6 ms·

If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. Of course this is not

If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. Of course this is not evidence but this the sort of operation where success means no evidence (at least no evidence available to the public at large as it is possible and, one might hope, likely that neighbouring countries know).

syzarian 4y ago
I think it’s plausible that Putin wanted it done. It got Russia out of a contractual obligation and greater isolation of Russian companies makes the oligarchs’ position tied to Putin. The oligarchs can’t go to the West since they’ve been sanctioned and their companies are increasingly barred from doing business in the West. That isolation makes their fortunes tied to Putin’s survival. Think Cortex burning the ships. In a personalist authoritarian regime the rationality of actions sometimes depends on wether or not the dictator is being rational on a given day.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. I disagree. The most logical explanation is tha Russia did it as a capacity demonstration and threat against Baltic Pipe to pressure contries in the region regarding Ukraine, but that, like all their threats against the West over Ukraine policy so far, the threat was hollow.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  The US have been overtly against those pipelines and the close relations between Germany and Russia, including and especially energy dependency. In fact, a major win of the US so far in the Ukraine war has been the Europeans' and especially Germany's shift in gas supplies from Russia to themselves. Russia destroying their own pipelines (both NS 1 and the new NS 2 were sabotaged) looks like them shooting themselves in both feet at once. Like doing 'capacity demonstration' by nuking the Kremlin... They could, but would that be a likely scenario? Many, if not most, expert observers strongly suspect the US for a reason.
  - syzarian 4y ago
    Germany gets its gas natural gas from Norway now. It would be unlikely that the U.S. would attack the gas supplies of a major NATO ally. Especially when that ally has been less than enthusiastic in helping Ukraine. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/where-does-germany-stand-gas-supply-2023-01-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/where-does-germany-s...
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      They get a lot from Norway because it is near and there are pipelines, but US' LNG exports to the EU are through the roof and will keep growing as things get organised. Joe talks a lot: "If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2, we will bring an end to it." -- Joe Biden, Feb 2022, with the German's Chancellor standing next to him! [1] So at the very least the US thought that they indeed had control over that "major NATO ally" and could make thinly veiled threats to their face. Why you think that the US would be above sabotage on a matter of strategic national interests is unclear. [1] https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-vladimir-putin-europe-moscow-46f8be10fa71af16bae8f3a9bd82918d https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-vladimir...
      - syzarian 4y ago
        On February 22, 2022 German Chancellor Scholz suspended certification of Nordstream2 following Russia formally recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk as republics. I believe that, but can’t find a confirming source, that Russia was obligated to make deliveries via Nordstream1 even though it did not have access to SWIFT. By it no longer being operational it was no longer required to make deliveries. It is inconceivable that Biden made that comment without consulting Germany. Also it was primarily Nordstream1 that was attacked. Gas prices spiked and it seems likelier that Russia was behind it. At least to me. I don’t know the truth of the matter.
        pphysch 4y ago
- rank0 4y ago
  You think Russia tried to send a message by……destroying its own infrastructure?! It was their biggest leverage over the EU. Now it’s gone and there’s no possibility of restoring Russian gas flows to the EU. If they were gonna destroy critical international infrastructure wouldn’t it make more sense to blow up something else?
  - cactusplant7374 4y ago
    If what you say is true, why has Russia blown up their own pipelines twice before?
    - treis 4y ago
      Can you share details?
      - cactusplant7374 4y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712815 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712815
    - rank0 4y ago
      Neither of the two sources you linked claim that Russia destroyed those pipelines. Play out the game theory here. Russia has nothing to gain and lots of leverage to lose by destroying the pipelines. They can just keep the gas flows off FFS! That doesn’t mean the US was involved but it makes zero sense for the Russians to do it to themselves.
      - cactusplant7374 4y ago
