Nordstream sabotage

[steve_bank]

In the news Norwegian oil and gas profits have skyrocketed.

Maybe it was those pesky Norwegians.

 

[steve_bank]

Maybe the Russians on the ship bombed the wrong pipeleine.

Twice?

A joke. The old Cold War American stereotype of the inept hapless Russian, which apparantly has some truth to it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A journalist friend just explained to me that Russia shouldn't be seen as a monolith and rational actor. Russia is ruled by gangster coalitions all vying for more power and control to their group. It's always been a balancing act for Putin to keep them, sort of, working toward the same goal. But they're all only out for themselves, which can lead to pretty bizarre behaviours from the Russian side.

My friend pointed out the folly of comparing Putin with Stalin. Putin isn't even close to Stalin's degree of power and respect in Russia.

My friend thinks Putin's grip on power might be slipping. Aparently Putin has just been on a diplomatic tour of Asia. The meagre results of it is seen by other powerful Russians as a personal catastrophe for Putin, and he now has to fight internally to stay in power.

I thought it was interesting. Of course somewhat speculative. Still illuminating IMHO

 

[steve_bank]

A journalist friend just explained to me that Russia shouldn't be seen as a monolith and rational actor. Russia is ruled by gangster coalitions all vying for more power and control to their group. It's always been a balancing act for Putin to keep them, sort of, working toward the same goal. But they're all only out for themselves, which can lead to pretty bizarre behaviours from the Russian side.

My friend pointed out the folly of comparing Putin with Stalin. Putin isn't even close to Stalin's degree of power and respect in Russia.

My friend thinks Putin's grip on power might be slipping. Aparently Putin has just been on a diplomatic tour of Asia. The meagre results of it is seen by other powerful Russians as a personal catastrophe for Putin, and he now has to fight internally to stay in power.

I thought it was interesting. Of course somewhat speculative. Still illuminating IMHO

Maybe Putin should put bars on his windows and nail them shut?

 

[Hermit]

Maybe some conclusive evidence concerning whodunnit will surface one day. Until then we can only speculate. Here is my take on the matter:

Russia has nothing to gain by blowing up its gas pipelines. In fact, it would deprive itself of a bargaining chip. Since the Nordstream pipelines have been sabotaged Putin can no longer say something like "If you cancel the sanctions and stop supplying weapons to Ukraine, we will resume supplying gas to Europe." With winter coming some European NATO members, especially Germany, may be tempted.

Others, however, stand to gain from ensuring Russia does not have the ability to declare the "technical difficulties" have been eliminated and reopen the pipelines' valves. They are the owners of alternative sources of gas supplies. And manufacturers of weapons systems. Politicians are bought. They'll say "In the national interest..."

Then there is Biden on 7 February this year:

During a joint news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, President Biden is asked about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." When asked how, the president says, "I promise you, we will be able do that."

As for not wanting to blackmail, don't make me laugh. From WaPo:

“In the face of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country, to protect Russia and our people, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal,” Putin warned. “This is not a bluff,” he said, in a clear reference to Russia’s nuclear capabilities.

“I will emphasize this again: with all the means at our disposal,” he added.

This threat is blackmail in my book.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a hard time seeing Russia doing this--blowing up the pipeline means they just destroyed the carrot of offering to resume gas sales if we let them have a bite of Ukraine. (Now, I could see some faction doing this to hurt Putin.) If they did it what are they hoping to gain? I only see loss.

As for who did it--any ship could have simply tossed a bomb overboard when it went past. While there are some two-bit nations that might not be able to have done it I would think any major player could. It wouldn't take a warship, a merchant ship can perfectly well shove something overboard.

 

[Hermit]

I have a hard time seeing Russia doing this--blowing up the pipeline means they just destroyed the carrot of offering to resume gas sales if we let them have a bite of Ukraine. (Now, I could see some faction doing this to hurt Putin.) If they did it what are they hoping to gain? I only see loss.

As for who did it--any ship could have simply tossed a bomb overboard when it went past. While there are some two-bit nations that might not be able to have done it I would think any major player could. It wouldn't take a warship, a merchant ship can perfectly well shove something overboard.

Considering the pipeline is somewhere between 80 and 110 metres below the surface and difficulties calculating where currents might take the explosive device, I think the operation involved a submarine, a motorised camera-equipped and remotely controlled bomb or both, but yes, it would have been in Russia's best interest to keep Nordstream operational.

