9 ms·

Nordstream: An Accident?

81 points by h2odragon 4y ago

jerome-jh 4y ago
Despite a few assertions lacking substance, the article still brings to the table interesting insights about pipeline maintenance. Since we are at making guesses, here is mine. A real accident on NS1, which was indeed under maintenance. After a few hours of discussions, russians decide to sabotage NS2 it order to make the event look like an act of war.
supergirl 4y ago
my money is on US and/or UK. they seized the moment of chaos and destroyed the pipeline permanently. they have a lot to gain from this. it simply weakens EU, makes it more dependent on US/UK, weakens economy, etc. UK is not EU's friend and US is only a friend as long as EU falls in line and you never know in the future. Russia could have done it too but it makes no sense and most importantly they have a track record of failing and getting caught with even simpler schemes (e.g. novichok attack). just the fact that US is not jumping to blame Russia this time and Sweden already said they treat it not as an attack on Sweden (so if it turns out US did it, Sweden is just gonna say it's in international waters, not a Swedish asset, etc.). I mean US intelligence knows what Putin has for dinner. Impossible they don't know who did this, in NATO waters. Only EU doesn't know. US/UK surely know and if it was Russia they'd publish video footage 1 min after explosion.
- valuearb 4y ago
  It's ludicrous to think Biden would green light an operation like this when he finally has a European coalition against Russian aggression helping Ukraine whin the war. This would destroy that coalition in seconds.
  - supergirl 4y ago
    calculated risk. the coalition doesn't look so determined. apart from US and UK, the rest seem hesitant. blowing up the pipeline makes sure there is not turning back, especially as hard times are coming (gas reserves will be empty after winter, then what?). if caught, US bets on EU turning a blind eye to this like they did when US spied on Merkel and others. EU doesn't have the strength to rock the relation with US, especially not now.
stellalo 4y ago
And this just happened to happen in September 2022?
impostervt 4y ago
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
- m000 4y ago
  Yes, but with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred [1]. It's a razor fight then! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
- rfrey 4y ago
  I think, when war is raging and thousands are dying gruesome deaths, it's reasonable to consider malice.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    And who actually gains from this in the long run... Certainly not Germany or Russia... Should make it pretty clear. It could be UK as tradition of breaking down Europe, but they are having enough issues that the timing is entirely wrong... I don't think China cares, so maybe Arabs, but I doubt. Only really leaves USA and we know what they have historically been up to.
    - valuearb 4y ago
      The US finally has a coalition against Russian aggression in Europe, that is key to helping Ukraine win the war. Why would they throw this away on a stupid sabotage operation?
    - ravi-delia 4y ago
      Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. US can't really expect to sell much gas to Europe regardless, so if it was then it would be for anti-Russia reasons, which seems like a stretch. Objectively the funniest possiblity is that some cargo ship dragged it's anchor across miles of ocean and a captain is very very worried right now
kronholm 4y ago
Article says two explosions, but there were four, afaik. Edit, a source, well, says 4 leaks: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-29/sweden-says-fourth-leak-discovered-in-nord-stream-pipelines https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-29/sweden-sa...
DisjointedHunt 4y ago
Source: "Trust me, bro"
- nix23 4y ago
  Press Source: "Trust us, little ones"
  - namaria 4y ago
    Polarization weakens the conversation. A reminder not to make assumptions one way is not an argument for running on the opposite direction.
    - DisjointedHunt 4y ago
      There's no argument for "running on the opposite direction". The OP piece doesn't meet any reasonable standard to be considered an intellectual submission and hence the terse response. Highly speculative opinion not grounded in fact and blatantly pushing a conclusion . . . what else can you say? Why is this even submitted to HN? A conversation starter?
      - namaria 4y ago
        I was clearly responding to a comment ironically saying we should trust the mainstream press if we argue we shouldn't trust random blogs
        nix23 4y ago
        The random blog brings up a theory, the mainstream media is already pointing finger towards russia, it's pretty clear which side makes assumptions without proof.
        namaria 4y ago
        It's clear to me that thinking there are only two sides to this whole thing is grossly oversimplifying it.
seydor 4y ago
To be honest, people dont seem to care too much who did it. It was russia: what are they gonna do, sanction them? It was the US: what are russians gonna do, go to war with the west? Whoever did this, they solved a Godrian knot. Imagine going into winter with one pipeline being the lifeline of europe. [My conspiracy theory: this was a arranged via secret negotiations between US and Russia. They want an end to the war with russia cut off from the western system and europe out of the picture. Putin gets pyrrhic "victory" and a golden bridge with the new republics, and Ukraine joins NATO, with nukes pointed at russia]
- howmayiannoyyou 4y ago
  That was never a possible outcome. Pipelines transiting Belarus and Ukraine remain operational and AFAIK in-service. Who did it does matter. If Russia didn't self-sabotage they may feel some obligation to retaliate proportionally against someone else's energy infrastructure.
  - seydor 4y ago
    If they wish to retaliate, all the need to do is destroy their own infrastructure
    - nyokodo 4y ago
      Which destroys their present and future income.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        So does the war.
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    > If Russia didn't self-sabotage they may feel some obligation to retaliate proportionally against someone else's energy infrastructure. Why do they have to retaliate against the energy infrastructure? I read some article saying it would be much easier for them to cut off some major internet cables between North America and Europe. Seems plausible to me. It's probably much easier to do without trace and leave the enemy without a hard proof that they did it.
namaria 4y ago
Unqualified opinions are cheap. This random internet guy thinks sabotage is unlikely on the Nord Stream incident based on what is published on news websites? This has a weight of exactly zero.
- valuearb 4y ago
  Your opinion is far more unqualified than a carefully researched blog. If you don't think what he wrote is true, rebut him factually, random HN guy.
- RajT88 4y ago
  The old adage, "Opinions are like assholes; everyone's got one" comes to mind.
  - m000 4y ago
    And a newer adage: "Do not trust web posts written in colored bold-italic."
  - behaveEc0n00 4y ago
    The opinion this is cheap talk might be a shitty one? Gas line works fine for years, suddenly during regional conflict it goes tits up? A dying country whose leadership seems intent on putting it out of its misery sending its potential fathers to a meat grinder, a history of stupid big picture choices, angry at the world for not letting it conquer it might partake in environmental sabotage. It’s a lot less on the nose than nukes; if we can’t have imperialist nation state, no one can! The holocaust is proof of human indifference to each other’s existence. What do a bunch of old turds care about intentional environmental destruction?
    - valuearb 4y ago