        If your standard of proof is that Russia admits it this conversation won’t go far. Russia is the only one that benefits. Russia weaponizes energy. Many people assume Russia is rational but it’s just not true. Like John McCain said, it’s a gas station run by gangsters. > They can just keep the gas flows off FFS! Russia would have to pay penalties in the contract. They don’t want to do that. > That doesn’t mean the US was involved but it makes zero sense for the Russians to do it to themselves. See above points. It is clearly not “zero.”
- bluecalm 4y ago
  You don't need to demonstrate ability to blow up your own pipeline close to your own territorial waters. If it's Russia (which I don't think is very likely) I find it more believable that it's the result of internal politics as an option of killing the tzar, withdrawing from Ukraine and making a deal with the West to go back to old normal is now off the table.
- diimdeep 4y ago
  The most logical explanation of why you have so much karma is that you write anything that will get you upvoted, no matter how stupid it is.
partiallypro 4y ago
> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. How so? The pipeline(s) was/were already off, so the US and Norway already had a new customer because of this. If the US risked blowing up the pipeline(s) (which was already not delivering,) it would put NATO in jeopardy which is explicitly against US interests and WAY more valuable than natural gas. The entire theory doesn't even make sense from the standpoint of US needs/wants.
- cpursley 4y ago
  It absolutely does. Blowing up the pipeline took away Russias ability to hold the EU hostage with the energy card.
  - partiallypro 4y ago
    The pipeline was already not operational. What are you missing? If you think the US had a profit motive (which it seems you are saying this), NATO is much much more profitable than gas which will be diversified over time. So why would they risk the entire NATO alliance for this? Again, the theory makes no sense.
    - cpursley 4y ago
      I didn’t say a thing about US profit motive. I was very clear: Russia can’t blackmail the EU with energy if they don’t have a way to deliver it. Why would they want to lose that leverage (and their billions in investment)? And EU industry very much depends on low cost gas (chemical manufacturing, vehicle and other industrial manufacturing, greenhouse heating, etc). There’s report after report of vital industrial facilities shuttering due to high gas prices.
      - partiallypro 4y ago
        > Russia can’t blackmail the EU with energy if they don’t have a way to deliver it. Why would they want to lose that leverage (and their billions in investment)? Because the pipeline was already off. The second pipeline was not operational. They already had no leverage. > And EU industry very much depends on low cost gas (chemical manufacturing, vehicle and other industrial manufacturing, greenhouse heating, etc). There’s report after report of vital industrial facilities shuttering due to high gas. So, your theory is that the US not only endangered the entire NATO alliance, but also sought to weaken NATO members? Again, how does that make any sense? You also fail to mention that gas prices currently are actually pretty low relative to before this event occurred and Europe never ran out of gas.
erentz 4y ago
Why leave one of the brand new, larger pipelines undamaged, so that Russia could then offer after the event to work with Germany to activate it? Which naturally they did. This pipeline had been completed but activation was stopped due to the start of the war. If Germany had capitulated and activated it with Russia that would be a major political win for Russia and blow for the suggested goals of the US and other allies. To me this seems to be the biggest hole in the theory that the US was responsible.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  Both NS 1 and NS 2 were sabotaged. The US have been hostile for a long time to Germany getting closer to Russia. The war in Ukraine has just been a convenient event to push their strategic agenda forward and so far, irrespective of those pipelines, it has been very good for the US.
  - erentz 4y ago
    Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 are not just two pipelines. It's four total. The two pipelines of Nord Stream 1 were demolished. But only one of the pipelines of Nord Stream 2 was demolished, the second was untouched. https://www.dw.com/en/putin-offers-europe-gas-through-nord-stream-2-germany-declines/a-63416138 https://www.dw.com/en/putin-offers-europe-gas-through-nord-s...
    - rfoo 4y ago
      Without going meta, how about ... the bomb just didn't work?
      - erentz 4y ago
        For an elaborate operation like this as described in Hersh's story, would you rig just one? Or would you have multiple redundancies? Is it likely that all of the redundancies failed on the same pipeline, that is also the new pipeline?
cactusplant7374 4y ago
Russia has blown up their own pipelines at least twice before. Surely it's equally possible that Russia did it?
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  This is the second time in the comments here that I've seen this claim. I don't remember any such events, so could you point me to what you're referring to?
  - cactusplant7374 4y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712815 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712815

