Who Blew Up Nord Stream? Investigators Focus on Mysterious Passengers on a Yacht(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Who Blew Up Nord Stream? Investigators Focus on Mysterious Passengers on a Yacht
https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-blew-up-nord-stream-investigators-focus-on-six-mysterious-passengers-on-a-yacht-25b47e9b
114 comments
https://archive.ph/SOdWR
This article goes a little into it but what I don't generally see in most media is explaining just how hard it is do dive at these depths. It isn't just some random guy that has had some scuba time.
The pressure alone for many is too much, then you need special mixture of air, for prolonged work you need re-breathers and a decompression chamber on board the vessel in case of an emergency.
I am also wondering how this work was performed without Norway or the US noticing it.
Edit: Sorry, I meant Sweden not Norway
The pressure alone for many is too much, then you need special mixture of air, for prolonged work you need re-breathers and a decompression chamber on board the vessel in case of an emergency.
I am also wondering how this work was performed without Norway or the US noticing it.
Edit: Sorry, I meant Sweden not Norway
I've been to 80m depth. I have a rebreather and a couple scooters. I probably have nearly enough gear for that entire dive team. Even got some 500# lift bags.
Only thing I'm lacking are the forged passports and the explosives.
A sufficiently rich Ukrainian in the construction industry or something like that could probably have the right contacts for both of those[*].
It also probably takes less explosives than you think since the water is going to amplify the blast (pretty sure the US Navy dive manual has a good section on explosives in water and top tips like making sure that you at least get your torso out of the water if you can).
You wouldn't need a decompression chamber for those dives at that depth.
(The _Shadow Divers_ book also documents a colossal screw up on bad gas for the depth, and the hazards of going inside of wrecks at depth, which don't apply here)
> I am also wondering how this work was performed without Norway or the US noticing it.
Most things that most boats do aren't noticed by anyone. If it wasn't that way, then drug smuggling would be a whole lot harder.
[*] I'm betting Ukrainian because the pipeline wasn't benefiting them and was supplying piles of cash to their enemy, it seems kinda obvious to me.
Only thing I'm lacking are the forged passports and the explosives.
A sufficiently rich Ukrainian in the construction industry or something like that could probably have the right contacts for both of those[*].
It also probably takes less explosives than you think since the water is going to amplify the blast (pretty sure the US Navy dive manual has a good section on explosives in water and top tips like making sure that you at least get your torso out of the water if you can).
You wouldn't need a decompression chamber for those dives at that depth.
(The _Shadow Divers_ book also documents a colossal screw up on bad gas for the depth, and the hazards of going inside of wrecks at depth, which don't apply here)
> I am also wondering how this work was performed without Norway or the US noticing it.
Most things that most boats do aren't noticed by anyone. If it wasn't that way, then drug smuggling would be a whole lot harder.
[*] I'm betting Ukrainian because the pipeline wasn't benefiting them and was supplying piles of cash to their enemy, it seems kinda obvious to me.
I can't verify this, but when the story broke in Germany there were some diving experts that claimed that you can dive there in those depths without decompression chambers and that people regularly do that.
The entire discussion on what exactly you need to perform this operation has resulted in a whole bunch of contradictory opinions.
The entire discussion on what exactly you need to perform this operation has resulted in a whole bunch of contradictory opinions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Divers is probably worth a read if you have an interest. Basically it's about a group of hobbyist divers who explored a wreck at around that depth. They were definitely pushing the limits of amateur tech at the time, but I believe they also started using different gas mixes around then.
What I don't understand is why divers would even be needed at all. Torpedoes and depth charges are hardly new tech. If you asked me to do it, I'd just find a commodity underwater ROV for the job and strap a big bomb to it. Problem solved. It's one of the asymmetries of warfare that it's a lot easier to destroy stuff than to build it.
What I don't understand is why divers would even be needed at all. Torpedoes and depth charges are hardly new tech. If you asked me to do it, I'd just find a commodity underwater ROV for the job and strap a big bomb to it. Problem solved. It's one of the asymmetries of warfare that it's a lot easier to destroy stuff than to build it.
That’s probably a far more traceable operation using those approaches though.
the need for decompression (and the required decompression time) is very much dependent on the duration of the dive (i.e. how much gas is dissolved into your blood depends on how much time your blood was fed gases at higher pressure). If your dive is just a quick down,drop some stuff, and back up right away (especially with a gas mixture optimized for depth)… then yeah, you might be able to do it without decompression…
…whereas if you stay an hour or two down there, giving a long enough time for the gases to reach their high pressure solubility levels, you better not get back up without decompression.
