21 ms·

Nord Stream blast 'blew away 50 metres of pipe'

42 points by colinprince 4y ago

kranke155 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  First of all, would you please stop posting flamewar comments and otherwise breaking the site guidelines? You've added a whole bunch of them to this thread already. That's not cool, and we ban accounts that do it. If "amount of nonsense" is your indicator, then literally every internet discussion on every divisive topic is "information attack". The HN guidelines specifically ask users not to post insinuations about this kind of thing without evidence, so when you review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, please note that one.
  - kranke155 4y ago
    I’m sorry I will delete some comments.
standup 4y ago
Hacktivists or state actors attacking the SCADA systems and increasing the pressure to levels that it's not built to handle? The russian government itself doing that to make it appear someone else did it?
- jdhn 4y ago
  I personally believe this was a state actor who did it. If it was a SCADA system attack to overpressure the pipe, a state actor is the most likely culprit as SCADA knowledge isn't that common among laypeople. Personally, I think powerful explosives were used, at which point it'd definitely be a state actor because who else would have access to high power explosives, and then place them hundreds of feet below sea level next to a pipeline?
- Ialdaboth 4y ago
  My guess is the Russians did it because they were ashamed of all the leverage nordstream was giving them on the Germans and on Europe.
- boringg 4y ago
  Not enough flowrate for that - they had already stopped flowing through the pipeline.
  - standup 4y ago
    Just speculating, what about causing a sudden increase in pressure, like a water hammer, but with gas? Any chance of that causing it to fail?
    - Arrath 4y ago
      Chance? Possibly, but very unlikely. Causing it to fail, with the seismic signature that coincided with the failure? Impossible.
- kornhole 4y ago
  Increasing the pressure levels could not have produced such extensive damage. It was explosives. If Russia wanted to stop the flow, they could simply turn off the valves on their side rather than blow up their own infrastructure they spent billions to build.
- vesinisa 4y ago
  Come on. The only way to destroy 50 meters of pipeline is with explosives/weapons. Even if someone increased the pressure to a breaking point, it would cause a much smaller failure at a seam and the pressure would then stabilize. This is Putin playing power games. He wants so strike fear in the German public and cause public support for aiding Ukraine to falter. By failing to correctly attribute the actor behind this act of terror and spreading conspiracy theories you are only playing to the hand of that war-mongering dictator.
- poopnugget 4y ago
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > Hacktivists or state actors attacking the SCADA systems and increasing the pressure to levels that it's not built to handle? Such an overpressure would have been detected (and in the worst case, mitigated by flaring or outright venting) at the German entry points of NordStream 1 and 2. No anomalies were recorded, which completely debunks that theory.
- simion314 4y ago
  >The russian government Does that government have any power? Or we can always substitute for correctness "Russian gov" with "Putin" and "Russian interests" with "Putin ambitions"
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mikece 4y ago
I still want to know where the USS Jimmy Carter was right before this happened. Undersea espionage and sabotage is one of the specified missions for that boat.
- eli 4y ago
  Sounds awfully conspiratorial. What would the motive be?
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    The theory is that the US did a Cortez and burned the hypothetical escape route Europe had for its NatGas problem. Now they are committed to the Ukrainian cause because they won’t get their gas either way.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      > The theory is that the US did a Cortez and burned the hypothetical escape route Europe had for its NatGas problem. Now they are committed to the Ukrainian cause because they won’t get their gas either way. That's pure bollocks because the pipelines through Poland/Belarus and Austria/Hungary/Ukraine still exist and work. They were able to handle the entire European gas supply before Germany decided to build NordStream to reduce the leverage of these transit countries.
      - arrosenberg 4y ago
        I wasn’t endorsing the notion, but thats the motive being assigned when the US is blamed. I wouldn’t say its an unrealistic POV though, Ukraine and Poland would likely block gas if the alternative was letting Russia win the war.
      - nathanaldensr 4y ago
        The point is to remove a direct source of gas. Just because there is an indirect source doesn't mean it's reliable or a full replacement; leverage can be exerted on those transit countries just as easily, or those countries may, on their own, decide to join Russia's economic sphere of influence.
kornhole 4y ago
- colpabar 4y ago
- mantas 4y ago
  Keep in mind that original nordstream was destroyed while Russia offered to supply gas via nordstream II which is repairable. If only EU and US would lift sanctions. Great excuse to get NS2 going! How convenient for Russia, huh?
  - kornhole 4y ago
    Most of NS2 was destroyed too. Only one of the NS2 pipes was not successfully destroyed.
    - mantas 4y ago
      There was a proposal by Russia to start supplying gas via NS2 few days ago. Even discussions of lifting some sanctions would be nasty.
- doodlebugging 4y ago