syzarian 4y ago

I think it’s plausible that Putin wanted it done. It got Russia out of a contractual obligation and greater isolation of Russian companies makes the oligarchs’ position tied to Putin. The oligarchs can’t go to the West since they’ve been sanctioned and their companies are increasingly barred from doing business in the West. That isolation makes their fortunes tied to Putin’s survival. Think Cortex burning the ships. In a personalist authoritarian regime the rationality of actions sometimes depends on wether or not the dictator is being rational on a given day.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. I disagree. The most logical explanation is tha Russia did it as a capacity demonstration and threat against Baltic Pipe to pressure contries in the region regarding Ukraine, but that, like all their threats against the West over Ukraine policy so far, the threat was hollow.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
The US have been overtly against those pipelines and the close relations between Germany and Russia, including and especially energy dependency. In fact, a major win of the US so far in the Ukraine war has been the Europeans' and especially Germany's shift in gas supplies from Russia to themselves. Russia destroying their own pipelines (both NS 1 and the new NS 2 were sabotaged) looks like them shooting themselves in both feet at once. Like doing 'capacity demonstration' by nuking the Kremlin... They could, but would that be a likely scenario? Many, if not most, expert observers strongly suspect the US for a reason.
- syzarian 4y ago
  Germany gets its gas natural gas from Norway now. It would be unlikely that the U.S. would attack the gas supplies of a major NATO ally. Especially when that ally has been less than enthusiastic in helping Ukraine. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/where-does-germany-stand-gas-supply-2023-01-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/where-does-germany-s...
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    They get a lot from Norway because it is near and there are pipelines, but US' LNG exports to the EU are through the roof and will keep growing as things get organised. Joe talks a lot: "If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2, we will bring an end to it." -- Joe Biden, Feb 2022, with the German's Chancellor standing next to him! [1] So at the very least the US thought that they indeed had control over that "major NATO ally" and could make thinly veiled threats to their face. Why you think that the US would be above sabotage on a matter of strategic national interests is unclear. [1] https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-vladimir-putin-europe-moscow-46f8be10fa71af16bae8f3a9bd82918d https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-vladimir...
    - syzarian 4y ago
      On February 22, 2022 German Chancellor Scholz suspended certification of Nordstream2 following Russia formally recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk as republics. I believe that, but can’t find a confirming source, that Russia was obligated to make deliveries via Nordstream1 even though it did not have access to SWIFT. By it no longer being operational it was no longer required to make deliveries. It is inconceivable that Biden made that comment without consulting Germany. Also it was primarily Nordstream1 that was attacked. Gas prices spiked and it seems likelier that Russia was behind it. At least to me. I don’t know the truth of the matter.
      - pphysch 4y ago
rank0 4y ago
You think Russia tried to send a message by……destroying its own infrastructure?! It was their biggest leverage over the EU. Now it’s gone and there’s no possibility of restoring Russian gas flows to the EU. If they were gonna destroy critical international infrastructure wouldn’t it make more sense to blow up something else?
- cactusplant7374 4y ago
  If what you say is true, why has Russia blown up their own pipelines twice before?
  - treis 4y ago
    Can you share details?
    - cactusplant7374 4y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712815 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712815
  - rank0 4y ago
    Neither of the two sources you linked claim that Russia destroyed those pipelines. Play out the game theory here. Russia has nothing to gain and lots of leverage to lose by destroying the pipelines. They can just keep the gas flows off FFS! That doesn’t mean the US was involved but it makes zero sense for the Russians to do it to themselves.
    - cactusplant7374 4y ago
      If your standard of proof is that Russia admits it this conversation won’t go far. Russia is the only one that benefits. Russia weaponizes energy. Many people assume Russia is rational but it’s just not true. Like John McCain said, it’s a gas station run by gangsters. > They can just keep the gas flows off FFS! Russia would have to pay penalties in the contract. They don’t want to do that. > That doesn’t mean the US was involved but it makes zero sense for the Russians to do it to themselves. See above points. It is clearly not “zero.”
bluecalm 4y ago
You don't need to demonstrate ability to blow up your own pipeline close to your own territorial waters. If it's Russia (which I don't think is very likely) I find it more believable that it's the result of internal politics as an option of killing the tzar, withdrawing from Ukraine and making a deal with the West to go back to old normal is now off the table.
diimdeep 4y ago
The most logical explanation of why you have so much karma is that you write anything that will get you upvoted, no matter how stupid it is.

