Three Nord Stream gas pipelines damaged in one day
reuters.comAuric Goldfinger: Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
-- Ian Fleming
In music:
One note can show good sound.
Two notes can show good intonation.
3 notes can show a sense of rhythm.
Without a doubt US American sabotage.
During the days and weeks leading up to Russia's move into Ukraine, the US rhetorized over and over again about Nord Stream. All the time the main issue was that the EU must not buy LNG from Russia, it must agree to USAs "energy dominance" politics and buy LNG from them and only them.
This is a way to make sure that when winter comes, the EU has nowhere to go for LNG but to the US.
It's getting more and more clear that the one major obstacle to true US hegemony is not Russia or China, it's the EU with its strict principles, laws and regulations, and that the US is working hard to wear down this resistance and force the EU into dependence and coerciveness.
"Without a doubt"
That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.
I wouldn't say that this is a operation for global hegemony or energy dominance. It's simply about preserving political influence in Europe. Unfortunately, I must say, Europe/the EU is not capable of a proper geopolitical strategy. Europe would easily be annihilated by Russian psyops, so in all that misery this brings to the alliance, it's still net positive.
From an EU perspective why would peace and trade with Russia be so bad?
Clearly US psyops are stronger than anything Russia puts out because EU governments have been persuaded to participate in a crusade in Ukraine against their own economic self interests.
Making the EU kowtow to America may be in American interests but it certainly is not in EU interests.
I am not sure when this myth of Russia psyop dominance came from. Only seemed to become a thing after Hillary lost the election and Brexit. More likely source of blame for that falls on endogenous populism in reaction to economic and social changes in the last decade or two. Russia was not responsible for bailing out western banks while real wages stagnated and also was not responsible for widespread immigration and others consequences of globalisation and conflict in the middle east and Africa.
Reality does not correspond to the social media mythology that Russia has some how infiltrated western politics at a significant scale.
> From an EU perspective why would peace and trade with Russia be so bad?
Because Russia every once in a while invades a part of Europe to carve off territory for itself, then holds the rest of the continent hostage by withholding gas during the freezing winter.
Why would you want peace with a country that is just biding its time before it starts it's next war?
Every once and while?
When was the last time Russia invaded the EU?
I didn't say the EU, which has a collective defense treaty similar to that of NATO. I said Europe. And to answer that question:
2014, Ukraine
2008, Georgia
1992, Moldova and Romania
And of course the Soviet Union invading, occupying and brutally oppressing half of Europe after WW2 (including several countries now in the EU and NATO). Or have you forgotten? They haven't.
Well for starters Georgia is not in Europe. It is in asia.
I am not sure what you mean about 1992. If Moldova can be independent why not Transinistra?
Ukraine was subject to a coup and civil war. Right or wrong reacting to a coup is not the same as an unprovoked invasion.
> Ukraine was subject to a coup and civil war.
Until this line it wasn’t clear whether you were deluded or actively pushing propaganda. Thanks for clearing that up.
You always give someone a chance. Once they give the game away, it's no longer worth your time to engage.
Why would doing business with dangerous psychopath be so bad?
After all, we’d just continuously give him money and depend on his services for our wellbeing, choosing to ignore that he kills „some less important people way east”. Nothing to see here.
Maybe the less important people should recognise that they are less important and make peace with their powerful neighbor? When did Ukrainian interests exactly correspond to EU interests? Governments are not charities. What is so important about Ukraine that Germany and France need to suffer for it? Didn't German voters elect their government to put German interests first?
I am speechless. That is the most cynical approach I’ve ever seen. Makes me kinda happy that Germany is loosing its power in EU with every passing day of this war.
I worry that the temptation to defeat Russia is stronger than the desire to end the war. No one wins but many lose.
Gas transfered by pipelines is not LNG (it's lot liquified). That's why you need LNG terminals to deliquify it after sea transportation before putting it in a pipeline.
But the US have limited export capabilities, and Europe is going to turn to Norway, Algeria and Qatar. If it is the US, I would say it's only to destabilize the Putin regime, Russia's economy, to generate protests, and make a coup. But I would wait before making any guess.
This is front page news in Denmark. Prime minister says "hard to imagine it happening by random", just short of declaring it a deliberate attack.
Alphabet agencies working overtime.
The real question is whether it's Cyrillic or Latin.
I vote latin: https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=95
Well clear winner of current sitaution is US, clear loser is Europe/EU and Russia is somewhere in between, but they can sell their gas elsewhere, so what would be point sabotaging own business (though it could be false flag attack).
No, the winner here is clearly Russia.
They wanted to cut the line to pressure the EU into pressuring Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire along existing battle lines.
Cutting production through an "accident" allows them plausible deniability to cut Europe's gas supplies without formally violating the contract and for restoration negotiations if the Ukraine question is settled.
They already had created an "accident" and the gas in Nord Stream 1 was shut off since 31st of August.
Even if that wasn't enough, why would they choose to damage the lines this severely (flooding them with sea water)?
Perhaps to force EU to lessen the sanctions, which are also hitting the gas pipeline operator companies?
They can still supply gas through the Ukraine/POland pipeline (Yamal/Brotherhood).
And I don't think cutting these pipelines changes really anything, they were hardly delivering anything at all, so just destroying pipelines won't really help them plus even if EU caved they can't supply gas because the pipeline is damaged, if they were really relying on nord stream.
Supposedly 350 million dollars worth of gas were lost from nord stream 2. Doesn't seem worth it for a false flag. Plus it eliminates a carrot Russia had for Germany. People need to start thinking critically...
Why then is Russia still pumping gas through a broken pipeline, poisoning the environment of European countries ?
Imagine if it was arabic (to keep the LNG prices up, which everyone in Europe is now buying from the middle east like crazy). That would surely stir some things up.
The last weird assumption like that the west did about middle east was the Iraqi WMD. Look how accurate and disastrous this turns out to be. But yes let's think outside the box.
> Imagine if
> assumption
K.
so much for being covert, they aren't too great their job.
You want it to be overt without being explicit, if it looked like an accident it wouldn't be threatening.
How would you blow up a pipeline without anyone noticing?
If there was a 1-month delay between the explosions, the people claiming it was coordinated would look a lot less credible. Particularly with the presence of large numbers of people with stakes in the outcome who will argue that the reality that makes them happiest is real.
If nobody notices, did you really blow up the pipeline?
I don't think this was some kind of psy op to drive a wedge between NATO countries as there aren't any benefits from that in the current situation. The only situation my tin foil hat could imagine this being useful is in the event of much stronger tension (like the constant threat of using nukes). This would need a coordinated reaction in which distrust could be fatal. For supplying weapons or sanctions that distrust is not doing much as politically Germany and its allies are more or less on the same page.
However, the blown pipes limit the movement of the German government. It is more stable towards protests if a cold winter occurs as there is no option left to appease Russia as the restrictions in the gas sector aren't a product of a revertible decision anymore. Being cold can't be ignored, which a war in Ukraine can be. In addition, any half-baked compromise Russia could offer accompanied by influencing Germany's opinion with gas isn't an option anymore.
