Nordstream sabotage

[Hermit]

Gazprom doesn't care that much about money.

Russia’s economy is highly dependent on exports of commodities with revenues from sales of crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas accounting for about a half of Russia’s federal budget. Natural gas exports contributed US$55.5 billion to it last year. You might think this is not that much to care about, but Russia's government, which owns half of Gazprom, will disagr

This sabotage hasn't destroyed Nordstream 2. All it does is pause gas exports for a while. They still have the bargaining chip.

A while being some time next year. Russia is deprived of its bargaining chip until then. I wonder why it would want to deprive itself of it for any length of time.

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.

Try national interest and profit.

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.

Hegemony is determined by military might rather than how nicely a nation acts. The countries behind the USSR's iron curtain should be able to inform you about that. So will the nations that were subject to the UK's colonial rule in the 19th century. I dare say most of the world will be too in not many decades from now when China gets to the top of the pecking order.

When the French Prime Minister Pierre Laval asked Joseph Stalin in 1935 if the Vatican could help countering the increasing threat of Nazism, Stalin replied: "The Pope! How many divisions has he got?" Stalin was a realist.

 

[Hermit]

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.

Agreed. I said as much on at least two occasions.

But to me, sowing chaos in the west through higher prices, inflation, and recession benefits one side, hurts the west.

Yes, but that has been achieved by invoking "technical problems". Sabotage adds nothing except removing Russia's bargaining chip.

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.

So would I. In fact I regard any countries who would trust trust any other country as stunningly naïve. But now we're off-topic. The issue is speculation about who sabotaged the Nord Stream pipelines east of Denmark.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Gazprom doesn't care that much about money.

Russia’s economy is highly dependent on exports of commodities with revenues from sales of crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas accounting for about a half of Russia’s federal budget. Natural gas exports contributed US$55.5 billion to it last year. You might think this is not that much to care about, but Russia's government, which owns half of Gazprom, will disagr

Gazprom is still what pulls in most cash, within Russia. Even if Gazprom would only supply power to domestic customers they'd still be the most dominant players in Russia.

You're thinking as if Gazprom is a western company that has to make shareholders happy. They're not. I have Russian friends who live in Russia. I have asked them what they think. About half of all adult Russians have vivid memories of living behind the iron curtain. To them this is just going back to normal. The sanctions won't bite them. Russians are very cynical, resilient with low expectations.

What sanctions do is that it means that Russian oligarchs will have to have smaller yacht. That's about it. That's nothing that will topple a government.

This sabotage hasn't destroyed Nordstream 2. All it does is pause gas exports for a while. They still have the bargaining chip.

A while being some time next year. Russia is deprived of its bargaining chip until then. I wonder why it would want to deprive itself of it for any length of time.

I don't think they are. They're punishing Germany for being disobedient. Germany is a functioning democracy. If gas prices go through the roof that will impact voters. German politicians know this. People only have rock solid principals if they have nothing to lose.

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.

Try national interest and profit.

Less gas means higher gas prices.

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.

Hegemony is determined by military might rather than how nicely a nation acts. The countries behind the USSR's iron curtain should be able to inform you about that. So will the nations that were subject to the UK's colonial rule in the 19th century. I dare say most of the world will be too in not many decades from now when China gets to the top of the pecking order.

When the French Prime Minister Pierre Laval asked Joseph Stalin in 1935 if the Vatican could help countering the increasing threat of Nazism, Stalin replied: "The Pope! How many divisions has he got?" Stalin was a realist.

The Catholic church outlasted the USSR. I guess he wasn't particularly realistic after all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Gazprom doesn't care that much about money.

Russia’s economy is highly dependent on exports of commodities with revenues from sales of crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas accounting for about a half of Russia’s federal budget. Natural gas exports contributed US$55.5 billion to it last year. You might think this is not that much to care about, but Russia's government, which owns half of Gazprom, will disagr

There are two angles of consequences and motives here.

This would hurt Russia financially. It would make absolutely no sense to blow up a line that they can use to make money.

However, this can also send a message to western Europe, saying that Russia feels that the West has gone to far and Russia is officially pulling away from them, permanently. Meant to scare the West, as less gas for the winter will have real consequences for those in Europe.