      Gas line works for years, then 6 months after removal of western technical experts and ending of cooperation with technicians running west end of pipeline (which article stressed were critical to clearing plugs like these safely) it goes tits up. Putin is not going to blow up his biggest leverage over Europe during a cold winter, its his only chance at getting them to reduce support for Ukraine.
snarkconjecture 4y ago
Unless one of the leaks caused all the others, it seems like a hell of a coincidence for them to all happen on the same day by chance after sitting there for years.
- gonzo41 4y ago
  The pipes are 4 inches of steel wrapped in 6 inches of concrete. It's hard to see that being something that would rupture easily by accident. Especially 4 at a time.
  - beeforpork 4y ago
    4cm, not 4inches, IIRC. Plus concrete, again 6cm, not 6inches. Still massive. The weight ist 13 tonnes steel + 13 tonnes concrete per segment, IIRC, diameter is 1.1m and segment length is 13m. Steel is ~7kg/dm³ => You can now calculate the wall thickness. OK, OK, let's not talk: 130 dm * ((11/2dm + X)² - (11/2 dm)²) * \pi * 7kg/dm³ = 13000kg => X = 0.39dm EDIT: Corrected the sign...
m000 4y ago
> No military is going to arrange for two pipes in the same general area to be destroyed 17 hours apart. This is only true if the operation was conducted in hostile waters. Just saying.
- criddell 4y ago
  > No military is going to arrange for two pipes in the same general area to be destroyed 17 hours apart. That makes me think a military probably did do it.
- namaria 4y ago
  Assuming covert ops follow a pattern is just naive
- dividedbyzero 4y ago
  Even in hostile waters, why not? Doing it this way does send a message and sows uncertainty, i.e. was whoever did this able to place explosives on the second one under the eyes of several militaries?) and can be accomplished by using timed fuses.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Why is everyone assuming you'd be there when they pop? You could lay explosives months in advance and remotely trigger them or have them on a timer.
jcranmer 4y ago
There is at least one factual inaccuracy here--Nordstream 1 was not cut off after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It was running at more or less usual capacity until early June, when the flow was cut by about 60%. It was then shut off in July for regular yearly maintenance window. It returned at 40% capacity for a while, before being slowed to 20% capacity in late July, and then shut off again at the end of August. So Nordstream 1 has only been not moving for a little less than a month at the time of the explosion. While I think accidental failure of the Nordstream pipeline is an underrated explanation, such a glaring factual inaccuracy makes me skeptical of the viability of the specific theory espoused in this article.
- T-zex 4y ago
  And NS2 was not operational at all, therefore the accident hypothesis is less likely there.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    It was pressurized but not flowing (which confounds the pig hypothesis I've seen some commenters put forward.)
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    I dunno, I always thought it made it more likely. Funding for NS2 has dried up so whose going to bother leaving their nice warm hut to go do required maintenance?
- namaria 4y ago
  We have no reason to assume we even know all the possibilities. Neither Russia nor NATO are monoliths. We don't even know potentially how many actors we should take into account.
- sivizius 4y ago
  And he is talking about the diesel effect. This implies the presence of an oxidiser like oxygen. Yes, CH₄ + 2 H₂O does react to CO₂ and 4 H₂, but not under high pressure and it is endothermic, so nope. And this pipeline has an diameter of more than a metre, so this plug must be quite large. Yes, the pressure was 105 bar which is more than enough for the creating of these clathrates but this must be a lot of water o.o…anyway, I am not an expert, but this articles sounds a lot like he took a lot of knowledge from here: https://petrowiki.spe.org/Hydrate_plug_removal https://petrowiki.spe.org/Hydrate_plug_removal. But I like the idea. An deliberate attack is somewhat unsound for me, I do not see a reason for Russia to destroy both pipelines. NS1: ok, Russia tried to pressure Germany to open NS2 anyway. All 4 of them at different spots? At almost the same time? And if they maintained them all simultaneously (Why so fast? They have time now.), if one broke, they should have stopped anything on the other one, which exploded 17 h later. And this articles assumes a lot of incompetence on the Russian side…I do not buy this.
barrenko 4y ago
History is fun again.
- tiborsaas 4y ago
  This whole Nordstream case sounds feels like a James Bond style movie when a random news plays in the background while the protagonist is doing his business and then in two cutscenes we see cities burning. Watching these movies is definitely fun, but living 1000km from a war zone is somewhat worrisome. Anyways, I'll move finishing my bug-out-bag higher on my todo list.
fsloth 4y ago
This article is poorly informed opinion piece. Ignore it.
- luc4 4y ago
  Could you elaborate? The article does.
  - fsloth 4y ago
    I don’t think I have anything to add to the other comments here. Maybe the 1st key thing though is to recognize thath RU would absolutely false flag their own infra to create chaos and pressure on EU. Putin started his presidential career with a likely false flag that killed civilians. Blowing up NS1&2 is an obvious threat against Norwegian offshore and pipeline infra which now critical for EU.
    - valuearb 4y ago
      The idea that Putin or Biden would do this is so ludicrous as to be dismissable out of hand. Putin needs the revenues from these pipelines once hostilities end. He was likely extremely hopeful Europe would cave this winter and he could use them as leverage. Biden has finally gotten a coalition in Europe to take Russia's aggressions seriously and their combined efforts have Ukraine making great progress in winning the war.
rmind 4y ago
So far the most plausible theory is that Russia sabotaged the pipelines for two reasons [1]: 1) to claim force majeure and avoid massive penalties Gazprom would have to pay for the breach of contract (we are talking billions here; now they just blame the West and good luck proving in courts who actually did it); 2) to further blackmail and coerce the European nations (particularly Germany and Italy) who depend on Russian gas to stop supporting Ukraine. As for explosions, they were recorded by the seismologist in Sweden and Denmark who are quite convinced it was due to a deliberate action: https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-gas-baltic-pipelines-leaks/32054130.html https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-gas-baltic-pipelines-leaks/32... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/09/29/russian-sabotage-of-the-nord-stream-pipeline-mark-a-point-of-no-return/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/09/29/russian-s...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cpursley 4y ago
  Your theory just doesn't check out. With the pipelines destroyed, Russia can't blackmail the EU with energy as easily as they could before. And why would they destroy infrastructure that they poured billions into when they could have just turned off the taps any time they pleased? The pipelines now being destroyed is a really bad thing for Russia, a worse thing for the EU and a great situation for the USA (and Poland, who just opened a pipeline). Both Biden and Nuland have both publicly threatened to take out the pipelines. Ukraine has also lobbied hard against them. I mean, it very well could be the Russians. They certainly have the capability - but I'm struggling to see the logic behind cutting off their dealmaking hand.
  - rmind 4y ago