In the end, this could even benefit Germany which lacks clear and brave decisions of its leaders. Not deciding if you want to evade the wall you are driving onto right or left eventually leads to crashing into it
how does Russia benefit of destroying those pipelines, though?
It doesn't. Russia's benefit lies in insecurity and control over Europe's energy supply. This operation however reduces their control and influence. In the short term insecurity rises, but this is a one time thing and lasts until solutions are found, which definitely will be found. Gas prices might be higher, but Russia doesn't profit from them, as they can't send gas to Europe anymore and the prices for China aren't influenced.
It benefits however US interests: Germany becomes a more stable partner, no matter how this thing turns out. Currently Russia is blamed, so the German reaction is more severe. In addition, LNG prices are higher, but I don't think that was the main reason for that operation in the first place. Blaming the US, even if their responsibility is certain, in a time of crisis won't happen as a united front against Russia is still needed.
The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that Poland's interests didn't lead to such a operation. They have even more problems with high gas prices than Germany because they don't have long term contracts with Norway.
Rupture of the pipes is visible on seismic recordings: https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/earthquakes/quake-info/7054...
The pipes are typically ~1000 psi. That multiplied by the entire inner volume of a rather long pipe could totally make rather a bang...
Which convinietly covers up any explosion signs...
I think it would be hard to destroy an undersea pipe in a way that looked 'natural'. The broken ends will be cut out and brought ashore for failure analysis, and they'll soon find out if your explosives bent the pipe inwards first...
I think your best bet would be to deliberately snag an anchor around it, and then say 'whoops'.
Does it mean there was an explosion?
The pressure in the pipes went from +100 bar to 7 bar. Depending on your definitions you could call that an explosion i guess.
Turns out yes, there were explosions: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/svt-avslojar-tva-explosio...
Interestingly, that site is the only one I can find that records that seismic event. All of the others (which mainly use USGS data) do not show it.
I bet my left nut that in 50 years we'll learn it was a US operation
We actually did do this 40 years ago. Reagan covertly blew up a Soviet gas pipeline supplying Europe in 1982, which was publicized in 2004 when the former Secretary of the Air Force boasted about it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r... ("Reagan Approved Plan to Sabotage Soviets" (2004))
- "At the time, the United States was attempting to block Western Europe from importing Soviet natural gas. There were also signs that the Soviets were trying to steal a wide variety of Western technology. Then, a KGB insider revealed the specific shopping list and the CIA slipped the flawed software to the Soviets in a way they would not detect it."
- "In order to disrupt the Soviet gas supply, its hard currency earnings from the West, and the internal Russian economy, the pipeline software that was to run the pumps, turbines, and valves was programmed to go haywire, after a decent interval, to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to pipeline joints and welds," Reed writes."
Possibly the first software supply-chain attack in history? Before the term even existed.
You left out the best part:
"The result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space," he recalls, adding that U.S. satellites picked up the explosion."
Also:
"When the pipeline exploded, Reed writes, the first reports caused concern in the U.S. military and at the White House. "NORAD feared a missile liftoff from a place where no rockets were known to be based," he said, referring to North American Air Defense Command. "Or perhaps it was the detonation of a small nuclear device." However, satellites did not pick up any telltale signs of a nuclear explosion.
"Before these conflicting indicators could turn into an international crisis," he added, "Gus Weiss came down the hall to tell his fellow NSC staffers not to worry."
They used to do good work before, didn't they? Now, it's just blowup the thing. No more intelligent covering of their actions.
US neocons are already celebrating it:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/who-will-rid-me-of-thi...
nice one - and saying that right next to Scholz. what I'm wondering is - what would even be the incentive to Russia? there is no gas flowing anyway and they would be the first to have it going again while in total control how much gas is going through it at any moment in time. also it gives them bargaining leverage if gas is flowing. why would Russia do that? if they want to mess with German energy on a meta level they can just play the "turbine is broken"-game again.
Doesn’t make sense at all.
Why blow it up when the German governing parties and the largest opposition party don’t want to move ahead with Nord Stream 2 anyway?
Politicians change, sometimes abruptly, especially during crisis. This prevents the "new guys" from starting the pipeline.
That’s an ultra dumb approach and assumes there are no costs associated with sabotage (risk of being uncovered, unintended side effects).
Currently (and during the last decades) politics in Germany have been very stable and predictable.
Think it was pretty clear it was a US operation now.. No need to wait. Reports are CIA let other countries know about a "possible" attack weeks ago.
US sees this conflict dragging out throughout the winter. They cannot afford to have EU nation states go back to Russian Gas.
Why not Ukrainian?
I don't understand why wouldn't they want to perform this sabotage against their open enemies? Even openly?
I'm wondering why this didn't happen sooner.
Ukraine is still pumping Russian gas to Europe through their own pipeline and are being paid by Russia for it
They could sabotage their own if they really wanted to, or just switch it off.
For Ukraine, it's better to confiscate NS as a compensation for the war, so it better to keep it off and intact, until it will be Ukrainian.
Because Ukraine isn't going to get caught committing an act of war against NATO in Europe while fighting an existential war for its own existence against Russia while completely dependent on supplies from NATO.
The obvious answer here is going to be the correct one: it was Russia. Specifically Putin: Russia can be rebuilt on gas to Europe if it ceases the invasion, but Putin specifically won't survive such an event.
Ensuring his potential successor can't "make a deal with the West" is exactly his sort of thinking. With a side benefit of people asking questions like this right now (I mean, this is catastrophic for him long run, but so is the entire war so it's also on brand with his incompetence).
Won’t take 50 years.
U.S. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland: "If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward." https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/1486818088016355336
Nord Stream 2 is (politically) dead in Germany, reviving it is a total fringe position in German politics. And: Putin doesn’t currently deliver any gas through it or Nord Stream 1 anyway. Gas storage in Germany is still filling up, gas prices are going down and it looks like getting through this winter will be tough but it also looks like there will be no dramatic gas shortage in Germany. And all indications are that while things are though, it seems as though there is enough flexibility to move away from Russion gas and that has, if anything, only accelerated. I more or less expect things to become easier as time goes by, not harder, with this winter now looking to be only a bump in that road.
In that current favorable climate for anyone whose political goal it is that Germany does not rely on Russian gas I see no strategic value at all in sabotaging Nord Stream 1 or 2.
You don’t need to blow up Nord Stream 2 if the position of the German government and the largest opposition party is to not move forward with Nord Stream 2 anyway. That would only seem to unnecessarily complicate things (and sabotage can only ever really delay things, better to actually also have the political will align with your own).
You really think that there is enough integrity in German politics and more important in German people that they won't change course? I don't. Seeing how people follow irrational populists on the smallest expected change in their life makes me doubt that.
Changes in course are possible but won’t be sudden. Plenty of time to react in those cases.
> before Moscow sent its troops into Ukraine on Feb. 24.