Who gains the most from this? Well, it depends on what the message of this was. I'm willing to bet that Intelligence has a good read on who did what. I'm not particularly seeing a positive vibe regardless who did this.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I wonder to what extend this pipeline is damaged. When the gas pressure dropped enough, saltwater flooded in. Is the entire pipeline flooded? I doubt it. I assume there are isolation valves that automatically set when the gas pressure drops enough.
So how long until it could transfer gas again?

https://www.reuters.com/business/en...ine-may-use-repair-equipment-pool-2022-09-29/

 

[DrZoidberg]

Poland is a contender. It seems like Ukraine and Poland were always opposed to Nordstream 2 because it cut into their revenues. They were selling gas to Germany. Poland has a really strong incentive to blow it up and is also in a geographical position to do it, without much fuss.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

Not really. Scholz had repeatedly resisted Russian offers, even to open NS2. And Germany has been aware of the winter coming for a long time and has prepared for it. It won't come as a surprise that makes Scholz suddenly take a 180 turn.

Looking past this winter, the sabotage doesn't really even matter. Pipes can be fixed, it probably wouldn't take more than a month.

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.

Next German federal election is in 2025. And I'm sure that Scholz has thought about the implications, and still decided to not give in to Russian blackmail.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I still think it's Russia though. Russias modus operandi seems to be to do outrageous shit and then count on their troll army to spin it. In order to split his opposition. Putin has weaponized Facebook. We already know this. He's done it for years now, keeps getting caught, but it keeps paying off, so he keeps going.

Friends who work with IT security have pointed out how suspicious it was that the Biden anti-Nordstream speech got hammered out over all social media. Just like all prior social media spin attacks they originate from just a few accounts.

They build up trust by making sensible posts over a long time, then suddenly go all conspiracy theory. Lots of accounts all at once.

No matter how dumb this strategy seems. It does work. And has been used in the past.

It reminds me of the Nazis using radio just relentlessly telling lies. Their political opposition had too high moral standards to stoop to such levels of a behaviour. It takes a while for a culture to build up cultural resilience to a new media phenomenon. So the Nazis won.

Our cultures still seem be struggling with developing a resistance to fake news and Internet trolling.

This post right now reads like a conspiracy theory written by a troll. I get the irony of that.

So while Russia blowing up Nordstream and blaming USA sounds like the dumbest of all conspiracies, Putin's earlier attempts like this have often worked. Why would he stop now?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No matter how dumb this strategy seems. It does work. And has been used in the past.

Dumb strategies and conspiracy theories work on dumb people and those of us who are largely insecure. How's that for conspiracy thinking at its finest?

 

[RVonse]

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.

I've never heard so much apologizing in all my life for a US president!!! Biden said he was going to blow up the pipe and it certainly looks like he simply blew up the pipe like he said he was going to do.....case closed. Perhaps other countries had motives but how many other leaders said they were going to stop this pipe? You could go to court with such said video evidence and probably get a convinction on Biden... even in criminal court!

Biden flaps his mouth almost as bad as Trump admitting a lot of other wrong doing during his presidency as well. But unlike Trump he has ample apologists like yourself and others.... so his nose always remains clean.

 

[Harry Bosch]

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.

Agreed. I said as much on at least two occasions.

But to me, sowing chaos in the west through higher prices, inflation, and recession benefits one side, hurts the west.

Yes, but that has been achieved by invoking "technical problems". Sabotage adds nothing except removing Russia's bargaining chip.

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.

So would I. In fact I regard any countries who would trust trust any other country as stunningly naïve. But now we're off-topic. The issue is speculation about who sabotaged the Nord Stream pipelines east of Denmark.

I keep hearing that Putin is angling for a bargaining chip. He wants to negotiate. He wants a win win for both sides. Where is the evidence for this? I don't think he gives a shit about bargaining! He's just trying to save his ass.

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.

I've never heard so much apologizing in all my life for a US president!!! Biden said he was going to blow up the pipe and it certainly looks like he simply blew up the pipe like he said he was going to do.....case closed. Perhaps other countries had motives but how many other leaders said they were going to stop this pipe? You could go to court with such said video evidence and probably get a convinction on Biden... even in criminal court!

Biden flaps his mouth almost as bad as Trump admitting a lot of other wrong doing during his presidency as well. But unlike Trump he has ample apologists like yourself and others.... so his nose always remains clean.

Good heavens! Trump has no apologists!??? Amigo. Surely you're jesting here!

 

[RVonse]

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.

Agreed. I said as much on at least two occasions.

But to me, sowing chaos in the west through higher prices, inflation, and recession benefits one side, hurts the west.

Yes, but that has been achieved by invoking "technical problems". Sabotage adds nothing except removing Russia's bargaining chip.

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.

So would I. In fact I regard any countries who would trust trust any other country as stunningly naïve. But now we're off-topic. The issue is speculation about who sabotaged the Nord Stream pipelines east of Denmark.

I keep hearing that Putin is angling for a bargaining chip. He wants to negotiate. He wants a win win for both sides. Where is the evidence for this? I don't think he gives a shit about bargaining! He's just trying to save his ass.