    Because they would have to pay billions for not delivering the gas due to the breach of contracts. Legally, you cannot turn off the taps just because. Moreover, Russia can still supply very significant quantities of gas via Belarus and Ukraine, so they retain the leverage to blackmail the EU.
haarts 4y ago
This sounds more plausible than all other explanations I've read.
MauranKilom 4y ago
Can someone explain the chemistry of natural gas exploding by itself? In my understanding, you need oxygen for that to happen. There's a bunch of oxygen in the H2O, but what exactly would the products of an explosive reaction between natural gas and water be? Hydrogen and CO2? Don't think there's much energy to be released there... I can totally buy the "you depressurized only one end, so you had a plug slam into the next bend of the pipeline", and that might plausibly register as an explosion on seismic detectors. But hydrocarbons by themselves aren't explosive - they need something to react with.
- wil421 4y ago
  If you have pressures above 3,000psi any sudden leak or hole will be pretty catastrophic. Not an explosion like a fire explosion, something more like explosive decompression in a plane. Anyway I think they Swedes have pinned it down to an explosion, as in a bomb, based on seismometers.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Water pressure at 80 meters would be about 130 psi, so the pipe is 2800 psi over "ambient" which gives it a certain amount of "pop" should it do so. But it's also designed to not pop (and do we have any examples of a catastrophic pipe failure vs a leak?).
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      I thought pressure of the gas as ~114 bar, which (brain whirring sounds) is much less than 2,800 PSI. MS's calculator makes it ~1,650 PSI I could be wrong.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        Could be the difference between what the pipe is rated for and what the gas is normally at.
      - wil421 4y ago
mdemare 4y ago
Interesting! I didn't realize how accident-prone these pipelines were. An accident would explain the glaring absence of an actor with both motive and opportunity.
stuckinhell 4y ago
It's clearly not an accident. It's also hard to believe it was Russia, since now they can't blackmail Europe. Both Biden and Victoria Nuland have both publicly threaded to take out the pipelines on video no less.
- valuearb 4y ago
  Biden and Nuland threatened to stop it using their political leverage, not force. Sabotage would destroy the European coalition against Russian aggression they've worked so hard to build. Really ludicrous conspiracy theory that makes an accident the most likely cause.
- henrikschroder 4y ago
  The best reasoning I've seen on the matter is this: Countries in Europe have been pretty clear that no-one is going to back down on supporting Ukraine in order to get some cheap Russian gas. So the pipeline is useless to Putin. However, a rival oligarch/military leader/whatever in Russia could try to cut a deal with Europe and say that they promise to kill Putin and get Russian troops out of Ukraine, in exchange for agreements to resume the gas trade and no questions asked about who the money for the gas is going to. So the pipeline is useless to Russia as long as Putin is in charge, but it's also a threat to Putin, personally, since it can be used to fund a coup against him. Therefore, he decided to sabotage it. If you think of Putin as a paranoid mafia boss foremost, and a politician and world leader second, this explanation makes sense.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > Countries in Europe have been pretty clear that no-one is going to back down on supporting Ukraine in order to get some cheap Russian gas. They've said it, but what prevents them from changing their mind when domestic political pressure during winter increases? Well, blowing up the pipeline helps prevent it.. It's called planning for contingencies. Even if there was only a remote possibility of Germany folding, that's a contingency worth planning for.
  - oceanplexian 4y ago
navigate8310 4y ago
Obligatory: https://i.imgur.com/Vt4U9wv.png https://i.imgur.com/Vt4U9wv.png
photochemsyn 4y ago
These two pipelines have very different operational histories so the simultaneous formation of a 'methane hydrate plug' in both pipelines seems highly unlikely at best. There's also no apparent reason why such a methane hydrate plug should cause seismic-scale explosions in both pipelines. As far as motivation, the US agenda on Europe's fossil fuel market since at least 2008 has been to lock out Russian suppliers (who don't bank their oil profits with Wall Street) in favor of American and Middle Eastern importers (those who do bank their funds appropriately, i.e. Qatar/Saudi/Kuwait/UAE good, Iran bad). This has gained extra impetus since the fracking boom and the rise in production in the USA, leading to pushes to open up export markets. Now, would Russia want to blow up its own pipelines when it can simply shut them down for 'maintenance' until sanctions are lifted if it wanted to cut off the flow of gas? That's a ludicrous stretch of the imagination. This leaves the USA as the one with the obvious motive to do this. I personally think Europe would have been better off pushing rapid renewable development for the past few decades, which it has to some extent, but a more concentrated effort over the past few decades would have put them in a position where their economies were not dependent on either the USA or Russia. [edit: relevant quote - "There are many ways to light Europe" - from the movie, Syriana]
- raverbashing 4y ago
  > Now, would Russia want to blow up its own pipelines when it can simply shut them down for 'maintenance' Because they can break the contracts due to "force-majeure" clauses, which shutting down won't let them do
  - valuearb 4y ago
    Since when has Putin cared about contracts?
  - llampx 4y ago
    This explanation doesn't clarify why Putin wouldn't blow up the pipelines in July, before telling Europe that they won't deliver gas as long as Europe applies sanctions on Russia. By doing that, Putin already broke any contracts.
- 4y ago
jofer 4y ago
This really is a plausible scenario. Hydrate buildup is a very real risk in a pipeline that isn't flowing. Trying to deal with it in a less than ideal way can absolutely lead to loss of containment and would explain the multiple leaks. Of course, hostile action is also a plausible explanation, but it is very fair to point out that we really don't have any clear evidence either way and both are reasonably likely.
- geysersam 4y ago
  Why would it happen in both pipelines the same evening?
  - jofer 4y ago
    As pointed out in the original article, if they were trying to clear hydrate blockages without coordination with folks at the "other end" of the pipeline, it could make sense that they'd try to operate on both in the same timeframe. The coordination of timing is still one of the biggest arguments in favor of this being sabotage, though.
    - geysersam 4y ago
      Each of the two nord stream links consist of two pipelines. All four exploded on the same evening, in exactly one place on each. Three of the leaks are very close to each other, the fourth is within 50 kilometers from the others, along a 1000+ km long pipeline. By accident? All relevant authorities on different sides of the conflict agree that this was sabotage. It can be fun to stretch the imagination and construct complicated technical causes. But it should be known that this was not an accident.
      - valuearb 4y ago
        "All relevant authorities on different sides of the conflict agree that this was sabotage" So your entire argument is appeal to questionable authorities? What are their expertise with pipeline maintenance disasters? How and why would an underwater demo team plant explosives 50 km apart? Why would they trigger explosions 17 hours apart? If a hydrate plug is triggered to cause an explosion in one pipeline due to a specific temperature/pressure combination, how long would it take for a similar explosion to occur in another pipeline at the exact same temperature/pressure combination?