Cynical me speculates that some NATO member is responsible, motivated by a desire to remove the temptation of other members [cough] Germany [cough] to come to agree to some sort of a compromise with Russia in order to keep their population(s) warm in the approaching winter.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's got to be Russia because they are bad guys.

I mean it is possible that German dependence on Russian fuel would make Germany break ranks against a "unified" NATO effort. Bombing this pipeline would mean that Germany no longer has access to Russian fuel so therefore no longer has a reason to reconcile with Russia.

Therefore Russia did it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nordstream 1 & 2 was mostly built with European money. From all over Europe. As well as Russia. But most of the money came from European banks. They want a return on their investment. It's owned jointly. Gazprom has a 51% share. But the rest is European power companies. So the Europeans aren't going to blow it. And not to point out the obvious, but there's a spigot on the German side. If they want less gas they can just turn it off. They don't need to blow it up.

While USA has an incentive to blow it, it would be idiotic for USA to attack Nordstream, since it risks turning all of Europe against them. If their goal is to keep Russia out of Ukraine, they will want Europe on their side. USA does NOT want to be in a situation where EU allies with Russia against USA. And that's a risk if USA is too heavy handed.

Europe is in a bit of a pickle. If they abandon the Nordstream pipes there's a lot of invested money that we'll never get to see. Europe wants Russia to retreat out of Ukraine so that gas exports can resume. And it'll be business as usual. Europe does not want the Russian gas export to stop. It's too much money on the table. So no European country would blow the pipes.

Since the European sanctions against Russia started Russia has been coming up with stupid excuses to limit gas exports to Europe. They say they want to keep the exports going, but stuff just keeps coming up. Earlier it was routine maintenance. And now there's sabotage against it. That's very suspicious.

What about non-state entities? Well... there's just been covid. And we're heading full speed ahead into a recession. So whatever non-state entities who have the power to do this, they will want the war in Ukraine to stop soon because they're worried about the state of their finances, going forward. This is true for everybody on the planet. Only countries are resilient enough not to care.

The more I read about this the more Russia seems obviously guilty

 

[Hermit]

Nordstream 1 & 2 was mostly built with European money. From all over Europe. As well as Russia. But most of the money came from European banks. They want a return on their investment. It's owned jointly. Gazprom has a 51% share. But the rest is European power companies. So the Europeans aren't going to blow it. And not to point out the obvious, but there's a spigot on the German side. If they want less gas they can just turn it off. They don't need to blow it up.

While USA has an incentive to blow it, it would be idiotic for USA to attack Nordstream, since it risks turning all of Europe against them. If their goal is to keep Russia out of Ukraine, they will want Europe on their side. USA does NOT want to be in a situation where EU allies with Russia against USA. And that's a risk if USA is too heavy handed.

Europe is in a bit of a pickle. If they abandon the Nordstream pipes there's a lot of invested money that we'll never get to see. Europe wants Russia to retreat out of Ukraine so that gas exports can resume. And it'll be business as usual. Europe does not want the Russian gas export to stop. It's too much money on the table. So no European country would blow the pipes.

Since the European sanctions against Russia started Russia has been coming up with stupid excuses to limit gas exports to Europe. They say they want to keep the exports going, but stuff just keeps coming up. Earlier it was routine maintenance. And now there's sabotage against it. That's very suspicious.

What about non-state entities? Well... there's just been covid. And we're heading full speed ahead into a recession. So whatever non-state entities who have the power to do this, they will want the war in Ukraine to stop soon because they're worried about the state of their finances, going forward. This is true for everybody on the planet. Only countries are resilient enough not to care.

The more I read about this the more Russia seems obviously guilty

Apologies for repeating much of what I have posted earlier, but since you have not reacted to any of it I feel it is appropriate to do so.

1) Nordstream 1 & 2 were not mostly built with European money. Even if they were it is the equity in the projects that matters. You noted Russia's Gazprom owns 51% of Nord Stream. The other four investors, Germany's Wintershall Dea (15.5%), E.ON, an international investor-owned energy company (15.5%), N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, a Dutch natural gas infrastructure and transportation company (9%) and ENGIE, a French multinational utility company (9%) are bit players in comparison. Incidentally, ENGIE has already written off €987 million of its investment in Nord Stream as a dead loss in April 2022. It undoubtedly hurt, but with a market capitalisation of €29.02 billion (after the writeoff) that represents only a 3.4% reduction of its assets.

