4 ms·

> Initial suspicions in many European capitals focused on Russia, which denied any involvement. Analysts speculated that only a state with a sophisticated milit

> Initial suspicions in many European capitals focused on Russia, which denied any involvement. Analysts speculated that only a state with a sophisticated military would have been able to carry out such a complicated, underwater attack. Investigators now, however, are focused on the Andromeda and the six people it carried. German officials who have been briefed on the probe said they were told some of the people who rented the yacht were Ukrainian. Others had Bulgarian passports since determined to be forgeries, they said. It was obvious from the start to any casual unbiased observer that it was unlikely to be Russia. There was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline. It would be akin to shooting the hostage. Russia wanted to hold Western Europe and especially Germany hostage to natural gas and being able to turn it back on was a big part of their negotiating position. Since they already controlled the input to the pipe, blowing up the pipe did nothing to help the Russians.

rossdavidh 4y ago
Easy to imagine a motive for Russia, if you don't imagine it as a unitary block. Some inside the wealthy elite want to go back to the pre-war status quo, where they get to make $$$ selling fossil fuels to Europe. By blowing up NordStream, you do something like Viking raiders burning bridges behind them; it tells everyone on your side there's no going back, it's victory or death. If some of Russia's elite think they could be getting $$$ a month after a peace deal, they might be pushing for a quick end by withdrawing back to 2014 (or even 1991) line of control, which might work for them but not for Putin. Now none of this means it actually was Russia, I don't claim to know any better than anyone else. But there was certainly a motive (for some in) Russia to want NordStream out of the way.
- maxcan 4y ago
  Exactly. If you imagine Russia as a unitary rational actor, it makes no sense to blow up the pipeline since they would have had the optionality to shut it down anytime they wanted without destroying it. However, as part of an internal power structure, it does start to make sense. For example, you could see someone like Prigozhin (sp?) as potentially having a lot to gain from the attack. It would weaken his rivals with ties to the gas industry, and by "shooting the hostage" make Germany more likely to support Ukraine, leading to a longer, more drawn out war which benefits Wagner in all sorts of ways.
m0llusk 4y ago
Anders Puck Nielsen has an under 15 minute video with a compelling explanation for why Russia is most likely to have done it despite the obvious downsides. Just to pick some particular details: At this particular time the primary Russian strategy was to push Europe into a cold and dark winter. Pipelines can be rebuilt and that is not especially difficult when you are making big money from extracting and distributing fossil fuels. Even if you disagree with Anders' conclusions I think the points he raises are generally quite interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido
- heywherelogingo 4y ago
  Hardly needed to blow it up to stop supplying them.
  - coredog64 4y ago
    Plausible deniability on who blew up the pipeline allows invocation of force majeure clauses in delivery contracts.
- sschueller 4y ago
  But then why not also destroy the land based ones? - There are two that go via Belarus -> Poland -> Germany and Belarus -> Ukraine -> Slovakia -> Czechia -> Germany - Another two through Ukraine -> Slovakia -> Czechia -> Germany and Ukraine -> Romania -> Bulgaria -> Turkey - Then are two in the Black Sea, South Steam and Blue Stream which go to Turkey
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    Nobody ever talks about all those other pipelines.
  - bionade24 4y ago
    Jamal pipeline was closed by Poland early on in the war. Transgaz is probably more secured on the landside and blowing it up would also limit Ukraine's ability to get gas from western europe. There already were times before the invasion where Gas was pumped towards Ukraine. The Black sea isn't a safe space to operate in, obviously.
Ultcyber 4y ago
I disagree - they've kept the pipeline closed since mid last year under (probably false) argument that they cannot repair a turbine due to sanctions, which has been denied by the companies that handle the repairs. So blowing up the pipeline would give them a real reason to not reopen it. I'm not saying they did it, but just wanted to counter your argument that "there was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline"
- bionade24 4y ago
  This is wrong. Yes, they didn't install the turbine even after it was delivered, but for the most time, there was still heavily throttled throughput. Only a week or so before the explosions Putin shut the pipeline entirely.
- qeternity 4y ago
