill the whole pipeline even if there's a hole in it.
- ordu 4y ago
  The whole war makes no sense. Putin had lost his senses. 1. Putin seriously cite Dugin[1]. Putin acts like he believes this bullshit. 2. There was a lot of people who on different occasions told "Putin wouldn't do that, it would make no sense", so then Putin could prove them wrong later by doing it. This war is one of examples of that kind. Or MH17: why to hit a plane with a missile? There was no sense in it. But it just happened. Why to massacre people in Bucha? It makes no sense. So, when you talk about Russia the argument "makes no sense" doesn't mean anything. If it made no sense in an alternate reality were Putin resides, then it might be an interesting argument. But in his alternate reality it makes perfect sense to stop selling gas to EU. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin
  - phire 4y ago
    It makes sense to stop selling gas to the EU, but Russia already did that weeks ago. What makes little sense is then blowing up the pipeline. Russia were already not selling gas, why would they take the extra step of blowing up the pipeline? That removes it as possible leverage for future negotiations. And if you have the capability to blow up pipelines, why not blow up all the other pipelines transporting gas from Scandinavia to the rest of the EU? Make Nordstream the only option. It actually makes more sense for Germany or one of their allies to have blown up Nordstream, to remove the temptation to for Germany to open it back up in the middle of winter when they are suffering massive gas shortages.
    - ordu 4y ago
      My experience of such discussions hints that they lead nowhere. It is a classical mystery. It is impossible to solve without additional information. But if we need to guess based on our current knowledge, then Putin is the best bet: he is a liar, he disrespect all the rules, he likes sudden unexpected moves, he likes to act undercover. I know no other entity that can have reasons to blow up pipelines who matches better.
      - phire 4y ago
        It's certainly possible. But Putin has been operating with good internal logic this entire time (even if the assumptions driving that logic have been flawed at points). And I'm not really sure what logic would cause him to attack Nordstream. The two best ideas I have are: 1. He wants to remove an option of retreat for Germany. Putin things that with Nordstream inactive, Germany can wait until they get low on gas in the middle of winter before crawling back to Russia and conceding in exchange for gas. But if it's damaged, Germany kind of need to start repairing it now, and Putin can force them to concede sooner. And Putin probably feels short on time. 2. Putin is already planning for a civil war, and doesn't think he will control Nordstream during a civil war. By destroying Nordstream, it will be harder for some civil war faction to turn it back on. Neither are great theories. At least without some extra evidence to suggest Putin is thinking along one (or both) of these lines.
cdash 4y ago
They stopped sending gas over on Nord Stream 1 with the excuse of maintenance and repairs specifically as leverage for Germany to sign off on opening their brand new pipeline Nord Stream 2 for business. Now, both pipelines have been blown up. It doesn't make any sense for it to have been Russia.
- smsm42 4y ago
  Why not? If it is stopped by the Russian order, Russians violated the contract. If it is stopped because unknown terrorists blew up the pipeline, it's force majeure, Gazprom is in the clear. Also, they have one more pipeline left. Which they are also threatening to - guess what? - shut down. https://www-moscowtimes-ru.translate.goog/2022/09/27/gazprom-prigrozil-ostanovit-poslednii-truboprovod-kachayuschii-gaz-v-evropu-a24756?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-moscowtimes-ru.translate.goog/2022/09/27/gazprom... Doesn't make sense for it to be Russia? Or does it now?
  - dividedbyzero 4y ago
    Still doesn't make sense. NS2 was held offline by Germany and could easily have had technical difficulties as well if that were to change. NS1 could have been left offline pretty much indefinitely without serious attempts at such contractual plays, because this sort of thing would of course have ended any chance of future Russian deliveries. Besides, there isn't much left that sanctions don't already target. However, them being destroyed for now will take a lot of pressure to appease Russia out of German domestic politics, lots of political figures were gearing up for trench warfare on opening NS2, and Russia could have used NS1 as a bargaining chip to get Germany to desert Ukraine. There's good reason to suspect the German electorate might have been quite open to such an arrangement by late winter, and imagine what that would have done to western unity. Why throw away such leverage, especially as you can still blow them up later? This also takes any plan B involving Russia off the table entirely, meaning that Germany will absolutely have to double down on LNG and renewables and restructure its industry, with obvious consequences for future business opportunities.
    - 4y ago

by smsm42 4y ago

thiagoharry 4y ago

This makes no sense. Without the gas, Russia loses leverage and there would be no dependence of Russian hydrocarbons. Germany always could buy more expensive gas from Ukraine and USA, and now they have no other choice.