In equity terms Russia has the most to lose. That makes it the least likely to sabotage the Nord Stream pipelines.

2) As I mentioned twice already, by sabotaging the pipeline Russia would have thrown away a major bargaining chip. Russia has nothing to gain by blowing up its gas pipelines. In fact, it would deprive itself of a bargaining chip. Putin can no longer say something like "If you cancel the sanctions and stop supplying weapons to Ukraine, we will resume supplying gas to Europe." With winter coming some European NATO members, especially Germany, may be tempted.

That is another reason making it unlikely for Russia having committed the sabotage.

3) Others, however, stand to gain from ensuring Russia does not have the ability to declare the "technical difficulties" have been eliminated and reopen the pipelines' valves. They are the owners of alternative sources of gas supplies. And manufacturers of weapons systems. Politicians are bought. They'll say "In the national interest..."

4) It only takes one entity to commit the sabotage. In that regard it bears repeating what I have written in an earlier post:

During a joint news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, President Biden is asked about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." When asked how, the president says, "I promise you, we will be able do that."
[/QUOTE]


US President Biden's blunt and unambiguous statement pretty much constitutes a smoking gun, don't you think? To say the least, it makes a mockery out of your opinion that "it would be idiotic for USA to attack Nordstream, since it risks turning all of Europe against them".​

As for Putin not wanting to engage in blackmail, don't make me laugh. From WaPo:

“In the face of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country, to protect Russia and our people, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal,” Putin warned. “This is not a bluff,” he said, in a clear reference to Russia’s nuclear capabilities.

“I will emphasize this again: with all the means at our disposal,” he added.

This threat is blackmail in my book.


Pending actual evidence surfacing one day all of us are speculating about who is responsible for committing the sabotage, but your speculation is the least probable scenario.

 

[Jayjay]

Nordstream 1 & 2 was mostly built with European money. From all over Europe. As well as Russia. But most of the money came from European banks. They want a return on their investment. It's owned jointly. Gazprom has a 51% share. But the rest is European power companies. So the Europeans aren't going to blow it. And not to point out the obvious, but there's a spigot on the German side. If they want less gas they can just turn it off. They don't need to blow it up.

While USA has an incentive to blow it, it would be idiotic for USA to attack Nordstream, since it risks turning all of Europe against them. If their goal is to keep Russia out of Ukraine, they will want Europe on their side. USA does NOT want to be in a situation where EU allies with Russia against USA. And that's a risk if USA is too heavy handed.

Europe is in a bit of a pickle. If they abandon the Nordstream pipes there's a lot of invested money that we'll never get to see. Europe wants Russia to retreat out of Ukraine so that gas exports can resume. And it'll be business as usual. Europe does not want the Russian gas export to stop. It's too much money on the table. So no European country would blow the pipes.

Since the European sanctions against Russia started Russia has been coming up with stupid excuses to limit gas exports to Europe. They say they want to keep the exports going, but stuff just keeps coming up. Earlier it was routine maintenance. And now there's sabotage against it. That's very suspicious.

What about non-state entities? Well... there's just been covid. And we're heading full speed ahead into a recession. So whatever non-state entities who have the power to do this, they will want the war in Ukraine to stop soon because they're worried about the state of their finances, going forward. This is true for everybody on the planet. Only countries are resilient enough not to care.

The more I read about this the more Russia seems obviously guilty

Apologies for repeating much of what I have posted earlier, but since you have not reacted to any of it I feel it is appropriate to do so.

1) Nordstream 1 & 2 were not mostly built with European money. Even if they were it is the equity in the projects that matters. You noted Russia's Gazprom owns 51% of Nord Stream. The other four investors, Germany's Wintershall Dea (15.5%), E.ON, an international investor-owned energy company (15.5%), N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, a Dutch natural gas infrastructure and transportation company (9%) and ENGIE, a French multinational utility company (9%) are bit players in comparison. Incidentally, ENGIE has already written off €987 million of its investment in Nord Stream as a dead loss in April 2022. It undoubtedly hurt, but with a market capitalisation of €29.02 billion (after the writeoff) that represents only a 3.4% reduction of its assets.​

​

In equity terms Russia has the most to lose. That makes it the least likely to sabotage the Nord Stream pipelines.​

​

2) As I mentioned twice already, by sabotaging the pipeline Russia would have thrown away a major bargaining chip. Russia has nothing to gain by blowing up its gas pipelines. In fact, it would deprive itself of a bargaining chip. Putin can no longer say something like "If you cancel the sanctions and stop supplying weapons to Ukraine, we will resume supplying gas to Europe." With winter coming some European NATO members, especially Germany, may be tempted.​

​

That is another reason making it unlikely for Russia having committed the sabotage.​

I disagree.

