15 ms·

Everyone seems to know it was Russia and is just casting out ideas to find a plausible motivation. I find that completely baffling. For opportunity, consider t

Everyone seems to know it was Russia and is just casting out ideas to find a plausible motivation. I find that completely baffling. For opportunity, consider that while setting up the pipeline needs a weird high-pressure residence and special training, blowing it up takes a fishing boat, scuba gear and underwater explosives. The equipment and training is cheap and available. So, those with opportunity is almost anyone. Practically, anyone with access to the Baltic Sea, boats, scuba equipment, underwater explosives; it doesn't have even to be anyone with military training, just skills in underwater demolition. For motivation, consider who benefits from permanently reducing European dependence on Russian energy? Resist going for "Clearly, Russia!". Just spitballing here, but why not a German opposition group? Norway? Poland? Any activist group opposed to EU dependence on Russia? Shit, why not Danish anarchists, for that matter? It could be Russia who suddenly decided for some reason that sanctions will never end and blowing up the means of selling hundreds of billions of euros of energy to Europe is a better use of the pipeline. But before getting there, you have to explain why it wasn't any of the myriad other groups who did not have hundreds of billions of Euros riding on it.

hardware2win 4y ago
>The equipment and training is cheap and available Ive been wondering why attacks on such a infrastructure is not more common - those pipes, internet cables, etc?
- bombcar 4y ago
  Because for those with the ability other attacks are easier, and it’s also a war declaration if determined. There have been “suspicious” accidental cable breaks, however.
_kbh_ 4y ago
Why did these groups miss a pipe on Nord Stream 2 that remains undamaged, and can be used by Russia to try and force certification of NS2 if things get bad?.
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  They didn't they got both. Nord Stream 2 has a leak too.
  - skrause 4y ago
    NS1 and NS2 each have two pipes. Both pipes of NS1 are leaking, but only one of NS2.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    It appears that both pipelines have two independent pipes for some unknown reason only a single pipe on the uncertified NS2 remains intact.
- mrep 4y ago
  Amateur hour? I'd bet money there is an undetonated bomb on the final one that failed to go off and if I were Germany or whoever, I'd be sending underwater drones along the last one to try and find one. It could give you a ton of insights on who actually did it if you found an intact undetonated one.
- eternalban 4y ago
  This and only this is the one fact (which I did not know about yesterday) that actually puts Russia in the viable suspects list, which now include: US, UK, Ukraine, Poland, Russia, Germany (deep state), any nation betting on strategic LNG sales. Or maybe it was Dr. No.
readthenotes1 4y ago
Why Russia? Biden and sone State Dept official both said NS2 would stop if Russia invaded. Seems like a promise kept
- nixass 4y ago
  - rendall 4y ago
    What contractual obligations, specifically? What are the penalties for not meeting its "contractual obligations"? Are these penalties greater than the hundreds of billions of Euros that Europe would be prepared to pay were things back to normal?
- Grollicus 4y ago
  Because they promised NS2 would stop (which it did, before the war broke out the project was dead) and then they blew up NS1?!
- rendall 4y ago
  My question was Why not any of the other myriad other groups who have opportunity and even more direct motivation?
Mordisquitos 4y ago
I agree with you, it generally makes absolutely no sense for Russia to be behind this (at least not the mainstream Russian state, I have my doubts about their internal unity). What's more, I find the timing of this incident odd, having happened just after the victory in the Italian elections of the far-right, who is somewhat ambivalent towards Putin. The only conceivable motivation I can come up with for Russia would be a 4D-chess false-flag. If they were to already assume that there's no way the EU will give in to the gas blackmail this winter, blowing up the pipeline and sowing doubt on the US or Ukraine itself being behind it could be a way to divide support for Ukraine. However, it would be an extremely risky and expensive bet with no guarantee of it working.
- gambiting 4y ago
  >> it generally makes absolutely no sense for Russia to be behind this Of course it does - Poland is entirely relying on the Norway to Poland gas pipeline, if that goes then a country of 50 million people has no gas this winter. Blowing up the Nordstream was(to me) a clear signal that EU needs to be careful or the Norwegian pipelines are going up next.
  - rendall 4y ago
    Why not then blow up the Norway to Poland gas pipeline itself?
    - 5560675260 4y ago
      That would be seen as an act of war and would escalate things quicker than Russia thinks it can handle.
      - rendall 4y ago
        You think that blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines would not be seen as an act of war?
        4y ago
Zardoz84 4y ago
You forgot to mention EEUU... Think about to WHO we are buying now gas. PD: Also, we can try to not tarnish more the anarchists. Probably they would be the last guys to try to blow it .
- closewith 4y ago
  For those confused like me, EEUU is a Spanish contraction for the US.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Estrados Unidos…de Mexico!
Findecanor 4y ago
The three explosion sites are at depths of 70 - 80 meters. That would require a trained diver with professional equipment, or an underwater drone. Not that professional divers don't go deeper. But a recreational scuba diver, with readily available gear would dive to max half that depth.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  Could the explosives have been lowered on a rope from a boat with no diver?
  - rendall 4y ago
    Or just dropped, like a depth charge.
  - maratc 4y ago
    In theory, yes. In practice, the wind and the currents make it extremely hard to put the load in a vicinity of the pipe at 80 m depth.
tuatoru 4y ago
> Resist going for "Clearly, Russia!". Just spitballing here, but why not a German opposition group? Norway? Poland? Any activist group opposed to EU dependence on Russia? Why treat "Russia" as a unitary actor? By doing this, Putin takes away a major reason for deposing him - whoever takes over is not going to get those sweet, sweet Euro millions in return for stopping the invasion and withdrawing. It's a game-theoretic commitment device, on this view. Likewise it's a mistake to treat Poland as unitary. It's likely that at least some people in Poland would like the West to commit to defending Ukraine, because if Ukraine falls, Poland suddenly borders the Russian empire. There is history between Poland and Russia. And there are a bunch of Ukrainian refugees in Poland...they would also like the West to continue their support for Ukraine. > Shit, why not Danish anarchists, for that matter? Or Danish wind turbine manufacturers who want to force commitment to renewables?
- gambiting 4y ago
  >>because if Ukraine falls, Poland suddenly borders the Russian empire. Poland already has a border with Russia. But yes, we would very much prefer not to make it an even bigger one.
- rendall 4y ago
  > Putin takes away a major reason for deposing him - whoever takes over is not going to get those sweet, sweet Euro millions in return for stopping the invasion and withdrawing. Do you think that someone intending to depose Putin will now not do it because the Nord Streams are gone? Ya'll are really stretching. Sorry, but, consider who benefits directly from ending European dependence on Russian energy? If your first thought is "Russia" you... I just... don't know what to tell you.
- rendall 4y ago
  > Or Danish wind turbine manufacturers who want to force commitment to renewables? I mean, sure. I know you're being sarcastic in order to dismiss the "Anyone but Russia" theory, but do cast the net more widely than Russia or the US.
saiya-jin 4y ago
You realize that that gas didn't evaporate but will be eventually sold to somebody else. Even if for lower prices. Russia doesn't have money issue right now, rather political/military one. The guy on top with his close circle has few hundreds billions stashed all around the world, he doesn't desperately need to get more immediately. Your arguments are valid but what baffles me in this topic is why folks try so hard to find completely rational explanations for russian actions now. People with hurt egos do stupid things all the time. Look at the clusterf*k that is Ukraine, how they keep doing stupid things that hurt them on and on.
- rendall 4y ago
