7 ms·

Like on any crime scene, who profits from the crime? Well, a few things first: 1- NS1 along NS2 are (were) shutdown and clearly these were not going to re-ope

Like on any crime scene, who profits from the crime? Well, a few things first: 1- NS1 along NS2 are (were) shutdown and clearly these were not going to re-open, not before the end of the war - not politically acceptable for Putin, even less for Germany 2- The war is going to last for many more months (best case scenario) or a year or two or ... No matter how long it will really last, Europe, after having survived Winter 2022 will not be reliant to Russian gas anymore. It's clear to everyone that NS1 / NS2 will likely never re-open again. 3- Based on #2, you can assume that NS2 like NS1 are just dead ... So again, who profits from the crime? 1- USA: why would they take the risk to destroy the pipeline knowing Germans won't buy Russian gas in the foreseeable future? Their utmost priority is that Ukraine defeats Russia to send a strong message to China. They can't care less about NS2 at the moment, but they care most about unity among western countries, that's how Russia will lose and that's how they will win. Of course, Germany becoming dependent on US gas is a good thing for them, but it's not really a strategic objective, at most tactical ... 2- Russia: they are losing the war and now throwing conscripts with not a day of training on the front. That's pretty desperate move to say the least. Whenever they escalate, they see that as a chance to break unity among the west. Blowing up their (now useless) pipeline is in line with another desperate move: at least try to make something useful out of it. If Russia loses the war, Putin is just dead (at least politically). He can't care less about Russia economy at the moment. 3- Eastern Europe: their hate for Russia is very strong and they obviously welcome such a move. But like for the US, they want very hard Ukraine to win, and blowing up such a pipeline is not clear the immediate benefit. Besides, it's still a risky operation and it's not clear whether they just have the capacity to carry out such an operation without taking the risk of being detected.

