4 ms·

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 allowe

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...
      - Sammi 1y ago
        Are you trying to argue the difference between keeping something offline vs taking it offline? Cause it's a weak argument. It's like you're bending over backwards to make arguments in the direction you already decided you want it to go. Like you're trying to force a square peg into a round hole. If you already decided what you want to think then why do you need arguments?
        bgwalter 1y ago
        Do you seriously accuse me for providing arguments for not blowing up a pipeline that is 50% owned by Germany, France and The Netherlands? If it had been done to a US pipeline, it would have been called terrorism.
        Sammi 1y ago
        ??
      - idkfasayer 1y ago
        [dead]
    - SiempreViernes 1y ago
      Maybe a plausible argument if Ukraine had stopped Russian gas flowing through it's territory at the start of the war and there where flows through NS at the time. But actually, by the time of the bombing the Russian gas was only flowing through Ukrainian pipelines. So Ukraine was ensuring "income to the Russian war machine", while Nord Stream was just costing them money; at most it could have been used as collateral in a loan.
  - estimator7292 1y ago
    On the other hand: there's a global superpower doing horrific war crimes to Ukraine. I think they're justified in doing whatever it takes even if you don't like it.
    - AlecSchueler 1y ago
      It's not about liking it disliking, it's about generating difficult material costs for the same people who are paying to arm you.
    - drysine 1y ago
      >doing horrific war crimes Is it?
- bgwalter 1y ago
  Nord Stream money is being replaced by China in the new gas deal: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-china-bless-vast-new-power-siberia-2-pipeline-gazprom-says-2025-09-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-china-bless-v... So Russia can now export gas, get foreign currency, and buy weapons with the money. I do not see any strategic wins here. Additionally, China gets an economic boost. That is a sublime strategy.
  - Detrytus 1y ago
    Russia selling gas to China is completely orthogonal to Nord Stream issue. The strategic win in bombing Nord Stream was that Ukraine finally got Europe on their side. Before NS was blown up many countries, especially Germany were sitting on the fence, reluctant to give Ukraine any help. They were hoping for Ukraine to lose the war quickly, then they would give Putin some slap on the wrist punishment, and return to "business as usual" with Russia. Nord Stream being destroyed removed the biggest incentive for doing that.
  - ponector 1y ago
    Three points there: 1. Power of Syberia 1 throughput is not fully utilized. 2. China pays half of the EU price. 3. Power of Syberia 2 not be build in the near future. It's not the deal to actually do something. It's too continue further discussion.
  - inglor_cz 1y ago
    The devil is in the details. The conditions that China wants aren't very lucrative to Russians, and the second pipeline, if it is even built, will take about a decade to build, so not "now". Russian negotiating position is weak and Beijing knows that.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mikestorrent 1y ago
Is there some credible reason to actually believe this?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- khuey 1y ago
  That Ukrainians did it? https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukrainian-man-arrested-italy-over-nord-stream-pipeline-attacks-2025-08-21/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukrainian-man-ar... That they did it for their own motivations? It seems at least as plausible that they did it because wanted to hurt Russia as it does that Washington ordered them to do it, to put it mildly. Washington has been supporting Ukraine during the war but has been rather reticent to support attacking Russian assets that are outside the territory of Ukraine.
g42gregory 1y ago
My, admittedly layman, understanding is that it was a very difficult thing to do from a technical perspective. And that there are very few countries that have technical capabilities to accomplish this. Ukraine is not one of them.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > it was a very difficult thing to do from a technical perspective Why would you conclude this where every intelligence and law enforcement agency that has looked into it and published a report has found the opposite?
  - g42gregory 1y ago
    I have no basis to conclude anything in this matter. I saw multiple news reports/interviews to that effect. True/not - you get to decide based on news you hear. Do you have a basis to conclude that "every intelligence and law enforcement agency that has looked into it and published a report has found the opposite"? You exhaustively went through all Western intelligence and law enforcement agencies and read their reports? So you are quoting other news articles/interviews. Apparently their views differed. Ok.
AndriyKunitsyn 1y ago
The wonders of propaganda make it so that "Ukrainians bombed it" is given as an irrefutable fact, and not something that needs a lot of evidence. Nobody remembers anymore that Pres. Biden himself said, “If Russia invades ... there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” [°] Nor that the very next day, a EU parliament member, and now Polish foreign minister Radosław Sikorski thanked the US for the sabotage [^]. Nor that the same day, a competing natural gas pipeline has opened, the Baltic Pipe [_]. None of this matters, because "Ukrainians bombed it". Because WaPo and WSJ said so. In a waterway that is heavily controlled by all kinds of NATO vessels. Where NATO had an exercise 3 months before that, called BALTOPS. Come on. [°] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 [^] https://archive.ph/20220927190022/https://twitter.com/radeksikorski/status/1574800653724966915 https://archive.ph/20220927190022/https://twitter.com/radeks... [_] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Pipe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Pipe
- lossolo 1y ago
  It's not only WaPo and WJS but investigations in Sweden and Germany. Read the reports. "Nord Stream sabotage: Berlin issues arrest warrant for Ukrainian man" https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/08/14/nord-stream-sabotage-berlin-issues-arrest-warrant-for-ukrainian-man_6715234_4.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/08/14/n... https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-is-known-about-nord-stream-gas-pipeline-explosions-2025-08-21 https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-is-known-about-nor...
  - AndriyKunitsyn 1y ago
    Is there at least one piece of evidence in these reports?
    - urspx 1y ago
      Yes. If you're curious and willing to spend ca. half an hour on the question, I can recommend this excellently done video from the channel 'fern': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHsONupIdlo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHsONupIdlo

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...
    - Sammi 1y ago
      Are you trying to argue the difference between keeping something offline vs taking it offline? Cause it's a weak argument. It's like you're bending over backwards to make arguments in the direction you already decided you want it to go. Like you're trying to force a square peg into a round hole. If you already decided what you want to think then why do you need arguments?
      - bgwalter 1y ago
        Do you seriously accuse me for providing arguments for not blowing up a pipeline that is 50% owned by Germany, France and The Netherlands? If it had been done to a US pipeline, it would have been called terrorism.
        Sammi 1y ago
        ??
    - idkfasayer 1y ago
      [dead]
  - SiempreViernes 1y ago
    Maybe a plausible argument if Ukraine had stopped Russian gas flowing through it's territory at the start of the war and there where flows through NS at the time. But actually, by the time of the bombing the Russian gas was only flowing through Ukrainian pipelines. So Ukraine was ensuring "income to the Russian war machine", while Nord Stream was just costing them money; at most it could have been used as collateral in a loan.
- estimator7292 1y ago
  On the other hand: there's a global superpower doing horrific war crimes to Ukraine. I think they're justified in doing whatever it takes even if you don't like it.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    It's not about liking it disliking, it's about generating difficult material costs for the same people who are paying to arm you.
  - drysine 1y ago
    >doing horrific war crimes Is it?
bgwalter 1y ago
Nord Stream money is being replaced by China in the new gas deal: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-china-bless-vast-new-power-siberia-2-pipeline-gazprom-says-2025-09-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-china-bless-v... So Russia can now export gas, get foreign currency, and buy weapons with the money. I do not see any strategic wins here. Additionally, China gets an economic boost. That is a sublime strategy.
- Detrytus 1y ago
  Russia selling gas to China is completely orthogonal to Nord Stream issue. The strategic win in bombing Nord Stream was that Ukraine finally got Europe on their side. Before NS was blown up many countries, especially Germany were sitting on the fence, reluctant to give Ukraine any help. They were hoping for Ukraine to lose the war quickly, then they would give Putin some slap on the wrist punishment, and return to "business as usual" with Russia. Nord Stream being destroyed removed the biggest incentive for doing that.
- ponector 1y ago
  Three points there: 1. Power of Syberia 1 throughput is not fully utilized. 2. China pays half of the EU price. 3. Power of Syberia 2 not be build in the near future. It's not the deal to actually do something. It's too continue further discussion.
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  The devil is in the details. The conditions that China wants aren't very lucrative to Russians, and the second pipeline, if it is even built, will take about a decade to build, so not "now". Russian negotiating position is weak and Beijing knows that.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

mikestorrent 1y ago

Is there some credible reason to actually believe this?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
khuey 1y ago
That Ukrainians did it? https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukrainian-man-arrested-italy-over-nord-stream-pipeline-attacks-2025-08-21/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukrainian-man-ar... That they did it for their own motivations? It seems at least as plausible that they did it because wanted to hurt Russia as it does that Washington ordered them to do it, to put it mildly. Washington has been supporting Ukraine during the war but has been rather reticent to support attacking Russian assets that are outside the territory of Ukraine.

g42gregory 1y ago

My, admittedly layman, understanding is that it was a very difficult thing to do from a technical perspective. And that there are very few countries that have technical capabilities to accomplish this. Ukraine is not one of them.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> it was a very difficult thing to do from a technical perspective Why would you conclude this where every intelligence and law enforcement agency that has looked into it and published a report has found the opposite?
- g42gregory 1y ago
  I have no basis to conclude anything in this matter. I saw multiple news reports/interviews to that effect. True/not - you get to decide based on news you hear. Do you have a basis to conclude that "every intelligence and law enforcement agency that has looked into it and published a report has found the opposite"? You exhaustively went through all Western intelligence and law enforcement agencies and read their reports? So you are quoting other news articles/interviews. Apparently their views differed. Ok.

AndriyKunitsyn 1y ago

The wonders of propaganda make it so that "Ukrainians bombed it" is given as an irrefutable fact, and not something that needs a lot of evidence. Nobody remembers anymore that Pres. Biden himself said, “If Russia invades ... there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” [°] Nor that the very next day, a EU parliament member, and now Polish foreign minister Radosław Sikorski thanked the US for the sabotage [^]. Nor that the same day, a competing natural gas pipeline has opened, the Baltic Pipe [_]. None of this matters, because "Ukrainians bombed it". Because WaPo and WSJ said so. In a waterway that is heavily controlled by all kinds of NATO vessels. Where NATO had an exercise 3 months before that, called BALTOPS. Come on. [°] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 [^] https://archive.ph/20220927190022/https://twitter.com/radeksikorski/status/1574800653724966915 https://archive.ph/20220927190022/https://twitter.com/radeks... [_] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Pipe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Pipe

lossolo 1y ago
It's not only WaPo and WJS but investigations in Sweden and Germany. Read the reports. "Nord Stream sabotage: Berlin issues arrest warrant for Ukrainian man" https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/08/14/nord-stream-sabotage-berlin-issues-arrest-warrant-for-ukrainian-man_6715234_4.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/08/14/n... https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-is-known-about-nord-stream-gas-pipeline-explosions-2025-08-21 https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-is-known-about-nor...
- AndriyKunitsyn 1y ago
  Is there at least one piece of evidence in these reports?
  - urspx 1y ago
    Yes. If you're curious and willing to spend ca. half an hour on the question, I can recommend this excellently done video from the channel 'fern': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHsONupIdlo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHsONupIdlo