5 ms·

Wasn't it the point of Nord Stream sabotage? https://brian-whit.medium.com/nord-stream-sabotage-a-look-at-the-evidence-so-far-311a615171d https://brian-whit.med

• bilekas 1y ago
  No. This was alleged to be taken out by Ukrainian special forces in order to twist Europe's arm, which is a good thing in the end, but so far as anyone knows it had nothing to to with the US. Until I hear anything proving otherwise I will take what we know as all we know for now. The US were not thrilled about it when it was being constructed, obviously, but this was normal tensions towards Russia, prescient in the end but here we are.
  • pclmulqdq 1y ago
    Are we sure that Ukrainian special forces have the capability to blow up nord stream without heavy US help?
    • moi2388 1y ago
      Yes.
    • non_aligned 1y ago
      What's the part that's hard to imagine? It's literally just a boat ride to a publicly-known location that isn't monitored in any way, diving to a depth humans can dive to, placing some standard military / commercial explosives, and getting out. There were several countries arguably interested in getting rid of that pipeline (Ukraine, Poland, the US), but Ukraine wanted it the most, had easy access, and there's no need to overcomplicate internet theories.
      • WinstonSmith84 1y ago
        > diving to a depth humans can dive to No, "normal" humans don't dive to 80m deep, where the explosion occurred. Any diver, whether professional or recreational (which is my case), will know about this. I don't have a (alternative) theory about this, I'm just stating facts. Well, the alternative theory, if we are speaking of divers, is that they had some very special equipment and were extremely skilled. It wasn't some random people, renting a random boat, renting random diving gear and buying random explosives ..
        • nradov 1y ago
          You have no clue about the "facts". Diving to 80m+ is no big deal now. Hundreds of random amateur tech divers do that every weekend as a casual hobby. They typically own their own gear (not rental), which can purchased new for about $30K including training. The equipment such as a closed-circuit rebreather (CCR) and drysuit is somewhat specialized but widely available on the open market from numerous manufacturers. I know a number of divers living in that region who have done much more complex and challenging dives, although obtaining and using the explosives is a separate issue.
          • _glass 1y ago
            Hard, but doable. Here is the analysis by an experience diver. https://www-ostsee--zeitung-de.translate.goog/panorama/experte-zur-nord-stream-sprengung-kein-hexenwerk-fuer-erfahrene-taucher-2HFIBXP4KNCPFD7VM22A4SXUAA.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-ostsee--zeitung-de.translate.goog/panorama/exper...
            • nradov 1y ago
              Right, Achim Schlöffel is legitimate. In terms of complex tech diving he has been there and done that, and has the pictures to prove it. When he says something can be done there's no reason to doubt him. https://is-expl.com/about/instructors/wgZMC8Y7 https://is-expl.com/about/instructors/wgZMC8Y7
        • tim333 1y ago
      • pclmulqdq 1y ago
        They actually dived pretty deep (most Scuba gear and divers are limited to 40 meters), the planning of the operation was meticulous in that pretty much nobody saw the divers, and the explosives had to be designed with a good knowledge of the pipeline and its concrete. Ukrainian operations during the war have demonstrated that their typical MO is a lot more "seat-of-the-pants" than this operation would suggest.
        • non_aligned 1y ago
          You're literally arguing that a government intelligence agency couldn't find a couple of experienced people, provide them with commercially-available equipment, and get them to coordinate a medium-complexity task. Yes, it's an operation that requires coordination and planning, which is why it's reasonable to assume it was carried out by an intelligence agency and not a lone fisherman with a grudge. But once you're in the realm of intelligence activities, this isn't exactly the "let's blow up their pagers" level of complexity.
          • pclmulqdq 1y ago
            Their sabotage attempts of several bridges in Crimea did not go this well, suggesting that the Ukrainians alone aren't the best at understanding explosives, and their successes like "fly a bunch of FPV drones out of a shipping container" are quite a bit simpler than this. "Intelligence agency" is a spectrum of capability. Suggesting that an intelligence agency that tried and failed to blow up a bride twice was the same as the one that executed a flawless operation against an underwater pipeline is a bit far-fetched.
            • _DeadFred_ 1y ago
              Wait, NORD Stream was BEHIND enemy lines? And is as short a span as a bridge (so more easily monitored complicating things). How many people traveled across the Nord Stream pipeline a day that required the operators to be hidden from?
            • fmobus 1y ago
              Snuggling and launching drones from deep within enemy territory is a much more complicated op than a couple of dudes diving in the middle of nowhere. Bringing that bridge down is also much harder than blowing up the pipeline, because the bridge is covered by a lot of defenses, and naval drones will always have limited payload (if they want to be fast enough to evade defenses). Dudes performing a dive in the middle of the sea far from the battlefield are much less vulnerable.