Animatronio 4y ago
1. NS1 and/or NS2 were ready to reopen according to Putin if Europe were to lift sanctions. 2. EU is trying to stop being reliant on Russian gas, so far it isn't fait accompli. 3. Based on 1+2 we could assume someone wants to push EU as far away from Russia as possible as fast as possible(regarding gas supplying, to be clear) So again, who profits and has the means to do accomplish such feat: 1. USA: very vocal against NS2, wouldn't be affected by such destruction of foreign infrastructure, stands to gain when adversaries lose. Germany becoming dependent on US gas is a massive bonus. Imagine being able to control EU's largest economy on a whim. 2. Russia: assuming they would want to destroy the pipes, and not the much easier land infrastructure, why not let the world know about it ASAP? 3. Eastern Europe: only Poland has the means and maybe motivation to do so.
- Covzire 4y ago
  China benefits greatly, Russian oil and gas now have only one reliable buyer for the foreseeable future. Invading Taiwan is now easier since blockading the shipping lanes from the ME will have little impact on the Chinese war machine if they get reliable oil from Russia.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    Except Russia has no east west gas or oil transmission infrastructure. Whatever they extract from the west they need to export west, and whatever they extract in the east must go east
    - leaflets2 4y ago
      How long does it take to build a West to east pipeline
  - foverzar 4y ago
    You forgot about all the other pipelines from Russia to Europe.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  > has the means and maybe motivation to do so. How hard is it to destroy a pipeline? Do you actually need an underwater UAV, or might lowering explosives on a rope and a timer from a small boat do the job? Remember - water transmits compression waves really well, and the pipe is the only compressible thing around. The sea there is only 200 meters deep, so lowering it on a rope at slack tide and with a good GPS on the boat, I'd imagine you'd be able to get explosives landing within 10 meters or so of the pipe.
  - Animatronio 4y ago
    Relatively hard to get right. You have to deploy a ship (maybe merchant ship) and a specialized crew to the actual location, undetected, at the right time. A lot can go wrong. I suppose Austria, Hungary, Romania, Czechia, et al do not have the resources to pull this off. Remember, it's only been a couple of months that this gas stand-off is this tense. The only countries in Europe who have the means to act fast on this are the UK, France, Italy, Spain, maybe Greece (I don't think any of them would do it - there's no reason for it whatsoever), and Poland.
adventured 4y ago
> Their [US] utmost priority is that Ukraine defeats Russia to send a strong message to China Not exactly, as it's a serious double payoff. We want to break Russia too - that's what the Middle East wars have been about (including Syria, Libya and Iraq). We just expected their military to be considerably more potent than it actually is.
OrvalWintermute 4y ago
> 2- Russia: they are losing the war and now throwing conscripts with not a day of training on the front. That's pretty desperate move to say the least. Whenever they escalate, they see that as a chance to break unity among the west. Blowing up their (now useless) pipeline is in line with another desperate move: at least try to make something useful out of it. If Russia loses the war, Putin is just dead (at least politically). He can't care less about Russia economy at the moment. Russia isn't losing the war; they have a temporary setback. They have completely won the south but only have ~80k troops total in the country which limits their ability to organizationally maneuver and defensively hold territory simultaneously in the North. The HIMARS introductions has damaged Russia's logistical ability to resupply the large number of arty rounds needed to prosecute an arty heavy war. Some of the Russian mobilization impacts those with previous military experience, and their reserve forces. Remember, until this recent collapse in the North, they were rototilling the Ukrainian Army into the ground with Arty each day. 300k conscripts gives them the defensive force they need to hold space, freeing up their Army and Wagner to handle the offensive side of the campaigns. With new Iranian drones entering the fray, and North Korea potentially entering the campaign to gain combat experience, this is likely to continue a great deal. Because North Korea uses Russian style artillery tactics, they are an instant fold-in to Russia's conventional arty dominant war. The real question from a combat perspective is whether or not the mobilization of forces will enable the Russian supply lines to better hold. The biggest gamechanger still on the table is that we haven't seen yet the introduction of true strategic (non-nuclear) weaponry on the Russian side, or, the targetting of Ukrainian infrastructure. The latter is likely to happen soon because the West is exploiting the Russian's soft touch towards seizing Ukrainian territory by sending a nonstop stream of heavy weaponry and resupply.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  Uh you might want to look around Lyman and Kherson…
- syntheweave 4y ago
  If Russia were supplied with precision weaponry they would be trading casualties more evenly with Ukraine, but they aren't getting anything like HIMARS or Javelins. Most of it falls under sanctions and there's little reason for erstwhile allies and trading partners to help, because they recognize that a Russian loss here is an invitation to plunder what's left of the country. The ability of the world to shrug off loss of Russian energy is directly correlated to Russia's bargaining position here, and now that a major pipeline is down, the issue has been forced. What the battlefield figures point to is that while Russia can hold a line, it's using much more ammo to do it, and this strains their supply logistics, which are further pressured by long-range missle systems. Adding more troops when you're already supply-constrained means falling back on a Soviet-era strategy of throwing bodies at every problem and, most likely, letting some freeze to death stranded without even entering combat. However, modern Russia doesn't have the demographics necessary to hold out in a meatgrinder. The Red Army was able to do that successfully because they were drawing from a younger and more agrarian population that could be "born to die". As soon as your draft starts eating into older urbanites with skills, careers, and families, unrest is going to get out of control and put national sovereignty at threat. There's a reason why modern armies have moved towards a professionalized approach since the mid-20th century: it's a lower-footprint method that sustains high tech industries, and therefore is easier to gain support for. The entire narrative changed when it stopped being a "special military operation" and they announced mobilization: there's no more illusion of it being a professional war.
eternalban 4y ago