swamp40 4y ago
Shaped charges are easy to make [0], and technical divers can go to 70 meters. I don't think it's out of line to think that German eco-terrorists could have done it. So the whodunnit list is quite long. [0] https://youtu.be/UHoqYi8XOA4?t=427 https://youtu.be/UHoqYi8XOA4?t=427
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  A non-state actor is possible, but unlikely. It would require an organization, a small group at least, that had the inclination, opportunity, skill and resources. Any one or two of those is easy, but to actually do it requires all of those simultaneously. Furthermore such a serious attack from eco-terrorists would be fairly unprecedented. It's a far cry from torching a resort or tree spiking.
  - regularfry 4y ago
    Releasing colossal amounts of methane directly into the environment would be an odd choice for an eco-group too.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      Probably, but there conceivably might be some 'ends justify the means' logic that could motivate it. There have been some eco-terrorist attacks against nuclear power plants for instance, which on the face of it seems contradictory but I presume is justified using some sort of "raise awareness" logic. But without any eco-terrorist group taking credit for this, such a motivation seems particularly unlikely.
- geysersam 4y ago
  Eco terrorism is a made up concept. It doesn't exist outside of James Bond. Besides, this leak has horrible environmental consequences. If it was a deliberate attack, extremely successful, wouldn't some group have taken responsibility by now?
  - 4y ago
pvaldes 4y ago
Pretty obvious sabotage. Neither a whale, nor a trawl can do it. Who benefits is a different question. Russia is economically damaged but once deciding that selling gas to Europe is not more an option, Putin has now a plausible excuse to not fulfill the gas contracts anymore, without being economically penalized for breaking those contracts, because... not my fault. It is desperate also to spark the flames of war in their population. So can use also the issue as leverage to force apathetic Russian people that for some strange reason don't like to die to accept the new situation. If Russian people keep refusing to fight in the war, the war is over. And if Russia lose this war, Putin is politically dead and will be removed from the power by any means necessary. And removed means, probably killed by its own people. He needs to put their citizens in a much worse situation, so can justify a full call to arms. European Union does not have nothing to gain with this. USA could benefit as gas seller and to force Putin to not use nuclear arms in Ukraine near the remaining pipes. Putin went to Belarus only few days ago. Other could benefit for undisclosed reasons. (Edited the China could benefit part, it was clearly a stupid idea)
- valuearb 4y ago
  Putin doesn't care about contracts. He does care about having operational pipelines so he can use them as leverage with the west when Europe runs low on energy. The US finally cobbled together a coalition to block Russian aggression, and the coalition is enabling Ukraine to win this war. Why would they want to destroy this coalition getting caught sabotaging pipelines in Europe? Occcams razor says typical terrible Russian maintenance.
  - pvaldes 4y ago
    Nord stream 1 was finished in 2011 but Nord stream 2 finished in 2021. Even with lousy maintenance, one year old pipelines shouldn't break by corrosion, concrete cracks or fatigue of materials. Four old and new pipelines breaking in exactly he same day or week is very suspicious. Shouldn't happen, unless there is a common cause and they are correlated somehow. I assume (could be wrong) that Nordstream 1 and 2 don't run exactly by the same location in the sea bottom so one minor explosion in the old one shouldn't affect the other one. If is not fatigue of materials, only could be (I'm speculating) the pressure raising in the pipes for some reason until blowing it. I don't know if this can happen with the pumps stopped or a half speed, but looks like a plausible cause. In any case a drone with a small explosive charge was found yet in nov-205 near the Nord Stream pipelines not far from the location that was damaged in 2022.
roenxi 4y ago
I miss the people who were good at realpolitik. What happened barely matters. The situation appears to be escalating, there is a mobilised Russian army to worry about now. People are underestimating how unpredictable and damaging war is. Throwing weapons and sanctions at Russia is not a plausible path to peace and prosperity. This should have been Iraq 2.0. If the situation goes biblical, I'd rather be reading about turning the other cheek than the apocalypse.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > This should have been Iraq 2.0. You mean 3.0 I assume... Anyway, that seems like an awful idea to me. Russia is still nuclear armed and if you try to attack Russia hard and fast, as America did to Iraq twice, there is a chance they would respond with nuclear force. Better to keep the war at a relatively low intensity and bleed Russia dead slowly, so that at no point does Russian leadership experience existential panic. Boil the frog^W bear slow so he doesn't jump out of the pot.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    You want to purposefully destabilise the government of a country with the largest nuclear arsenal? Are you crazy!? That is the worst strategy I've ever heard, and it is also insane. That is literally a plan to see a new Hitler, but with with nukes. Iraq 2.0 as in Russia plays the role of the US and Ukraine plays the role of Iraq.
bjourne 4y ago
I'd imagine both the Swedish and Danish marines have already investigated the ruptures and it must be trivial to figure out whether the explosions were accidents or sabotage. A detonation using explosives placed on the pipe must cause different kinds of damage than if the tube ruptured from within.
m4jor 4y ago
It was a nation-state backed attack imo, no accident.
- valuearb 4y ago
  There is no evidence of this, and no nation actor with a motivation to do this.
geysersam 4y ago
This is ridiculous. Every relevant government and official statement has made clear that this was sabotage.
- valuearb 4y ago
  And what authority and expertise do they have?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
swamp40 4y ago
"Recently, some climate activists have begun to openly contemplate the possibility — in their eyes, the necessity — of directly sabotaging the infrastructure of the carbon economy. Foremost among them is the academic Andreas Malm, whose recent book, “How to Blow Up a Pipeline,” [1] calls for smashing the tools of fossil-fuel extraction as a last-ditch means of averting ecological collapse. In interviews with mainstream outlets such as Vox and The New Yorker, Malm contends that climate activists should give up their dogmatic attachment to pacifism and start to destroy the machines that actually produce carbon. " [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/magazine/earth-liberation-front-joseph-mahmoud-dibee.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/magazine/earth-liberation... [1] https://www.amazon.com/How-Blow-Pipeline-Andreas-Malm/dp/1839760257/ https://www.amazon.com/How-Blow-Pipeline-Andreas-Malm/dp/183...
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  What are the odds they would happen to choose a pipeline that 1) Isn't actually delivering gas in the present, and may never again for political reasons. 2) Is so central to ongoing international disputes as well as a war. Point 1 negates the practical impact. Point 2, and also their failure to take credit for it, negates the symbolic value.
  - swamp40 4y ago
    There are similar arguments against all possible perpetrators. My point was only that it was possible. Not so deep or so complicated that only the US or Russia could have done it.