…whereas if you stay an hour or two down there, giving a long enough time for the gases to reach their high pressure solubility levels, you better not get back up without decompression.
Open Circuit dive to 80m with 15 mins of working bottom time (CCR would cut total runtime down to 85 mins and slash the helium bill). I ran it with Nominal conservatism since I figure we're talking about people crazy enough to play around with explosives. You can likely cut off of half the O2 stop and as long as you pass your saving throwing against type I DCS and don't have a PFO you'll likely be fine for 4 dives. I would assume these people would wind up pushing the tables exceedingly hard.
V-Planner 3.105 by R. Hemingway,
VPM code by Erik C. Baker.
Decompression model: VPM - B
DIVE PLAN
Surface interval = 5 day 0 hr 0 min.
Elevation = 0m
Conservatism = Nominal
Dec to 80m (4) Trimix 15/55 18m/min descent.
Level 80m 15:33 (20) Trimix 15/55 1.34 ppO2, 24m ead, 30m end
Asc to 54m (23) Trimix 15/55 -8m/min ascent.
Stop at 54m 0:45 (24) Trimix 15/55 0.95 ppO2, 14m ead, 19m end
Stop at 51m 1:00 (25) Trimix 15/55 0.91 ppO2, 13m ead, 17m end
Stop at 48m 1:00 (26) Trimix 15/55 0.86 ppO2, 12m ead, 16m end
Stop at 45m 1:00 (27) Trimix 15/55 0.82 ppO2, 11m ead, 15m end
Stop at 42m 1:00 (28) Trimix 15/55 0.78 ppO2, 10m ead, 13m end
Stop at 39m 1:00 (29) Trimix 15/55 0.73 ppO2, 9m ead, 12m end
Stop at 36m 2:00 (31) Trimix 15/55 0.69 ppO2, 7m ead, 11m end
Stop at 33m 2:00 (33) Trimix 15/55 0.64 ppO2, 6m ead, 9m end
Stop at 30m 3:00 (36) Trimix 15/55 0.60 ppO2, 5m ead, 8m end
Stop at 27m 3:00 (39) Trimix 15/55 0.55 ppO2, 4m ead, 7m end
Stop at 24m 4:00 (43) Trimix 15/55 0.51 ppO2, 3m ead, 5m end
Stop at 21m 3:00 (46) Nitrox 50 1.54 ppO2, 10m ead
Stop at 18m 3:00 (49) Nitrox 50 1.39 ppO2, 8m ead
Stop at 15m 4:00 (53) Nitrox 50 1.24 ppO2, 6m ead
Stop at 12m 5:00 (58) Nitrox 50 1.10 ppO2, 4m ead
Stop at 9m 8:00 (66) Nitrox 50 0.95 ppO2, 2m ead
Stop at 6m 10:00 (76) Oxygen 1.60 ppO2, 0m ead
Stop at 3m 16:00 (92) Oxygen 1.30 ppO2, 0m ead
Surface (92) Oxygen -6m/min ascent.
Off gassing starts at 62.2m
OTU's this dive: 110
CNS Total: 53.2%
Gas density: 5.7g/l
183.8 cu ft Trimix 15/55
32.0 cu ft Nitrox 50
21.9 cu ft Oxygen
237.8 cu ft TOTAL
DIVE PLAN COMPLETE
********* WARNING & DISCLAIMER *********
This V-Planner generated dive schedule could indirectly kill you.
The author does not warrant that it accurately reflects the Varying
Permeability Model algorithms, that it won't get you bent or dead, or that it
will produce safe, reliable results. This dive schedule is experimental
and you use it at your own risk. Diving in general is fraught with
risk, and decompression diving adds significantly more risk.
Deep diving utilizing multiple gasses, including Helium, is about
as risky as it gets.
This schedule is not intended for uneducated users. V-Planner and the
decompression schedules it produces are tools for experienced mixed-gas
decompression divers ONLY. If you have not been properly trained in
mixed-gas decompression diving by an internationally recognized technical
certification agency and/or don't have a firm handle on decompression
planning and mixed-gas diving, then DO NOT USE THIS DIVE SCHEDULE.The article literally does describe how divers would do so with quotes from a subject matter expert:
>Achim Schlöffel, a German extreme diver who runs a diving school and helps companies protect vessels and underwater installations from sabotage, said explosives could have been planted by a group of well-trained technical divers accustomed to working at such depths—around 80 meters—assuming they had several days to do so.