partiallypro 4y ago

> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. How so? The pipeline(s) was/were already off, so the US and Norway already had a new customer because of this. If the US risked blowing up the pipeline(s) (which was already not delivering,) it would put NATO in jeopardy which is explicitly against US interests and WAY more valuable than natural gas. The entire theory doesn't even make sense from the standpoint of US needs/wants.

cpursley 4y ago
It absolutely does. Blowing up the pipeline took away Russias ability to hold the EU hostage with the energy card.
- partiallypro 4y ago
  The pipeline was already not operational. What are you missing? If you think the US had a profit motive (which it seems you are saying this), NATO is much much more profitable than gas which will be diversified over time. So why would they risk the entire NATO alliance for this? Again, the theory makes no sense.
  - cpursley 4y ago
    I didn’t say a thing about US profit motive. I was very clear: Russia can’t blackmail the EU with energy if they don’t have a way to deliver it. Why would they want to lose that leverage (and their billions in investment)? And EU industry very much depends on low cost gas (chemical manufacturing, vehicle and other industrial manufacturing, greenhouse heating, etc). There’s report after report of vital industrial facilities shuttering due to high gas prices.
    - partiallypro 4y ago
      > Russia can’t blackmail the EU with energy if they don’t have a way to deliver it. Why would they want to lose that leverage (and their billions in investment)? Because the pipeline was already off. The second pipeline was not operational. They already had no leverage. > And EU industry very much depends on low cost gas (chemical manufacturing, vehicle and other industrial manufacturing, greenhouse heating, etc). There’s report after report of vital industrial facilities shuttering due to high gas. So, your theory is that the US not only endangered the entire NATO alliance, but also sought to weaken NATO members? Again, how does that make any sense? You also fail to mention that gas prices currently are actually pretty low relative to before this event occurred and Europe never ran out of gas.

erentz 4y ago

Why leave one of the brand new, larger pipelines undamaged, so that Russia could then offer after the event to work with Germany to activate it? Which naturally they did. This pipeline had been completed but activation was stopped due to the start of the war. If Germany had capitulated and activated it with Russia that would be a major political win for Russia and blow for the suggested goals of the US and other allies. To me this seems to be the biggest hole in the theory that the US was responsible.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
Both NS 1 and NS 2 were sabotaged. The US have been hostile for a long time to Germany getting closer to Russia. The war in Ukraine has just been a convenient event to push their strategic agenda forward and so far, irrespective of those pipelines, it has been very good for the US.
- erentz 4y ago
  Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 are not just two pipelines. It's four total. The two pipelines of Nord Stream 1 were demolished. But only one of the pipelines of Nord Stream 2 was demolished, the second was untouched. https://www.dw.com/en/putin-offers-europe-gas-through-nord-stream-2-germany-declines/a-63416138 https://www.dw.com/en/putin-offers-europe-gas-through-nord-s...
  - rfoo 4y ago
    Without going meta, how about ... the bomb just didn't work?
    - erentz 4y ago
      For an elaborate operation like this as described in Hersh's story, would you rig just one? Or would you have multiple redundancies? Is it likely that all of the redundancies failed on the same pipeline, that is also the new pipeline?

cactusplant7374 4y ago

Russia has blown up their own pipelines at least twice before. Surely it's equally possible that Russia did it?

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
This is the second time in the comments here that I've seen this claim. I don't remember any such events, so could you point me to what you're referring to?
- cactusplant7374 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712815 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712815