Do we really need to smooth "Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24"?
I don't see it as smoothing at all. "sent its troops into" is literally the definition of invading. Also the Russo-Ukrainian war started over 8 years ago. Calling the feb. 24. date for day-0 of the invasion is actually smoothing Russians aggregation even more.
Troops could be sent for other purposes, though. Like they were sent to Kazakhstan before Ukraine, without invading. So it's kind of smoothing. I'm not sure was it intentional or not.
Except there's no need to account for that nuance because we know why Russia "sent their troops" to Ukraine. It was an invasion and they started a war.
You'd be surprised how many people think the opposite. For example in Slovakia more than half of the public blames Ukraine.
Putin's propaganda during the first hours of war was a rescue operation[1] and you can definitely send troops to help someone.
Wording chosen by the Reuters editor leaves unnecessary room for interpretation imo.
I guess it's a force of habit from reporting on US instigated wars.
Don't read too much into that. You're thinking more about that phrasing than the author probably did.
Ok. But that's worse.
You do get how that's worse, right?
Do we really need to embellish reality with trigger-words designed to be as inflammatory as possible? What do you want - even more outrage?
Since when is the truth a trigger-word? Wtf? They started a war. It's not "triggering" to state the facts.
The question is, why clamour for more dramatic language when its quite clear that the words used adequately communicate the situation, in the first place? Your outrage won't make the world a more peaceful place - those who skillfully use language to de-escalate, do however. If only that skill were more widespread, we might actually have diplomatic solutions to this problem...
It's not outrage to point out that it's a war. It's not dramatic to state what it is, that it's a war. And if you think there's a diplomatic solution here possible only through "softer" language, then you haven't been paying attention for the past 30 years, or even just in the past year. We didn't fuck this up. Putin did. He wanted to start a war and he did. It had nothing to do with language used.
Why do you want to use more violent language about this war than is necessary? Whats your intention behind tone-policing people to be more violent in their language when discussing Russia's aggression?
Nobody said it wasn't a war. The whole world knows its a war. The only ones clamouring to make it more of a war, are the ones who stand to profit from yet more, endless war. Is that your intent? If so, consider this: we've had 30 years of this kind of rhetoric, from both sides.
We, who do not profit from this war in any way, would benefit from better language being used - by everyone.
> Why do you want to use more violent language about this war than is necessary?
Both sides of this discussion seem unnecessary and loaded. It’s obviously a war. That shouldn’t need to be said. But once said, it shouldn’t be so vigorously fought.
Where is the claim being made that it isn't a war?
So, nowhere in this article or in any of the discussion so far, by any participant - in a completely unrelated article on Al Jazeera .. got it ..
The amount of propaganda on these Russia related threads is concerning. Especially after this recent news
https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/27/23374819/meta-russian-inf...
Who would benefit from this?
Isn't that obvious? It's to strengthen Germany's resolve. The temptation to surrender and get the gas turned back on is going to be enormous this coming winter.
Germany and several other countries have made plans to shut down parts of heavy industry to save gas for heating. This is more than likely to put increasing pressure on governments to give in to Russia's demands. Now they can't, even if they want to, so that pressure is gone.
> Isn't that obvious?
No. These aren’t disabling attacks.
It could be a warning from the Kremlin; a false flag operation; internecine warfare; interference by the U.S., Gulf or private actors in Norway; or a pipeline built by the same corruption that shipped cardboard armour [1] doing what Russian-involved infrastructure does.
[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/nazk_gov/status/15019605885950156...
I like to shit on Russia as much as the next guy but keep in mind there is propaganda on both side and Ukraine is infinitely better at it than Russia, these aren't egg cartons, they're meant to be there:
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/491788609276608574/...
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51936534258_91f5217324_b...
> these aren't egg cartons, they're meant to be there
Egg cartons in place of tank reactive armour may be on a schematic. That makes it no less useless. To say the Russian military is operating with top kit denies the battlefield reality.
The "egg cartons" are spacers between explosive reactive armor places. The interesting part isn't that there are egg cartons but that there's only egg cartons - the ERA plates are missing.
My favorite story of Russians and armor plates was the dead Russian soldier who was found with his armor vest plate replaced by a stolen MacBook.
- they're not egg cartons
- what do you know about russian tank armor ?
> To say the Russian military is operating with top kit denies the battlefield reality.
Yes, but where did I say the opposite ? There are dozens of reports showing it's running on fumes, there is no need to ridicule ourselves by propagating factually wrong infos
Saying "X fact" about russia is wrong doesn't mean someone supports their action. We all know their army is shit and any semblance of proper troops they had died in the first few weeks of the invasion
> what do you know about russian tank armor ?
Nothing. Don’t need to. Whether designers put useless armour on the tank or a factory worker messed with a well-designed tank is irrelevant. The tanks were kitted with worthless armour.
"Do you know US soldiers have literal plates as body armor ? it's even ceramic plates, just like the one you eat from. AHA how dumb can they be, ceramic armor aha "
That's how you sound right now
> it's even ceramic plates
Ceramic armour resists bullets. Cardboard doesn’t block or deflect threats to tanks in any form. (It’s not even suitable for collision mitigation.)
> Ceramic armour resists bullets.
Why do my plates shatter when I drop them then ?! if they can't withstand my floor how could they possibly deflect bullets ?!
> Cardboard doesn’t block or deflect threats to tanks in any form
Well then good thing there is no cardboard in their tanks. You really take a random pic from twitter as the absolute truth even though you were presented alternatives ?
Maybe another twitter post might help you then: https://twitter.com/russian_defence/status/91989519933319168...
It might be outdated, it might be shitty compared to western version, it's not cardboard and it is supposed to be like that.
But ok let's all dial down our IQ to 56 and pretend Oligarchs sold egg cartons to their army to pay their yacht, that's a nicer story to tell on TV news. "aha look at them funny corrupt russians and their egg cartons, russia dumb"
> it is supposed to be like that
I’ve seen claims that this is for structural reinforcement of sandbags, which makes no sense on multiple levels. (Even if the tank armour can’t resist bullets, a premise which raises its own host of questions, there is better light armour. And even if one insists on sand, a requirement which raises its own host of questions, civil engineering has better solved the problem of immobilising sand.) Those claims also have zero history before photos of the egg cartons emerged, which isn’t unexpected for military kit, but suspect given Moscow’s tendency for ham-fisted retconning.
The broader point is, whether designed that way or not, it’s evidence of incompetence. If the people doing that built a pipe part, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it fail. (Though based on German comments, there is reason to suspect foul play.)
> The broader point is, whether designed that way or not, it’s evidence of incompetence.
Yet you went for the "aha funny egg cartons how can they be so dumb" narrative instead of the "look they have a shitty army"
> Those claims also have zero history before photos of the egg cartons emerged,
Besides the literal tank specs and the tweets/websites I linked to from 2017 which was like 5 years before the picture emerged.