Russia had little to lose because it had already cut the gas to Germany on a pretext of technical problems. Russia had tried to use that bargaining chip, but it failed. Germany clearly wasn't interested. I think Putin has come to the realization that the war isn't going to end soon, and the gas pipe is useless for now. And even more useless later when Germany has new LNG terminals and other options.

On the other hand there are some benefits to Russia: It can tell its domestic audience that it was the west, playing into the false narrative of the war being NATO against Russia. It can send a message that other pipelines in the Baltic or elsewhere maybe sabotaged also. And like Harry Bosch brought up in an earlier post, it's like Cortez burning his own ships to ensure that there's no dissent among the ranks. There is just now one way forward, and that's war.

​

3) Others, however, stand to gain from ensuring Russia does not have the ability to declare the "technical difficulties" have been eliminated and reopen the pipelines' valves. They are the owners of alternative sources of gas supplies. And manufacturers of weapons systems. Politicians are bought. They'll say "In the national interest..."​

​

4) It only takes one entity to commit the sabotage. In that regard it bears repeating what I have written in an earlier post:​

​

During a joint news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, President Biden is asked about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." When asked how, the president says, "I promise you, we will be able do that."​

​

​

​

US President Biden's blunt and unambiguous statement pretty much constitutes a smoking gun, don't you think? To say the least, it makes a mockery out of your opinion that "it would be idiotic for USA to attack Nordstream, since it risks turning all of Europe against them".​

That was before Germany said that it would not open Nordstream 2. That kind of took away the need for Biden to sabotage anything. There has been no indication that Germany was about to buckle to Putin's demands, so it would be really odd for US to order the pipe to be sabotaged now of all times.

I think Biden was referring to diplomatic means, as well as sanctioning companies involved with Nordstream 2, not sabotage.

The cost for US if such sabotage ever became public knowledge would be huge. And the US can't keep anything secret for long, so it would come out eventually. The risk is too high compared to the benefit.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nordstream 1 & 2 was mostly built with European money. From all over Europe. As well as Russia. But most of the money came from European banks. They want a return on their investment. It's owned jointly. Gazprom has a 51% share. But the rest is European power companies. So the Europeans aren't going to blow it. And not to point out the obvious, but there's a spigot on the German side. If they want less gas they can just turn it off. They don't need to blow it up.

While USA has an incentive to blow it, it would be idiotic for USA to attack Nordstream, since it risks turning all of Europe against them. If their goal is to keep Russia out of Ukraine, they will want Europe on their side. USA does NOT want to be in a situation where EU allies with Russia against USA. And that's a risk if USA is too heavy handed.

Europe is in a bit of a pickle. If they abandon the Nordstream pipes there's a lot of invested money that we'll never get to see. Europe wants Russia to retreat out of Ukraine so that gas exports can resume. And it'll be business as usual. Europe does not want the Russian gas export to stop. It's too much money on the table. So no European country would blow the pipes.

Since the European sanctions against Russia started Russia has been coming up with stupid excuses to limit gas exports to Europe. They say they want to keep the exports going, but stuff just keeps coming up. Earlier it was routine maintenance. And now there's sabotage against it. That's very suspicious.

What about non-state entities? Well... there's just been covid. And we're heading full speed ahead into a recession. So whatever non-state entities who have the power to do this, they will want the war in Ukraine to stop soon because they're worried about the state of their finances, going forward. This is true for everybody on the planet. Only countries are resilient enough not to care.

The more I read about this the more Russia seems obviously guilty

Apologies for repeating much of what I have posted earlier, but since you have not reacted to any of it I feel it is appropriate to do so.