  If you're saying that "hurt ego" is the motivation, OK, but there are many non-Russian beneficiaries from the action that do not rely on irrationality or weird 4D chess false-flag explanations. Why not consider those first, in turn?
- gitanovic 4y ago
  Because Putin is a rational actor, the invasion of Ukraine was a huge miscalculation on his side, he thought it would have been a Blitzkireg, and it became a trench war for which he was not prepared
- sofixa 4y ago
  > You realize that that gas didn't evaporate but will be eventually sold to somebody else They don't have the infrastructure for that, and if they stop extraction it will be complicated and expensive to restart it later. So they're just burning it: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62652133 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62652133
belter 4y ago
Russia or no Russia, the analysis by experts says it was neither an accident or natural cause. - https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/09/someone-probably-blew-up-a-russian-gas-pipeline-to-europe.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/09/someone-probably-ble...
that_guy_iain 4y ago
> Resist going for "Clearly, Russia!". Just spitballing here, but why not a German opposition group? Norway? Poland? Any activist group opposed to EU dependence on Russia? Shit, why not Danish anarchists, for that matter? Realistically, it would have to have been a military operation. Causing explosions in the middle of the sea is rather difficult. And probably near impossible for your average terrorist group. Personally, I suspect it's the US. It does have the earmarks of a Russia operation tho. It's just deniable in a weird way while they still get the credit for it. However, what does Russia gain by reducing the dependency on Russian gas? Before they were trying to get Germany to open up Nordstream 2 since it's complete but now that's not possible. Gas prices go up but if you're ability to sell gas is limited that doesn't help much. On the otherside are the US, who are well known for operating shady secret missions to affect geo politics in their favour. The fact it happened on the day another gas pipeline opens would make it seem like it's possible that someone wanted the other gas pipeline to become more popular and used instead.
- theironhammer 4y ago
  It's also sending a signal to Putin. Just like Putin did with Novichok.
  - bitL 4y ago
    It's more like telling Putin to go all in on Ukraine as that country is now 100% controlling transit of Russian gas to EU, so any Russian export is at the mercy of the US in the end. The alternative to bypass Ukraine is now gone, making the goal of controlling the Ukrainian territory a strategic necessity. We can expect the war to get much worse soon. Pretty much Iraq situation on Russian side. This might also lead to their submarines cutting cables and pipes elsewhere in the world, damaging the infrastructure to keep the other side busy.
housingisaright 4y ago
? who else would've done it? Stop pretending. 'Maybe not russia??' is an exciting idea, but this is not a Tom Clancy novel and no such groups in Europe exists. Especially that would have the resources to carry out an attack like this. The destruction of the pipeline happens simultaneous as Russia is in a direct conflict with Ukraine/Europe and is constantly flying drones at Norwegian oil platforms.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rendall 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33006231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33006231
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  An underwater pipeline blowing up? In a Tom Clancy novel it would definitely be a submarine doing it. Tom Clancy wouldn't pass up an opportunity for a submarine subplot.
nollbit 4y ago
Practically, anyone with access to the Baltic Sea, boats, scuba equipment, underwater explosives could do it, but they couldn't do it undetected. This area is under surveillance from Sweden and Denmark. If you want to do it undetected you need to do it completely underwater, including ingress and egress, and that absolutely limits the potential actors.
- rendall 4y ago
  You think that Sweden and Denmark surveil every single dinghy and fishing boat and yacht and ferry? That if a tugboat stops for 3 or 4 or 8 hours along the 2400km stretches of the Nord Stream pipelines, the coast guards will swoop in with helicopters and snipers. Yeah, no. No, that would not have happened.
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    Maybe not at the time, but all these radars and hydrophones etc. will keep a record of activities on the area. It's like CCTV, I suppose.
  - semi-extrinsic 4y ago
    No, but they definitely have the possibility after the event to replay recordings from their very nice naval radar systems to see if there was a surface vessel doing something in those locations. Also, I understand the depth of the pipeline is 80-100 meters so you need divers experienced with hypoxic trimix (or an ROV) and you need to be able to carry a 50-100 kg payload in addition to all the diving kit. Just to qualify for the training courses to learn this type of diving you need to have logged many hundred dives with gradually increasing equipment complexity, it takes years and years of training. I don't buy for a second that this is anything else than a nation-state actor with advanced equipment. The community of people in the world whou could dive to these depths and perform any kind of useful work is tiny and close-knit.
    - rendall 4y ago
      Assuming you even need to dive down there. Just drop a depth-charge.
piaste 4y ago
I had your exact same reaction, except with the US at the top of the suspects list (or non-governmental agents whose interests align with the US, of which there are plenty). The #1 reason I'm still leaning Russia nevertheless is because of an outside factor: Russia isn't screaming bloody murder about it. If 3/4th of their pipelines had gone up and nobody in the Russian government was involved, Lavrov would already be on a plane to NYC and calling for an emergency UNSC meeting about a terrorist UK/USA attack against Russia's assets. So far, the most they have produced seems to be a mealy-mouthed question on Zakharova's Telegram channel [0]. Given the Russian Foreign Ministry's modus operandi of blaming the West for anything and everything at the slightest excuse, this sudden quiet is extremely significant. [0] https://tass.com/politics/1514405 https://tass.com/politics/1514405
- londons_explore 4y ago
  If they'd blown up their own assets, they would blame the west for it anyway no?
  - tehbeard 4y ago
    The thinking for them doing it themselves is this is more a subtle threat like their polonium and novichok poisonings, but with less immediately political backlash (i.e. No article 5 triggered) A "we have the capability to do this... lots of other pipes out there.... Have a pleasant day" sort of message.
    - sidibe 4y ago
      There's other reasons Russia could have done it too. Drive a wedge between Germany and a country that would have a more obvious reason of hating the pipeline like US or Poland, make sure rapid return of relations and trade is harder to dissuade inner circle from toppling Putin or pressuring him to back down, etc. We still have no idea, no top officials have made any accusations or presented any evidence, and just guessing from motives seems like a crapshoot. What we do know is one country is on an unhinged escalatory path, they're my very tentative guess without knowing exactly why they'd do it.
exDM69 4y ago
If this act of sabotage was not conducted by nation state actors with submarines, but someone using fishing boats and scuba divers instead like you suggest, the perpetrators will be caught in a manner of days. The straits between the coasts of the southern Baltic sea are one of the most closely guarded waters in the world. There are at least 5 different nations (dk, se, de, pl, ru) coast guard assets with eyes on the region. There is primary radar, secondary radar, seabed hydrophone arrays, surface vessels, submarines and airborne surveillance and satellites with eyes and ears on this region. And the surveillance has been increased a lot during this year. Unless someone gets caught within a week, it's safe to assume that this sabotage was conducted by nation state level actors.
- DownGoat 4y ago
  Charges could have been placed weeks ago, finding culprits will be very hard if someone does not take responsibility
  - XorNot 4y ago
    How would you trigger them? 100m down radio doesn't work at all. ELF antennas are nation-state level assets and need receiving antennas that are hundreds of metres long. Acoustic messaging is possible, but again hard to do. Timed charges are plausible but that's a heck of a commitment (of course 3/4 breaches suggests a possible misfire - I imagine theres a hunt on for the last one).
    - pjerem 4y ago
      A good old clock.
      - maratc 4y ago