81 points by h2odragon 4y ago

Despite a few assertions lacking substance, the article still brings to the table interesting insights about pipeline maintenance. Since we are at making guesses, here is mine. A real accident on NS1, which was indeed under maintenance. After a few hours of discussions, russians decide to sabotage NS2 it order to make the event look like an act of war.

supergirl 4y ago

my money is on US and/or UK. they seized the moment of chaos and destroyed the pipeline permanently. they have a lot to gain from this. it simply weakens EU, makes it more dependent on US/UK, weakens economy, etc. UK is not EU's friend and US is only a friend as long as EU falls in line and you never know in the future. Russia could have done it too but it makes no sense and most importantly they have a track record of failing and getting caught with even simpler schemes (e.g. novichok attack). just the fact that US is not jumping to blame Russia this time and Sweden already said they treat it not as an attack on Sweden (so if it turns out US did it, Sweden is just gonna say it's in international waters, not a Swedish asset, etc.). I mean US intelligence knows what Putin has for dinner. Impossible they don't know who did this, in NATO waters. Only EU doesn't know. US/UK surely know and if it was Russia they'd publish video footage 1 min after explosion.

valuearb 4y ago
It's ludicrous to think Biden would green light an operation like this when he finally has a European coalition against Russian aggression helping Ukraine whin the war. This would destroy that coalition in seconds.
- supergirl 4y ago
  calculated risk. the coalition doesn't look so determined. apart from US and UK, the rest seem hesitant. blowing up the pipeline makes sure there is not turning back, especially as hard times are coming (gas reserves will be empty after winter, then what?). if caught, US bets on EU turning a blind eye to this like they did when US spied on Merkel and others. EU doesn't have the strength to rock the relation with US, especially not now.

stellalo 4y ago

And this just happened to happen in September 2022?

impostervt 4y ago

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

m000 4y ago
Yes, but with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred [1]. It's a razor fight then! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
rfrey 4y ago
I think, when war is raging and thousands are dying gruesome deaths, it's reasonable to consider malice.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  And who actually gains from this in the long run... Certainly not Germany or Russia... Should make it pretty clear. It could be UK as tradition of breaking down Europe, but they are having enough issues that the timing is entirely wrong... I don't think China cares, so maybe Arabs, but I doubt. Only really leaves USA and we know what they have historically been up to.
  - valuearb 4y ago
    The US finally has a coalition against Russian aggression in Europe, that is key to helping Ukraine win the war. Why would they throw this away on a stupid sabotage operation?
  - ravi-delia 4y ago
    Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. US can't really expect to sell much gas to Europe regardless, so if it was then it would be for anti-Russia reasons, which seems like a stretch. Objectively the funniest possiblity is that some cargo ship dragged it's anchor across miles of ocean and a captain is very very worried right now

kronholm 4y ago

Article says two explosions, but there were four, afaik. Edit, a source, well, says 4 leaks: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-29/sweden-says-fourth-leak-discovered-in-nord-stream-pipelines https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-29/sweden-sa...

DisjointedHunt 4y ago

Source: "Trust me, bro"

nix23 4y ago
Press Source: "Trust us, little ones"
- namaria 4y ago
  Polarization weakens the conversation. A reminder not to make assumptions one way is not an argument for running on the opposite direction.
  - DisjointedHunt 4y ago
    There's no argument for "running on the opposite direction". The OP piece doesn't meet any reasonable standard to be considered an intellectual submission and hence the terse response. Highly speculative opinion not grounded in fact and blatantly pushing a conclusion . . . what else can you say? Why is this even submitted to HN? A conversation starter?
    - namaria 4y ago
      I was clearly responding to a comment ironically saying we should trust the mainstream press if we argue we shouldn't trust random blogs
      - nix23 4y ago
        The random blog brings up a theory, the mainstream media is already pointing finger towards russia, it's pretty clear which side makes assumptions without proof.
        namaria 4y ago
        It's clear to me that thinking there are only two sides to this whole thing is grossly oversimplifying it.

seydor 4y ago

To be honest, people dont seem to care too much who did it. It was russia: what are they gonna do, sanction them? It was the US: what are russians gonna do, go to war with the west? Whoever did this, they solved a Godrian knot. Imagine going into winter with one pipeline being the lifeline of europe. [My conspiracy theory: this was a arranged via secret negotiations between US and Russia. They want an end to the war with russia cut off from the western system and europe out of the picture. Putin gets pyrrhic "victory" and a golden bridge with the new republics, and Ukraine joins NATO, with nukes pointed at russia]

howmayiannoyyou 4y ago
That was never a possible outcome. Pipelines transiting Belarus and Ukraine remain operational and AFAIK in-service. Who did it does matter. If Russia didn't self-sabotage they may feel some obligation to retaliate proportionally against someone else's energy infrastructure.
- seydor 4y ago
  If they wish to retaliate, all the need to do is destroy their own infrastructure
  - nyokodo 4y ago
    Which destroys their present and future income.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      So does the war.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  > If Russia didn't self-sabotage they may feel some obligation to retaliate proportionally against someone else's energy infrastructure. Why do they have to retaliate against the energy infrastructure? I read some article saying it would be much easier for them to cut off some major internet cables between North America and Europe. Seems plausible to me. It's probably much easier to do without trace and leave the enemy without a hard proof that they did it.

namaria 4y ago

Unqualified opinions are cheap. This random internet guy thinks sabotage is unlikely on the Nord Stream incident based on what is published on news websites? This has a weight of exactly zero.

valuearb 4y ago
Your opinion is far more unqualified than a carefully researched blog. If you don't think what he wrote is true, rebut him factually, random HN guy.
RajT88 4y ago
The old adage, "Opinions are like assholes; everyone's got one" comes to mind.
- m000 4y ago
  And a newer adage: "Do not trust web posts written in colored bold-italic."
- behaveEc0n00 4y ago
  The opinion this is cheap talk might be a shitty one? Gas line works fine for years, suddenly during regional conflict it goes tits up? A dying country whose leadership seems intent on putting it out of its misery sending its potential fathers to a meat grinder, a history of stupid big picture choices, angry at the world for not letting it conquer it might partake in environmental sabotage. It’s a lot less on the nose than nukes; if we can’t have imperialist nation state, no one can! The holocaust is proof of human indifference to each other’s existence. What do a bunch of old turds care about intentional environmental destruction?
  - valuearb 4y ago
    Gas line works for years, then 6 months after removal of western technical experts and ending of cooperation with technicians running west end of pipeline (which article stressed were critical to clearing plugs like these safely) it goes tits up. Putin is not going to blow up his biggest leverage over Europe during a cold winter, its his only chance at getting them to reduce support for Ukraine.