It's free to admit you were wrong and propagating false information, I'm not attacking you personally you don't have to be so triggered: they have a decrepit army: yes, they have egg carton tanks: no, as simple as that
Fair enough, I didn't mean to be misleading. The egg cartons aren't literally cardboard. But while nobody can agree on what they were supposed to be doing (encasing missing reactive armor? doing something with sand? voodoo?), there is broad agreement on what it didn't do: serve a useful purpose.
>Ukraine is infinitely better at it than Russia
[Citation needed]
The garbage Australian report that only looked at two hashtags (who even uses hashtags anymore?) doesn't count.
> [Citation needed]
Really ? How naive can you be ? It's a communication war as much as a regular war
It's never all black or all white, if you can't understand that I feel sorry for you. The reality is bad enough, we don't need to swallow every bit of info coming out of Ukraine.
If you believe Russian tanks are filled with egg cartons because you saw a blurry pic on twitter I don't even know what to tell you. Once again, russia's army is rotten enough that you don't have to make up lies to make it look bad, there are dozens of reports that are _true_ and equally bad
I was addressing your claim that Ukraine is "infinitely better" at propaganda than Russia.
Russia's propaganda barely even work inside of its own border while Ukraine's conquered the west, even on this platform smart individual believe random tweets without even questioning it
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/ukraine-propaganda-war
https://www.nzz.ch/international/ukraine-die-kunst-der-propa...
https://theconversation.com/how-ukraine-is-adapting-the-anci...
I'm not even saying it's bad, it just is, I have a hard time understanding how people can't see it. Is it because "propaganda" as a bad connotation and nothing bad can be linked to Ukraine ?
>[Citation needed]
Not the person you replied to, but let's test the theory this way: Can you list out some of the US/Ukraine propaganda? If not, do you think it's because the US/Ukraine isn't using propaganda or because they're better at it and you don't realize it's propaganda?
There's another option, which I think is more likely than Ukraine being better at it. Because we are supportive of Ukraine, we want Ukrainian propaganda to be true.
There really isn't anywhere close to something like a median voter wanting to get the gas flowing from Russia again in Germany - now or in the winter. A government giving in to the more fringy hard right/hard left asking for that would not survive. The German-Russian relationship has been damaged for decades to come now.
> or in the winter
well, wait for the winter ... Germans aren't used to hardship and many more are critical for compromising comfort for Ukraine than Tagesschau and heute journal would like to make you believe.
I strongly disagree. People in Germany couldn't care less about Ukraine because it is far away. Most assume that Putin will win this war anyways. However, they care strongly about cheap Gas because it directly influences their lives.
70% of Germans favor continuing support for Ukraine even if that causes high energy prices (https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/politbarometer-union-...). This value is practically unchanged for months.
…let’s see how this number goes when winter comes. People generally don’t want themselves to freeze to death.
Polls are one thing, supermarket prices jumping 80-100% in a single day are another.
For now maybe (I wouldn't believe those polls sponsored by state media for a second btw.). Even the strongest anti-Putin propaganda campaign will go up in flames as soon as people have sit in the cold and lose their jobs at the same time. Then it's a very convenient situation for politicians that the pipelines can't easily be switched on again because they got "somehow damaged". Therefore it was most probably an inside job.
"I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself"
> it is far away
It is not far away. There's Germany, then Poland and then war. We have refugees here and feel the impact on our day to day life.
You forgot the part about vast land in Ukraine (the biggest country in Europe) since the fighting is on the other (Eastern) end. Heck west of Ukraine is hardly affected by war in daily life, why do you think Western politicians visit even Kiev if there is such horrible "war" ongoing, why is McDonald's operating, toyshops etc. Odd war if you ask me if it's business as usual in most of the country, feels more like theater to pump those dumb Western Europeans for their money by infamously most corrupt gov in Europe. Yes, there is fighting in east of Europe, yes lot of people die there, but this isn't affecting even most of the Ukraine so playing the BS card about some war in EU is just wet dream of war mongers.
What an ignorant comment. What do you expect, that there's fighting everywhere? People looting at night and society near anarchy? We have two state actors with roughly equal capabilities. It's not US&Allies vs Iraq.
Western ukraine is not "hardly affected", it is affected. There are many refugees, probably everyone knows someone fighting in the east. You might look to fight in the east as well if you're in the right age bracket! Economy is shit and people are training to rotate to the front. Putin is waging a brutal war, killing and torturing ukrainians. There are air raid warning in kyiv, kyiv pride happened underground! Yes the government is corrupt, but we have to help them fight this monster.
It's also not an odd war, industrial societies maintain industrial capabilities to wage industrial war. WW1 was fought on the west in mostly static battles. Neither Berlin or Paris were affected by bombs, less than easter ukraine for sure! And they fought for years. Even in WW2 society largely functioned until the end in germany (if it was not bombed to shit!). It's interesting to see the logistics of everyday life near the end of WW2 in germany, you expect everything to end up in total chaos but everyone with a job just continued doing their job. Why not? dairy farmers still produced milk and shipped it off, and quite a lot of the railways worked.
We see ukrainian flags here in a small town in germany, recently they celebrated something in public (maybe their independence?) and we got into a converstantion, we have refugees starting to study here etc. Heating prices are through the roof and I can't really afford to heat my room, al because of this stupid fu*ing war. War affects you even if you don't have bombs falling onto your head! In whole WW2 only like two or three bombs were thrown onto the small city (~80k) I am currently living in. War doesn't mean everything is blowing up all the time.
Evidence? I don't see that in any surveys etc. that a majority or even plurality thinks that way.
And yet they keep blocking arms shipments to ukraine
No, one of the governing parties keeps blocking.
Edit: And stuff has been shipped, too.
This is not correct. Nordstream II is fully functional and can carry far more gas.
This "accident" allows Russia to turn up the pressure on Germany without formally exiting it's contract. It creates plausible deniability for when they pressure Germany to pressure Ukraine to accept a ceasefire.
NS2 has also been taken out.
I’m not following? Isn’t it less gas?
Indeed. It's most probably an inside job.
You are saying someone crawled inside the pipelines and punctured them from within?
I just heard energy analyst krutikhin explain on the news that Gazprom could have blown them up using so called "pigs", maintenance drones that move through the pipes.
It's those methane breathers terrorists again! Fucking gasbags...
Anyone that wants to keep Germany off Russian gas no matter the developments.
But who is that? Ukraine should be fine with having Germany buy Russian gas since Germany keeps sending arms and push others to send arms. I don't see why the US would care either now that Germany is finally moving away from Russian gas. And Russia can just close the pipeline in a less destructive way.
>But who is that?
The USA has long wanted to interfere in Germanys' relations with Russia and has done so, over and over, to ensure they are never true allies.
So, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume the US is behind these attacks.
Feb 7, 2022
> Biden: “If Russia invades -- that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine, again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2,”
> Journalist: “But how will you do that exactly, since the project and control of the project is within Germany’s control?”
> Biden: “We will, I promise you, we’ll be able to do it,” Biden replied.
I don't want to play conspiracy guy, but the statement stuck in my mind since he said it.