        That just happens to work at a depth of 80 meters.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
captainmuon 4y ago
I just hope it wasn't the US. That would be a devastating breach of trust for Germany and would backfire badly if it came out. I'm rooting for the Danish anarchists. You basically just need underwater explosives and a boat. You hang the explosives on a long rope, throw it over board like an anchor, and drag it into the pipeline. When you hit the pipeline, you detonate the explosives.
- rendall 4y ago
  Don't worry. It wasn't the US. Not really our style. Sure, the CIA pulls dirty tricks, but those are quiet, in-the-shadows skullduggery where no one's paying attention. CIA doesn't do big and loud where other Americans can see it. Plus, motivations are wrong. The US catastrophically ends European energy dependence on Russia so that... it can compete with the Middle East and Russia and Canada on a more equal footing? Yeah, no. The US is not that desperate for cash.
  - ktfelt 4y ago
    There is Stuxnet and its predecessor, which blew up a pipeline! https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/reagan-approved-plan-to-sabotage-soviets/a9184eff-47fd-402e-beb2-63970851e130/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r... The U.S. motivation is that it has tried to shut down energy trades between the Soviet Union/Russia and Germany for more than 50 years.
    - DangerousPie 4y ago
      But those trades were already shut down and not coming back anytime soon. If Germany had refused to join sanctions and was still using NS1 + NS2 at full capacity right now then maybe there would have been some motivation to force the issue. But why now, when the pipelines weren't even active?
      - pbak 4y ago
        You are analyzing this too much in the short term. These pipelines were meant to last for decades. The pain of seeing a quarter of your industry close for lack of energy might have easily bent the will of Germans and others after this winter. All political announcements about replacing Russian gas before 2027 at the earliest were a pipe dream (pun intended)for anybody with any actual knowledge of the industry. Even now, a large portion of what was supposedly bought elsewhere was just repackaged and re-originated at the port of loading, but actually Russian gas - hence part of the price hike going to a chain of middlemen.
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
I mean the smoking gun here is a statement from Biden back in February that they will take steps to stop it. Official statement: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/23/statement-by-president-biden-on-nord-stream-2/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... > As I have made clear, we will not hesitate to take further steps if Russia continues to escalate. Interview quotes: > "If Russia invades... again, then there will be longer Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." > When asked how he would do that, he responded, "I promise you we will be able to do it." Dunno if they intended to "stop" Nord Stream 1 as well, but even with Russia messing with it and frequently stopping it, it was still a huge source of income for Russia thanks to exorbitant gas prices. Now this is pure theory / speculation on my part, but, now that Europe has filled up their gas storage and has rapidly built new coastline LNG plants to accept shipments of LNG from the US, their dependence on Russian gas has dropped fast. I can see some motivations why the US would have an interest in cutting it off. One, force stop the flow of money to Russia. I mean they could have used political means or financial incentives too, so it seems weird they would bomb infrastructure of their allies in their allies' national waters instead. But two is to increase European dependence on American LNG shipments, which are currently highly profitable. I'm sure we'll see a big correction in gas prices this winter, depending on the weather, Nord Stream 1/2 or no though. Nothing as sustainable as the decades of Russian gas flowing into Europe.
- rendall 4y ago
  > "the smoking gun" That's not a smoking gun.
  - cloutchaser 4y ago
    Here's some helicopters flying over the exact explosion locations on sept 2nd: https://twitter.com/BNNBreaking/status/1574804363280719876 https://twitter.com/BNNBreaking/status/1574804363280719876
    - mhh__ 4y ago
      With transponders on?
AndrewThrowaway 4y ago
I think these are good points but the main shortcoming of all the theories about Russia is that we still treat (or want to) Russia as a rational actor. I remember just before the war I would bid everything that Russia would in no way start the war. It just didn't make any rational sense. Who in sound mind would think to do it knowing that all the West [might/would] unite against you. However rationality is being lost in personal agendas and Mafioso thinking of some sorts. Now we see that after any Russian loss, be it a warship or loss of territory Russia responds with some pity attack against civilians. For example wasting expensive missiles to blow out a few floors of some high rise residential building. It is just hard to understand by rational western thinking. However growing up in post-soviet country this kind of thinking is prominent amongst post-soviet mafias and similar sorts of groups - "if I can't have it nobody will". It is some kind of childish, failure to launch thing. "If I lost football match I will destroy the ball and that will show everybody". People grow out of it, thugs become thugs exactly for this reason - failure to grow up, lack of empathy because of family problems and etc. Moreover you can see this in all the Russian army from the very top to the very bottom. What self respecting army would terrorize civilians after any push back. "We are retreating but we will put grenades under every pillow in every house in this village. That will show them". If this kind of thinking is prominent among all the population, all the army and etc. it starts to make more sense. A simple "If we can't profit out of it we will blow it up and then you will know" starts to make sense. Then you have "we can frame this on USA/Ukraine" because everybody knows "it is not in our interest". Then you have Putin's interest - pipeline can become very profitable thing for the oligarch who gets rid of Putin and makes peace with the West. So it becomes a personal danger to Putin. So it really could be Russia being Russia and Russian elite trying to "stay relevant" by their own (what west would call) crazy thinking.
- rendall 4y ago
  > we still treat (or want to) Russia as a rational actor. People clearly do not treat Russia as a rational actor, given that everyone seems to assume Russia permanently ends European dependency on its fuel by blowing up their own equipment in NATO territory is the primary actual real go-to theory to be taken seriously. I'm not trying to dismiss your speculations about mafioso-style thinking. I mean, assuming all of that is true, you still have only that to rely on versus Who benefits directly, materially and immediately by ending European dependence on Russian oil?
rich_sasha 4y ago
I think you somewhat underestimate the difficulty of blowing this up. You have to find it first. Diving to 80 metres is _not_ child's play! Then locating the pipe with possibly poor visibility. Finally it's a big chunk of metal and concrete, you'd need the kind of explosives you can't just buy at your local corner store. I'd imagine Baltic traffic is well monitored, especially now, so if you don't want to be caught, or identified post factum, parking your fishing vessel for hours on the spot won't cut it. That said it is well within any Baltic state's or NATO country's "easy zone".
- sydd 4y ago
  USA did look there some something sus https://twitter.com/inteldoge/status/1573450988744331274?s=46&t=w8vIXMrwBlRcbJCQfCKwcw https://twitter.com/inteldoge/status/1573450988744331274?s=4...
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    If the US Navy were up to "something sus" they probably wouldn't have their ADS-B transceivers on...
- maratc 4y ago
  > You have to find it first. It would be very visible on an average sonar. (An average sonar is $500 or so.)
tazjin 4y ago
The US is the only actor that makes any sense to me, especially after Blinken's statement yesterday (~ "it was in nobody's interest, but would you look at the benefits!"). Combine that with the US naval activity in the exact area around the time, and also the "anti"-mine "drills" they did there earlier this year. The US knows that none of their vassals will ever openly accuse them, and for the Western media it was Russia anyways. So far it seems only that Polish MEP said outright that he thinks it was them, and cheered it on.
- DangerousPie 4y ago