  Remember that Sweden so far is not a NATO nation. Norway, Denmark, Germany, and Sweden are running investigations of the pipeline destruction and they are not necessarily sharing everything they find. >German, Danish, and Swedish authorities have all been investigating the incident but Swedish prosecutors reportedly rejected a joint investigation out of fears of sharing sensitive information related to national security. [0] From the video in the linked BBC article it is apparent that explosives were used to destroy the pipeline at that site. The thickness of the steel in the pipeline is 41 mm (1.6 in.). It is coated with an anti-corrosion wrap and has a concrete coating for added weight. You can clearly see a trench across the seafloor intersecting the pipeline where it was cut. The video shows the steel wall bent inwards at the top with the anticorrosion blanket cut and the concrete shattered. The trench could be from the initial blast or it could have been cut by the force of the gas as it was expelled from the pipeline. Since it is a nice, straight cut I lean towards the trench having been created by the escaping gas which would cut like a knife through the soft seafloor in a focused stream. Since the pipe shows an inward bend at the top of the break that implies a downward force. This force created a nice, clean cut that allowed the gas to escape. There are many players who knew exactly where the pipeline lay on the seafloor and could pick any spot for a rupture. I will be watching this to see how it all works out. [1] Here is one analysis that makes an interesting case. I stumbled into this and had never heard of these guys before. Anyone recognize this outfit - MonkeyWorxus? [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63297085 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63297085 [1] https://www.monkeywerxus.com/blog/the-nord-stream-2-pipeline-sabotage https://www.monkeywerxus.com/blog/the-nord-stream-2-pipeline...
KingOfCoders 4y ago
We'll get a lot of tin foil speculation here, mine is it was retaliation for the Freeport LNG explosion.
akmarinov 4y ago
Interesting that the pipeline in the middle of Ukraine, right in the hotspots of a war - remains intact and well, but this one, at the bottom of the sea - is blown away. Now looking at Turk Stream
- lake_vincent 4y ago
  That's a great point, and therefore leads me to believe it was a pro-Ukranian force because if it were Russia, they would have blown it up inside Ukraine so they could then blame Ukraine for it. Putin really is not that bright, so it is unlikely he would think it through any further than that.
  - sattoshi 4y ago
    The enemy is both a diabolical mastermind, and feeble-minded. Truly a conundrum.
    - lake_vincent 4y ago
      Eh, I don't think Putin himself is the mastermind. He just bullies his underlings into figuring out how to actually do things, and throws tantrums when he doesn't get what he wants. Like Trump, he really just seems like a big evil baby, and I highly doubt he pulls his weight in any kind of strategic planning that requires true brain power. He's not even a good orator, or creative liar. He literally just says the opposite of the truth, which makes him easy to figure out in a way. He has only one skill, like the orange man, and that is demanding personal enrichment at all costs. He is, at the end of the day, just another basic KGB neanderthal.
      - sattoshi 4y ago
        The entertainment news media and it’s consequences has been disastrous for the human race
        lake_vincent 4y ago
pydry 4y ago
- rmu09 4y ago
  The idea is more like russia is sending the message "we are suicidal and ready to do really expensive, stupid stuff, maybe even go nuclear, are you too?"
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    If only there was another pipeline right next to Russian armed forces that they could more easily blow up.
    - rmu09 4y ago
      That would not signal readiness to do really expensive things.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        Yes, Russia is not prepared to do expensive things in the middle of a billion dollar a day invasion.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    You're getting downvotes but this is why. Putin wants to end relations with western nations because democratic ideas are becoming more popular in Russia (and Ukraine, whom russians can easily compare themselves to, starting to prosper as a result) and that is a huge danger to his authoritarian legacy and to him. His ego is that Russia has superior culture and genetics when compared to the west and his losing to Ukrainians and NATO supplied weapons is really hard on his ego and reputation which is everything to him.
- tgv 4y ago
  The "obviously" escapes me. I mean: accuse whomever you like. Let's drop the pretence of civil exchange, and throw some oil on the fire. Kanye and Elon do it all the time, so why can't you? But "obviously"?
fabian2k 4y ago
One strand of the Nordstream 2 pipeline is still functional, and Russia offered to send gas via that one recently. Just as a counterpoint to everyone claiming that Russia has no motive because they would harm themselves. This attack didn't remove all pipeline capacity, only 3 out of 4 strands of the two pipelines. So it did not remove the ability for Russia to sell gas to Germany.
- dylan604 4y ago
  Like no attacker has ever self-harmed to cast doubt and to make it look like they were also a victim rather than the attacker. These self inflicted wounds are not meant to be fatal (counter-productive)
- cced 4y ago
  > Russia has no motive because they would harm themselves. Ok? You’re stating that they don’t not have motive, so what’s the motive? Why would Russia throw away part of it’s cards? What’s the play?
  - fabian2k 4y ago
    It causes a lot of uncertainty, which does benefit Russia. And it did not elinimate their capacity to sell gas to Germany. Of course there is much less capacity now in total, but NS2 was never even used so far and there is no way that Germany would buy that much gas from Russia again that the reduced capacity would be an issue. If Russia were able to break the coalition of countries supporting Ukraine it would benefit enormously. I'm not seeing them succeeding in that, but that doesn't mean they're not trying it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    Russia has a history of blowing up their own infrastructure for political purposes, such as 2009 [1] or 2006 [2], not to mention simple shoddy workmanship or neglected maintenance (1995 [3][4]). Pipeline explosions are easy to cause and usually easy to fix as well, while claiming "force majeure" absolves Russia from holding up existing delivery contracts. [1] https://www.rferl.org/a/Pipeline_Explosion_Stokes_Tensions_Between_Turkmenistan_Russia/1608633.html https://www.rferl.org/a/Pipeline_Explosion_Stokes_Tensions_B... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_en... [3] https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/disaster-down-the-pipe-28062 https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/disaster-down-the-pipe-2... [4] https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/2764.html https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/2764.html