snarkconjecture 4y ago

Unless one of the leaks caused all the others, it seems like a hell of a coincidence for them to all happen on the same day by chance after sitting there for years.

gonzo41 4y ago
The pipes are 4 inches of steel wrapped in 6 inches of concrete. It's hard to see that being something that would rupture easily by accident. Especially 4 at a time.
- beeforpork 4y ago
  4cm, not 4inches, IIRC. Plus concrete, again 6cm, not 6inches. Still massive. The weight ist 13 tonnes steel + 13 tonnes concrete per segment, IIRC, diameter is 1.1m and segment length is 13m. Steel is ~7kg/dm³ => You can now calculate the wall thickness. OK, OK, let's not talk: 130 dm * ((11/2dm + X)² - (11/2 dm)²) * \pi * 7kg/dm³ = 13000kg => X = 0.39dm EDIT: Corrected the sign...

m000 4y ago

> No military is going to arrange for two pipes in the same general area to be destroyed 17 hours apart. This is only true if the operation was conducted in hostile waters. Just saying.

criddell 4y ago
> No military is going to arrange for two pipes in the same general area to be destroyed 17 hours apart. That makes me think a military probably did do it.
namaria 4y ago
Assuming covert ops follow a pattern is just naive
dividedbyzero 4y ago
Even in hostile waters, why not? Doing it this way does send a message and sows uncertainty, i.e. was whoever did this able to place explosives on the second one under the eyes of several militaries?) and can be accomplished by using timed fuses.
bombcar 4y ago
Why is everyone assuming you'd be there when they pop? You could lay explosives months in advance and remotely trigger them or have them on a timer.

jcranmer 4y ago

There is at least one factual inaccuracy here--Nordstream 1 was not cut off after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It was running at more or less usual capacity until early June, when the flow was cut by about 60%. It was then shut off in July for regular yearly maintenance window. It returned at 40% capacity for a while, before being slowed to 20% capacity in late July, and then shut off again at the end of August. So Nordstream 1 has only been not moving for a little less than a month at the time of the explosion. While I think accidental failure of the Nordstream pipeline is an underrated explanation, such a glaring factual inaccuracy makes me skeptical of the viability of the specific theory espoused in this article.

T-zex 4y ago
And NS2 was not operational at all, therefore the accident hypothesis is less likely there.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  It was pressurized but not flowing (which confounds the pig hypothesis I've seen some commenters put forward.)
- lesuorac 4y ago
  I dunno, I always thought it made it more likely. Funding for NS2 has dried up so whose going to bother leaving their nice warm hut to go do required maintenance?
namaria 4y ago
We have no reason to assume we even know all the possibilities. Neither Russia nor NATO are monoliths. We don't even know potentially how many actors we should take into account.
sivizius 4y ago
And he is talking about the diesel effect. This implies the presence of an oxidiser like oxygen. Yes, CH₄ + 2 H₂O does react to CO₂ and 4 H₂, but not under high pressure and it is endothermic, so nope. And this pipeline has an diameter of more than a metre, so this plug must be quite large. Yes, the pressure was 105 bar which is more than enough for the creating of these clathrates but this must be a lot of water o.o…anyway, I am not an expert, but this articles sounds a lot like he took a lot of knowledge from here: https://petrowiki.spe.org/Hydrate_plug_removal https://petrowiki.spe.org/Hydrate_plug_removal. But I like the idea. An deliberate attack is somewhat unsound for me, I do not see a reason for Russia to destroy both pipelines. NS1: ok, Russia tried to pressure Germany to open NS2 anyway. All 4 of them at different spots? At almost the same time? And if they maintained them all simultaneously (Why so fast? They have time now.), if one broke, they should have stopped anything on the other one, which exploded 17 h later. And this articles assumes a lot of incompetence on the Russian side…I do not buy this.

barrenko 4y ago

History is fun again.

tiborsaas 4y ago
This whole Nordstream case sounds feels like a James Bond style movie when a random news plays in the background while the protagonist is doing his business and then in two cutscenes we see cities burning. Watching these movies is definitely fun, but living 1000km from a war zone is somewhat worrisome. Anyways, I'll move finishing my bug-out-bag higher on my todo list.

fsloth 4y ago

This article is poorly informed opinion piece. Ignore it.

luc4 4y ago
Could you elaborate? The article does.
- fsloth 4y ago
  I don’t think I have anything to add to the other comments here. Maybe the 1st key thing though is to recognize thath RU would absolutely false flag their own infra to create chaos and pressure on EU. Putin started his presidential career with a likely false flag that killed civilians. Blowing up NS1&2 is an obvious threat against Norwegian offshore and pipeline infra which now critical for EU.
  - valuearb 4y ago
    The idea that Putin or Biden would do this is so ludicrous as to be dismissable out of hand. Putin needs the revenues from these pipelines once hostilities end. He was likely extremely hopeful Europe would cave this winter and he could use them as leverage. Biden has finally gotten a coalition in Europe to take Russia's aggressions seriously and their combined efforts have Ukraine making great progress in winning the war.

rmind 4y ago

So far the most plausible theory is that Russia sabotaged the pipelines for two reasons [1]: 1) to claim force majeure and avoid massive penalties Gazprom would have to pay for the breach of contract (we are talking billions here; now they just blame the West and good luck proving in courts who actually did it); 2) to further blackmail and coerce the European nations (particularly Germany and Italy) who depend on Russian gas to stop supporting Ukraine. As for explosions, they were recorded by the seismologist in Sweden and Denmark who are quite convinced it was due to a deliberate action: https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-gas-baltic-pipelines-leaks/32054130.html https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-gas-baltic-pipelines-leaks/32... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/09/29/russian-sabotage-of-the-nord-stream-pipeline-mark-a-point-of-no-return/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/09/29/russian-s...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cpursley 4y ago
Your theory just doesn't check out. With the pipelines destroyed, Russia can't blackmail the EU with energy as easily as they could before. And why would they destroy infrastructure that they poured billions into when they could have just turned off the taps any time they pleased? The pipelines now being destroyed is a really bad thing for Russia, a worse thing for the EU and a great situation for the USA (and Poland, who just opened a pipeline). Both Biden and Nuland have both publicly threatened to take out the pipelines. Ukraine has also lobbied hard against them. I mean, it very well could be the Russians. They certainly have the capability - but I'm struggling to see the logic behind cutting off their dealmaking hand.
- rmind 4y ago
  Because they would have to pay billions for not delivering the gas due to the breach of contracts. Legally, you cannot turn off the taps just because. Moreover, Russia can still supply very significant quantities of gas via Belarus and Ukraine, so they retain the leverage to blackmail the EU.

haarts 4y ago

This sounds more plausible than all other explanations I've read.