  Sabotaging their allies' key infrastructure would be an absolutely crazy amount of risk for the US. Even if they think there is a 99% chance they'd not get caught, that is a 1% chance of completely destroying relations their with Germany, Scandinavia, the EU, and probably the entire world. And all of that risk for the very marginal benefit of disabling some pipelines that weren't going to be used anytime soon any way? I think the much more likely explanation is that this was Russia or at least a faction within Russia. They are the actor that has already started a war in this area, has shown completely disregard for treaties and international law, and has been known to act irrationally (eg. by starting the war in the first place).
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > And all of that risk for the very marginal benefit of disabling some pipelines that weren't going to be used anytime soon any way? To ensure they weren't going to be used anytime soon. > Even if they think there is a 99% chance they'd not get caught, that is a 1% chance of completely destroying relations their with Germany, Scandinavia, the EU, and probably the entire world. 1. The US has a history of taking insane risks with clandestine submarine ops. Much worse risks than this; they did much that could have provoked the Soviet Union during the Cold War, when both sides were threatening each other with nukes. 2. If Germany/Scandinavia/EU/etc did find irrefutable proof that the US did it, they would probably bury that proof and pretend they never saw it. It isn't in their interest to break from NATO even if America did this and they know it.
belorn 4y ago
Diving down 60-80 meters in the baltic ocean is quite advanced technical diving if you are just going to go down there and up again. Doing any kind of work (which increase breathing) at those depths is a massive step in complexity. We are talking about cold water diving, at hypoxic gas depths, with usually low visibility. The dive would require several hours of decompression in the middle of a shipping lane. The density of the gas mean you can't even do mild exertion without severe risks of not returning to the surface alive. The explosions also occurred within a very short time frame (an hour if I recall) with a fairly large distance between, so you need multiple coordinated teams. And last, the weather conditions would need to be fairly specific in term of wind at those locations. I would say its a bit like looking towards the amateur rocket community in order to explain a construct on the moon.
- rendall 4y ago
  Someone downstream suggested dragging explosives on a rope, detonating when they hit the pipeline. Wouldn't even need to stop.
  - belorn 4y ago
    Sure it becomes much simpler if you remove the diving aspect to it, or simply remove the need to return to the surface alive. I would suspect dragging an explosive with a rope would take a long time, enough that radar and other ships would likely notice the behavior, especially if you intend to hit the pipeline 3 times on 3 different locations. Really expensive sonar would reduce the required time, as would really precise GPS locations, but even so, from what I know, it a very time consuming activity. Still a better theory than sport diving.
    - tmaly 4y ago
      what about those remote vehicles they use for treasure hunting? The seem to be able to go down far deeper than what is being talked about here.
  - laverya 4y ago
    Drag explosives on a rope, but don't blow it up when it hits the pipeline - instead have it drop when that happens, and then detonate a week or more later. Vessel positions are tracked and recorded after all.
rendall 4y ago
One must build elaborate, implausible motivations for everyone in order to maintain the "It's definitely Russia" theory when there are more plausible, direct motivations to hand in the "Anyone but Russia" theory. Who stands to benefit from permanently ending European dependence on Russian fuel? Norway? To conclude Norway (it's not Norway, but for example), one can simply point at the loss of a competitor. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple. To conclude a German opposition group, one can simply point at the effect of the loss of the pipelines. Scholz government cannot heat Germans this winter, opposition gets to criticize the sitting government for over-reliance on Russia and such fragile infrastructure. Opposition wins the election. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple. To conclude any one of the Baltic States (or Poland), one can simply point at the effect of the end of European dependence on Russian energy. It removes the most persistent barrier to implementing harsher sanctions, and a weaker Russia is less likely to invade them for a generation or two. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple. Poland, for its part, has the added lucrative benefit of being the sole endpoint of the sole working trans-Baltic pipeline. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple. To conclude anyone at all who support Ukraine, one can simply point that it weakens Russia's war effort, hastening an end to the war and making Russia more vulnerable to sanctions. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple. To conclude Russia or Putin, one must explain how losing potential access to hundreds of billions of Euros benefits Russia or Putin. (Hint: it doesn't). Requires weird 4D chess, weird contorted motives. Not direct. Not simple.
- durindeathless 4y ago
  Poland has been my number 1 suspect thus far. For a variety of reasons. Some of which you stated.
- Paradigma11 4y ago
  Two points: 1) Priors. Russia loves their clandestine operations to kill somebody or blow stuff up in europe. Be it weapons depots in Czechia or bulgaria, poisoning opponents with radioactive materials or nerve agents your various russian intelligence agencies are there for you. This happened recently, not some cold war stuff. 2.) You are forgetting to include the possible downsides for getting caught in your analysis. * Russia: Basically none. They blew up their own pipelines. Strange, but they have done stranger things. They will deny it anyway and nothing would come of it. * USA: Massive. The whole alliance against Russia would crumble over winter and Russia would have a much easier time evading sanctions. Anti US sentiment in europe would go through the roof. Yes, it could have been Poland or the Baltics but 2:1 my money would be on Russia to sow discord, fear and distrust. Just think how fast that Biden statement was presented as proof for US involvement. Russia right now needs to try and reduce financial and arms aid to Ukraine, any economic considerations are probably secondary. Not saying that would be a good strategy, but that hasnt prevented Russia in the past.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> Just spitballing here, but why not a German opposition group? More likely the opposite. With the pipeline intact, German opposition could tell voters they will turn that gas on, something the present German government isn't willing to do. Now they can't, so the German opposition has less to offer.
- theironhammer 4y ago
  Precisely.
tchvil 4y ago
Since we are all speculating, here's another one. How about Ukraine doing it ? It annoys the Russians. And Europeans will have a harder time to easily buy some Russian gas if this winter is too cold. Increasing our Russian anger cursor to not soften on sanctions.
- durindeathless 4y ago
  I think the Poles potentially had something to do with it. They have been very vocal in opposition to the NS and now they control two pipelines one of which wholly removed from Russian control. Whoever did it would know that the bone would fall instantly on Russia or the US. To me it doesn't make any sense for either Russia or US to do this.
quonn 4y ago
The only one except Russia with an incentive would be Germany, and only for NS2, not NS 1. And even then it‘s far less likely. I think also the way it was done. Attacks on two pipes for maximum effect and apparently large leaks. Anyone except Russia would have an incentive to make an attack look small and boring, perhaps like a defect.
Arnt 4y ago
Try https://nitter.it/EmmaMAshford/status/1575137413340561411#m https://nitter.it/EmmaMAshford/status/1575137413340561411#m In particular the sentence "There's no way to know, but any explanation here requires someone to make a stupid strategic choice" and the depressing sentence after it.
- rendall 4y ago
  It is true that this is "Russian style". I'm not convinced that's enough to make it "Definitely Russia". I, personally, me, Rendall, think it'd be pretty good for Europe to get off the Russian tit and I know I'm not the only one. If I had an extra half-million burning a hole in my pocket and a ruthless, reckless nature, I just might spend that money to blow the Nord Streams and happily let Russia take the fall. Sure, Europeans would suffer through a cold winter, but Putin and the FSB sure as hell would be unsettled, and the Russians have now lost their leverage over Germany and Europe.