treis 4y ago
This is a fascinating mystery. There's at least 4 parties that you can make arguments for/against: Russia For: Plunge Europe into an energy crisis to force concessions in Ukraine Against: It looks a lot like a glass cannon to me. Meaning, Europe will now change their behavior to remove dependence on Russian energy. USA For: They've been against the Nords from the beginning and could pull something like this off Against: Big escalation, huge potential blow back from Europe, and economic fallout is bad for the midterm elections Ukraine For: Removes a large source of Russian leverage over Europe Against: Doesn't seem like they could pull it off and it risks the support from Europe they do have Random European Country For: Lots of them don't like the dependence on Russian energy and many of them have the means Against: Huge escalation with Russia and risks discord amongst the EU
- mikece 4y ago
  Poland: they hate Russia and Germany and a job like this is well within the capabilities of GROM.
  - 0x737368 4y ago
- marcinzm 4y ago
  The thing about motivations is that there's also the possibility of one party doing this just to have the blame put on another party.
  - treis 4y ago
    Seems risky to think you'd be able to get away with this without someone developing some reasonable suspicions. Which makes me lean towards one of the Western parties. Don't think Russia would be able to pull this off without getting caught and if caught you'd think the US would be trumpeting the proof from the roof tops.
    - marcinzm 4y ago
JasonFruit 4y ago
> Western leaders have stopped short of directly accusing Russia I'm going to stop short of directly accusing anyone, but I will say that any motive for Russia to eliminate their economic leverage against a powerful NATO nation escapes me, whereas eliminating that leverage is in the apparent interest of every NATO member nation that wants to see Russia weakened, except Germany. Accusing Russia of this particular act of destruction doesn't make any sense.
yabones 4y ago
This wasn't done because of conflicts between the Kremlin and NATO, it was because of the conflict within the Kremlin. Wealthy Russians may have thought things could go "back to normal" if they quickly end the war (through diplomacy, coups, or violence) they can go back to making money. This is Putin sending a signal, "you're going down with me".
- kranke155 4y ago
JediLuke 4y ago
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
> Western leaders have stopped short of directly accusing Russia but the EU has previously accused Russia of using its gas supplies as a weapon against the West over its support for Ukraine. I like the commenters trying to make sense of this event. Has any of the events in Europe up to this point made sense? One of Putin's goals is to fracture NATO, sowing this chaos furthers that goal. I don't think Europe has enough LNG terminals to accept more from the US, even if they could. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dozens-lng-laden-ships-queue-off-europes-coasts-unable-unload-2022-10-17/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dozens-lng-laden-shi...
martythemaniak 4y ago
If you think it was anyone other than the Russians, you really need a better model of reality. The thing to realize is Nordstream was already dead. Nordstream 2 never came online and Nordstream 1 was never again going to pump gas. Whether it was blown up or simply idle does not matter - no gas ever again either way. Russia's invasion has caused a permanent shift away from buying stuff from them. The first few years may be tough, but eventually LNG terminals will be built, heat pumps will be installed, EVs will be built and Russian gas will not play a role in Europe's economy again. So why do this? Because there are many other pipelines that Europe actually needs and is dependent on, mostly coming from Norway and Denmark: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen-Stolwijk/publication/275828182/figure/fig1/AS:294589563981825@1447247033603/Gas-pipeline-network-in-Europe-2.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen-Stolwijk/publica... Blowing those up would actually cause a big problem for Europe and now they've been put on notice that it can happen.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jsw97 4y ago
Russia has committed so many own goals in this war that the fact that it is against Russia's interests to blow up Nord Stream actually increases the probability that they did it.
xiphias2 4y ago
The worst thing that points to the US is how quiet the US media is about this disaster. Also I don't believe Russia has the technical ability to pull it off so professionally without strong proof being found by US. Also even if we Europeans think it was the US we can't do much about it as we depend on US.
- azinman2 4y ago
  The US media has not been quiet. Russia has the means to blow shit up.
  - m000 4y ago
    > Russia has the means to blow shit up. With shells and missiles. Not with covert operations under NATO fleet's nose.
    - azinman2 4y ago
      Says who? According to your premise, NATO knows who did it.
    - YLE118 4y ago
      There seemed to be pretty good indications that Russia has blown up things in the EU in the last decade. For example https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/28/bulgarian-prosecutors-allege-russian-links-to-arms-depot-explosions https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/28/bulgarian-pros...
      - w1nst0nsm1th 4y ago
        In the last decade. Not the last 4 days.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Investigations are ongoing, there is nothing new to report right now.
- 4y ago
LaleoDJ 4y ago
Yes !
LaleoDJ 4y ago
terran57 4y ago
