A rival gas distributor doing industrial sabotage would be a fun twist.
1 Like
It is better to think if Putin personally benefits, not if Russia benefits. Because Putin is clearly going to value his personal interest in maintaining control of Russia over Russia’s geopolitical interest.
From that perspective, I think the explanation that this takes away the ability of any successor regime to turn the pipeline back on makes the most sense.
1 Like
Not saying this isn’t what they’re trying to signal, but it seems pretty dumb. Like, we know they have scuba divers or torpedoes or whatever they used to blow it up. And blowing up your own shit is like the deplorables who blow up their own yeti coolers or kuerigs or whatever.
1 Like
It stops any usurper from turning it back on and is a clear threat to other infrastructure. Just lol
This seems very tenuous. In this scenario you’d be looking to deter a coup from a faction that wants to end the war and restore the status quo ante business relationship with Europe? Just want to clarify what you’re suggesting.
SK has chosen to be real, let’s go with liberal, with their interpretations now that all of their previous posts are deleted
David Goldwyn, who ran the State Department’s energy program under former President Barack Obama, said it was “unequivocal” that Russia was behind the attack, noting it executed something similar on a gas pipeline in Turkmenistan in 2009.
Russia’s message is clear, Goldwyn added: “Prepare for a life without Russian gas. … It’s a threat of a complete cut-off.”
The state with the most obvious interest in attacking the pipe is Ukraine. The water is shallow enough they just need a fishing boat, scuba gear and explosives.
Except if the Germans and French found out about it they’d go apeshit and Ukraine might end up losing support.
2 Likes
Whoever sells wool sweaters to Europe is obviously someone who gains a lot from this. Have we looked into Wales and New Zeland?
6 Likes
What I am suggesting is that maybe Putin believes he will be unable to turn the pipeline back on because he thinks the West will make it a prerequisite to end his war and maybe also an end his regime.
In this scenario Putin wants to make sure that, if he is ousted, Russia still cannot turn Nordstream on. This makes any potential internal challenger less attractive to the west and less able to promise Russians a return to normal economic relations with the west.
I guess you have my position right but I also think there doesn’t need to be a particular faction in Russia that Putin is actively worried about, this just generally makes Russia more committed to the war and to him because it is more difficult to return to how it was.
2 Likes
this is not correct. pipeline itself is protected and weighed down by underwater soil. it is not easy to set off an explosion to sever two pipelines next to each other at any depth, and 70m down even more so. the speculation is that a specialized submarine is needed. eg losharik. basically, only russia and a handful of others have such subs. only russia has them in the region.
1 Like
this is conflating timelines and situations. there are important differernces between cuba and nato expansion. tech/military advancements are only a part of the balance. nato expansion did not put nuclear assets in the expanded territories. to date, even east germany has no silos etc. in that sense, nato’s nukes did not move one each east. even more importantly, cuba letting missiles in essentially gave ussr a base, which is not the case within nato. member states run their own bases, and usa isn’t invited to just amass troops and batteries on the border like that.
Which country is most likely to have sabotaged the pipeline?
- Ukraine
- US
- Russia
- A European country outside of Ukraine/Russia
- A non-European country
0 voters
Don’t sleep on the Alpaca industry. Could be Perú, imo.
3 Likes
Are the gas pipelines that run through Ukraine still running? Last I heard they were.
This settles it for me.
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1575549820173160448?s=20&t=80k9EVLtJ4vO7W6xGTAs5w
yes they are. gas through ukraine and belarus. although it’s important to note that neither pipe is running at full capacity, and hasn’t for years. in general pipeline capacity was not the limiting factor for natgas exports. at first the infrastructure was over provisioned for the demand, and now it’s overprovisioned for the supply as well. gazprom has had tried to avoid shitting some locations, but eventually they also had to close them up, after the local storage facilities got filled up
IMO it’s Russia.
Among the other possibilities I think Ukraine is doubtful because the risk of damaging their relations with the west (and in turn their supply of weapons) is too great.
I think US and China are about equally likely because they both benefit from Russia not being able to as much gas to the EU and are both capable but also have way too much to lose from getting found out to have likely done it.
This doesn’t benefit the other European countries in any way. It messes up their energy markets and takes away a carrot they could offer Russia in a potential peace negotiation.
I am not really clear on the technical capabilities required. It would make total sense for some terrorist or environmental activist group to want to do that, and to choose to do it at the time the pipeline is shut off, but it seems people are saying this would require technology only available to state actors.