1) Nordstream 1 & 2 were not mostly built with European money. Even if they were it is the equity in the projects that matters. You noted Russia's Gazprom owns 51% of Nord Stream. The other four investors, Germany's Wintershall Dea (15.5%), E.ON, an international investor-owned energy company (15.5%), N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, a Dutch natural gas infrastructure and transportation company (9%) and ENGIE, a French multinational utility company (9%) are bit players in comparison. Incidentally, ENGIE has already written off €987 million of its investment in Nord Stream as a dead loss in April 2022. It undoubtedly hurt, but with a market capitalisation of €29.02 billion (after the writeoff) that represents only a 3.4% reduction of its assets.​

​

In equity terms Russia has the most to lose. That makes it the least likely to sabotage the Nord Stream pipelines.​

The European power companies have market competition and care about profits. Gazprom doesn't care that much about money. For Russians it's all about power and who controls the resources. Gazprom does not have their power within Russia threatened by a temporary fall in export profits. Within Russia Gazprom is as powerful with or without Nordstream 2.

Russia is not a single entity acting in concert. Players within Russia can act on their own initiative to gain internal benefits.

​

2) As I mentioned twice already, by sabotaging the pipeline Russia would have thrown away a major bargaining chip. Russia has nothing to gain by blowing up its gas pipelines. In fact, it would deprive itself of a bargaining chip. Putin can no longer say something like "If you cancel the sanctions and stop supplying weapons to Ukraine, we will resume supplying gas to Europe." With winter coming some European NATO members, especially Germany, may be tempted.​

​

That is another reason making it unlikely for Russia having committed the sabotage.​

This sabotage hasn't destroyed Nordstream 2. All it does is pause gas exports for a while. They still have the bargaining chip. Since Gazprom are the ones in charge of maintenance they can say they are fixing it until that time when Russia wants to export gas again, and then it'll be magically fixed.

Remember that all information we have on Nordstream 2 and the damage comes from Gazprom. Itself. The only independent information we have are pictures of gasbubbles on the surface reported in the news.

Gazprom are also the people in charge of protecting the gas pipes.

Gazprom are in an excellent position to invent whatever bullshit story they want about the damage to the pipes.

​

3) Others, however, stand to gain from ensuring Russia does not have the ability to declare the "technical difficulties" have been eliminated and reopen the pipelines' valves. They are the owners of alternative sources of gas supplies. And manufacturers of weapons systems. Politicians are bought. They'll say "In the national interest..."​

True. I still doubt anybody else would do this.

​

4) It only takes one entity to commit the sabotage. In that regard it bears repeating what I have written in an earlier post:​

​

During a joint news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, President Biden is asked about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." When asked how, the president says, "I promise you, we will be able do that."​

​

US President Biden's blunt and unambiguous statement pretty much constitutes a smoking gun, don't you think? To say the least, it makes a mockery out of your opinion that "it would be idiotic for USA to attack Nordstream, since it risks turning all of Europe against them".​

Sure. But USA's hegemonic power over Europe/the world will only last if they play nice with other world powers. If they're caught sabotaging Nordstream, it's not a good look.


As for Putin not wanting to engage in blackmail, don't make me laugh. From WaPo:

“In the face of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country, to protect Russia and our people, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal,” Putin warned. “This is not a bluff,” he said, in a clear reference to Russia’s nuclear capabilities.

“I will emphasize this again: with all the means at our disposal,” he added.

This threat is blackmail in my book.

Yes, Von Blofeld... I mean.. Putin does an excellent job looking like he's pure evil.

Pending actual evidence surfacing one day all of us are speculating about who is responsible for committing the sabotage, but your speculation is the least probable scenario.

Ehe... Gazprom are the ones doing the investigation. And they're the ones sitting on all the data and all the evidence. Good luck with getting anything true out of those guys. Even if they would tell the truth, how could we know it is, and why would we trust them? There's no scenario here where we will learn anything useful. No matter what information surfaces later we'll stay in the dark.

But I'm willing to bet that any findings from the investigation will sound a hell of a lot like Russian propaganda. Just a qualified guess

 

[Harry Bosch]

It's got to be Russia because they are bad guys.

I mean it is possible that German dependence on Russian fuel would make Germany break ranks against a "unified" NATO effort. Bombing this pipeline would mean that Germany no longer has access to Russian fuel so therefore no longer has a reason to reconcile with Russia.

Therefore Russia did it.

Yep, when you invade another country and blow up its infrastructure and kill and torture its civilians you are an asshole bad guy. Agree with you there. It dosn't make a lot of sense to me that Nato would blow up the pipeline. Russia has made its central policy to break up Nato and cause division in Europe. Russia is the one that cut off Germany months ago.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It doesn't make sense for the US to blow up the thing that might make Germany break ranks and cause disunity among the NATO members. Since it is in the US interest to ensure NATO members stand together, they have no reason to blow up anything that might cause disunity.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It doesn't make sense for the US to blow up the thing that might make Germany break ranks and cause disunity among the NATO members. Since it is in the US interest to ensure NATO members stand together, they have no reason to blow up anything that might cause disunity.