What people fail to see is that this is an opportunity (albeit forced) to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels to renewables. To slow and hopefully reverse the effects of carbon emissions we need to massively invest in new wind and hydro projects, energy storage technologies, and tighten energy efficiency rules.
photochemsyn 4y ago
I'm surprised any video footage at all was released, given the political tensions around this event. This looks like the most comprehensive version of the video (possibly the earliest released, one of the earlier and less cut than others): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vbkFzQBo6w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vbkFzQBo6w That's very thick steel. Either a whole lot of explosives or some kind of shaped charge/explosively formed penetrator (widely used in oil drilling industry to blow holes in down-well pipe to allow oil flow) must have been used, with possible further damage caused by depressurization of the pipe. As far as who did it and why? Russia seemed to be pushing Europe for a deal whereby if they went along with the annexation of the eastern provinces of Ukraine they'd open up gas supplies and end the looming energy crisis Europe faces, and a working Nordstream / Nordstream 2 pipeline was necessary for that strategy, so blowing up the pipeline derailed that strategy for months at least. As to motive on the USA side, several officials in state and energy seem to view this as a 'tremendous opportunity' to shift European gas purchases away from Russian pipelines and towards US LNG tankers (price differential there), not sure how the Qatar gas output is affected. Europe of course would have been better off pushing a lot harder for wind/solar/storage over the past two decades and getting off the Russian, American and Middle East fossil fuel teat that way, but to quote Jeremey Irons in Margin Call, "That is spilt milk under the bridge". So now what?
- schmichael 4y ago
  The US already sells all of the LNG to Europe that either side has the capacity to handle. It will be faster to repair the pipe than build out new LNG capacity. I don’t see how the US has anything to benefit from blowing up the pipe to inflate energy prices in Europe as it’s a significant drag on the global economy which has far broader impacts on the US economy than slowly and incrementally increasing LNG shipments would. Furthermore Russia already has 1 pipe “down for maintenance,” so clearly limiting capacity is a huge bargaining chip for them. I think it’s also worth considering Russia may have internal detractors from their current policies and blowing up a pipe removes it from the equation. It may have even been a warning to those internal detractors: “don’t speak up or we can take all the pipes off the table as bargaining chips.” Russia benefits from the pipes being a high stakes game far more than the US. But who knows. The CIA has done dumber things. I just don’t see the incentives for the US especially considering even if we could ship more LNG (it would take years) that would increase energy costs here. The Biden administration has to LOVE being isolated from the madness of Europes gas market at the moment, especially considering the elections and looming winter.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
stjohnswarts 4y ago
So the Russians used their equivalent of navy seals to lay bombs and blow out a huge section so it would be ruined? I assume all that saltwater will destroy it in short order?
somewhereoutth 4y ago
None of the comments so far offer the most obvious motive for Russia to blow the pipeline: For Russia to show that it could, and it would. That the pipeline nominally benefits Russia is useful ambiguity (that many here seem to have fallen for). There is no shortage of undersea infrastructure vulnerable to such attacks, not least bringing gas from Norway to the EU - look at exactly where the pipeline was blown. It is part of a pattern of strategic terror.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  >" the most obvious motive for Russia to blow the pipeline: For Russia to show that it could, and it would. That the pipeline nominally benefits Russia is useful ambiguity." I don't follow this reasoning. The kind of expertise required to detonate a bomb underwater is likely something any developed country with a reasonably equipped navy/intelligence agency could pull off. Unlike something like Stuxnet, this seems rudimentary in comparison. As dysfunctional and diminished as Russia may be today, I don't think anyone assumed this was something they couldn't do.
  - somewhereoutth 4y ago
    emphasis more on the would then.
vicnov 4y ago
Potentially it is not the fist time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Abyss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Abyss Reed stated the United States added a Trojan horse to gas pipeline control software that the Soviet Union obtained from a company in Canada.[1] According to Reed, when the components were deployed on a Trans-Siberian gas pipeline, the Trojan horse led to a huge explosion.[1] He wrote: "The pipeline software that was to run the pumps, turbines and valves was programmed to go haywire, to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to the pipeline joints and welds. The result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space."[1] Also US has been against NS for a while https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/biden-meet-german-chancellor-russia-ukraine-tesnions-rcna15190 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/biden-meet-german-chancello... Also interesting how US media tries to damage control https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESG14_DsUIA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESG14_DsUIA
badinsie 4y ago
i'd love to see a map of the US backed pipeline going from Qatar to Germany that just so happens to go through all of the countries the US was fighting "terrorism" in while also getting caught funding those same terrorists
w1nst0nsm1th 4y ago
Hi. CIA ~paid troll~ damage control officer here... Russia have done it because... You know... it must be Russia. That's so obvious it's impossible to rationaly explain it otherwise.