Its not a conspiracy - the US has long wanted a reason/justification for turning off Germany's gas. I guess this is happening, now.
> A conspiracy (...) is a secret plan or agreement between persons (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, (...) especially with political motivation, while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy
It is a conspiracy.
Not a conspiracy: Biden himself stated - quite publically - that they would do it. It has been done.
Did you not read the quote?
Besides which, the US unilaterally gives itself the right to do these sorts of things at its own discretion on a regular basis.
> Not a conspiracy: Biden himself stated - quite publically - that they would do it. It has been done.
I have no strong opinions yet in the argument over whether or not the USA conspired to sabotage the NS pipelines. I'm just here to point out that secrecy is not a required part of a conspiracy. The literal translation of "conspire" from Latin would be something like "to breathe together", insinuating a synchronization of movements, a plotting together.
But, in our world today, all conspiracies (both confirmed and theoretical conspiracies) seem to get bucketed together. And so in common parlance, as soon as a thing is publicly confirmed as actually happening, in most people's minds it moves out of the "Conspiracy" bucket into the "History" bucket. But that's just a loss of language on our part. As always, my go-to resource in recovering the meanings of English words is Webster's 1828.
It's certainly a conspiracy in the sense that the USA and its functionaries are not going to be coming out and directly saying "sure, we blew up Nordstream to remove a Russian bargaining chip and prevent Germany from suing for peace."
They've also not publicised the plan. That stays secret. The plan is the conspiracy.
The USA are the obvious answer. They've refused export licenses for gas for years specifically to keep US energy cheap so the US can compete with german industry.
China are another answer. If they can't get the gas, there is less incentive for peace so more chance of the conflict rolling on and distracting from their activities. Plus, more gas for them to buy more cheaply etc.
Chunks of the middle east as well, they want to replace Russian gas in European markets despite their higher prices.
The list really is quite long.
China seems to want this war to end sooner rather than later based on recent comments from their politburo.
I doubt that Chinese submarine could enter Baltic sea without being detected.
Isn't the whole point of subs is that they can go almost anywhere undetected, Chinese or otherwise? Hence all the fuss about Russian subs (possibly) entering Swedish waters over the last few decades, but no one being sure if it happened or whether the sub in question was actually Russian...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_submarine_incidents#Af...
Though I doubt there is any foul play here at all...
Almost anywhere, yes. But there are only three narrow, shallow straits connecting Baltic sea to the North sea, all under NATO control.
Do nato actually "control" them in the sense of making subs surface etc then? I didn't know that. Cool.
No pun intended but it seems to be a measure to make sure europe doesn't get cold feet politically if their feet get too cold in the winter. Either way it is debilitating to Russia because it impedes their main path to raise revenue to prop up their currency, as the only way to buy gas from russia is rubles. Russia's Ability to transport LNG by ship is abysmal compared to Nord Stream.
Wouldn't Russian gas come with conditions? Like to drastically reduce support for Ukraine? Given time and cold weather, that might not be such a hard sell to the German electorate.
It can be anyone. Could even be a private person. But yeah its definitely not Russia.
Yep, russia controls "the valve", so it doesn't need to destroy the pipelines, and the minute EU (well, mostly germany) decides to negiotiate, putin can open the valve.
With this, even if they negotiate, there won't be any gas soon.
So, it's bad for russia, bad for eu, and the only one being better of is USA... who was threathened to do exactly this more than once.
Not necessarily as it could be Russian false flag operation to justify retaliation in the form of, for example Baltic Pipe damage
I would say not being able to buy Russian gas is good for EU. Supporting evil empire by buying gas is bad not just for European souls but also for long-term stability, as we can see.
Most of us "European souls" would prefer to stay warm throughout the winter.
It seems quite clear to me that in the short and medium term this ideological stance isn't going to hurt "evil Russian empire" a whole lot, while being extremely disruptive and harmful to everyone in the EU.
Nobody in EU will be in danger of freezing due to lack of gas. There is enough if gas coming from other places than Russia and the governments are mostly subsidizing it.
I don't know why people keep repeating this lie, do they want to support Russia so badly?
The real risk for Europe is a recession due to gas prices for industrial use - but that would mostly impact extremely rich places, like Germany.
You can say that the governments are going to take care of them in the short term and you're probably right. It's unlikely that (m)any people are going to freeze to death, but it's still going to result in countless days, weeks, even months of uncertainty and anxiety for those people. There will be a toll.
Even with subsides and a social support net, we're still kicking the can down the road. The bill WILL come due and it's going to hit those who are poor and "lower middle class" the hardest, as always.
People are increasingly in need of food donations and financial support with skyrocketing energy prices. Similarly, donations have decreased and every charity in my country is running thin on resources. Elderly and other vulnerable populations are especially at risk here as they might not have the resources to even reach out for help and follow through any bureaucracy.
I don't support Russia, I hope they lose and dissolve into irrelevance, but I take a serious issue with the often-repeated viewpoint that brushes all of this suffering aside like it's not a big deal, only to claim that we are all too happy to lower the thermostat by 3 degrees and take some kind of collective stance that will meaningfully contribute to destruction of Russia.
The suffering is greater than most people are willing to admit, meanwhile its effectiveness is questionable at best. I simply don't believe that energy imports from Russia are what's keeping the war going in any meaningful fashion, something that we could easily change if we just stopped importing their gas.
I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but so far I've only seen handwavy explanations that don't amount to anything more than "every little bit probably helps".
The gas is not standing by itself, Russia refused to sell it as a reaction to Western help to Ukraine and sanctions. Getting it running again would require nations to go beg to Russia, who would probably ask for all the sanctions removed and help to Ukraine stop.
But I'm pretty sure both US and various EE countries would not want to do that, leading to fracture and instability in EU and NATO in pretty critical time. For example people of Poland, which hosts literally millions of Ukrainian refugees would probably freak out if what they see as "rich west people" start complaining about money and ask for support for Ukraine to stop because gas is now expensive.
To summarise, we can't buy the Russian gas because they would ask us to do unacceptable things for it, and it would probably destroy EU from within. That's my take at least.
Also seems that someone is taking that choice away now, with blowing up Nord Stream.
As for the impact of sanctions and the energy war, I'm not an expert but I find Perun's videos pretty insightful - but I admit "hour long powerpoint presentation by military analyst on youtube" is pretty strange genre. This video touches on sanctions, economy and the energy war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce5TR-qWCk4
You're right I was pretty blasé about the suffering of people, and partially it's because I live pretty close to Ukraine, but still I shouldn't have.
cool. lets see the world now decide how they will play it, i mean here is prior deliberations and intent and we saw today the action itself so if USA is behind this which they most probably are, how will EU for example respond to this aggression? I hope the same response viz a viz sanctions, trade barriers, this and that.????
I mean.. if EU leadership was competent, they'd do the thing that USA is most afraid of.. talk to putin and make a strong europe.
Realistically.. even if they found an american submarine with "pipecutters" still connected to the pipeline, they'd say they'll do everything in their power(!!!)... and then send an angry letter to USA and replace an ambassador or two somewhere.
> if EU leadership was competent, they'd do the thing that USA is most afraid of.. talk to putin and make a strong europe.
Wow Just wow. Ready to place responsibility at everyone but Russia's feet right? Such a blameless third party victim in all of this /s.
The pipeline itself was in good part Merkel's olive branch to connect Putin economically to the rest of the EU. The hope was that giving Russia more to lose would prevent these conflicts. Sure the US, among others, we're wary of this kind of interdependence.
Well, now we know how things shook out and we're all dealing with it. Germany from the back foot this round.
Now I'm not attributing any great foresight to naysayers (US among them), it was a nobel bid for peace on Germany's part and there's always a chance we'd be talking about the brilliance of deepening those connections with Russia.
But we can't.
Russia drove its tanks into Ukraine, nobody made them. They weren't under any great duress. Even the most unjustifiably charitable take of Russian justification accounts for what, just Luhansk and Donetsk? But they tried to take Kiev. Tried to take every bit of Ukrainian's coastline with the Black Sea through Odessa. Russia good out of it's way to poison their reputation here with conquest.
> Russia drove its tanks into Ukraine, nobody made them
So what.. just a meaningless war in a meaningless country, a for the same reasons nato bombed yugoslavia in 1999 and noone cared.
Americans drove tanks to afghanistan, syria, libya, a bunch of eu countries helped them, nato forces are still in syria, and again... noone cares. Yes, some individuals maybe do... especially people living there... but not the EU as a whole.
But now, suddenly, while still having our soldiers station in eg. syria (i live in a small eu country, so we're not eg. france, that we'd had our soldiers occupying a bunch of african states), the media told us to sacrifice our standard of living, work, so the government can take money and send it to ukraine, to be cold, to not shower as much as we wanted, for what? A country that was just a few years ago was the most corrupt country in europe, full of nazis [0], and all the provocations were instigated by the US [1]? We should forget all this, fuck our livelihoods for some geopolitical shitshow?
Thank you, but no.
[0] https://i.imgur.com/mRAaOo0.jpg
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukrain...
It would be exactly like Russia to do something like this in order to drive a wedge between the US and EU. Look for something Biden said that could be misconstrued as a threat to blow up the pipeline, actually blow it up, and then watch the world blame the US.
There is nothing ever “definitely” about Russia. It could be as simple as “look what we can do”.
Objective reality does exist.
It's not like its impressive to damage the pipeline.
Russia isn't exactly homogenous; satellite states aside even core Muscovite populations are divided in opinion on war and Putin - even if not exactly vocal.
This could range from a small group staging a false flag to push Putin further (he is a surprise moderate of the extremely hawkish Russsian elements) to a different small group staging some form of protest by sabotage .. to any other ridiculous scenario imaginable.
Anyone buying russian gas is pretty much directly funding putin army. No, Ukraine would not be fine with that. All the Baltic states wouldnt mind killing it too. Poland in particular (NL1 killed "Friendship" pipeline) would be most pleased, except its incapable of such moves due to dysfunctional leadership.
China is buying Russian gas and then reselling it to Europe as LNG at a substantial markup.
> I don't see why the US would care either
How naive...
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/as-imports-of-u...
Poland? They were vocal opposers, and the ruptures are close to their coast.
Poland's got the Formoza unit, such an operation would certainly be within their capabilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JW_Formoza
Not that I believe that would be orchestrated by the Polish gov.
This made me chuckle a bit. The polish government can hardly contract appropriate levels coal so that people who burn it to heat their homes have trouble replenishing their supplies before winter. Just yesterday they came up with 50% tax on excessive income for companies which employ 250+ people, so clearly they aren't capable of planning months or years ahead, let it be the effects of such a strike on NS.
On the other hand, if the US government came up with the idea, Poland would be happy to execute it. Government wouldn't think much about it, they wouldn't even ask for anything in return.
Yeah, that's Poland for you. If US asks us to jump we only ask if it's high enough.
Ukraine will be fine, post-war, with Germany buying Russian gas that went through pipelines on Ukrainian soils, because they get paid transit fees.
No transit fees necessary for Nord Stream.
Ukraine has undeveloped large gas reserves (mostly at the territory currently occupied by Russia), so they could potentially replace Russia in the future as a supplier.
At risk of being a massively unpopular opinion: Ukraine has a track record of being an unreliable trading entity against other European countries, to the point where it looks like they were actively stealing gas that was sold by Russia to e.g. Germany.[1]
Under these circumstances, I'd much rather avoid being dependant on Ukrainian gas and would prefer Russian one every day of the week.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis... (definitely worth the read, gives some background information about why we see what we see in this russoukrainian war today)
I have said this claim many times but it does not match the numbers I have seen on e.g. Wikipedia. Most of the gas seems to be in areas under Ukrainian control.
If they are in russian occupied territory, they can forget about them.
Barring a change in the political structure in Russia, Germany IS off Russian gas.
There are no political alignments that would reverse that given that other options, such as allowing fracking again in Germany, are not even contemplated.
Everyone west of Russia and Belarus, including Germany, where political tension to open Nord Stream 2 has been rising, and that's without any psychological games Russia might have played with NS1 in the coming months. This is going to be a big help in keeping Germany politically stable.
There is nothing rising there was a demonstration of 2000 Pan European(!!) people at the pipeline buildings... we had more crazies out and about demonstrating against a trainstation, public transport and windmills.
The US and its energy dominance agenda -- making more and more of the world dependent on US energy solutions.
Did you not read the news in the time leading up to the war in Ukraine? US government and media was complaining more about Nord Stream than they were talking about Ukraine.
Directly alternative suppliers of gas will benefit, because reopening the pipelines is not an option anymore.
Indirectly anyone who is interested in causing mistrust among western countries.
>Indirectly anyone who is interested in causing mistrust among western countries.
My gut tells me this is the most likely answer. It would be a very Russian thing to do.
Yes, it causes mistrust. But the benefit is not big enough. Russia needs insecurity on the one hand, and a possibility to give some kind of security. By blowing up the pipes the limit the movement of the German government.
The United States. Poland. Ukraine. Non-Russian gas suppliers.
In that order.
The US has the capabilities and an objective interest in destroying Nordstream 2. Both Trump and Biden have made threats and sanctions directed to Germany over the pipeline.
However the current German government is highly atlanticist and was nowhere near reopening Nordstream 2.
So it would make little sense for such an extreme move.
"nowhere near reopening" indeed strong words...
Someone planning to attack someone else.
Gas prices were dropping, half what they were at the peak. Putin wants gas prices to remain high to punish the EU and increase his own revenues. Since this incident they’re climbing back up. There are other ways for russia to export the gas than nordstream 1. He may think he can force an opening of nordstream 2. Putin has made so many errors in judgment that no strategy is too insane to be considered reasonable in his mind.
Nordstream 2 is also hit. Otherwise an interesting thought.