>Six divers, he said, could have lowered the explosives in several dives using commercially available equipment such as underwater scooters or propulsion vehicles, airlifting bags and buoys, and a portable sonar. “I know dozens of professional divers who would be up to the task,” Mr. Schlöffel said.
>Achim Schlöffel, a German extreme diver who runs a diving school and helps companies protect vessels and underwater installations from sabotage, said explosives could have been planted by a group of well-trained technical divers accustomed to working at such depths—around 80 meters—assuming they had several days to do so.
>Six divers, he said, could have lowered the explosives in several dives using commercially available equipment such as underwater scooters or propulsion vehicles, airlifting bags and buoys, and a portable sonar. “I know dozens of professional divers who would be up to the task,” Mr. Schlöffel said.
The sea is big and has many innocuous boats, anything happening under water is effectively invisible.
And you're assuming they actually went all the way down; someone else mentioned an ROV, but if you know where the pipeline is you can probably sink explosives on a weight too. It doesn't have to be accurate, not when the pipe will collapse and be contaminated with little encouragement.
And you're assuming they actually went all the way down; someone else mentioned an ROV, but if you know where the pipeline is you can probably sink explosives on a weight too. It doesn't have to be accurate, not when the pipe will collapse and be contaminated with little encouragement.
Why should Norway of all countries notice it if it was happening within Swedish and Danish waters?
And how to expect a Navy/Army/Air-force to notice and study in detail what every little boat is doing. And even more difficult to notice what a diver or two are doing.
And how to expect a Navy/Army/Air-force to notice and study in detail what every little boat is doing. And even more difficult to notice what a diver or two are doing.
You assume the bomb was placed, and not dropped with weight or with underwater "drone"[0](Hilarious). 80 meters is probably not too deep for Sonar/Lidar for spotting the pipe, Xprize Ocean discovery comes to mind.
In addition top free diver athletes do dive for 80+ meters[1].
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwIWG5_rgC0 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV2kBfhqkGk
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwIWG5_rgC0 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV2kBfhqkGk
The world’s best free diver did a 214m dive with a weighted sled and buoyancy device. Scuba may make it more complicated in this case if all they were doing was attaching an item.
How deep do they need to go? How close do they need to be? Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be.
Since we're well into speculation mode here, try this: footage of the aftermath[0] reveals an enormous 50-meter hole in the pipe, which was made of pretty thick metal. I suppose it would have to be, to carry gas under pressure from within as well as withstand being kept empty, as it was at the time of the explosion, under pressure from without.
How big does an explosive have to be to cause that much damage? Pretty big, I think. Big and heavy.
How close does an explosive that big have to be? Not very close, I think.
Of course, there's a trade-off! The close it is, the less big it has to be and the farther it is, the smaller it can be. But a 50-meter is much bigger than it needed to be to disable the pipeline. It is almost as if the people dropping the bomb couldn't be sure how close they would get with it, so built a big enough bomb to ensure rupturing it whether it landed directly on top of it or a number of meters away. Maybe they got lucky, and expected a smaller hole. Maybe they got unlucky and expected a bigger one.
I mean, the BBC footage involved zero people getting in the water. They just went to the area and dropped in a camera on a long cable and navigated to the hole.
It's possible that nobody even got in the water for the bombing. They could have used a "fish finder" to make sure they were pretty close to the pipe, and even drop a test object to see how the underwater currents might shift it, but it was a pretty big bomb, I think it probably mostly went straight down. Close enough for a big bomb to make a hole in a big pipe, anyway.
0. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63297085
Since we're well into speculation mode here, try this: footage of the aftermath[0] reveals an enormous 50-meter hole in the pipe, which was made of pretty thick metal. I suppose it would have to be, to carry gas under pressure from within as well as withstand being kept empty, as it was at the time of the explosion, under pressure from without.
How big does an explosive have to be to cause that much damage? Pretty big, I think. Big and heavy.
How close does an explosive that big have to be? Not very close, I think.