42 points by colinprince 4y ago

dang 4y ago
First of all, would you please stop posting flamewar comments and otherwise breaking the site guidelines? You've added a whole bunch of them to this thread already. That's not cool, and we ban accounts that do it. If "amount of nonsense" is your indicator, then literally every internet discussion on every divisive topic is "information attack". The HN guidelines specifically ask users not to post insinuations about this kind of thing without evidence, so when you review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, please note that one.
- kranke155 4y ago
  I’m sorry I will delete some comments.

Hacktivists or state actors attacking the SCADA systems and increasing the pressure to levels that it's not built to handle? The russian government itself doing that to make it appear someone else did it?

jdhn 4y ago
I personally believe this was a state actor who did it. If it was a SCADA system attack to overpressure the pipe, a state actor is the most likely culprit as SCADA knowledge isn't that common among laypeople. Personally, I think powerful explosives were used, at which point it'd definitely be a state actor because who else would have access to high power explosives, and then place them hundreds of feet below sea level next to a pipeline?
Ialdaboth 4y ago
My guess is the Russians did it because they were ashamed of all the leverage nordstream was giving them on the Germans and on Europe.
boringg 4y ago
Not enough flowrate for that - they had already stopped flowing through the pipeline.
- standup 4y ago
  Just speculating, what about causing a sudden increase in pressure, like a water hammer, but with gas? Any chance of that causing it to fail?
  - Arrath 4y ago
    Chance? Possibly, but very unlikely. Causing it to fail, with the seismic signature that coincided with the failure? Impossible.
kornhole 4y ago
Increasing the pressure levels could not have produced such extensive damage. It was explosives. If Russia wanted to stop the flow, they could simply turn off the valves on their side rather than blow up their own infrastructure they spent billions to build.
vesinisa 4y ago
Come on. The only way to destroy 50 meters of pipeline is with explosives/weapons. Even if someone increased the pressure to a breaking point, it would cause a much smaller failure at a seam and the pressure would then stabilize. This is Putin playing power games. He wants so strike fear in the German public and cause public support for aiding Ukraine to falter. By failing to correctly attribute the actor behind this act of terror and spreading conspiracy theories you are only playing to the hand of that war-mongering dictator.
poopnugget 4y ago
mschuster91 4y ago
> Hacktivists or state actors attacking the SCADA systems and increasing the pressure to levels that it's not built to handle? Such an overpressure would have been detected (and in the worst case, mitigated by flaring or outright venting) at the German entry points of NordStream 1 and 2. No anomalies were recorded, which completely debunks that theory.
simion314 4y ago
>The russian government Does that government have any power? Or we can always substitute for correctness "Russian gov" with "Putin" and "Russian interests" with "Putin ambitions"

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mikece 4y ago

I still want to know where the USS Jimmy Carter was right before this happened. Undersea espionage and sabotage is one of the specified missions for that boat.

eli 4y ago
Sounds awfully conspiratorial. What would the motive be?
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  The theory is that the US did a Cortez and burned the hypothetical escape route Europe had for its NatGas problem. Now they are committed to the Ukrainian cause because they won’t get their gas either way.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > The theory is that the US did a Cortez and burned the hypothetical escape route Europe had for its NatGas problem. Now they are committed to the Ukrainian cause because they won’t get their gas either way. That's pure bollocks because the pipelines through Poland/Belarus and Austria/Hungary/Ukraine still exist and work. They were able to handle the entire European gas supply before Germany decided to build NordStream to reduce the leverage of these transit countries.
    - arrosenberg 4y ago
      I wasn’t endorsing the notion, but thats the motive being assigned when the US is blamed. I wouldn’t say its an unrealistic POV though, Ukraine and Poland would likely block gas if the alternative was letting Russia win the war.
    - nathanaldensr 4y ago
      The point is to remove a direct source of gas. Just because there is an indirect source doesn't mean it's reliable or a full replacement; leverage can be exerted on those transit countries just as easily, or those countries may, on their own, decide to join Russia's economic sphere of influence.