Who benefits in an energy war? What country has consistently threatened to use higher costs to destroy economies?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It doesn't make sense for the US to blow up the thing that might make Germany break ranks and cause disunity among the NATO members. Since it is in the US interest to ensure NATO members stand together, they have no reason to blow up anything that might cause disunity.

Who benefits in an energy war? What country has consistently threatened to use higher costs to destroy economies?

Many countries do that. Who has led an embargo against Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran? Russia, or course.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It doesn't make sense for the US to blow up the thing that might make Germany break ranks and cause disunity among the NATO members. Since it is in the US interest to ensure NATO members stand together, they have no reason to blow up anything that might cause disunity.

Who benefits in an energy war? What country has consistently threatened to use higher costs to destroy economies?

Many countries do that. Who has led an embargo against Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran? Russia, or course.

Personally, I've always been against the embargo against Cuba and Venezuela. They aren't invading other countries. But any country that is directly invading another country or that is helping it militarily (Iran and Russia) should be boycotted by the civilized world. Not just the west.

The issue here is who benefits from higher energy expenses? I'll give you a hint, have you checked your 401k lately?

 

[Hermit]

Russia had little to lose because it had already cut the gas to Germany on a pretext of technical problems.

Russia lost a valuable bargaining chip. It had the choice of announcing the alleged technical problems had been eliminated the moment Germany agreed to relax or abolish economic sanctions altogether and/or do likewise with military support of Ukraine. This choice chip was nixed by the sabotage. Between now and at least the end of the year Russia cannot dangle that carrot in front of Chancellor Scholz. That is a big loss.

Russia had tried to use that bargaining chip, but it failed. Germany clearly wasn't interested.

Germany's decision, like all decisions, can be reversed. If Scholz is unaware of the fact that come the next election the CDU/CSU, the FDP and the AfD will hammer him and his party, the SPD, for leaving Germany freezing in the 2022/3 winter and exacerbating the country's inflation rate because he decided to not make a deal with Russia, someone is going to make him well aware of it. In order to remain the dominant partner after the next election the SPD could well be become convinced that its lack of interest in making a deal is a mistake. That's simply Realpolitik. It rules.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Russia had little to lose because it had already cut the gas to Germany on a pretext of technical problems.

Russia lost a valuable bargaining chip. It had the choice of announcing the alleged technical problems had been eliminated the moment Germany agreed to relax or abolish economic sanctions altogether and/or do likewise with military support of Ukraine. This choice chip was nixed by the sabotage. Between now and at least the end of the year Russia cannot dangle that carrot in front of Chancellor Scholz. That is a big loss.

Russia had tried to use that bargaining chip, but it failed. Germany clearly wasn't interested.

Germany's decision, like all decisions, can be reversed. If Scholz is unaware of the fact that come the next election the CDU/CSU, the FDP and the AfD will hammer him and his party, the SPD, for leaving Germany freezing in the 2022/3 winter and exacerbating the country's inflation rate because he decided to not make a deal with Russia, someone is going to make him well aware of it. In order to remain the dominant partner after the next election the SPD could well be become convinced that its lack of interest in making a deal is a mistake. That's simply Realpolitik. It rules.

First off, I'm willing to say that we don't have enough evidence on who did it. I'm willing to wait to decide until there is more evidence. But to me, sowing chaos in the west through higher prices, inflation, and recession benefits one side, hurts the west. But let's wait until more evidence comes out.

Secondly, I'd be stunned if Germany or any of the European countries would trust Russia again. They'd be fools to trust Russia again.

 

[Patooka]

"Everyone has a motive" is an oversimplification that makes the whole affair prone to conspiracy theories.

True. There is also no verifiable evidence made publicly anywhere. Which means everything in this thread so far has been unsubstantiated speculation. Which is as equally as unproductive as "everyone has a motive". To the best of my knowledge there isn't even any confirmation that this is sabotage.

I just want to make very clear there is a difference between saying, "It could be anything, anyone has a motive etc", and saying "we literally don't know enough to speculate about anything at the moment". The video I linked to opines the latter, not the former.