3 ms·

The means is an interesting question. Having done a little scuba diving, the depth of the pipelines (70-90 meters) put it out of range of any diver without a s

The means is an interesting question. Having done a little scuba diving, the depth of the pipelines (70-90 meters) put it out of range of any diver without a sophisticated mix of gases (Trimix diving). A remotely operated vehicle would also work. The pipelines were made of thick steel wrapped with concrete, so some kind of high-tech explosive was necessary, perhaps shaped charges (used in the oil industry for blowing holes in pipe casing to increase oil flow, for example). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimix_(breathing_gas) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimix_(breathing_gas) See the EPA for details. I guess it's okay to link to this, it's an official US government site. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/casingperforatedoverview.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/casingperf... Perhaps locating both of the pipelines deep under the water would be difficult? Point being, the ability to do this might not be as exclusive to nation-states as it has been portrayed (note the ease with which the videographer found the pipelines with an ROV, although the big bubbles probably helped). So, who knows? As far as who benefited, well, Russia certainly seems to want to continue selling gas to Europe, and is pushing for repair of the pipelines. The USA wants to replace Russian gas with American LNG. Coming up with a reason for Russia to do it would require some mental gymnastics, I think. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/12/putin-offers-to-boost-gas-supplies-to-europe-via-nord-stream-2 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/12/putin-offers-to-bo...

ericmay 4y ago
Not really. If Russia wanted to continue to sell gas to Europe it could end the war against Ukraine (or have never started it in the first place). Gas sales aren’t a high priority there. Putin doesn’t care one bit about those, and likely had the pipeline blown up as a “no way back” for those who might have wanted to negotiate behind his back. The US blowing up NS2 for a few billion dollars worth of gas sales is beyond stupid because it risks completely ruining all of the momentum the US has in isolating Russia and having its military completely implode. If your view is that the Russians are the enemy (as the US view is) why would you stop them from making a terrible mistake or put any of that at risk? You wouldn’t.
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  Ukraine recently discovered it had large reserves of natural gas. Enough that it could potentially threaten Russia as Europe's main supplier. Many people suspect this was the primary reason Russia invaded.
  - nyokodo 4y ago
    > Many people suspect this was the primary reason Russia invaded. Regional energy control was possibly a factor but securing a defensible border was the over-arching goal of Russia’s last few wars in the region and Ukraine is no exception. Ukraine has the Carpathian Mountains, and allows access to Poland and Moldova to secure the Polish and Bessarabian gaps.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Securing the borders from what? If he was worried about NATO he would be beefing up troop deployments along the borders of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia where he has withdrawn troops and he wouldn't have his military completely bogged down in Ukraine. Why would Russia need to secure borders anyway? Who is going to invade on foot? They have nuclear weapons and would have a justifiable reason in using them if they were wantonly invaded. It seems so many want to run away from the straightforward situation which is that Putin wanted to take Ukraine or decapitate its government and make it more like Belarus, and he thought that he would be able to do it. Everything else is a sideshow at best, and Russian propaganda at worst.
      - nyokodo 4y ago
        > Securing the borders from what? Russia has been invaded by land countless times over the centuries as it has few natural barriers. Securing good natural borders has been a major national security concern for Russia for centuries and up until the fall of Soviet Union they had secured all of them. They have been winning those back gradually over the last couple of decades. > If he was worried about NATO he would be beefing up troop deployments along the borders of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia where he has withdrawn troops The Baltic states are likely future targets. Thankfully they've been doing so badly in Ukraine they are being forced to withdraw forces from other areas and debasing their ability to achieve those future aims. > They have nuclear weapons and would have a justifiable reason in using them if they were wantonly invaded Firstly, there are numerous scenarios where Russia is not wantonly invaded but perhaps different powers use salami tactics either directly or by proxy that wouldn't justify nukes at any particular point. Secondly, Russia may not want to rely on its ability to maintain nuclear weapons long-term especially while its industrial base decays, the result of its crumbling education system unravels, and its demographics rapidly decline. Regardless, it's much better strategically to have good defensive geography and nukes. > It seems so many want to run away from the straightforward situation...Everything else is a sideshow at best, and Russian propaganda at worst. The idea that Russia wants a secure border geography and that Ukraine is a barrier to that is not new nor controversial. The (continued) invasion of Ukraine was long expected and the high level reasons long known.[1][2] 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/russia-geography-ukraine-syria/413248/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/ru... 2. https://zeihan.com/russias-twilight-war/ https://zeihan.com/russias-twilight-war/

ericmay 4y ago

Not really. If Russia wanted to continue to sell gas to Europe it could end the war against Ukraine (or have never started it in the first place). Gas sales aren’t a high priority there. Putin doesn’t care one bit about those, and likely had the pipeline blown up as a “no way back” for those who might have wanted to negotiate behind his back. The US blowing up NS2 for a few billion dollars worth of gas sales is beyond stupid because it risks completely ruining all of the momentum the US has in isolating Russia and having its military completely implode. If your view is that the Russians are the enemy (as the US view is) why would you stop them from making a terrible mistake or put any of that at risk? You wouldn’t.

Workaccount2 4y ago
Ukraine recently discovered it had large reserves of natural gas. Enough that it could potentially threaten Russia as Europe's main supplier. Many people suspect this was the primary reason Russia invaded.
- nyokodo 4y ago
  > Many people suspect this was the primary reason Russia invaded. Regional energy control was possibly a factor but securing a defensible border was the over-arching goal of Russia’s last few wars in the region and Ukraine is no exception. Ukraine has the Carpathian Mountains, and allows access to Poland and Moldova to secure the Polish and Bessarabian gaps.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Securing the borders from what? If he was worried about NATO he would be beefing up troop deployments along the borders of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia where he has withdrawn troops and he wouldn't have his military completely bogged down in Ukraine. Why would Russia need to secure borders anyway? Who is going to invade on foot? They have nuclear weapons and would have a justifiable reason in using them if they were wantonly invaded. It seems so many want to run away from the straightforward situation which is that Putin wanted to take Ukraine or decapitate its government and make it more like Belarus, and he thought that he would be able to do it. Everything else is a sideshow at best, and Russian propaganda at worst.
    - nyokodo 4y ago
      > Securing the borders from what? Russia has been invaded by land countless times over the centuries as it has few natural barriers. Securing good natural borders has been a major national security concern for Russia for centuries and up until the fall of Soviet Union they had secured all of them. They have been winning those back gradually over the last couple of decades. > If he was worried about NATO he would be beefing up troop deployments along the borders of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia where he has withdrawn troops The Baltic states are likely future targets. Thankfully they've been doing so badly in Ukraine they are being forced to withdraw forces from other areas and debasing their ability to achieve those future aims. > They have nuclear weapons and would have a justifiable reason in using them if they were wantonly invaded Firstly, there are numerous scenarios where Russia is not wantonly invaded but perhaps different powers use salami tactics either directly or by proxy that wouldn't justify nukes at any particular point. Secondly, Russia may not want to rely on its ability to maintain nuclear weapons long-term especially while its industrial base decays, the result of its crumbling education system unravels, and its demographics rapidly decline. Regardless, it's much better strategically to have good defensive geography and nukes. > It seems so many want to run away from the straightforward situation...Everything else is a sideshow at best, and Russian propaganda at worst. The idea that Russia wants a secure border geography and that Ukraine is a barrier to that is not new nor controversial. The (continued) invasion of Ukraine was long expected and the high level reasons long known.[1][2] 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/russia-geography-ukraine-syria/413248/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/ru... 2. https://zeihan.com/russias-twilight-war/ https://zeihan.com/russias-twilight-war/