    • nradov 1y ago
      We can't prove that there wasn't some US assistance (i.e. can't prove a negative) but there's pretty strong evidence that it was primarily a Ukrainian operation. https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-real-story-da24839c https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explos...
    • some_random 1y ago
      Yeah it didn't seem very difficult
    • jcranmer 1y ago
      They have demonstrated capabilities like blowing up the Kerch Strait bridge or several Russian oil refineries without US help, what makes you think Nord Stream is too difficult for them?
      • 123iasdjrZ 1y ago
        According to the New York Times, Ukraine receives major help from the US on all fronts: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-... The first Kerch Bridge attempt was only a partial success. Traffic continued almost the next day. The second attempt was a complete failure. For the refineries, Ukraine uses at least GPS. The sail boat theory is plausible from diving standpoint, but they allegedly installed explosives on NS-1 and NS-2 sites that were at least 100km apart, within 10 hours, with no decompression equipment. If they can do that, why do they repeatedly fail at Kerch Bridge?
        • gruez 1y ago
          They sent their A team for the pipeline and B team for the bridge?
        • jcranmer 1y ago
          > If they can do that, why do they repeatedly fail at Kerch Bridge? The bridge is approximately 3km long or so, which makes it relatively easy to maintain a continuous 24/7 armed presence to prevent sabotage. An underwater pipeline is a 1200km stretch mostly in other international territory that is hard to protect. Definitely much easier to blow up a pipeline than it is to blow up a bridge.
        • nradov 1y ago
          Why bring up "decompression equipment"? Have you ever even done any tech diving? We just deco in the water. No special equipment is needed beyond a rebreather or some stage tanks.
    • NooneAtAll3 1y ago
      physically it wasn't that hard - ship, explosives, scuba divers it's the clusterfuck of EU police inactivity afterwards that needs to be paid more attention to
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  • Bullfight2Cond 1y ago
    That's a very self-limiting viewpoint when a significant portion of warfare is deception, so by definition you're not going to get "all we know". For example, Seymour Hersh (renowned wartime investigative journalist), published a brief on US involvement: https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...
    • nradov 1y ago
      That article has been thoroughly debunked. Seymour Hersh just made things up with no fact checking or hard evidence.
      • Bullfight2Cond 1y ago
        What's your counter evidence?
        • nradov 1y ago
          No counter evidence is needed because Hersh hasn't actually presented any legitimate evidence in the first place.
          • normalaccess 1y ago
            If 'no counter-evidence is needed' were valid, we could dismiss anything we don't like without argument. AKA: Argument from ignorance
  • atmosx 1y ago
    > [...] as anyone knows it had nothing to to with the US ROLF - that must up there with "we want the hostages back and we're actively working towards that goal".
    • bilekas 1y ago
      If you have some more actual evidence outside of assumptions I am absolutely willing to hear it out. I just won't sit here and say "Must have been the US" without any insight.
      • atmosx 1y ago
        > If you have some more actual evidence outside of assumptions I am absolutely willing to hear it out. https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-germanys-scholz-stress-unified-front-against-any-russian-aggression-toward-2022-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-germanys-scholz-stress-u...
        • bilekas 1y ago
          > President Joe Biden said on Monday that the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline would be halted if Russia invades Ukraine and stressed unity with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz as the West rallies to avert a war in Europe. Halted.. Absolutely, political pressure on Europe to not sign or use it. You've made the leap to blowing it up somewhere, that is the stretch I'm not buying until it's admitted to. Personally, as an Irish who knows the history of occupation during tense years, I'm not surprised what a well trained spec ops can do with some basic equipment, so my money is on Ukrainian people just doing something Impressive but I'll wait for the facts to say it's exactly what happened.
  • miroljub 1y ago
    Then POTUS himself publicly announced he'd blow up NS. After it was blown up, we suddenly don't know who did it ;( I didn't know dementia is so contagious.
    • tim333 1y ago
      There are about half a dozen actors with an interest in doing it. It's like an Agatha Christie murder mystery. My favourite as a Brit was Ukraine with tech assistance from the British navy, as alleged by Moscow.
      • lawlessone 1y ago
        tbf if frost damages a crop Moscow will blame the British, they're obsessed with you lol.
    • jcranmer 1y ago
      Biden never announced that he would blow up Nord Stream 2. What he said in effect, in a press conference after Germany grudgingly agreed to prevent Nord Stream 2 from going online if Russia were to escalate its actions in Ukraine, was essentially "it's not going to go online" and giving a vague "it won't" answer when the questioner pointed out what if Germany disagreed, since it was Germany's call in the matter after all. A month or so later, Russia launched the 2022 offensive against Ukraine, and there was no longer any question of NS2 entering service because it was clear to all that the preconditions for Germany's rescission of approval for the pipeline had been satisfied. With that context, Biden's answer is best understood as him being quite confident in the quality of US intelligence that Russia was planning an imminent invasion of Ukraine that Europe was assessing as faulty. So while Europe was interested in the question of "what if Russia doesn't invade Ukraine?" Biden's answer was (in not so many words) "I'm not contemplating that scenario."
