12 ms·

The part I don’t get is who benefits from a sabotage like this? It seems to me that it would be in Russia’s interest to keep the optionality of deciding to supp

• tpmx 4y ago
  Russia benefits by sowing doubt and mistrust between the western countries. The 'bots' were really quick to push that old Biden clip after the sabotage. It's the same old playbook again - divide and conquer.
  • nivenkos 4y ago
  • lm28469 4y ago
    Good thing they US never did anything shady like """discovering""" weapons of mass destruction, spying on allies, backing coups, &c. that surely would also sow doubt and mistrust....
    • tpmx 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Soviet_Union_and_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Soviet_Union_and_...
      • lm28469 4y ago
        Oh no someone contradicts me, quick, this must be .... oh yeah a soviet russian propaganda method I just learned about 5 min ago on wikipedia Social media and instant news turned people into complete fanatics, if you can't take any criticism and accept that your propaganda is as bad as their we're fucked
      • mardifoufs 4y ago
        They aren't justifying russian behavior by saying "you are worst" though. Your comment was pure speculation, so there is nothing to even justify. When we are speculating about motives or potential "suspects", it is absolutely relevant to the discussion to... talk about them? So that's not what whataboutism is and it's ridiculous how much of an overused thought terminating cliché it has become.
• the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
  It’s pretty convenient for Gazprom at least that they are broken. It’s hard to sue them for breach of contract now and they probably want to have some sanctions rolled back to repair it.
• jgwil2 4y ago
  They would need access to powerful explosives, a submersible, and detailed knowledge of the location of the pipeline. Hard to imagine any non-government actor being behind this.
  • infinet 4y ago
    A dumb way of finding pipeline location is by looking at history AIS data. The pipe laying vessel must broadcasting its position via AIS while in operation. Since the water is only 70 meters deep, it is reasonable to assume the underwater pipeline is directly below pipe laying vessel.
  • colinmhayes 4y ago
    And 9/11 required a person to fly a commercial airliner. Crazier things have happened.
• croon 4y ago
  If Gazprom can claim this as force majeure they might wiggle out of paying up contract breaches: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-uniper-mulls-damage-claims-against-gazprom-swedish-court-sources-2022-09-13/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-uniper-mul...
  • lm28469 4y ago
    This would be like amputating both of your legs to avoid a military draft, it makes no sense. They're already fucked 10 times over, paying a fine is the least of their problem. They're illegally invading a country and committing warcrimes, why would a fine be the red line, if they went ahead with the invasion I'm pretty sure they can say "no" to a western fine
  • colinmhayes 4y ago
    Gazprom has much, much bigger problems than breaching that contract. I don't see how this helps them at all. If an EU court rules against them so what? No way to enforce the ruling.
• capableweb 4y ago
  Indeed. I'm no Russia apologist, I want this war to end as badly as anyone else. But it also doesn't make sense for them to perform these attacks. For better or worse, the invasion of Ukraine makes sense, because it used to be a part of the Soviet Union, so there is some sort of explanation for the behavior, although it's a shitty one. But making holes in these pipes doesn't come with any reasonable explanation, as far as I can tell. The most probably explanation I can come up with, is NATO and/or allies doing the attacks themselves in order to justify an invasion of Russia to "stop the attacks on foreign soil", but that's borderline conspiracy theory, so not even sure I want to go there. I guess I'm hoping it's Russia, but I find it far-fetched to believe, because what possible reason could they have for doing so? Demonstrating capabilities? Also feels weak... But then again, Russia is not exactly acting with reason at the moment, so I guess anything is possible.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • nebukadnet 4y ago
    It scares the German population, because every day here the news was about "are we going to make it through the winter". 50% of all houses are heated with Gas. The fact that no gas was flowing through doesn't really matter and likely wasn't going to for a while anyway still worries everyone. It will make the pro-Russian arguments sound better, if people are scared.
    • nivenkos 4y ago
      No it won't, because now they have no alternative. Before, the protesters wanted to force the government to open NS2 and end the gas crisis. Now there is no alternative.
      • hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
        I don't understand one thing. Why bow to Russia and support mass killing if you can just not shut down your nuclear plants?
• joezydeco 4y ago
  One theory I've seen is that it removes the incentives for the oligarchs to throw Putin out of office and attempt to quickly get sanctions lifted. So Putin would benefit in that situation.