Yamal/Brotherhood are fine, so this doesn't really change anything.
I assume the Russians have some sort of valve on their end of the pipe that they could switch off. That would be cheaper than blowing the pipe up, and also givem more negotiating leverage.
It probably wasn't them.
Yep, and putin has said that he'll close the valve (well, not him personally).
EU gets cold, and the only way to heat up is to sit down with putin and make some sort of an agreement.
Now, someone destroyed the pipeline, and there's no incentive for EU and putin to make any negotiations, since the pipeline won't be fixed before the winter is over.
But the USA will get to sell overpriced gas to EU
But Northstream 2 ist also damaged which should stand in the way of opening, especially as these events are unlikely to be anything but deliberate.
I'd imagine the Russian would have less permanent ways of restricting gas flow.
With my tinfoil hat on, Norway and Poland would! They're already opening a pipeline to Poland. Today I think. Poland becomes the rich middleman now to EU!
*Important Note*: I absolutely don't believe this, just an amusing thought.
Putin, because he gets an excuse to cut Germany off of Russian gas. It's game of chicken now: the West sends weapons to help Ukrainian army chase off all the Russian invaders, and Putin tries to make energy crisis in EU so severe that Europe is forced to negotiate with him, and accept Russian conquest of parts of the Ukraine. Whoever can stay on their course longer wins.
I have seen this line of thinking multiple places. It doesn't make any sense. Russia makes the energy crisis by turning off the gas. Destruction of the nordstream line only makes it impossible to start the gas exporting in case Russia want to sell it again and/or the sanctions are lifted. The obvious result of this is making sure that trade relationships with Russia can't go back to normal anytime soon.
Nordstream 2 is fully functional and can be turned on at any time. ...and it carries far more capacity.
Nordstream 2 was fully functional.
No its not. It was damaged like Nordstream 1.
AFAIK, only one of the NS2 pipelines has been damaged. Both branches of NS1 are leaking but there has only been one reported leak on NS2
Russia makes the energy crisis by turning off the gas
Yes, but this way Putin can plausibly deny that it was a policy decision. Same with novichok poisonings: everyone knows Putin's pulling the strings, nobody can prove he did.
WHy would putin deny that? He said he'll do that more than once:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/putin-blames-germany...
Putin wants the pipelines open, because europe knows that the minute they sit down and reach a deal with russia, the valves get open, europe gets the gas.
Now europe is fucked, and even if local people protest due to cold, sitting down with putin won't bring back enough gas, so there is less incentive to actually make a deal.
But I'm sure USA will profit by selling overpriced gas to europe.
Those things do not take long to fix. In fact that's exactly what Putin needs right now: an excuse to stop the gas flow for a few weeks, until the pipeline is repaired. Then of course there will be some time until they test it, and then some bureaucrat in Moscow needs to sign off the certification and allow resuming pumping - which allows Putin to drag this out for as long as he needs.
The flow was already stopped before this. So your analysis does not line up with reality.
Yes, but they stopped it based on their previous excuse. I think first it was some spare part that was stuck in Canada due to sanctions, then they had to do "routine maintenance" of some pump station, then the same for another pump station, and now we have a leak. As you can see they never stop the flow "just because".
That doesn't make any sense. If the sanctions are indeed lifted, how should the gas be transported into Europe that the Russian economy is dependent upon? This guessing game is silly in lieu of any hard evidence. It could be Ukraine or the US in order to enforce sanction even after a ceasefire. It could be Algeria or Venezuela or Qatar to guarantee gas supply by them. It could be Norway or an orca whale for all we know -- but we don't as of yet
Yamal and Brotherhood are fully operational over mainland, you just have to pay middlemen unlike NS
But if Germany decides it wants the gas and the pipeline is broken, how does that make sense? Also, the Russians can just turn it off if they want to pressure the Germans. They don't need an excuse, we know why they'd want to create such pressure. "We're shutting off the gas until you stop supporting our enemy" is perfectly understandable and legit.
Putin has been telling Germany to certify and turn on Nord Stream 2 for gas - several times. Some folks who don't want normalisation of energy relationships decided to take this option away.
Sure, but Germany turning on NS2 is about as likely to happen as the US is to give in to Russian demands to stop sending arms to Ukraine. I cannot see any scenario where that happens so anyone sabotaging the pipelines just makes things unnecessarily complicated for no reason.
Honestly.. a few really cold days in germany, people get pissed and go out to the streets, and a lot can happen. It's one thing to watch the tv and get angry at stuff, while you're still well fed and in a warm home... once you're not, the shit gets real
But our EUR9 tickets are gone, so no free access to the revolution trains anymore.
> Russian conquest of parts of the Ukraine.
I encourage you to drop the definite article "the" when referring to Ukraine.
https://theconversation.com/its-ukraine-not-the-ukraine-here...
What's more interesting about that article is the threat of social shaming at the end:
> Like it or not, and intentionally or not, the language a person uses reflects their political positions, including their position on Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty.
As a citizen of the United States, this whole issue seems ridiculous. It's remarkable though how a media and PR campaign, combined with social pressure, can change our lexicon practically overnight.
What's even more interesting still is that you had the opportunity to (attempt to) disprove any of it while replying, but did not do so.
The article mentions the hole in their argument and then glosses over it:
> There are exceptions, but these are the general principles that bind speakers of Russian and English.
These exceptions include collections of states (eg. the UAE, the US) and country names derived from regions (the Netherlands, the Congo, the Ukraine).
>These exceptions include collections of states (eg. the UAE, the US) and country names derived from regions
Let's take these one by one:
>the Netherlands This is plural: the Low Countries. You are referring to a group, same as the United Arab Emirates and the United States.
>the Congo Which one? ... Exactly.
>the Ukraine Already discussed, referring to it as a region denies its sovereignty.
The etymology of the Netherlands is the Dutch "nederland", or "lower lands". I'd consider "the lowlands" to fall into the region category, much in the same way that the Ukraine translates to "the frontier" or "the border".
> Which one? ... Exactly
What can I say, English is weird. The Gambia does the same, in both cases referring to the region around a particular river.
Putin already lost that game since he allowed most (all?) EU countries to fill their gas reserves beyond 90%.
For Germany, that's only a 2-1/2 month supply.
Maybe but that assumes zero LNG imports and zero gas from Norway, which will not be the case. According to Germany they have enough gas for the winter.
Do you have a recent source for that? The sources that I checked a few days ago all say that there's enough to get through the winter without any bigger changes (except maybe lowering consumption a bit): https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gas-speiche...
The reserves are a buffer to allow smooth supplies during the increased winter usage. The reserve sizes were set assuming a continued flow of gas.
So allowing the reserves to fill to 90% does not lose Putin the game, it gives him increased time to keep the citizens in suspense, thus creating doubt and confusion.
And it gives him money. War is expensive.
No pipelines means no Russian gas period. Putin loses because even if he wanted to, he can't send gas anymore.
I've been hoping from the start that someone would sabotage the pipelines to remove the temptation. Guess I got my wish.