  I think this presumes that Russia cares what people think. They don't, they only care about what people will do. They could keep the pipeline shut for as long as the wanted on the most ludicrous of claims.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>There was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline. It would be akin to shooting the hostage. Not true, and not the same thing. When you shoot the hostage you now who did it to put the blame in court, this is still unclear who did what. Russia's motive of destroying the pipeline was to legally shut down gas for Europe during the war without incurring any legal aftermath for it. Simply just cutting off the gas would have made Russia legally liable for damages in court later when it will want to resume business in the future after the war. Having the pipeline mysteriously blow up gives Russia plausible deniability for not being able to supply gas to Europe during the war: "You see your honor, we wanted to fulfill our contractual obligation of supplying gas to Europe, but we couldn't because the pipeline was destroyed. Not our fault."
- throw_pm23 4y ago
  Do you really think this type of legalistic issue must be considered by global actors at this scale? Who is the "your honor" that Russia would need to address?
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Yes, it does. Gazprom is a company that has a presence in Europe that can be (and was) sanctioned, and if Gazprom wishes to make money in Europe then it needs to comply to whatever "your honor" in Europe will say about any breaches of contract, so it makes sense they try to burn as little bridges as possible and protect Gazprom from any legal liability to ensure future revenues from this market. Gazprom making money from selling gas to one of the world's most lucrative consumers is completely orthogonal to the war Russia started in Ukraine.
tgv 4y ago
In principle I agree that it doesn't seem rational, but it could have been signal to Western Europe of the lengths they would go to if the West kept supporting Ukraine. The message would be delivered under cover of diplomacy and supported by blowing up a pipe line for which there was (still) one backup.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  It's not a very clear signal though, since there is so much debate and uncertainty over who did it.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    There is debate and uncertainty online. I doubt there's any debate or uncertainty among the heads of state being sent the message.
  - tgv 4y ago
    The Russian ambassador would have communicated it more clearly to e.g. the German chancellor, but we would only find out 50 years from now.
modo_mario 4y ago
>It would be akin to shooting the hostage. It was already announced the hostage was going to be shot at that point tho? Germany said they'd call it quits and then did. The company construct behind it was going to go bankrupt.
MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
The same people who tried to sell us the idea that Covid didn't come from one of the very few labs worldwide that were performing research on this virus, but instead came from a wet market a few hundreds of meters away are now trying to tell us it wasn't the US that (directly or indirectly) blew up the pipeline. The same people that tried to establish the insane conspiracy theory that Trump got elected due to Russian interference. And the thing is, it works. Propaganda works. HN is not some enlightened community that is immune, you'll get downvoted for fairly obvious conclusions that run counter to the official narrative.
- MSFT_Edging 4y ago
  Seymour Hersh came out and put together a fairly convincing argument. The guy who was right about checks notes: The My Lai Massacre Watergate Torture at Abu Ghraib Domestic Spying The secret bombing of Cambodia. But then people come out and go "nonono don't look at that, it was definitely these two guys on a yatch". https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...
  - MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
    To be fair he went a bit off the rails in his later years, but he does seem to have a credible source for at least one of the pipeline explosions. Also he is far from the only one offering a convincing line of reasoning, another good thinker on various issues I can recommend is eugyppius.com. Very sharp mind and very well read.
  - pohl 4y ago
    How’d he do on the Novichok poisoning of Sergei Skripal?
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    It is indeed sad how Hersh started out so strongly and went so bizarrely off the rails in his later years. I want to believe it was a natural progression, that having seen the great evils the US was capable of, he start to see US evil everywhere he looked, and was easily taken in by people with a story that appealed to his priors. But I don't know, he so studiously avoids so many things that indicate Russian malfeasance that it's hard not to wonder if its more than just hope the pattern will hold up. The US is as shady as the day is long, and I wouldn't put this past them if it made any sense, but if you know anything outside of Hersh's article, it doesn't. I fully believe the US is doing much shadier stuff elsewhere, but the article doesn't make a good case. https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-challenging-false-narratives-2/ https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-chall...
alwayseasy 4y ago
> "It would be akin to shooting the hostage." You mean like Beslan or the Moscow theater hostage crisis? Once you stop treating Russia like a monolith prone to only rational geopolitical moves, suddenly motives are everywhere.