  • DoingIsLearning 4y ago
    Indeed this angle I think is the right direction. It's a bit like Cortez burning the boats. Removing me from power won't mean that you get to go back to business as usual and sell gas to Europe. Also the aspect that it reminds the whole of NATO how fragile their infrastruture is for the upcoming winter. It doesn't matter how big your navy is I can get 4x deep dive special forces in a recreational boat and freeze everyone to death. I think the first explosions were actually when they opened the Poland-Norway gas line. Same goes for intercontinental undersea communication cables. You would probably take out most of the world's finance/trading systems for weeks/months by destroying a handful of transcontinental cables. It's a power display for fear abroad and for getting all the potential dissidents back in line. I am very curious if this keeps escalating at what point is a NATO member gonna claim that article 5 has been breached.
    • hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
      > Indeed this angle I think is the right direction. It's a bit like Cortez burning the boats. Removing me from power won't mean that you get to go back to business as usual and sell gas to Europe. I thought about it, too. But even this hypothesis has a weak point: the Yamal pipeline is still working well. So this is a moot point: if the generals or whoever decide to kill Putin and takeover, they will be able to resume sending the gas through Yamal immediately.
      • taylodl 4y ago
        I thought about your scenario, and there's a couple of things to consider. One, is the shipping capacity has still been reduced. The total amount of NG Russia can ship has been reduced. The other is it would be much more difficult to camouflage the sabotage of the Yamal pipeline, unlike the NS1 and NS2 pipelines which has the cover of the sea.
• hericium 4y ago
  Conspiracy theory: since this impacts Russia negatively, it may have been them so these attacks can be blamed on someone they plan to attack.
  • nebukadnet 4y ago
    This doesn't affect them negatively. They didn't want to send any gas, and now they don't need to make up excuses.
    • hericium 4y ago
      Putin won't be able to rebuild their army by printing RUB.
      • inferiorhuman 4y ago
        Putin can't rebuild the army with everyone of fighting age fleeing the country.
  • vintermann 4y ago
    A false flag attack, in other words. Yes, Putin has done those before. So have others. But it has never before happened that 10 billion euro infrastructure, which was used explicitly as leverage (Putin said he would turn on the gas as soon as Germany asked for it, and some Germans were protesting in the street, demanding exactly that), was sacrificed as part of a false flag attack. You're not only talking 4d chess here, you're talking a queen sacrifice in 4d chess.
• LatteLazy 4y ago
  Anyone pro-war, they just eliminated a major incentive for peace. That includes the more right wing end of both Russian and EU and US governments. Anyone else selling Europe Gas (or Power). That includes chunks of the middle east and north Africa as well as Norway and Belgium Anyone Buying Russian gas (China) Anyone competing with European Industrial Goods (the USA) Also, it's entirely possible this was just an accident. Or there may not be a direct benefit: hackers (interference with control systems seems much more likely to cause multiple leaks like this) may have done this by either by accident, maliciously, or as part of some ransom plot. This list is actually sort of everyone...
• f1shy 4y ago
  I really see no benefit for anybody. I do not know the contracts between Russia and the EU countries. Once there is no pipe, you cannot tell Russia stopped delivering gas, but they just could not, even they wanted. Little time ago there was a big discussion about a turbine, that made supply difficult. I do not know to which extent that could help Russia. Maybe somebody has more idea/information about it. But I don't think some political party would have the means for such operation.
  • soco 4y ago
    There are other gas pipelines too, just less conveniently placed for Germany.
• ticviking 4y ago
  It seems obvious to me that the goal was to take away the bargaining chip of the Gas and commit Ukraine to retaking every inch of lost territory. My big worry is that a NATO country is responsible. I actually don’t know what happens if some NATO nations view these strikes as aggression and refuse to defend the responsible party.
  • distances 4y ago
    I don't know if you live in Europe, but for almost everyone who does it's obvious that Russia is the only actor who does things like this. I'm not aware of any public discussion contemplating "who" in the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea. Everyone assumes it's Russia, and the only question is "why". It's true that we don't have yet a smoking gun or direct admission. But it walks like Russia, it quacks like Russia, so any speculation to the contrary seems pointless. I do admit there's a certain cold war-esque mystery in debating it here in HN, but just wanted to point out what's obvious for people living close to the events.
    • vintermann 4y ago
      You don't know your history if you think Russia is the only country who would do this. The US security agencies wouldn't think twice about blowing up a hated pipeline to force a hesitating ally to commit. (And the Swedes would covertly help them, neutrality be damned) Your geographical proximity means nothing. I happen to live in the country that makes IMMENSE profits from not competing with Russian gas from those pipelines, and I still am not buying the false flag theory.