hardware2win 4y ago

>The equipment and training is cheap and available Ive been wondering why attacks on such a infrastructure is not more common - those pipes, internet cables, etc?

bombcar 4y ago
Because for those with the ability other attacks are easier, and it’s also a war declaration if determined. There have been “suspicious” accidental cable breaks, however.

_kbh_ 4y ago

Why did these groups miss a pipe on Nord Stream 2 that remains undamaged, and can be used by Russia to try and force certification of NS2 if things get bad?.

that_guy_iain 4y ago
They didn't they got both. Nord Stream 2 has a leak too.
- skrause 4y ago
  NS1 and NS2 each have two pipes. Both pipes of NS1 are leaking, but only one of NS2.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  It appears that both pipelines have two independent pipes for some unknown reason only a single pipe on the uncertified NS2 remains intact.
mrep 4y ago
Amateur hour? I'd bet money there is an undetonated bomb on the final one that failed to go off and if I were Germany or whoever, I'd be sending underwater drones along the last one to try and find one. It could give you a ton of insights on who actually did it if you found an intact undetonated one.
eternalban 4y ago
This and only this is the one fact (which I did not know about yesterday) that actually puts Russia in the viable suspects list, which now include: US, UK, Ukraine, Poland, Russia, Germany (deep state), any nation betting on strategic LNG sales. Or maybe it was Dr. No.

readthenotes1 4y ago

Why Russia? Biden and sone State Dept official both said NS2 would stop if Russia invaded. Seems like a promise kept

nixass 4y ago
- rendall 4y ago
  What contractual obligations, specifically? What are the penalties for not meeting its "contractual obligations"? Are these penalties greater than the hundreds of billions of Euros that Europe would be prepared to pay were things back to normal?
Grollicus 4y ago
Because they promised NS2 would stop (which it did, before the war broke out the project was dead) and then they blew up NS1?!
rendall 4y ago
My question was Why not any of the other myriad other groups who have opportunity and even more direct motivation?

Mordisquitos 4y ago

I agree with you, it generally makes absolutely no sense for Russia to be behind this (at least not the mainstream Russian state, I have my doubts about their internal unity). What's more, I find the timing of this incident odd, having happened just after the victory in the Italian elections of the far-right, who is somewhat ambivalent towards Putin. The only conceivable motivation I can come up with for Russia would be a 4D-chess false-flag. If they were to already assume that there's no way the EU will give in to the gas blackmail this winter, blowing up the pipeline and sowing doubt on the US or Ukraine itself being behind it could be a way to divide support for Ukraine. However, it would be an extremely risky and expensive bet with no guarantee of it working.

gambiting 4y ago
>> it generally makes absolutely no sense for Russia to be behind this Of course it does - Poland is entirely relying on the Norway to Poland gas pipeline, if that goes then a country of 50 million people has no gas this winter. Blowing up the Nordstream was(to me) a clear signal that EU needs to be careful or the Norwegian pipelines are going up next.
- rendall 4y ago
  Why not then blow up the Norway to Poland gas pipeline itself?
  - 5560675260 4y ago
    That would be seen as an act of war and would escalate things quicker than Russia thinks it can handle.
    - rendall 4y ago
      You think that blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines would not be seen as an act of war?
      - 4y ago

Zardoz84 4y ago

You forgot to mention EEUU... Think about to WHO we are buying now gas. PD: Also, we can try to not tarnish more the anarchists. Probably they would be the last guys to try to blow it .

closewith 4y ago
For those confused like me, EEUU is a Spanish contraction for the US.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Estrados Unidos…de Mexico!

Findecanor 4y ago

The three explosion sites are at depths of 70 - 80 meters. That would require a trained diver with professional equipment, or an underwater drone. Not that professional divers don't go deeper. But a recreational scuba diver, with readily available gear would dive to max half that depth.

londons_explore 4y ago
Could the explosives have been lowered on a rope from a boat with no diver?
- rendall 4y ago
  Or just dropped, like a depth charge.
- maratc 4y ago
  In theory, yes. In practice, the wind and the currents make it extremely hard to put the load in a vicinity of the pipe at 80 m depth.

tuatoru 4y ago

> Resist going for "Clearly, Russia!". Just spitballing here, but why not a German opposition group? Norway? Poland? Any activist group opposed to EU dependence on Russia? Why treat "Russia" as a unitary actor? By doing this, Putin takes away a major reason for deposing him - whoever takes over is not going to get those sweet, sweet Euro millions in return for stopping the invasion and withdrawing. It's a game-theoretic commitment device, on this view. Likewise it's a mistake to treat Poland as unitary. It's likely that at least some people in Poland would like the West to commit to defending Ukraine, because if Ukraine falls, Poland suddenly borders the Russian empire. There is history between Poland and Russia. And there are a bunch of Ukrainian refugees in Poland...they would also like the West to continue their support for Ukraine. > Shit, why not Danish anarchists, for that matter? Or Danish wind turbine manufacturers who want to force commitment to renewables?

gambiting 4y ago
>>because if Ukraine falls, Poland suddenly borders the Russian empire. Poland already has a border with Russia. But yes, we would very much prefer not to make it an even bigger one.
rendall 4y ago
> Putin takes away a major reason for deposing him - whoever takes over is not going to get those sweet, sweet Euro millions in return for stopping the invasion and withdrawing. Do you think that someone intending to depose Putin will now not do it because the Nord Streams are gone? Ya'll are really stretching. Sorry, but, consider who benefits directly from ending European dependence on Russian energy? If your first thought is "Russia" you... I just... don't know what to tell you.
rendall 4y ago
> Or Danish wind turbine manufacturers who want to force commitment to renewables? I mean, sure. I know you're being sarcastic in order to dismiss the "Anyone but Russia" theory, but do cast the net more widely than Russia or the US.

saiya-jin 4y ago

You realize that that gas didn't evaporate but will be eventually sold to somebody else. Even if for lower prices. Russia doesn't have money issue right now, rather political/military one. The guy on top with his close circle has few hundreds billions stashed all around the world, he doesn't desperately need to get more immediately. Your arguments are valid but what baffles me in this topic is why folks try so hard to find completely rational explanations for russian actions now. People with hurt egos do stupid things all the time. Look at the clusterf*k that is Ukraine, how they keep doing stupid things that hurt them on and on.