> 1- NS1 along NS2 are (were) shutdown and clearly these were not going to re-open, not before the end of the war - not politically acceptable for Putin, even less for Germany. No, some Germans were asking for NS2. Here is one article after a very quick search from 8/19: https://www.politico.eu/article/vice-president-of-the-german-parliament-calls-for-activation-of-nord-stream-2/ https://www.politico.eu/article/vice-president-of-the-german... Another: https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/europe/germanys-klaus-ernst-calls-for-negotiations-with-russia-amid-soaring-gas-prices-report-articleshow.html https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/europe/germanys-kla... "Meanwhile, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has criticised German leaders' calls to initiate talks regarding Nord Stream 2. "Calls by some German politicians to launch NS2 for a little while and close it later are totally irrational. This resembles drug addiction when a person says “Just one last time!” without realizing the devastating consequences of each “last time”." So there is political support for German government if they needed it. And it was in play. Important people were tweeting about it. :} > Not politically acceptable to Putin. I think he is not happy today, at all. Russians are supposedly running to borders to leave, the famous Operation is a shitzkrieg, his last move is dig in, annex, and hope and pray Medvedev's mad russian act has convinced opposite number psychos over here who are in charge of our end of world weapons that "we are not bluffing". Imagine the PR if great Uncle Vodya like father christmas opens the pipes to a freezing Germany ("gratis!" Its our gift). Is the German goverment going to say "Nein"? To sum, you must be joking. This Nord Stream was Russia's ace in the hole. Now it is gone.
davrosthedalek 4y ago
There is also China and maybe India. With the pipeline gone for good, Russia has to sell to them. No other market. But all this speculation depends on how damaged the pipeline is. I haven't seen any info on how long a repair would take.
- SanjayMehta 4y ago
  How long before China and/or India are blamed for this event? As for timelines, the media is saying several months, if not years.
- dagw 4y ago
  With the pipeline gone for good The physical pipeline is still there and mostly fine. Fixing the holes is expensive and requires the right expertise and equipment, but most experts I've seen quoted in the media seem to agree that it could definitely be done within a year, and probably faster, if everybody involved really wanted to. Edit: Other experts are now claiming that the damage is more substantial and that repairs might not be possible
  - pbak 4y ago
    Well, yeah, but the CEOs of one company in Germany with the hardware and people to do that, and who was also charged with monitoring the pipelines, just died in an unexplained private jet crash two weeks ago.
csomar 4y ago
It's interesting you wrote a very long response and yet you presented no concrete arguments that the US could be behind this. We can agree that most EU countries will not support such an incident. The only two countries who have the technical capability and the political reasons are the USA and Russia. Both are evil and ready to blow the world for their own gains. > why would they take the risk to destroy the pipeline knowing Germans won't buy Russian gas in the foreseeable future? Because they know their "allies" will cave. They've been trying to push them from Russian gas for a long time now but it didn't work. > Their utmost priority is that Ukraine defeats Russia to send a strong message to China. They are not trying to send a message to China. They are being engaged in a proxy war with Russia since the cold war. Now things are heating up again as they are closing in on their prey.
- labster 4y ago
  That’s because there are no reasons for the US to do it. Europe is staying aligned just fine right now. Germans think Russia is an unreliable business partner, and don’t want to deal with them again. Germany is already expanding LNG port capacity to buy more North American gas. It would be a tremendous risk to be discovered; Denmark could trigger Article 5 against the United States. The US needs to show strength in Asia, not that it’s entangled in European affairs. It’s all too much malarkey for Dark Brandon to tolerate.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > Europe is staying aligned just fine right now. Sure, right now. When the winter comes and heating bills skyrocket, there will be those in Germany who want to turn the gas back on. Or... would have been. That option is gone now, at least for this winter. That's what the US might have gotten out of it. > It would be a tremendous risk to be discovered The US has taken more severe risks before, such as tapping the undersea cables in the territorial waters of their nuclear armed adversary during the Cold War, in principle risking global nuclear annihilation. The primary rule clandestine submarine operations play by is "don't get caught". If the US did it and did it properly, nothing will ever be conclusively pinned on America. > Denmark could trigger Article 5 against the United States. Fantasy scenario, get real.
foverzar 4y ago
> 2- Russia: they are losing the war and now throwing conscripts with not a day of training on the front. That's pretty desperate move to say the least. Whenever they escalate, they see that as a chance to break unity among the west. Blowing up their (now useless) pipeline is in line with another desperate move: at least try to make something useful out of it. If Russia loses the war, Putin is just dead (at least politically). He can't care less about Russia economy at the moment. You forgot to mention how Russia is supposed to profit from this whole situation. > Blowing up their (now useless) pipeline is in line with another desperate move: at least try to make something useful out of it Specifically what?
- Seanambers 4y ago
  Isn't it obvious what the advantages would be for Russia? IF the Russians did it they get ; 1.Blowing up NS1&2 creates more energy and gas uncertainty in Europe in a period where they need to put on the pressure and try to limit military support for Ukraine as they are loosing the war in Ukraine. Its an assertive move. 2.They get to do big power signaling with a direct threat to other infrastructure in the north sea which is significant and all of which supplies Europe with gas. I would also like to point out that the Russians [unconfirmed but its basically what went down] sank the passenger ferry Estonia with 852 dead because it was used in the transport of stolen military hardware. So these explosions is not out of the realm of possibility - quite the opposite - I would say that it is basically how the Russians operate - with force.
Slava_Propanei 4y ago
lenkite 4y ago
Norway-Poland gas pipeline opened up on the same day that the N-2 pipeline blew up. Also, those waters are HEAVILY controlled by NATO nations. We all know who benefits here - and it isn't the Russians. PS: US has blown up Soviet gas pipelines covertly before while condemning the act the same time. Read "At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War".