      • impossiblefork 4y ago
        No, we would not help in this. This can actually destroy the Germany's economy-- destroy, and if that goes down, so does ours (i.e. Sweden's). The EU would be done as a project achieving any kind of regional independence, a second rate power for ever. Industrial competitiveness, once lost, stays lost. I'd go as far as to say, that if Germany's energy situation actually destroys its industry in the way that can possibly happen, then the Ukraine war is small potatoes, strategically.
• belter 4y ago
  The most logical explanation is Russia. As they are loosing the war, the annexation of territory with fake referendums, and the hint other pipelines could be next, would allow for a strong hand to negotiate a settlement and save face.
• goalieca 4y ago
  Does this benefit Russia? No.. but does it throw a wrench in any plans that a potential successor could rapproche the west? Yes. I would consider the motivations of all actors and not just in the interest of the nation states.
• simion314 4y ago
  The mistake might be to think on what is in Russia interest but the reality is that you need to think what is in Putin interest.
• Roark66 4y ago
  Any uncertainty will raise market prices. Russia still benefits economically from higher gas prices. Also, the reasoning from the Russian leadership has never been very logical. From the decision to attack Ukraine in the first place in 2014 down to the most recent installment. People in the West have misunderstood Russia for centuries. The misunderstanding comes from the fact that for the majority of Russians nationalist feelings of being powerful and feared are more important that economic prosperity. Add to this the widespread idea and a very strong feeling of national superiority (in everything, from culture, to science, to drinking etc - they believe they are simply better than everyone else and they have been engaging in such successful propaganda even people in many other countries actually believe this). Then, everyone is told, "having a strong leader" is in Russian nature. This is bull**, but there is some truth in Russians an masse thinking real democracy is a western ploy to make them weaker so they not just accept dictatorship. They cheer it (unless it happens to draft them into its wars). In addition while they are so superior, it is horribly unfair OTHERS are having it better than them. When those others are far away, they are able to grudgingly accept it, but when countries that were under their occupation(therefore people in those countries were lesser, inferior to them) like Poland achieve economic success(with democracy too!) they think it is not just unfair, but against all the laws of nature. However from the average Russian point of view, Poland is Poland, it is another nation, but Ukraine... they thought about Ukraine as basically the same as them. Ukraine being democratic and successful is precisely so offensive and unacceptable to them because it shows their idea of how to govern themselves and what to believe has been broken for a very long time. It is extremely dangerous for their leaders for the exact same reason. Ukraine shows what Russia could've been. In addition to the above, just like 150 years ago with Poland. The Russian state can't accept the existence of Ukrainians as a separate nation They say it openly. They advocate a genocide of another nation openly and the majority of the population supports it. Why are they so blood-thirsty, one may ask? It is very hard for any normal human with no knowledge of Russian history to understand this, but it is important to understand the mere idea of today's Russia is broken. Russia as it has been for hundreds of years and as it is today is a collection of various national groups. Not just in the Caucasus, but almost everywhere else too. Those other groups outside Moscow are all being exploited. Sure they are being sold an idea of being Russian, but when the time comes, is Putin sending people from Moscow to die? No.Not really. So having one of those national groups (Ukrainians) achieve success outside "mother" Russia (with democracy no less!) is even that much worse. It is not just propaganda that "made Russians bad", it is their entire lifetimes in a broken system. The truth is, as I mentioned before, this is not new. Russia has to experience change similar to what Germany went through after WW2 (well except abolition for all but top level Nazis, but that discussion is for another time). But for that change to happen Germany had to loose a war completely. I fear the same has to happen for Russia before they can change. The first step in getting there is for people in the West to understand how Russians in their mass think. Of course there are many Russians that disagree, but they are in minority, and they have to watch very carefully what they say out loud.
• ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  It's extra confusing because, even before the sabotage, people had opposite opinions on the strategic significance of the pipelines. So the pipeline being damaged can be interpreted in opposite ways. Did Russia have Germany begging for gas and ready to do anything to have them 'fix' the thing they were pretending was broken to make them suffer without their gas? Was the West foolishly refusing to buy cheap energy that Russia was happy to supply? Was the west taking the recent war and Russia mucking around with the gas supply as a signal to accelerate their renewable transition and end all relience on Russian gas? Were the western voters angry, who were they angry at, what would they do as a result? If you can't agree on the above you'll not agree about who benefits from this either.
• yucky 4y ago
  The only entity that clearly benefits from this is the US. It ensures Europe can't give in no matter how cold it gets this winter and it hurts Russia financially. Ukraine of course is hurt no matter what. Doesn't mean the US did it, but if you look at a map and try to figure out how the Russians would have gotten there undetected and did the damage and slipped out undetected again, well it's just not credible. And Europe certainly wouldn't put themselves in an even more precarious position that they already are. So Occam's Razor applies.