kornhole 4y ago

colpabar 4y ago
mantas 4y ago
Keep in mind that original nordstream was destroyed while Russia offered to supply gas via nordstream II which is repairable. If only EU and US would lift sanctions. Great excuse to get NS2 going! How convenient for Russia, huh?
- kornhole 4y ago
  Most of NS2 was destroyed too. Only one of the NS2 pipes was not successfully destroyed.
  - mantas 4y ago
    There was a proposal by Russia to start supplying gas via NS2 few days ago. Even discussions of lifting some sanctions would be nasty.
doodlebugging 4y ago
Remember that Sweden so far is not a NATO nation. Norway, Denmark, Germany, and Sweden are running investigations of the pipeline destruction and they are not necessarily sharing everything they find. >German, Danish, and Swedish authorities have all been investigating the incident but Swedish prosecutors reportedly rejected a joint investigation out of fears of sharing sensitive information related to national security. [0] From the video in the linked BBC article it is apparent that explosives were used to destroy the pipeline at that site. The thickness of the steel in the pipeline is 41 mm (1.6 in.). It is coated with an anti-corrosion wrap and has a concrete coating for added weight. You can clearly see a trench across the seafloor intersecting the pipeline where it was cut. The video shows the steel wall bent inwards at the top with the anticorrosion blanket cut and the concrete shattered. The trench could be from the initial blast or it could have been cut by the force of the gas as it was expelled from the pipeline. Since it is a nice, straight cut I lean towards the trench having been created by the escaping gas which would cut like a knife through the soft seafloor in a focused stream. Since the pipe shows an inward bend at the top of the break that implies a downward force. This force created a nice, clean cut that allowed the gas to escape. There are many players who knew exactly where the pipeline lay on the seafloor and could pick any spot for a rupture. I will be watching this to see how it all works out. [1] Here is one analysis that makes an interesting case. I stumbled into this and had never heard of these guys before. Anyone recognize this outfit - MonkeyWorxus? [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63297085 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63297085 [1] https://www.monkeywerxus.com/blog/the-nord-stream-2-pipeline-sabotage https://www.monkeywerxus.com/blog/the-nord-stream-2-pipeline...

KingOfCoders 4y ago

We'll get a lot of tin foil speculation here, mine is it was retaliation for the Freeport LNG explosion.

akmarinov 4y ago

Interesting that the pipeline in the middle of Ukraine, right in the hotspots of a war - remains intact and well, but this one, at the bottom of the sea - is blown away. Now looking at Turk Stream

lake_vincent 4y ago
That's a great point, and therefore leads me to believe it was a pro-Ukranian force because if it were Russia, they would have blown it up inside Ukraine so they could then blame Ukraine for it. Putin really is not that bright, so it is unlikely he would think it through any further than that.
- sattoshi 4y ago
  The enemy is both a diabolical mastermind, and feeble-minded. Truly a conundrum.
  - lake_vincent 4y ago
    Eh, I don't think Putin himself is the mastermind. He just bullies his underlings into figuring out how to actually do things, and throws tantrums when he doesn't get what he wants. Like Trump, he really just seems like a big evil baby, and I highly doubt he pulls his weight in any kind of strategic planning that requires true brain power. He's not even a good orator, or creative liar. He literally just says the opposite of the truth, which makes him easy to figure out in a way. He has only one skill, like the orange man, and that is demanding personal enrichment at all costs. He is, at the end of the day, just another basic KGB neanderthal.
    - sattoshi 4y ago
      The entertainment news media and it’s consequences has been disastrous for the human race
      - lake_vincent 4y ago

pydry 4y ago

rmu09 4y ago
The idea is more like russia is sending the message "we are suicidal and ready to do really expensive, stupid stuff, maybe even go nuclear, are you too?"
- thrown_22 4y ago
  If only there was another pipeline right next to Russian armed forces that they could more easily blow up.
  - rmu09 4y ago
    That would not signal readiness to do really expensive things.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      Yes, Russia is not prepared to do expensive things in the middle of a billion dollar a day invasion.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  You're getting downvotes but this is why. Putin wants to end relations with western nations because democratic ideas are becoming more popular in Russia (and Ukraine, whom russians can easily compare themselves to, starting to prosper as a result) and that is a huge danger to his authoritarian legacy and to him. His ego is that Russia has superior culture and genetics when compared to the west and his losing to Ukrainians and NATO supplied weapons is really hard on his ego and reputation which is everything to him.
tgv 4y ago
The "obviously" escapes me. I mean: accuse whomever you like. Let's drop the pretence of civil exchange, and throw some oil on the fire. Kanye and Elon do it all the time, so why can't you? But "obviously"?

fabian2k 4y ago

One strand of the Nordstream 2 pipeline is still functional, and Russia offered to send gas via that one recently. Just as a counterpoint to everyone claiming that Russia has no motive because they would harm themselves. This attack didn't remove all pipeline capacity, only 3 out of 4 strands of the two pipelines. So it did not remove the ability for Russia to sell gas to Germany.

dylan604 4y ago
Like no attacker has ever self-harmed to cast doubt and to make it look like they were also a victim rather than the attacker. These self inflicted wounds are not meant to be fatal (counter-productive)
cced 4y ago
> Russia has no motive because they would harm themselves. Ok? You’re stating that they don’t not have motive, so what’s the motive? Why would Russia throw away part of it’s cards? What’s the play?
- fabian2k 4y ago
  It causes a lot of uncertainty, which does benefit Russia. And it did not elinimate their capacity to sell gas to Germany. Of course there is much less capacity now in total, but NS2 was never even used so far and there is no way that Germany would buy that much gas from Russia again that the reduced capacity would be an issue. If Russia were able to break the coalition of countries supporting Ukraine it would benefit enormously. I'm not seeing them succeeding in that, but that doesn't mean they're not trying it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mschuster91 4y ago
  Russia has a history of blowing up their own infrastructure for political purposes, such as 2009 [1] or 2006 [2], not to mention simple shoddy workmanship or neglected maintenance (1995 [3][4]). Pipeline explosions are easy to cause and usually easy to fix as well, while claiming "force majeure" absolves Russia from holding up existing delivery contracts. [1] https://www.rferl.org/a/Pipeline_Explosion_Stokes_Tensions_Between_Turkmenistan_Russia/1608633.html https://www.rferl.org/a/Pipeline_Explosion_Stokes_Tensions_B... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_en... [3] https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/disaster-down-the-pipe-28062 https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/disaster-down-the-pipe-2... [4] https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/2764.html https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/2764.html