rendall 4y ago
If you're saying that "hurt ego" is the motivation, OK, but there are many non-Russian beneficiaries from the action that do not rely on irrationality or weird 4D chess false-flag explanations. Why not consider those first, in turn?
gitanovic 4y ago
Because Putin is a rational actor, the invasion of Ukraine was a huge miscalculation on his side, he thought it would have been a Blitzkireg, and it became a trench war for which he was not prepared
sofixa 4y ago
> You realize that that gas didn't evaporate but will be eventually sold to somebody else They don't have the infrastructure for that, and if they stop extraction it will be complicated and expensive to restart it later. So they're just burning it: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62652133 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62652133

belter 4y ago

Russia or no Russia, the analysis by experts says it was neither an accident or natural cause. - https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/09/someone-probably-blew-up-a-russian-gas-pipeline-to-europe.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/09/someone-probably-ble...

that_guy_iain 4y ago

> Resist going for "Clearly, Russia!". Just spitballing here, but why not a German opposition group? Norway? Poland? Any activist group opposed to EU dependence on Russia? Shit, why not Danish anarchists, for that matter? Realistically, it would have to have been a military operation. Causing explosions in the middle of the sea is rather difficult. And probably near impossible for your average terrorist group. Personally, I suspect it's the US. It does have the earmarks of a Russia operation tho. It's just deniable in a weird way while they still get the credit for it. However, what does Russia gain by reducing the dependency on Russian gas? Before they were trying to get Germany to open up Nordstream 2 since it's complete but now that's not possible. Gas prices go up but if you're ability to sell gas is limited that doesn't help much. On the otherside are the US, who are well known for operating shady secret missions to affect geo politics in their favour. The fact it happened on the day another gas pipeline opens would make it seem like it's possible that someone wanted the other gas pipeline to become more popular and used instead.

theironhammer 4y ago
It's also sending a signal to Putin. Just like Putin did with Novichok.
- bitL 4y ago
  It's more like telling Putin to go all in on Ukraine as that country is now 100% controlling transit of Russian gas to EU, so any Russian export is at the mercy of the US in the end. The alternative to bypass Ukraine is now gone, making the goal of controlling the Ukrainian territory a strategic necessity. We can expect the war to get much worse soon. Pretty much Iraq situation on Russian side. This might also lead to their submarines cutting cables and pipes elsewhere in the world, damaging the infrastructure to keep the other side busy.

housingisaright 4y ago

? who else would've done it? Stop pretending. 'Maybe not russia??' is an exciting idea, but this is not a Tom Clancy novel and no such groups in Europe exists. Especially that would have the resources to carry out an attack like this. The destruction of the pipeline happens simultaneous as Russia is in a direct conflict with Ukraine/Europe and is constantly flying drones at Norwegian oil platforms.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rendall 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33006231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33006231
MichaelCollins 4y ago
An underwater pipeline blowing up? In a Tom Clancy novel it would definitely be a submarine doing it. Tom Clancy wouldn't pass up an opportunity for a submarine subplot.

nollbit 4y ago

Practically, anyone with access to the Baltic Sea, boats, scuba equipment, underwater explosives could do it, but they couldn't do it undetected. This area is under surveillance from Sweden and Denmark. If you want to do it undetected you need to do it completely underwater, including ingress and egress, and that absolutely limits the potential actors.

rendall 4y ago
You think that Sweden and Denmark surveil every single dinghy and fishing boat and yacht and ferry? That if a tugboat stops for 3 or 4 or 8 hours along the 2400km stretches of the Nord Stream pipelines, the coast guards will swoop in with helicopters and snipers. Yeah, no. No, that would not have happened.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  Maybe not at the time, but all these radars and hydrophones etc. will keep a record of activities on the area. It's like CCTV, I suppose.
- semi-extrinsic 4y ago
  No, but they definitely have the possibility after the event to replay recordings from their very nice naval radar systems to see if there was a surface vessel doing something in those locations. Also, I understand the depth of the pipeline is 80-100 meters so you need divers experienced with hypoxic trimix (or an ROV) and you need to be able to carry a 50-100 kg payload in addition to all the diving kit. Just to qualify for the training courses to learn this type of diving you need to have logged many hundred dives with gradually increasing equipment complexity, it takes years and years of training. I don't buy for a second that this is anything else than a nation-state actor with advanced equipment. The community of people in the world whou could dive to these depths and perform any kind of useful work is tiny and close-knit.
  - rendall 4y ago
    Assuming you even need to dive down there. Just drop a depth-charge.

piaste 4y ago

I had your exact same reaction, except with the US at the top of the suspects list (or non-governmental agents whose interests align with the US, of which there are plenty). The #1 reason I'm still leaning Russia nevertheless is because of an outside factor: Russia isn't screaming bloody murder about it. If 3/4th of their pipelines had gone up and nobody in the Russian government was involved, Lavrov would already be on a plane to NYC and calling for an emergency UNSC meeting about a terrorist UK/USA attack against Russia's assets. So far, the most they have produced seems to be a mealy-mouthed question on Zakharova's Telegram channel [0]. Given the Russian Foreign Ministry's modus operandi of blaming the West for anything and everything at the slightest excuse, this sudden quiet is extremely significant. [0] https://tass.com/politics/1514405 https://tass.com/politics/1514405

londons_explore 4y ago
If they'd blown up their own assets, they would blame the west for it anyway no?
- tehbeard 4y ago
  The thinking for them doing it themselves is this is more a subtle threat like their polonium and novichok poisonings, but with less immediately political backlash (i.e. No article 5 triggered) A "we have the capability to do this... lots of other pipes out there.... Have a pleasant day" sort of message.
  - sidibe 4y ago
    There's other reasons Russia could have done it too. Drive a wedge between Germany and a country that would have a more obvious reason of hating the pipeline like US or Poland, make sure rapid return of relations and trade is harder to dissuade inner circle from toppling Putin or pressuring him to back down, etc. We still have no idea, no top officials have made any accusations or presented any evidence, and just guessing from motives seems like a crapshoot. What we do know is one country is on an unhinged escalatory path, they're my very tentative guess without knowing exactly why they'd do it.

exDM69 4y ago

If this act of sabotage was not conducted by nation state actors with submarines, but someone using fishing boats and scuba divers instead like you suggest, the perpetrators will be caught in a manner of days. The straits between the coasts of the southern Baltic sea are one of the most closely guarded waters in the world. There are at least 5 different nations (dk, se, de, pl, ru) coast guard assets with eyes on the region. There is primary radar, secondary radar, seabed hydrophone arrays, surface vessels, submarines and airborne surveillance and satellites with eyes and ears on this region. And the surveillance has been increased a lot during this year. Unless someone gets caught within a week, it's safe to assume that this sabotage was conducted by nation state level actors.