arisAlexis 4y ago
The only leverage left to Russia is nukes.
smsm42 4y ago
Pipelines can be fixed. If Germany behaves. There's always a choice. Also, there are other ways to get the gas and the oil there.
- foverzar 4y ago
  Can it? If the seawater had filled the pipeline, it is likely irreparable.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    I don't think this is the case - when pipes are installed, they are exposed to seawater, and they are segmented, and there must be a way to replace the damaged segment without having to redo the whole pipeline. It won't fill the whole pipeline even if there's a hole in it.
ordu 4y ago
The whole war makes no sense. Putin had lost his senses. 1. Putin seriously cite Dugin[1]. Putin acts like he believes this bullshit. 2. There was a lot of people who on different occasions told "Putin wouldn't do that, it would make no sense", so then Putin could prove them wrong later by doing it. This war is one of examples of that kind. Or MH17: why to hit a plane with a missile? There was no sense in it. But it just happened. Why to massacre people in Bucha? It makes no sense. So, when you talk about Russia the argument "makes no sense" doesn't mean anything. If it made no sense in an alternate reality were Putin resides, then it might be an interesting argument. But in his alternate reality it makes perfect sense to stop selling gas to EU. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin
- phire 4y ago
  It makes sense to stop selling gas to the EU, but Russia already did that weeks ago. What makes little sense is then blowing up the pipeline. Russia were already not selling gas, why would they take the extra step of blowing up the pipeline? That removes it as possible leverage for future negotiations. And if you have the capability to blow up pipelines, why not blow up all the other pipelines transporting gas from Scandinavia to the rest of the EU? Make Nordstream the only option. It actually makes more sense for Germany or one of their allies to have blown up Nordstream, to remove the temptation to for Germany to open it back up in the middle of winter when they are suffering massive gas shortages.
  - ordu 4y ago
    My experience of such discussions hints that they lead nowhere. It is a classical mystery. It is impossible to solve without additional information. But if we need to guess based on our current knowledge, then Putin is the best bet: he is a liar, he disrespect all the rules, he likes sudden unexpected moves, he likes to act undercover. I know no other entity that can have reasons to blow up pipelines who matches better.
    - phire 4y ago
      It's certainly possible. But Putin has been operating with good internal logic this entire time (even if the assumptions driving that logic have been flawed at points). And I'm not really sure what logic would cause him to attack Nordstream. The two best ideas I have are: 1. He wants to remove an option of retreat for Germany. Putin things that with Nordstream inactive, Germany can wait until they get low on gas in the middle of winter before crawling back to Russia and conceding in exchange for gas. But if it's damaged, Germany kind of need to start repairing it now, and Putin can force them to concede sooner. And Putin probably feels short on time. 2. Putin is already planning for a civil war, and doesn't think he will control Nordstream during a civil war. By destroying Nordstream, it will be harder for some civil war faction to turn it back on. Neither are great theories. At least without some extra evidence to suggest Putin is thinking along one (or both) of these lines.

cdash 4y ago

They stopped sending gas over on Nord Stream 1 with the excuse of maintenance and repairs specifically as leverage for Germany to sign off on opening their brand new pipeline Nord Stream 2 for business. Now, both pipelines have been blown up. It doesn't make any sense for it to have been Russia.

smsm42 4y ago
Why not? If it is stopped by the Russian order, Russians violated the contract. If it is stopped because unknown terrorists blew up the pipeline, it's force majeure, Gazprom is in the clear. Also, they have one more pipeline left. Which they are also threatening to - guess what? - shut down. https://www-moscowtimes-ru.translate.goog/2022/09/27/gazprom-prigrozil-ostanovit-poslednii-truboprovod-kachayuschii-gaz-v-evropu-a24756?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-moscowtimes-ru.translate.goog/2022/09/27/gazprom... Doesn't make sense for it to be Russia? Or does it now?
- dividedbyzero 4y ago
  Still doesn't make sense. NS2 was held offline by Germany and could easily have had technical difficulties as well if that were to change. NS1 could have been left offline pretty much indefinitely without serious attempts at such contractual plays, because this sort of thing would of course have ended any chance of future Russian deliveries. Besides, there isn't much left that sanctions don't already target. However, them being destroyed for now will take a lot of pressure to appease Russia out of German domestic politics, lots of political figures were gearing up for trench warfare on opening NS2, and Russia could have used NS1 as a bargaining chip to get Germany to desert Ukraine. There's good reason to suspect the German electorate might have been quite open to such an arrangement by late winter, and imagine what that would have done to western unity. Why throw away such leverage, especially as you can still blow them up later? This also takes any plan B involving Russia off the table entirely, meaning that Germany will absolutely have to double down on LNG and renewables and restructure its industry, with obvious consequences for future business opportunities.
  - 4y ago