treis 4y ago

This is a fascinating mystery. There's at least 4 parties that you can make arguments for/against: Russia For: Plunge Europe into an energy crisis to force concessions in Ukraine Against: It looks a lot like a glass cannon to me. Meaning, Europe will now change their behavior to remove dependence on Russian energy. USA For: They've been against the Nords from the beginning and could pull something like this off Against: Big escalation, huge potential blow back from Europe, and economic fallout is bad for the midterm elections Ukraine For: Removes a large source of Russian leverage over Europe Against: Doesn't seem like they could pull it off and it risks the support from Europe they do have Random European Country For: Lots of them don't like the dependence on Russian energy and many of them have the means Against: Huge escalation with Russia and risks discord amongst the EU

mikece 4y ago
Poland: they hate Russia and Germany and a job like this is well within the capabilities of GROM.
- 0x737368 4y ago
marcinzm 4y ago
The thing about motivations is that there's also the possibility of one party doing this just to have the blame put on another party.
- treis 4y ago
  Seems risky to think you'd be able to get away with this without someone developing some reasonable suspicions. Which makes me lean towards one of the Western parties. Don't think Russia would be able to pull this off without getting caught and if caught you'd think the US would be trumpeting the proof from the roof tops.
  - marcinzm 4y ago

JasonFruit 4y ago

> Western leaders have stopped short of directly accusing Russia I'm going to stop short of directly accusing anyone, but I will say that any motive for Russia to eliminate their economic leverage against a powerful NATO nation escapes me, whereas eliminating that leverage is in the apparent interest of every NATO member nation that wants to see Russia weakened, except Germany. Accusing Russia of this particular act of destruction doesn't make any sense.

yabones 4y ago

This wasn't done because of conflicts between the Kremlin and NATO, it was because of the conflict within the Kremlin. Wealthy Russians may have thought things could go "back to normal" if they quickly end the war (through diplomacy, coups, or violence) they can go back to making money. This is Putin sending a signal, "you're going down with me".

kranke155 4y ago

JediLuke 4y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

> Western leaders have stopped short of directly accusing Russia but the EU has previously accused Russia of using its gas supplies as a weapon against the West over its support for Ukraine. I like the commenters trying to make sense of this event. Has any of the events in Europe up to this point made sense? One of Putin's goals is to fracture NATO, sowing this chaos furthers that goal. I don't think Europe has enough LNG terminals to accept more from the US, even if they could. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dozens-lng-laden-ships-queue-off-europes-coasts-unable-unload-2022-10-17/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dozens-lng-laden-shi...

martythemaniak 4y ago

If you think it was anyone other than the Russians, you really need a better model of reality. The thing to realize is Nordstream was already dead. Nordstream 2 never came online and Nordstream 1 was never again going to pump gas. Whether it was blown up or simply idle does not matter - no gas ever again either way. Russia's invasion has caused a permanent shift away from buying stuff from them. The first few years may be tough, but eventually LNG terminals will be built, heat pumps will be installed, EVs will be built and Russian gas will not play a role in Europe's economy again. So why do this? Because there are many other pipelines that Europe actually needs and is dependent on, mostly coming from Norway and Denmark: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen-Stolwijk/publication/275828182/figure/fig1/AS:294589563981825@1447247033603/Gas-pipeline-network-in-Europe-2.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen-Stolwijk/publica... Blowing those up would actually cause a big problem for Europe and now they've been put on notice that it can happen.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jsw97 4y ago

Russia has committed so many own goals in this war that the fact that it is against Russia's interests to blow up Nord Stream actually increases the probability that they did it.

xiphias2 4y ago

The worst thing that points to the US is how quiet the US media is about this disaster. Also I don't believe Russia has the technical ability to pull it off so professionally without strong proof being found by US. Also even if we Europeans think it was the US we can't do much about it as we depend on US.

azinman2 4y ago
The US media has not been quiet. Russia has the means to blow shit up.
- m000 4y ago
  > Russia has the means to blow shit up. With shells and missiles. Not with covert operations under NATO fleet's nose.
  - azinman2 4y ago
    Says who? According to your premise, NATO knows who did it.
  - YLE118 4y ago
    There seemed to be pretty good indications that Russia has blown up things in the EU in the last decade. For example https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/28/bulgarian-prosecutors-allege-russian-links-to-arms-depot-explosions https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/28/bulgarian-pros...
    - w1nst0nsm1th 4y ago
      In the last decade. Not the last 4 days.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Investigations are ongoing, there is nothing new to report right now.
4y ago

LaleoDJ 4y ago

Yes !