DownGoat 4y ago
Charges could have been placed weeks ago, finding culprits will be very hard if someone does not take responsibility
- XorNot 4y ago
  How would you trigger them? 100m down radio doesn't work at all. ELF antennas are nation-state level assets and need receiving antennas that are hundreds of metres long. Acoustic messaging is possible, but again hard to do. Timed charges are plausible but that's a heck of a commitment (of course 3/4 breaches suggests a possible misfire - I imagine theres a hunt on for the last one).
  - pjerem 4y ago
    A good old clock.
    - maratc 4y ago
      That just happens to work at a depth of 80 meters.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

captainmuon 4y ago

I just hope it wasn't the US. That would be a devastating breach of trust for Germany and would backfire badly if it came out. I'm rooting for the Danish anarchists. You basically just need underwater explosives and a boat. You hang the explosives on a long rope, throw it over board like an anchor, and drag it into the pipeline. When you hit the pipeline, you detonate the explosives.

rendall 4y ago
Don't worry. It wasn't the US. Not really our style. Sure, the CIA pulls dirty tricks, but those are quiet, in-the-shadows skullduggery where no one's paying attention. CIA doesn't do big and loud where other Americans can see it. Plus, motivations are wrong. The US catastrophically ends European energy dependence on Russia so that... it can compete with the Middle East and Russia and Canada on a more equal footing? Yeah, no. The US is not that desperate for cash.
- ktfelt 4y ago
  There is Stuxnet and its predecessor, which blew up a pipeline! https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/reagan-approved-plan-to-sabotage-soviets/a9184eff-47fd-402e-beb2-63970851e130/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r... The U.S. motivation is that it has tried to shut down energy trades between the Soviet Union/Russia and Germany for more than 50 years.
  - DangerousPie 4y ago
    But those trades were already shut down and not coming back anytime soon. If Germany had refused to join sanctions and was still using NS1 + NS2 at full capacity right now then maybe there would have been some motivation to force the issue. But why now, when the pipelines weren't even active?
    - pbak 4y ago
      You are analyzing this too much in the short term. These pipelines were meant to last for decades. The pain of seeing a quarter of your industry close for lack of energy might have easily bent the will of Germans and others after this winter. All political announcements about replacing Russian gas before 2027 at the earliest were a pipe dream (pun intended)for anybody with any actual knowledge of the industry. Even now, a large portion of what was supposedly bought elsewhere was just repackaged and re-originated at the port of loading, but actually Russian gas - hence part of the price hike going to a chain of middlemen.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

I mean the smoking gun here is a statement from Biden back in February that they will take steps to stop it. Official statement: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/23/statement-by-president-biden-on-nord-stream-2/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... > As I have made clear, we will not hesitate to take further steps if Russia continues to escalate. Interview quotes: > "If Russia invades... again, then there will be longer Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." > When asked how he would do that, he responded, "I promise you we will be able to do it." Dunno if they intended to "stop" Nord Stream 1 as well, but even with Russia messing with it and frequently stopping it, it was still a huge source of income for Russia thanks to exorbitant gas prices. Now this is pure theory / speculation on my part, but, now that Europe has filled up their gas storage and has rapidly built new coastline LNG plants to accept shipments of LNG from the US, their dependence on Russian gas has dropped fast. I can see some motivations why the US would have an interest in cutting it off. One, force stop the flow of money to Russia. I mean they could have used political means or financial incentives too, so it seems weird they would bomb infrastructure of their allies in their allies' national waters instead. But two is to increase European dependence on American LNG shipments, which are currently highly profitable. I'm sure we'll see a big correction in gas prices this winter, depending on the weather, Nord Stream 1/2 or no though. Nothing as sustainable as the decades of Russian gas flowing into Europe.

rendall 4y ago
> "the smoking gun" That's not a smoking gun.
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  Here's some helicopters flying over the exact explosion locations on sept 2nd: https://twitter.com/BNNBreaking/status/1574804363280719876 https://twitter.com/BNNBreaking/status/1574804363280719876
  - mhh__ 4y ago
    With transponders on?

AndrewThrowaway 4y ago

I think these are good points but the main shortcoming of all the theories about Russia is that we still treat (or want to) Russia as a rational actor. I remember just before the war I would bid everything that Russia would in no way start the war. It just didn't make any rational sense. Who in sound mind would think to do it knowing that all the West [might/would] unite against you. However rationality is being lost in personal agendas and Mafioso thinking of some sorts. Now we see that after any Russian loss, be it a warship or loss of territory Russia responds with some pity attack against civilians. For example wasting expensive missiles to blow out a few floors of some high rise residential building. It is just hard to understand by rational western thinking. However growing up in post-soviet country this kind of thinking is prominent amongst post-soviet mafias and similar sorts of groups - "if I can't have it nobody will". It is some kind of childish, failure to launch thing. "If I lost football match I will destroy the ball and that will show everybody". People grow out of it, thugs become thugs exactly for this reason - failure to grow up, lack of empathy because of family problems and etc. Moreover you can see this in all the Russian army from the very top to the very bottom. What self respecting army would terrorize civilians after any push back. "We are retreating but we will put grenades under every pillow in every house in this village. That will show them". If this kind of thinking is prominent among all the population, all the army and etc. it starts to make more sense. A simple "If we can't profit out of it we will blow it up and then you will know" starts to make sense. Then you have "we can frame this on USA/Ukraine" because everybody knows "it is not in our interest". Then you have Putin's interest - pipeline can become very profitable thing for the oligarch who gets rid of Putin and makes peace with the West. So it becomes a personal danger to Putin. So it really could be Russia being Russia and Russian elite trying to "stay relevant" by their own (what west would call) crazy thinking.

rendall 4y ago
> we still treat (or want to) Russia as a rational actor. People clearly do not treat Russia as a rational actor, given that everyone seems to assume Russia permanently ends European dependency on its fuel by blowing up their own equipment in NATO territory is the primary actual real go-to theory to be taken seriously. I'm not trying to dismiss your speculations about mafioso-style thinking. I mean, assuming all of that is true, you still have only that to rely on versus Who benefits directly, materially and immediately by ending European dependence on Russian oil?

rich_sasha 4y ago

I think you somewhat underestimate the difficulty of blowing this up. You have to find it first. Diving to 80 metres is _not_ child's play! Then locating the pipe with possibly poor visibility. Finally it's a big chunk of metal and concrete, you'd need the kind of explosives you can't just buy at your local corner store. I'd imagine Baltic traffic is well monitored, especially now, so if you don't want to be caught, or identified post factum, parking your fishing vessel for hours on the spot won't cut it. That said it is well within any Baltic state's or NATO country's "easy zone".

sydd 4y ago
USA did look there some something sus https://twitter.com/inteldoge/status/1573450988744331274?s=46&t=w8vIXMrwBlRcbJCQfCKwcw https://twitter.com/inteldoge/status/1573450988744331274?s=4...
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  If the US Navy were up to "something sus" they probably wouldn't have their ADS-B transceivers on...
maratc 4y ago
> You have to find it first. It would be very visible on an average sonar. (An average sonar is $500 or so.)

tazjin 4y ago

The US is the only actor that makes any sense to me, especially after Blinken's statement yesterday (~ "it was in nobody's interest, but would you look at the benefits!"). Combine that with the US naval activity in the exact area around the time, and also the "anti"-mine "drills" they did there earlier this year. The US knows that none of their vassals will ever openly accuse them, and for the Western media it was Russia anyways. So far it seems only that Polish MEP said outright that he thinks it was them, and cheered it on.