rossdavidh 4y ago

Easy to imagine a motive for Russia, if you don't imagine it as a unitary block. Some inside the wealthy elite want to go back to the pre-war status quo, where they get to make $$$ selling fossil fuels to Europe. By blowing up NordStream, you do something like Viking raiders burning bridges behind them; it tells everyone on your side there's no going back, it's victory or death. If some of Russia's elite think they could be getting $$$ a month after a peace deal, they might be pushing for a quick end by withdrawing back to 2014 (or even 1991) line of control, which might work for them but not for Putin. Now none of this means it actually was Russia, I don't claim to know any better than anyone else. But there was certainly a motive (for some in) Russia to want NordStream out of the way.

maxcan 4y ago
Exactly. If you imagine Russia as a unitary rational actor, it makes no sense to blow up the pipeline since they would have had the optionality to shut it down anytime they wanted without destroying it. However, as part of an internal power structure, it does start to make sense. For example, you could see someone like Prigozhin (sp?) as potentially having a lot to gain from the attack. It would weaken his rivals with ties to the gas industry, and by "shooting the hostage" make Germany more likely to support Ukraine, leading to a longer, more drawn out war which benefits Wagner in all sorts of ways.

m0llusk 4y ago

Anders Puck Nielsen has an under 15 minute video with a compelling explanation for why Russia is most likely to have done it despite the obvious downsides. Just to pick some particular details: At this particular time the primary Russian strategy was to push Europe into a cold and dark winter. Pipelines can be rebuilt and that is not especially difficult when you are making big money from extracting and distributing fossil fuels. Even if you disagree with Anders' conclusions I think the points he raises are generally quite interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido

heywherelogingo 4y ago
Hardly needed to blow it up to stop supplying them.
- coredog64 4y ago
  Plausible deniability on who blew up the pipeline allows invocation of force majeure clauses in delivery contracts.
sschueller 4y ago
But then why not also destroy the land based ones? - There are two that go via Belarus -> Poland -> Germany and Belarus -> Ukraine -> Slovakia -> Czechia -> Germany - Another two through Ukraine -> Slovakia -> Czechia -> Germany and Ukraine -> Romania -> Bulgaria -> Turkey - Then are two in the Black Sea, South Steam and Blue Stream which go to Turkey
- HPsquared 4y ago
  Nobody ever talks about all those other pipelines.
- bionade24 4y ago
  Jamal pipeline was closed by Poland early on in the war. Transgaz is probably more secured on the landside and blowing it up would also limit Ukraine's ability to get gas from western europe. There already were times before the invasion where Gas was pumped towards Ukraine. The Black sea isn't a safe space to operate in, obviously.

Ultcyber 4y ago

I disagree - they've kept the pipeline closed since mid last year under (probably false) argument that they cannot repair a turbine due to sanctions, which has been denied by the companies that handle the repairs. So blowing up the pipeline would give them a real reason to not reopen it. I'm not saying they did it, but just wanted to counter your argument that "there was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline"

bionade24 4y ago
This is wrong. Yes, they didn't install the turbine even after it was delivered, but for the most time, there was still heavily throttled throughput. Only a week or so before the explosions Putin shut the pipeline entirely.
qeternity 4y ago
I think this presumes that Russia cares what people think. They don't, they only care about what people will do. They could keep the pipeline shut for as long as the wanted on the most ludicrous of claims.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>There was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline. It would be akin to shooting the hostage. Not true, and not the same thing. When you shoot the hostage you now who did it to put the blame in court, this is still unclear who did what. Russia's motive of destroying the pipeline was to legally shut down gas for Europe during the war without incurring any legal aftermath for it. Simply just cutting off the gas would have made Russia legally liable for damages in court later when it will want to resume business in the future after the war. Having the pipeline mysteriously blow up gives Russia plausible deniability for not being able to supply gas to Europe during the war: "You see your honor, we wanted to fulfill our contractual obligation of supplying gas to Europe, but we couldn't because the pipeline was destroyed. Not our fault."