Animatronio 4y ago

1. NS1 and/or NS2 were ready to reopen according to Putin if Europe were to lift sanctions. 2. EU is trying to stop being reliant on Russian gas, so far it isn't fait accompli. 3. Based on 1+2 we could assume someone wants to push EU as far away from Russia as possible as fast as possible(regarding gas supplying, to be clear) So again, who profits and has the means to do accomplish such feat: 1. USA: very vocal against NS2, wouldn't be affected by such destruction of foreign infrastructure, stands to gain when adversaries lose. Germany becoming dependent on US gas is a massive bonus. Imagine being able to control EU's largest economy on a whim. 2. Russia: assuming they would want to destroy the pipes, and not the much easier land infrastructure, why not let the world know about it ASAP? 3. Eastern Europe: only Poland has the means and maybe motivation to do so.

Covzire 4y ago
China benefits greatly, Russian oil and gas now have only one reliable buyer for the foreseeable future. Invading Taiwan is now easier since blockading the shipping lanes from the ME will have little impact on the Chinese war machine if they get reliable oil from Russia.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  Except Russia has no east west gas or oil transmission infrastructure. Whatever they extract from the west they need to export west, and whatever they extract in the east must go east
  - leaflets2 4y ago
    How long does it take to build a West to east pipeline
- foverzar 4y ago
  You forgot about all the other pipelines from Russia to Europe.
londons_explore 4y ago
> has the means and maybe motivation to do so. How hard is it to destroy a pipeline? Do you actually need an underwater UAV, or might lowering explosives on a rope and a timer from a small boat do the job? Remember - water transmits compression waves really well, and the pipe is the only compressible thing around. The sea there is only 200 meters deep, so lowering it on a rope at slack tide and with a good GPS on the boat, I'd imagine you'd be able to get explosives landing within 10 meters or so of the pipe.
- Animatronio 4y ago
  Relatively hard to get right. You have to deploy a ship (maybe merchant ship) and a specialized crew to the actual location, undetected, at the right time. A lot can go wrong. I suppose Austria, Hungary, Romania, Czechia, et al do not have the resources to pull this off. Remember, it's only been a couple of months that this gas stand-off is this tense. The only countries in Europe who have the means to act fast on this are the UK, France, Italy, Spain, maybe Greece (I don't think any of them would do it - there's no reason for it whatsoever), and Poland.

adventured 4y ago

> Their [US] utmost priority is that Ukraine defeats Russia to send a strong message to China Not exactly, as it's a serious double payoff. We want to break Russia too - that's what the Middle East wars have been about (including Syria, Libya and Iraq). We just expected their military to be considerably more potent than it actually is.