MauranKilom 4y ago

Can someone explain the chemistry of natural gas exploding by itself? In my understanding, you need oxygen for that to happen. There's a bunch of oxygen in the H2O, but what exactly would the products of an explosive reaction between natural gas and water be? Hydrogen and CO2? Don't think there's much energy to be released there... I can totally buy the "you depressurized only one end, so you had a plug slam into the next bend of the pipeline", and that might plausibly register as an explosion on seismic detectors. But hydrocarbons by themselves aren't explosive - they need something to react with.

wil421 4y ago
If you have pressures above 3,000psi any sudden leak or hole will be pretty catastrophic. Not an explosion like a fire explosion, something more like explosive decompression in a plane. Anyway I think they Swedes have pinned it down to an explosion, as in a bomb, based on seismometers.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Water pressure at 80 meters would be about 130 psi, so the pipe is 2800 psi over "ambient" which gives it a certain amount of "pop" should it do so. But it's also designed to not pop (and do we have any examples of a catastrophic pipe failure vs a leak?).
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    I thought pressure of the gas as ~114 bar, which (brain whirring sounds) is much less than 2,800 PSI. MS's calculator makes it ~1,650 PSI I could be wrong.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Could be the difference between what the pipe is rated for and what the gas is normally at.
    - wil421 4y ago

mdemare 4y ago

Interesting! I didn't realize how accident-prone these pipelines were. An accident would explain the glaring absence of an actor with both motive and opportunity.

stuckinhell 4y ago

It's clearly not an accident. It's also hard to believe it was Russia, since now they can't blackmail Europe. Both Biden and Victoria Nuland have both publicly threaded to take out the pipelines on video no less.

valuearb 4y ago
Biden and Nuland threatened to stop it using their political leverage, not force. Sabotage would destroy the European coalition against Russian aggression they've worked so hard to build. Really ludicrous conspiracy theory that makes an accident the most likely cause.
henrikschroder 4y ago
The best reasoning I've seen on the matter is this: Countries in Europe have been pretty clear that no-one is going to back down on supporting Ukraine in order to get some cheap Russian gas. So the pipeline is useless to Putin. However, a rival oligarch/military leader/whatever in Russia could try to cut a deal with Europe and say that they promise to kill Putin and get Russian troops out of Ukraine, in exchange for agreements to resume the gas trade and no questions asked about who the money for the gas is going to. So the pipeline is useless to Russia as long as Putin is in charge, but it's also a threat to Putin, personally, since it can be used to fund a coup against him. Therefore, he decided to sabotage it. If you think of Putin as a paranoid mafia boss foremost, and a politician and world leader second, this explanation makes sense.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > Countries in Europe have been pretty clear that no-one is going to back down on supporting Ukraine in order to get some cheap Russian gas. They've said it, but what prevents them from changing their mind when domestic political pressure during winter increases? Well, blowing up the pipeline helps prevent it.. It's called planning for contingencies. Even if there was only a remote possibility of Germany folding, that's a contingency worth planning for.
- oceanplexian 4y ago

navigate8310 4y ago

Obligatory: https://i.imgur.com/Vt4U9wv.png https://i.imgur.com/Vt4U9wv.png

photochemsyn 4y ago

These two pipelines have very different operational histories so the simultaneous formation of a 'methane hydrate plug' in both pipelines seems highly unlikely at best. There's also no apparent reason why such a methane hydrate plug should cause seismic-scale explosions in both pipelines. As far as motivation, the US agenda on Europe's fossil fuel market since at least 2008 has been to lock out Russian suppliers (who don't bank their oil profits with Wall Street) in favor of American and Middle Eastern importers (those who do bank their funds appropriately, i.e. Qatar/Saudi/Kuwait/UAE good, Iran bad). This has gained extra impetus since the fracking boom and the rise in production in the USA, leading to pushes to open up export markets. Now, would Russia want to blow up its own pipelines when it can simply shut them down for 'maintenance' until sanctions are lifted if it wanted to cut off the flow of gas? That's a ludicrous stretch of the imagination. This leaves the USA as the one with the obvious motive to do this. I personally think Europe would have been better off pushing rapid renewable development for the past few decades, which it has to some extent, but a more concentrated effort over the past few decades would have put them in a position where their economies were not dependent on either the USA or Russia. [edit: relevant quote - "There are many ways to light Europe" - from the movie, Syriana]

raverbashing 4y ago
> Now, would Russia want to blow up its own pipelines when it can simply shut them down for 'maintenance' Because they can break the contracts due to "force-majeure" clauses, which shutting down won't let them do
- valuearb 4y ago
  Since when has Putin cared about contracts?
- llampx 4y ago
  This explanation doesn't clarify why Putin wouldn't blow up the pipelines in July, before telling Europe that they won't deliver gas as long as Europe applies sanctions on Russia. By doing that, Putin already broke any contracts.
4y ago

jofer 4y ago

This really is a plausible scenario. Hydrate buildup is a very real risk in a pipeline that isn't flowing. Trying to deal with it in a less than ideal way can absolutely lead to loss of containment and would explain the multiple leaks. Of course, hostile action is also a plausible explanation, but it is very fair to point out that we really don't have any clear evidence either way and both are reasonably likely.

geysersam 4y ago
Why would it happen in both pipelines the same evening?
- jofer 4y ago
  As pointed out in the original article, if they were trying to clear hydrate blockages without coordination with folks at the "other end" of the pipeline, it could make sense that they'd try to operate on both in the same timeframe. The coordination of timing is still one of the biggest arguments in favor of this being sabotage, though.
  - geysersam 4y ago
    Each of the two nord stream links consist of two pipelines. All four exploded on the same evening, in exactly one place on each. Three of the leaks are very close to each other, the fourth is within 50 kilometers from the others, along a 1000+ km long pipeline. By accident? All relevant authorities on different sides of the conflict agree that this was sabotage. It can be fun to stretch the imagination and construct complicated technical causes. But it should be known that this was not an accident.
    - valuearb 4y ago
      "All relevant authorities on different sides of the conflict agree that this was sabotage" So your entire argument is appeal to questionable authorities? What are their expertise with pipeline maintenance disasters? How and why would an underwater demo team plant explosives 50 km apart? Why would they trigger explosions 17 hours apart? If a hydrate plug is triggered to cause an explosion in one pipeline due to a specific temperature/pressure combination, how long would it take for a similar explosion to occur in another pipeline at the exact same temperature/pressure combination?