throw_pm23 4y ago
Do you really think this type of legalistic issue must be considered by global actors at this scale? Who is the "your honor" that Russia would need to address?
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  Yes, it does. Gazprom is a company that has a presence in Europe that can be (and was) sanctioned, and if Gazprom wishes to make money in Europe then it needs to comply to whatever "your honor" in Europe will say about any breaches of contract, so it makes sense they try to burn as little bridges as possible and protect Gazprom from any legal liability to ensure future revenues from this market. Gazprom making money from selling gas to one of the world's most lucrative consumers is completely orthogonal to the war Russia started in Ukraine.

tgv 4y ago

In principle I agree that it doesn't seem rational, but it could have been signal to Western Europe of the lengths they would go to if the West kept supporting Ukraine. The message would be delivered under cover of diplomacy and supported by blowing up a pipe line for which there was (still) one backup.

HPsquared 4y ago
It's not a very clear signal though, since there is so much debate and uncertainty over who did it.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  There is debate and uncertainty online. I doubt there's any debate or uncertainty among the heads of state being sent the message.
- tgv 4y ago
  The Russian ambassador would have communicated it more clearly to e.g. the German chancellor, but we would only find out 50 years from now.

modo_mario 4y ago

>It would be akin to shooting the hostage. It was already announced the hostage was going to be shot at that point tho? Germany said they'd call it quits and then did. The company construct behind it was going to go bankrupt.

MrBuddyCasino 4y ago

The same people who tried to sell us the idea that Covid didn't come from one of the very few labs worldwide that were performing research on this virus, but instead came from a wet market a few hundreds of meters away are now trying to tell us it wasn't the US that (directly or indirectly) blew up the pipeline. The same people that tried to establish the insane conspiracy theory that Trump got elected due to Russian interference. And the thing is, it works. Propaganda works. HN is not some enlightened community that is immune, you'll get downvoted for fairly obvious conclusions that run counter to the official narrative.

MSFT_Edging 4y ago
Seymour Hersh came out and put together a fairly convincing argument. The guy who was right about checks notes: The My Lai Massacre Watergate Torture at Abu Ghraib Domestic Spying The secret bombing of Cambodia. But then people come out and go "nonono don't look at that, it was definitely these two guys on a yatch". https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...
- MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
  To be fair he went a bit off the rails in his later years, but he does seem to have a credible source for at least one of the pipeline explosions. Also he is far from the only one offering a convincing line of reasoning, another good thinker on various issues I can recommend is eugyppius.com. Very sharp mind and very well read.
- pohl 4y ago
  How’d he do on the Novichok poisoning of Sergei Skripal?
- pwinnski 4y ago
  It is indeed sad how Hersh started out so strongly and went so bizarrely off the rails in his later years. I want to believe it was a natural progression, that having seen the great evils the US was capable of, he start to see US evil everywhere he looked, and was easily taken in by people with a story that appealed to his priors. But I don't know, he so studiously avoids so many things that indicate Russian malfeasance that it's hard not to wonder if its more than just hope the pattern will hold up. The US is as shady as the day is long, and I wouldn't put this past them if it made any sense, but if you know anything outside of Hersh's article, it doesn't. I fully believe the US is doing much shadier stuff elsewhere, but the article doesn't make a good case. https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-challenging-false-narratives-2/ https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-chall...

alwayseasy 4y ago

> "It would be akin to shooting the hostage." You mean like Beslan or the Moscow theater hostage crisis? Once you stop treating Russia like a monolith prone to only rational geopolitical moves, suddenly motives are everywhere.