OrvalWintermute 4y ago

> 2- Russia: they are losing the war and now throwing conscripts with not a day of training on the front. That's pretty desperate move to say the least. Whenever they escalate, they see that as a chance to break unity among the west. Blowing up their (now useless) pipeline is in line with another desperate move: at least try to make something useful out of it. If Russia loses the war, Putin is just dead (at least politically). He can't care less about Russia economy at the moment. Russia isn't losing the war; they have a temporary setback. They have completely won the south but only have ~80k troops total in the country which limits their ability to organizationally maneuver and defensively hold territory simultaneously in the North. The HIMARS introductions has damaged Russia's logistical ability to resupply the large number of arty rounds needed to prosecute an arty heavy war. Some of the Russian mobilization impacts those with previous military experience, and their reserve forces. Remember, until this recent collapse in the North, they were rototilling the Ukrainian Army into the ground with Arty each day. 300k conscripts gives them the defensive force they need to hold space, freeing up their Army and Wagner to handle the offensive side of the campaigns. With new Iranian drones entering the fray, and North Korea potentially entering the campaign to gain combat experience, this is likely to continue a great deal. Because North Korea uses Russian style artillery tactics, they are an instant fold-in to Russia's conventional arty dominant war. The real question from a combat perspective is whether or not the mobilization of forces will enable the Russian supply lines to better hold. The biggest gamechanger still on the table is that we haven't seen yet the introduction of true strategic (non-nuclear) weaponry on the Russian side, or, the targetting of Ukrainian infrastructure. The latter is likely to happen soon because the West is exploiting the Russian's soft touch towards seizing Ukrainian territory by sending a nonstop stream of heavy weaponry and resupply.

selimthegrim 4y ago
Uh you might want to look around Lyman and Kherson…
syntheweave 4y ago
If Russia were supplied with precision weaponry they would be trading casualties more evenly with Ukraine, but they aren't getting anything like HIMARS or Javelins. Most of it falls under sanctions and there's little reason for erstwhile allies and trading partners to help, because they recognize that a Russian loss here is an invitation to plunder what's left of the country. The ability of the world to shrug off loss of Russian energy is directly correlated to Russia's bargaining position here, and now that a major pipeline is down, the issue has been forced. What the battlefield figures point to is that while Russia can hold a line, it's using much more ammo to do it, and this strains their supply logistics, which are further pressured by long-range missle systems. Adding more troops when you're already supply-constrained means falling back on a Soviet-era strategy of throwing bodies at every problem and, most likely, letting some freeze to death stranded without even entering combat. However, modern Russia doesn't have the demographics necessary to hold out in a meatgrinder. The Red Army was able to do that successfully because they were drawing from a younger and more agrarian population that could be "born to die". As soon as your draft starts eating into older urbanites with skills, careers, and families, unrest is going to get out of control and put national sovereignty at threat. There's a reason why modern armies have moved towards a professionalized approach since the mid-20th century: it's a lower-footprint method that sustains high tech industries, and therefore is easier to gain support for. The entire narrative changed when it stopped being a "special military operation" and they announced mobilization: there's no more illusion of it being a professional war.

eternalban 4y ago

> 1- NS1 along NS2 are (were) shutdown and clearly these were not going to re-open, not before the end of the war - not politically acceptable for Putin, even less for Germany. No, some Germans were asking for NS2. Here is one article after a very quick search from 8/19: https://www.politico.eu/article/vice-president-of-the-german-parliament-calls-for-activation-of-nord-stream-2/ https://www.politico.eu/article/vice-president-of-the-german... Another: https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/europe/germanys-klaus-ernst-calls-for-negotiations-with-russia-amid-soaring-gas-prices-report-articleshow.html https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/europe/germanys-kla... "Meanwhile, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has criticised German leaders' calls to initiate talks regarding Nord Stream 2. "Calls by some German politicians to launch NS2 for a little while and close it later are totally irrational. This resembles drug addiction when a person says “Just one last time!” without realizing the devastating consequences of each “last time”." So there is political support for German government if they needed it. And it was in play. Important people were tweeting about it. :} > Not politically acceptable to Putin. I think he is not happy today, at all. Russians are supposedly running to borders to leave, the famous Operation is a shitzkrieg, his last move is dig in, annex, and hope and pray Medvedev's mad russian act has convinced opposite number psychos over here who are in charge of our end of world weapons that "we are not bluffing". Imagine the PR if great Uncle Vodya like father christmas opens the pipes to a freezing Germany ("gratis!" Its our gift). Is the German goverment going to say "Nein"? To sum, you must be joking. This Nord Stream was Russia's ace in the hole. Now it is gone.

davrosthedalek 4y ago

There is also China and maybe India. With the pipeline gone for good, Russia has to sell to them. No other market. But all this speculation depends on how damaged the pipeline is. I haven't seen any info on how long a repair would take.