DangerousPie 4y ago
Sabotaging their allies' key infrastructure would be an absolutely crazy amount of risk for the US. Even if they think there is a 99% chance they'd not get caught, that is a 1% chance of completely destroying relations their with Germany, Scandinavia, the EU, and probably the entire world. And all of that risk for the very marginal benefit of disabling some pipelines that weren't going to be used anytime soon any way? I think the much more likely explanation is that this was Russia or at least a faction within Russia. They are the actor that has already started a war in this area, has shown completely disregard for treaties and international law, and has been known to act irrationally (eg. by starting the war in the first place).
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > And all of that risk for the very marginal benefit of disabling some pipelines that weren't going to be used anytime soon any way? To ensure they weren't going to be used anytime soon. > Even if they think there is a 99% chance they'd not get caught, that is a 1% chance of completely destroying relations their with Germany, Scandinavia, the EU, and probably the entire world. 1. The US has a history of taking insane risks with clandestine submarine ops. Much worse risks than this; they did much that could have provoked the Soviet Union during the Cold War, when both sides were threatening each other with nukes. 2. If Germany/Scandinavia/EU/etc did find irrefutable proof that the US did it, they would probably bury that proof and pretend they never saw it. It isn't in their interest to break from NATO even if America did this and they know it.

belorn 4y ago

Diving down 60-80 meters in the baltic ocean is quite advanced technical diving if you are just going to go down there and up again. Doing any kind of work (which increase breathing) at those depths is a massive step in complexity. We are talking about cold water diving, at hypoxic gas depths, with usually low visibility. The dive would require several hours of decompression in the middle of a shipping lane. The density of the gas mean you can't even do mild exertion without severe risks of not returning to the surface alive. The explosions also occurred within a very short time frame (an hour if I recall) with a fairly large distance between, so you need multiple coordinated teams. And last, the weather conditions would need to be fairly specific in term of wind at those locations. I would say its a bit like looking towards the amateur rocket community in order to explain a construct on the moon.

rendall 4y ago
Someone downstream suggested dragging explosives on a rope, detonating when they hit the pipeline. Wouldn't even need to stop.
- belorn 4y ago
  Sure it becomes much simpler if you remove the diving aspect to it, or simply remove the need to return to the surface alive. I would suspect dragging an explosive with a rope would take a long time, enough that radar and other ships would likely notice the behavior, especially if you intend to hit the pipeline 3 times on 3 different locations. Really expensive sonar would reduce the required time, as would really precise GPS locations, but even so, from what I know, it a very time consuming activity. Still a better theory than sport diving.
  - tmaly 4y ago
    what about those remote vehicles they use for treasure hunting? The seem to be able to go down far deeper than what is being talked about here.
- laverya 4y ago
  Drag explosives on a rope, but don't blow it up when it hits the pipeline - instead have it drop when that happens, and then detonate a week or more later. Vessel positions are tracked and recorded after all.

rendall 4y ago

One must build elaborate, implausible motivations for everyone in order to maintain the "It's definitely Russia" theory when there are more plausible, direct motivations to hand in the "Anyone but Russia" theory. Who stands to benefit from permanently ending European dependence on Russian fuel? Norway? To conclude Norway (it's not Norway, but for example), one can simply point at the loss of a competitor. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple. To conclude a German opposition group, one can simply point at the effect of the loss of the pipelines. Scholz government cannot heat Germans this winter, opposition gets to criticize the sitting government for over-reliance on Russia and such fragile infrastructure. Opposition wins the election. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple. To conclude any one of the Baltic States (or Poland), one can simply point at the effect of the end of European dependence on Russian energy. It removes the most persistent barrier to implementing harsher sanctions, and a weaker Russia is less likely to invade them for a generation or two. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple. Poland, for its part, has the added lucrative benefit of being the sole endpoint of the sole working trans-Baltic pipeline. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple. To conclude anyone at all who support Ukraine, one can simply point that it weakens Russia's war effort, hastening an end to the war and making Russia more vulnerable to sanctions. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple. To conclude Russia or Putin, one must explain how losing potential access to hundreds of billions of Euros benefits Russia or Putin. (Hint: it doesn't). Requires weird 4D chess, weird contorted motives. Not direct. Not simple.

durindeathless 4y ago
Poland has been my number 1 suspect thus far. For a variety of reasons. Some of which you stated.
Paradigma11 4y ago
Two points: 1) Priors. Russia loves their clandestine operations to kill somebody or blow stuff up in europe. Be it weapons depots in Czechia or bulgaria, poisoning opponents with radioactive materials or nerve agents your various russian intelligence agencies are there for you. This happened recently, not some cold war stuff. 2.) You are forgetting to include the possible downsides for getting caught in your analysis. * Russia: Basically none. They blew up their own pipelines. Strange, but they have done stranger things. They will deny it anyway and nothing would come of it. * USA: Massive. The whole alliance against Russia would crumble over winter and Russia would have a much easier time evading sanctions. Anti US sentiment in europe would go through the roof. Yes, it could have been Poland or the Baltics but 2:1 my money would be on Russia to sow discord, fear and distrust. Just think how fast that Biden statement was presented as proof for US involvement. Russia right now needs to try and reduce financial and arms aid to Ukraine, any economic considerations are probably secondary. Not saying that would be a good strategy, but that hasnt prevented Russia in the past.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

> Just spitballing here, but why not a German opposition group? More likely the opposite. With the pipeline intact, German opposition could tell voters they will turn that gas on, something the present German government isn't willing to do. Now they can't, so the German opposition has less to offer.

theironhammer 4y ago
Precisely.

tchvil 4y ago

Since we are all speculating, here's another one. How about Ukraine doing it ? It annoys the Russians. And Europeans will have a harder time to easily buy some Russian gas if this winter is too cold. Increasing our Russian anger cursor to not soften on sanctions.

durindeathless 4y ago
I think the Poles potentially had something to do with it. They have been very vocal in opposition to the NS and now they control two pipelines one of which wholly removed from Russian control. Whoever did it would know that the bone would fall instantly on Russia or the US. To me it doesn't make any sense for either Russia or US to do this.

quonn 4y ago

The only one except Russia with an incentive would be Germany, and only for NS2, not NS 1. And even then it‘s far less likely. I think also the way it was done. Attacks on two pipes for maximum effect and apparently large leaks. Anyone except Russia would have an incentive to make an attack look small and boring, perhaps like a defect.

Arnt 4y ago

Try https://nitter.it/EmmaMAshford/status/1575137413340561411#m https://nitter.it/EmmaMAshford/status/1575137413340561411#m In particular the sentence "There's no way to know, but any explanation here requires someone to make a stupid strategic choice" and the depressing sentence after it.

rendall 4y ago
It is true that this is "Russian style". I'm not convinced that's enough to make it "Definitely Russia". I, personally, me, Rendall, think it'd be pretty good for Europe to get off the Russian tit and I know I'm not the only one. If I had an extra half-million burning a hole in my pocket and a ruthless, reckless nature, I just might spend that money to blow the Nord Streams and happily let Russia take the fall. Sure, Europeans would suffer through a cold winter, but Putin and the FSB sure as hell would be unsettled, and the Russians have now lost their leverage over Germany and Europe.