Of course, there's a trade-off! The close it is, the less big it has to be and the farther it is, the smaller it can be. But a 50-meter is much bigger than it needed to be to disable the pipeline. It is almost as if the people dropping the bomb couldn't be sure how close they would get with it, so built a big enough bomb to ensure rupturing it whether it landed directly on top of it or a number of meters away. Maybe they got lucky, and expected a smaller hole. Maybe they got unlucky and expected a bigger one.
I mean, the BBC footage involved zero people getting in the water. They just went to the area and dropped in a camera on a long cable and navigated to the hole.
It's possible that nobody even got in the water for the bombing. They could have used a "fish finder" to make sure they were pretty close to the pipe, and even drop a test object to see how the underwater currents might shift it, but it was a pretty big bomb, I think it probably mostly went straight down. Close enough for a big bomb to make a hole in a big pipe, anyway.
0. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63297085
The pipe has a thick layer of concrete around it. I think you would need some sort directional charge.
A large creator can also occur when the pipe burst from the pressure inside even if punctured by just a small hole.
A large creator can also occur when the pipe burst from the pressure inside even if punctured by just a small hole.
No need for a test object. Just drop the bomb in the water with a tether. Don't like where it landed? Pull it up and try again
I guess there might be a crater visible on the seabed if that was the case. Or maybe it was all scoured clean by the subsequent gas leak?
There was no big gas leak, the pipeline had already been shut down by the Russians a week or so prior.
The pipeline is kept full and under pressure even when not delivering gas. It was one of the worst environmental disasters but it's being ignored because of controversy of who blew it up.
The closed pipelines contained gas.
Why would Norway in particular notice? The explosions occurred closest to Denmark and Sweden.
80-110m is not such a deep dive, I personally know at least 3 SCUBA divers that have taken classes and dived to 100m, it's something that amateur divers can do with enough resources.
I don't dive but 80 meters doesn't sound like much especially for what is purported to be clandestine and independent agents that are clearly motivated and accept the risk. Shit- people are willing to strap explosives to their bodies for the right cause. The pipelines were not all cleanly severed either. Did they even need to dive in order to drop charges near these pipes?
There was an NPR article that had some quotes about the difficulty in pulling off such an operation successfully. The assumption by investigators was these had to be people with specialized expertise. That would seem to limit the number of people who could pull this off.
They could have used an ROV.
Eighty meters is within range of commercial ROVs and even consumer ROVs.
https://www.deeptrekker.com
https://geneinno.us/
https://www.deeptrekker.com
https://geneinno.us/
I don't know who did it, but I do know one thing: the political angle on this is far too strong for me to trust any intelligence agency's conclusion, whether Germany, Denmark, US, or anyone else. Or, for that matter, and private sector news organization's article. Ten years from now, it might be possible to have an objective, just-the-facts investigation into it, but in the middle of a war and a worldwide economic shockwave from the war, there is far too much politics for me to trust any conclusion.
This is how I've come to feel about almost everything in the news.
ccn0p(2)
For sure, there's many different motivations from many different parties to forcefully shut it down like this.
I don't believe Russia did it though; sure they wanted to shut down gas flow to Europe, but they did that by just... turning it off.
Ukraine is a candidate, because forcefully shutting off a source of income to Russia would help them. I don't believe that (+ the sanctions) have been able to stop Russia though, they've got other sources of income, enough savings to last a while, and a strong grip on the population so it cannot revolt or anything.
And the US is a candidate, on the one side as an ally of Ukraine trying to force Europe to stop sending money to Russia, and on the other as a seller of LNG at increased prices.
But it could be any, and I doubt any conclusive investigation will be published as-is or unsealed during our lifetime.
I don't believe Russia did it though; sure they wanted to shut down gas flow to Europe, but they did that by just... turning it off.
Ukraine is a candidate, because forcefully shutting off a source of income to Russia would help them. I don't believe that (+ the sanctions) have been able to stop Russia though, they've got other sources of income, enough savings to last a while, and a strong grip on the population so it cannot revolt or anything.
And the US is a candidate, on the one side as an ally of Ukraine trying to force Europe to stop sending money to Russia, and on the other as a seller of LNG at increased prices.
But it could be any, and I doubt any conclusive investigation will be published as-is or unsealed during our lifetime.