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.

I've never heard so much apologizing in all my life for a US president!!! Biden said he was going to blow up the pipe and it certainly looks like he simply blew up the pipe like he said he was going to do.....case closed. Perhaps other countries had motives but how many other leaders said they were going to stop this pipe? You could go to court with such said video evidence and probably get a convinction on Biden... even in criminal court!

Biden flaps his mouth almost as bad as Trump admitting a lot of other wrong doing during his presidency as well. But unlike Trump he has ample apologists like yourself and others.... so his nose always remains clean.

Good heavens! Trump has no apologists!??? Amigo. Surely you're jesting here!

Fair enough. I guess Bush had his apologists during the Iraq war as well. If you like who you elected you become blind and deaf!

 

[zorq]

My prime suspect is Russia too, but I don't actually have any conviction.

Fact: Nord Stream 2 never entered service because Germany was outraged by Russia and refused to use it.
Fact: Germany, recognizing the reckless and dangerous nature of their energy provider, has taken great measures this year to wean themselves off of ALL Russian gas as soon as possible.
Fact: Just like Nord Stream 2, Nord Stream (1) was ALREADY dead infrastructure which would only provide money for Russia for ONE more winter.

Russia doesn't care that Nord Stream is dead because they already recognized the fact that Germany had already killed it. Germany proved to them that it wasn't even useful as a bargaining chip by refusing to flinch when the Russians recently shut it down due to "technical difficulties" or what not.

One last winter's worth of money for Russia isn't that much, and I think it will hurt Europe more than it hurts Russia, especially if vulnerable Germans start freezing to death.

 

[Patooka]

I've never heard so much apologizing in all my life for a US president!!! Biden said he was going to blow up the pipe and it certainly looks like he simply blew up the pipe like he said he was going to do.....case closed.

No he didn't. This is what he said;

“there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”

Which happened. Months ago. Through sanctions. No shots fired. Jesus fucking Christ this isn't hard.

To paraphrase RVonse, I've never seen so much much desperation as I have in trying to make Biden seem even remotely as bad as Trump.

 

[Hermit]

Biden said he was going to blow up the pipe

He did not. What he said was:

"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."

Blowing the pipeline up is not the only means of ending Nord Stream 2. As a matter of fact, it was killed two weeks after Biden's statement when the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz suspended certification of Nord Stream 2 on 22 February 2022 in consequence of Russia's recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics and the deployment of troops in territory held by the DPR and LPR. Nord Stream 2 AG filed for bankruptcy on 1 March 2022.

That said, I do think the sabotage was more likely to have been committed by a NATO member than Russia. The former had more to gain from it than the latter.

In the absence of conclusive evidence, though, that is sheer speculation.

 

[Rhea]

For those reading along, like me, who have not been consuming a lot of news on this, I’m sharing a bit of background that I just looked up to answer some very basic questions like where is the damage, is it NS1 or NS2 or both, etc. Anyway, some basic background:

Nord Stream gas 'sabotage': who's being blamed and why?

Major leaks that suddenly erupted in the Nord Stream gas pipelines that run from Russia to Europe under the Baltic Sea have generated plenty of theories but few clear answers about who or what caused the damage.

www.reuters.com

 

[Elixir]

I do think the sabotage was more likely to have been committed by a NATO member than Russia. The former had more to gain from it than the latter.

Hmmm ... the above implies that both NATO and Russia had something to gain from the pipelines' demise.
Ain't this some kind of kumbaya moment, then?

 

[ZiprHead]

That said, I do think the sabotage was more likely to have been committed by a NATO member than Russia. The former had more to gain from it than the latter.

I disagree. It's not in the interests of the west to have eastern Europe and some parts of western Europe freezing this coming winter. To do so would make them question their resolve in aiding Ukraine. That would only aid Russia. By cutting the supply of gas by an act of sabotage gives Russia plausable deniability and allows speculation that it was done by Biden or another NATO nation.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That said, I do think the sabotage was more likely to have been committed by a NATO member than Russia. The former had more to gain from it than the latter.

I disagree. It's not in the interests of the west to have eastern Europe and some parts of western Europe freezing this coming winter. To do so would make them question their resolve in aiding Ukraine. That would only aid Russia. By cutting the supply of gas by an act of sabotage gives Russia plausable deniability and allows speculation that it was done by Biden or another NATO nation.

And Putin is the one bombing infrastructure in Ukraine. It's simply his style and the Ruskis have the capability. To think a NATO member was responsible is to mightily stick one's head far into the conspiracy rabbit hole.

 

[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.

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.

It was quite a boom. I think they went for lots of explosives rather than great accuracy in positioning.

I do think you might be right about who did it.