LaleoDJ 4y ago

terran57 4y ago

What people fail to see is that this is an opportunity (albeit forced) to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels to renewables. To slow and hopefully reverse the effects of carbon emissions we need to massively invest in new wind and hydro projects, energy storage technologies, and tighten energy efficiency rules.

photochemsyn 4y ago

I'm surprised any video footage at all was released, given the political tensions around this event. This looks like the most comprehensive version of the video (possibly the earliest released, one of the earlier and less cut than others): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vbkFzQBo6w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vbkFzQBo6w That's very thick steel. Either a whole lot of explosives or some kind of shaped charge/explosively formed penetrator (widely used in oil drilling industry to blow holes in down-well pipe to allow oil flow) must have been used, with possible further damage caused by depressurization of the pipe. As far as who did it and why? Russia seemed to be pushing Europe for a deal whereby if they went along with the annexation of the eastern provinces of Ukraine they'd open up gas supplies and end the looming energy crisis Europe faces, and a working Nordstream / Nordstream 2 pipeline was necessary for that strategy, so blowing up the pipeline derailed that strategy for months at least. As to motive on the USA side, several officials in state and energy seem to view this as a 'tremendous opportunity' to shift European gas purchases away from Russian pipelines and towards US LNG tankers (price differential there), not sure how the Qatar gas output is affected. Europe of course would have been better off pushing a lot harder for wind/solar/storage over the past two decades and getting off the Russian, American and Middle East fossil fuel teat that way, but to quote Jeremey Irons in Margin Call, "That is spilt milk under the bridge". So now what?

schmichael 4y ago
The US already sells all of the LNG to Europe that either side has the capacity to handle. It will be faster to repair the pipe than build out new LNG capacity. I don’t see how the US has anything to benefit from blowing up the pipe to inflate energy prices in Europe as it’s a significant drag on the global economy which has far broader impacts on the US economy than slowly and incrementally increasing LNG shipments would. Furthermore Russia already has 1 pipe “down for maintenance,” so clearly limiting capacity is a huge bargaining chip for them. I think it’s also worth considering Russia may have internal detractors from their current policies and blowing up a pipe removes it from the equation. It may have even been a warning to those internal detractors: “don’t speak up or we can take all the pipes off the table as bargaining chips.” Russia benefits from the pipes being a high stakes game far more than the US. But who knows. The CIA has done dumber things. I just don’t see the incentives for the US especially considering even if we could ship more LNG (it would take years) that would increase energy costs here. The Biden administration has to LOVE being isolated from the madness of Europes gas market at the moment, especially considering the elections and looming winter.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

stjohnswarts 4y ago

So the Russians used their equivalent of navy seals to lay bombs and blow out a huge section so it would be ruined? I assume all that saltwater will destroy it in short order?

somewhereoutth 4y ago

None of the comments so far offer the most obvious motive for Russia to blow the pipeline: For Russia to show that it could, and it would. That the pipeline nominally benefits Russia is useful ambiguity (that many here seem to have fallen for). There is no shortage of undersea infrastructure vulnerable to such attacks, not least bringing gas from Norway to the EU - look at exactly where the pipeline was blown. It is part of a pattern of strategic terror.

BitwiseFool 4y ago
>" the most obvious motive for Russia to blow the pipeline: For Russia to show that it could, and it would. That the pipeline nominally benefits Russia is useful ambiguity." I don't follow this reasoning. The kind of expertise required to detonate a bomb underwater is likely something any developed country with a reasonably equipped navy/intelligence agency could pull off. Unlike something like Stuxnet, this seems rudimentary in comparison. As dysfunctional and diminished as Russia may be today, I don't think anyone assumed this was something they couldn't do.
- somewhereoutth 4y ago
  emphasis more on the would then.

vicnov 4y ago

Potentially it is not the fist time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Abyss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Abyss Reed stated the United States added a Trojan horse to gas pipeline control software that the Soviet Union obtained from a company in Canada.[1] According to Reed, when the components were deployed on a Trans-Siberian gas pipeline, the Trojan horse led to a huge explosion.[1] He wrote: "The pipeline software that was to run the pumps, turbines and valves was programmed to go haywire, to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to the pipeline joints and welds. The result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space."[1] Also US has been against NS for a while https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/biden-meet-german-chancellor-russia-ukraine-tesnions-rcna15190 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/biden-meet-german-chancello... Also interesting how US media tries to damage control https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESG14_DsUIA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESG14_DsUIA

badinsie 4y ago

i'd love to see a map of the US backed pipeline going from Qatar to Germany that just so happens to go through all of the countries the US was fighting "terrorism" in while also getting caught funding those same terrorists

w1nst0nsm1th 4y ago

Hi. CIA ~paid troll~ damage control officer here... Russia have done it because... You know... it must be Russia. That's so obvious it's impossible to rationaly explain it otherwise.