I don't have strong opinions about who did it, but I wouldn't dismiss Russia that quickly. Russia has a long history of utilizing false-flag operations. They were pumping them out almost hourly leading up to the invasion. If they had been able to successfully pin it on the US the wedge that would drive in NATO has obvious benefits for Moscow. Their reasons for doing it seem as plausible as for any other state actor. It's also less risky for them. They've already gotten near maximum blowback from the west. Whereas it's a really risky thing for the US to do given the massive blowback that would result if they got caught.
The key point is, "Russia" didn't do it. Someone within Russia, might have, and if so probably mostly for its affect on other Russians. For that matter, the "U.S.A." didn't do it; but it is possible that someone within the US might have. Nations are not unitary actors, even when it is governmental action.
Why Ukraine need to blow up empty pipes instead of working one?
Gazprom, turned off gas pipeline breaking their contract to supply gas to EU, so they need something like that to avoid huge fine, while Ukraine don't, because Ukraine paid higher price for natural gas as consequence.
Gazprom, turned off gas pipeline breaking their contract to supply gas to EU, so they need something like that to avoid huge fine, while Ukraine don't, because Ukraine paid higher price for natural gas as consequence.
First of all, pipelines were not empty. They need to be filled with gas to stay operational on the sea bed.
Gazprom turned off pipelines because Germany and Canada were refusing to return one turbine with proper guarantees and maintain the others (Nord stream one was built with Western turbines, NS2 has Russian ones).
Ukraine tried to sabotage NS1 and 2 for many years as both were basically a replacement for the old Soviet gas transport system that fuels Ukraine up to this day. So, they had a very strong motivation to do it.
But my bet is on USA, as they have even stronger motive and much greater capability to physically sabotage it.
Gazprom turned off pipelines because Germany and Canada were refusing to return one turbine with proper guarantees and maintain the others (Nord stream one was built with Western turbines, NS2 has Russian ones).
Ukraine tried to sabotage NS1 and 2 for many years as both were basically a replacement for the old Soviet gas transport system that fuels Ukraine up to this day. So, they had a very strong motivation to do it.
But my bet is on USA, as they have even stronger motive and much greater capability to physically sabotage it.
I don't believe Ukraine had anything to do with blowing up Nordstream.
But to your reasoning I would point out that the reason Nordstream was built in the first place: to bypass Ukraine in supplying Germany with gas.
But to your reasoning I would point out that the reason Nordstream was built in the first place: to bypass Ukraine in supplying Germany with gas.
Pipelines are still there. They relatively easy to repair.
IMHO, if Ukrainians or Americans will try to destroy pipeline, they will target compressors, which are much more expensive to repair.
IMHO, if Ukrainians or Americans will try to destroy pipeline, they will target compressors, which are much more expensive to repair.
Compressors are actually easier to repair as all the infrastructure is on the land, while underwater pipeline requires a lot of effort and very few ships can actually do such work.
I won't lie, I'm a little envious of whomever secured the undoubtedly very exciting job to plan this whole thing. Every new emergence reads like a scene in a movie. I can imagine the scene where the sailboat pulls up in tiny, unsuspecting Wiek and gets loaded with explosives in the middle of the night.
In fact, it reads so much like a scene out of fiction that I am wondering if that's what it really is?
The recent “revelations” definitely looks like an effort to fool people of how it was really done. Too much Hollywood in it.
How does a small group of terrorists that's not anyone's radar even get this much explosive and how are they able to transport it through Europe without anyone noticing?
The obvious answer is that the one who did it was expecting to benefit from it.
The thing is that at that point almost everyone would benefit from it (maybe everyone except Europeans). Russia because they could put pressure on Europe by cutting gas supply during winter, US because they wanted to convert Europe to LNG and put pressure on the gas revenues of Russia.
So my conclusion is that an international task force did it lol
The thing is that at that point almost everyone would benefit from it (maybe everyone except Europeans). Russia because they could put pressure on Europe by cutting gas supply during winter, US because they wanted to convert Europe to LNG and put pressure on the gas revenues of Russia.
So my conclusion is that an international task force did it lol
> Russia because they could put pressure on Europe.
That doesn't really hold because they could just turn off the tap
Not without contractual ramifications.
You have a point but that would mean Russia cares about contractual ramifications - not sure about that !
On the other hand blowing up the pipe means giving up on :
1. blackmailing the europeans if they don't comply to some demands. 2. A huge revenue - because BTW there's no way it can be repaired.
So I don't think contractual ramifications weighs much in that context
On the other hand blowing up the pipe means giving up on :
1. blackmailing the europeans if they don't comply to some demands. 2. A huge revenue - because BTW there's no way it can be repaired.