SanjayMehta 4y ago
How long before China and/or India are blamed for this event? As for timelines, the media is saying several months, if not years.
dagw 4y ago
With the pipeline gone for good The physical pipeline is still there and mostly fine. Fixing the holes is expensive and requires the right expertise and equipment, but most experts I've seen quoted in the media seem to agree that it could definitely be done within a year, and probably faster, if everybody involved really wanted to. Edit: Other experts are now claiming that the damage is more substantial and that repairs might not be possible
- pbak 4y ago
  Well, yeah, but the CEOs of one company in Germany with the hardware and people to do that, and who was also charged with monitoring the pipelines, just died in an unexplained private jet crash two weeks ago.

csomar 4y ago

It's interesting you wrote a very long response and yet you presented no concrete arguments that the US could be behind this. We can agree that most EU countries will not support such an incident. The only two countries who have the technical capability and the political reasons are the USA and Russia. Both are evil and ready to blow the world for their own gains. > why would they take the risk to destroy the pipeline knowing Germans won't buy Russian gas in the foreseeable future? Because they know their "allies" will cave. They've been trying to push them from Russian gas for a long time now but it didn't work. > Their utmost priority is that Ukraine defeats Russia to send a strong message to China. They are not trying to send a message to China. They are being engaged in a proxy war with Russia since the cold war. Now things are heating up again as they are closing in on their prey.

labster 4y ago
That’s because there are no reasons for the US to do it. Europe is staying aligned just fine right now. Germans think Russia is an unreliable business partner, and don’t want to deal with them again. Germany is already expanding LNG port capacity to buy more North American gas. It would be a tremendous risk to be discovered; Denmark could trigger Article 5 against the United States. The US needs to show strength in Asia, not that it’s entangled in European affairs. It’s all too much malarkey for Dark Brandon to tolerate.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > Europe is staying aligned just fine right now. Sure, right now. When the winter comes and heating bills skyrocket, there will be those in Germany who want to turn the gas back on. Or... would have been. That option is gone now, at least for this winter. That's what the US might have gotten out of it. > It would be a tremendous risk to be discovered The US has taken more severe risks before, such as tapping the undersea cables in the territorial waters of their nuclear armed adversary during the Cold War, in principle risking global nuclear annihilation. The primary rule clandestine submarine operations play by is "don't get caught". If the US did it and did it properly, nothing will ever be conclusively pinned on America. > Denmark could trigger Article 5 against the United States. Fantasy scenario, get real.

foverzar 4y ago

Seanambers 4y ago
Isn't it obvious what the advantages would be for Russia? IF the Russians did it they get ; 1.Blowing up NS1&2 creates more energy and gas uncertainty in Europe in a period where they need to put on the pressure and try to limit military support for Ukraine as they are loosing the war in Ukraine. Its an assertive move. 2.They get to do big power signaling with a direct threat to other infrastructure in the north sea which is significant and all of which supplies Europe with gas. I would also like to point out that the Russians [unconfirmed but its basically what went down] sank the passenger ferry Estonia with 852 dead because it was used in the transport of stolen military hardware. So these explosions is not out of the realm of possibility - quite the opposite - I would say that it is basically how the Russians operate - with force.

Slava_Propanei 4y ago

lenkite 4y ago

Norway-Poland gas pipeline opened up on the same day that the N-2 pipeline blew up. Also, those waters are HEAVILY controlled by NATO nations. We all know who benefits here - and it isn't the Russians. PS: US has blown up Soviet gas pipelines covertly before while condemning the act the same time. Read "At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War".