  • phire 1y ago
    I don’t think Ukraine would have risked an operation against a country they were actively trying to get military support from. My money is actually on Polish special forces (or one of the Baltic states), in an effort to force Germany to be serious about weaning itself off Russian natural gas.
    • flohofwoe 1y ago
      > I don’t think Ukraine would have risked an operation against a country they were actively trying to get military support from. It didn't make much of a difference to Germany since the gas flow via NS1 was already switched off for a while and NS2 never had delivered any gas before the sabotage happened. In the end it was more of a symbolic gesture to freeze the status quo that was already in place anyway.
      • oneshtein 1y ago
        Follow the money. Russia warns Europe that it will freeze to death if help to Ukraine will continue -> Russia stops NS1 to demonstrate their economical superpower -> EU companies are looking for $18 billion compensation -> NS1 blows up to make an excuse.
    • jacknews 1y ago
      argument doesn't make sense, but +1 for polish involvement. Third time lucky eh?
  • thasfTR 1y ago
    Yes, Ukraine wanted to control gas deliveries to the EU, which merrily proceeded via a Ukrainian transit pipeline until 2025. The EU is screwed by all energy oligarchies, including transit nations.
• atmosx 1y ago
  Of course :-) The funnier / biggest irony is that US and Russia are working together to fix the pipeline, buy distilleries in Germany to sell to the Germans Russian gas at US prices.
  • barbazoo 1y ago
    Source?
    • atmosx 1y ago
      Here: - https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-united-states-nord-stream-gas-pipelines-sergey-lavrov/ https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-united-states-nord-st... - https://www.dw.com/en/germany-cdu-nord-stream-russia-gas-afd-far-right/a-72060104 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-cdu-nord-stream-russia-gas-afd... - https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/03/03/russia-and-us-held-secret-talks-on-restarting-nord-stream-2-pipeline-bild-a88225 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/03/03/russia-and-us-held... [go to "www.google.com" ....]
      • thomasmg 1y ago
        I would not describe this as "US and Russia are working together to fix the pipeline", but more like "some people think about it".
        • atmosx 1y ago
          agreed. The caveat being that the people thinking about it have the power to make it happen, without needing to ask anyone else.
          • aktuel 1y ago
            well, at least everyone can work on reducing their own personal dependence on natural gas
  • jacknews 1y ago
• SiempreViernes 1y ago
  No, Ukrainians bombed it for their own reasons and not on behalf of the US. The exact reasons aren't entirely clear, originally they hated NS because it allowed Europe to ignore Ukraine in the gas trade which left them more exposed. By the time of the full scale war I would bet the reason was more "fuck Russia" than anything more carefully reasoned.
  • eptcyka 1y ago
    Anything that makes it harder for Russia to make foreign currency and decrease the demand for Rubles is a strategic win for Ukraine.
    • AlecSchueler 1y ago
      If it significantly harms the people helping them or curries disfavour towards Ukraine then it could be strategically misguided. (Not saying that's the case here, all considered)
      • Sammi 1y ago
        Those are smaller second order effects. Gutting the income to the Russian war machine is the first order effect and a clear win for Ukraine.
        • bgwalter 1y ago
          Nord Stream 1 started operations in 2011. For 11 years money was flowing and the Russian army was in terrible shape in 2022. Now, without the Nord Stream money, it is in better shape. When the pipeline was sabotaged, no gas and no money were flowing anyway, which makes it even more absurd. There is a very high likelihood that the front lines would be in the exact same place if Nord Stream had not been sabotaged. Except of course, the EU would have had more leverage in negotiating LNG deals with the US and Qatar rather than making emergency deals. EDIT: Downvoted while the Ukrainian transit pipelines were open from 2014-2025 and yielded Russian transit fees. And while Nord Stream was built partly because Ukraine stole Russian transit gas in 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...
• jacknews 1y ago
  yes, follow the money, almost always.
• mmh0000 1y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM "There will be no longer a NordStream 2, we will bring an end to it" Shocking, there is no longer a NordStream 2. =D
  • regnull 1y ago
    Good. It should’ve never existed. I hope whoever is responsible for its untimely demise gets a medal.
    • vkou 1y ago
      > It should’ve never existed. You shouldn't be calling for violence in response to a political disagreement.
      • dralley 1y ago
        Nice reversing of victim and offender
        • vkou 1y ago
          It's a popular page in the playbook these days. (I'm not entirely sincere with the original snipe.)
      • mschuster91 1y ago
        Blowing up a pipeline in a war isn't violence, it's warfare, and thus IMHO Ukraine had every right to destroy a piece of infrastructure that could be used as political leverage and source of income for its invaders.
    • dragonelite 1y ago
      With allies like this, who really needs Russia as an enemy.
      • regnull 1y ago