So I don't think contractual ramifications weighs much in that context
Both points are fair, not sure how Putin is thinking.
But from historical perspective, the one thing that outlives wars, is Debt and Contracts. Specially if they are owned by the winner.
But from historical perspective, the one thing that outlives wars, is Debt and Contracts. Specially if they are owned by the winner.
lol, seriously?
They can just tear up the contract, what's everyone going to do, there's a war on.
In any case, Russia could 'turn the gas off' by having 'irrepairable turbine failures' or various other technicalities.
In any case, Russia could 'turn the gas off' by having 'irrepairable turbine failures' or various other technicalities.
[deleted]
I really don't know why this is a question at this point because it's obvious that it was a NATO country at America's behest.
What was doubtful about the Hersh article?
Most things, but mostly by omission. For some examples: https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-chall...
That article is persistent criticism, but it only dilutes aruguments instead of showing counter evidence. The arguments reduce to, "it's complicated, we're on your team, he's just wrong, trust us."
This version is very convenient.
If Russia loses the war then it was false flag attack by Russia. Russia will pay.
If Ukraine loses the war, then it is terrorist nazi state, who fooled Western governments and blew up German Infrastructure. Ukraine will pay.
Either way it's not US elites blowing up they allies' infrastructure to capture EU gas market and to increase dependence of EU from US.
If Russia loses the war then it was false flag attack by Russia. Russia will pay.
If Ukraine loses the war, then it is terrorist nazi state, who fooled Western governments and blew up German Infrastructure. Ukraine will pay.
Either way it's not US elites blowing up they allies' infrastructure to capture EU gas market and to increase dependence of EU from US.
diimdeep(1)
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 TurkeyI'm not entirely convinced by the arguments in the video, but I don't think those other pipelines are a strong counterargument either, perhaps the opposite. Let me explain.
Let's say you believe (a) that Germany desperately has to buy gas from Russia in order to survive the winter (not an entirely unreasonable believe back then), and (b) that it's possible for Germany to use its influence to pressure Ukraine into some kind of Russia-friendly peace deal (as has in fact happened after Russia conquered the Krim in 2014). Then forcing Germany to have that gas delivered through the active warzone in Ukraine sounds like a good bet to make (b) happen very quickly.
It didn't work out that way, but there would be an internal logic to this.
Let's say you believe (a) that Germany desperately has to buy gas from Russia in order to survive the winter (not an entirely unreasonable believe back then), and (b) that it's possible for Germany to use its influence to pressure Ukraine into some kind of Russia-friendly peace deal (as has in fact happened after Russia conquered the Krim in 2014). Then forcing Germany to have that gas delivered through the active warzone in Ukraine sounds like a good bet to make (b) happen very quickly.
It didn't work out that way, but there would be an internal logic to this.
Nobody ever talks about all those other pipelines.
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.
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.
Arguably, these questions only point more fingers at Russia.
Hardly needed to blow it up to stop supplying them.
Plausible deniability on who blew up the pipeline allows invocation of force majeure clauses in delivery contracts.
There's another angle on this which is that it's a signal from Putin that there's no going back. In other words, by removing the pipeline from operation, overthrowing him would not yield any benefit to any new regime. Any factions within Russia who were thinking of doing so and getting back to business as usual were suddenly silenced.
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"
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"
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.
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.
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.
>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."
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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
It's not a very clear signal though, since there is so much debate and uncertainty over who did it.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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-chall...
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-chall...
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.
How’d he do on the Novichok poisoning of Sergei Skripal?
https://www.science.org/content/article/covid-19-origins-mis...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
Propaganda does indeed work, however it is working in the opposite direction to that which you are implying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
Propaganda does indeed work, however it is working in the opposite direction to that which you are implying.
It works on most people and in all directions.
The fact you're whipping out science.org and Wikipedia links, looking triumphantly and self-satisfied at your apparently water-tight arguments is really the perfect demonstration. How could you loose, after all you are on the side of The Science.
The fact you're whipping out science.org and Wikipedia links, looking triumphantly and self-satisfied at your apparently water-tight arguments is really the perfect demonstration. How could you loose, after all you are on the side of The Science.
> "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.
Once you stop treating Russia like a monolith prone to only rational geopolitical moves, suddenly motives are everywhere.