swamp40 4y ago

Shaped charges are easy to make [0], and technical divers can go to 70 meters. I don't think it's out of line to think that German eco-terrorists could have done it. So the whodunnit list is quite long. [0] https://youtu.be/UHoqYi8XOA4?t=427 https://youtu.be/UHoqYi8XOA4?t=427

MichaelCollins 4y ago
A non-state actor is possible, but unlikely. It would require an organization, a small group at least, that had the inclination, opportunity, skill and resources. Any one or two of those is easy, but to actually do it requires all of those simultaneously. Furthermore such a serious attack from eco-terrorists would be fairly unprecedented. It's a far cry from torching a resort or tree spiking.
- regularfry 4y ago
  Releasing colossal amounts of methane directly into the environment would be an odd choice for an eco-group too.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Probably, but there conceivably might be some 'ends justify the means' logic that could motivate it. There have been some eco-terrorist attacks against nuclear power plants for instance, which on the face of it seems contradictory but I presume is justified using some sort of "raise awareness" logic. But without any eco-terrorist group taking credit for this, such a motivation seems particularly unlikely.
geysersam 4y ago
Eco terrorism is a made up concept. It doesn't exist outside of James Bond. Besides, this leak has horrible environmental consequences. If it was a deliberate attack, extremely successful, wouldn't some group have taken responsibility by now?
- 4y ago

pvaldes 4y ago

Pretty obvious sabotage. Neither a whale, nor a trawl can do it. Who benefits is a different question. Russia is economically damaged but once deciding that selling gas to Europe is not more an option, Putin has now a plausible excuse to not fulfill the gas contracts anymore, without being economically penalized for breaking those contracts, because... not my fault. It is desperate also to spark the flames of war in their population. So can use also the issue as leverage to force apathetic Russian people that for some strange reason don't like to die to accept the new situation. If Russian people keep refusing to fight in the war, the war is over. And if Russia lose this war, Putin is politically dead and will be removed from the power by any means necessary. And removed means, probably killed by its own people. He needs to put their citizens in a much worse situation, so can justify a full call to arms. European Union does not have nothing to gain with this. USA could benefit as gas seller and to force Putin to not use nuclear arms in Ukraine near the remaining pipes. Putin went to Belarus only few days ago. Other could benefit for undisclosed reasons. (Edited the China could benefit part, it was clearly a stupid idea)

valuearb 4y ago
Putin doesn't care about contracts. He does care about having operational pipelines so he can use them as leverage with the west when Europe runs low on energy. The US finally cobbled together a coalition to block Russian aggression, and the coalition is enabling Ukraine to win this war. Why would they want to destroy this coalition getting caught sabotaging pipelines in Europe? Occcams razor says typical terrible Russian maintenance.
- pvaldes 4y ago
  Nord stream 1 was finished in 2011 but Nord stream 2 finished in 2021. Even with lousy maintenance, one year old pipelines shouldn't break by corrosion, concrete cracks or fatigue of materials. Four old and new pipelines breaking in exactly he same day or week is very suspicious. Shouldn't happen, unless there is a common cause and they are correlated somehow. I assume (could be wrong) that Nordstream 1 and 2 don't run exactly by the same location in the sea bottom so one minor explosion in the old one shouldn't affect the other one. If is not fatigue of materials, only could be (I'm speculating) the pressure raising in the pipes for some reason until blowing it. I don't know if this can happen with the pumps stopped or a half speed, but looks like a plausible cause. In any case a drone with a small explosive charge was found yet in nov-205 near the Nord Stream pipelines not far from the location that was damaged in 2022.

roenxi 4y ago

I miss the people who were good at realpolitik. What happened barely matters. The situation appears to be escalating, there is a mobilised Russian army to worry about now. People are underestimating how unpredictable and damaging war is. Throwing weapons and sanctions at Russia is not a plausible path to peace and prosperity. This should have been Iraq 2.0. If the situation goes biblical, I'd rather be reading about turning the other cheek than the apocalypse.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> This should have been Iraq 2.0. You mean 3.0 I assume... Anyway, that seems like an awful idea to me. Russia is still nuclear armed and if you try to attack Russia hard and fast, as America did to Iraq twice, there is a chance they would respond with nuclear force. Better to keep the war at a relatively low intensity and bleed Russia dead slowly, so that at no point does Russian leadership experience existential panic. Boil the frog^W bear slow so he doesn't jump out of the pot.
- roenxi 4y ago
  You want to purposefully destabilise the government of a country with the largest nuclear arsenal? Are you crazy!? That is the worst strategy I've ever heard, and it is also insane. That is literally a plan to see a new Hitler, but with with nukes. Iraq 2.0 as in Russia plays the role of the US and Ukraine plays the role of Iraq.

bjourne 4y ago

I'd imagine both the Swedish and Danish marines have already investigated the ruptures and it must be trivial to figure out whether the explosions were accidents or sabotage. A detonation using explosives placed on the pipe must cause different kinds of damage than if the tube ruptured from within.

m4jor 4y ago

It was a nation-state backed attack imo, no accident.

valuearb 4y ago
There is no evidence of this, and no nation actor with a motivation to do this.

geysersam 4y ago

This is ridiculous. Every relevant government and official statement has made clear that this was sabotage.

valuearb 4y ago
And what authority and expertise do they have?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

swamp40 4y ago

"Recently, some climate activists have begun to openly contemplate the possibility — in their eyes, the necessity — of directly sabotaging the infrastructure of the carbon economy. Foremost among them is the academic Andreas Malm, whose recent book, “How to Blow Up a Pipeline,” [1] calls for smashing the tools of fossil-fuel extraction as a last-ditch means of averting ecological collapse. In interviews with mainstream outlets such as Vox and The New Yorker, Malm contends that climate activists should give up their dogmatic attachment to pacifism and start to destroy the machines that actually produce carbon. " [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/magazine/earth-liberation-front-joseph-mahmoud-dibee.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/magazine/earth-liberation... [1] https://www.amazon.com/How-Blow-Pipeline-Andreas-Malm/dp/1839760257/ https://www.amazon.com/How-Blow-Pipeline-Andreas-Malm/dp/183...

MichaelCollins 4y ago
What are the odds they would happen to choose a pipeline that 1) Isn't actually delivering gas in the present, and may never again for political reasons. 2) Is so central to ongoing international disputes as well as a war. Point 1 negates the practical impact. Point 2, and also their failure to take credit for it, negates the symbolic value.
- swamp40 4y ago
  There are similar arguments against all possible perpetrators. My point was only that it was possible. Not so deep or so complicated that only the US or Russia could have done it.