So, eu gets fucked, no incentive for peace talks, less weapons for ukraine, ukraine gets fucked,...
you must be an american, since they're the only ones who profit from all this.
Profit until the plan goes sideways and we all die in nuclear war. Those bellicose US politicians damn well better have some real good secret weapons/defense systems they are keeping under wraps.
Maybe. But I don't think they share it with us in Europe ...
The main source of Russian gas in Europe was (and presently is) the Soviet pipeline system running through Ukraine.
So basically Europe will still continue to receive a huge fraction of Russian gas, but it would all run essentially through a war zone.
What about Yamal running through Poland?
US since it destroys Putin's leverage against Germany.
As far as I can tell the Russian leverage has so far proven to be very small (it caused Germany to hesitate at the start of the invasion but right now Germany pushes heavily for supporting Ukraine) and it is decreasing for each day that the gas storage are getting filled and more LNG terminals near completion. Endangering this progress right now seems foolish.
Do you have a source vor LNG terminals nearing completion. I thought this would take years?
It normally takes years, however they are acquiring "floating LNG terminals", which should be there by EOY, probably somewhere around October-November.
Pick your favorite search engine with those words for a source of your choice, it's in the press.
The EU started funding LNG terminals back in 2018, or possibly even earlier. Here is an old paper form 2019 from the EU which lists several projects which were supposed to finish in 2022 or 2022 even if this war has not happened.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_...
please elaborate further how the US would benefit from destabilizing German gas supplies.
The US is exporting LNG to Europe... at quite a nice profit too.
German can't make a deal with Putin anymore since the leverage is gone
But there have been zero indications that Germany is interested in any such deal. Germany is fine with buying gas from Russia for euros, but they have displayed zero interest in offering anything else in payment. If Germany made such a deal I see mass protests and lets of criticism from the rest of the EU which would lose them tons of political clout within Europe. And for what? I do not think it would be worth it for German politicians.
Wait until it gets cold and peoples resolves actually get tested. Those protests would turn into people begging to turn the gas on. If you don’t live in a place that actually has winter, you just won’t understand. I lived all summer without a/c, it was fine with the occasional cold shower. But no heat is absolutely miserable and deadly in a real winter.
Most mainland European gas reserves are full, there will be no freezing in Europe this winter.
Germany's reserves aren't enough to last a winter.
Full reserves is not equal capacity covering whole winter. 40% reserves in one country can be more than 100% reserves per capita in other country since each country has different capacity and consumption and these reserves per capita vary a lot.
>for what?
To sustain industry.
Let's not forget cook food.
I have already spare induction cooker I bought recently for ~30€ (as backup just in case, but I also wanna try it and gave option to switch depending on prices + I have electric pressure cooker for years), though the cheapest less efficient electric plates start around 10€, I don't think cooking would make any difference unless you talk about bakeries. The gas is really essential only for heating homes and industry.
Traders.
On related note we had this Sunday evening power outage in big part of Prague, lasting around half an hour (second one in less than 4 months, previous lasted around 40 minutes and was due to some power station equipment failure, some gas insulation or something).
Funniest thing is the cause for this Sunday outage - power company spokesman said it was caused by (NOT hot air) balloon crashing into powerlines!
So never underestimate coincidence (Bulgarian lottery) and/or incompetence, though it was most likely Americans, if we are serious.
Possibly related, but already flagged to death. Strange, innit? ;>
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32994573 pointing to:
https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/earthquakes/quake-info/7054...
it's not flagged...
Shows as [dead], why else would it?
edit: never mind, seen it mentioned elsewhere this thread now. (but still...)
if it were flagged, it would show as [flagged][dead]. Looking at the submission history for the domain, they've all been [dead] for years, so clearly the domain is banned.
Interesting. Didn't look for that. But I have to wonder why? At least with uBO nothing suspicious on that site. It looks just 'normal'?
Does it always have to be https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=55.61249... ?
It doesn't even show up there, because below 2.5 on the Richter scale.
> But I have to wonder why?
No idea, certainly the HN spam filter isn't perfect. You can mail the mods and ask about/ask for it to be unbanned, in my experience they appreciate people reporting false positives to them.
I've been lazy and just clicked vouch.
>The Russian submarine that caught fire and killed 14 may have been designed to cut undersea internet cables
>"The Russians talk about these ships in this program doing bathymetric research and deep-ocean research, meaning they do stuff on the sea floor," Bryan Clark, a former US Navy officer and a submarine warfare expert, told Business Insider. "If they are doing research on the sea floor with a military submarine, they are probably also able to interdict or disrupt undersea cabling or other undersea infrastructure, like pipelines."
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-submarine-losharik-un... (2019)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Losharik
UPD Thread from a submarine expert:
The motive here is obvious. It is to stop any remaining gas shipments from Russia to Germany without formally violating their contracts and providing plausible deniability for future restoration negotiations using the newer Nordstream 2 pipeline which has much larger capacity anyway.
Germany has struggled to store enough gas storage for winter. They have told the public they have enough, however those estimates assumed a continued flow along the Nordstream 1 pipeline.
I suspect we will see additional oil/gas supply "mystery disruptions" to reduce Europe's willingness to support Ukraine and pressure Ukraine to accept a ceasefire along the existing front (which will defacto annex a big chunk of Ukraine to Russia).
It's going to be a cold and politically difficult winter in Europe.
> Germany has struggled to store enough gas storage for winter. They have told the public they have enough, however those estimates assumed a continued flow along the Nordstream 1 pipeline.
This isn't true based on what I've read in German and Swedish news. Storage was filling ahead of usual schedule, already having enough to sustain through the winter. What we haven't got, in my understanding, is any buffer room whatsoever. What's your source that knows better than public service news here?
Edit: Here's a Bloomberg article about how you're wrong: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/europe-is...
The only thing that will put this pipeline back into operation is rehabilitation of Russia, which will involve unconditional withdrawal from Ukraine, apology, $350bn of reparations, and a war crimes tribunal.
It's more likely that hell freezes then
Or a new German government, but your option seems more likely.
That's within the realm of possibility I guess. The three parties in the current government are struggling quite hard to find a common strategy to manage this crisis, so it's not entirely certain that they'll make it to the next regular elections, and the far left and right have largely positioned themselves in favor of taking both Nord Streams online and appeasing Russia, and that view is apparently also held by part of the conservative electorate, who might drift rightward if the crisis deepens. If there were elections in late winter, who knows how that would turn out, especially for the AFD party on the right.
Biden himself told they would do it, and "promised they have ways to do it" (from ca 1:20):
Which means, since this is cloak-and-dagger stuff, we could add to the list of suspects "anyone who could get access to that Pipeline and wants to destabilize relations between the United States and Germany."
It doesn't destabilize the relationship between US and Germany one bit - unless evidence comes out that the USA did do this damage - in which case the Germans will probably apologize and kowtow, as they always do when America is on the line ...
It does make it hard for Germany and Russia to have energy trade, however.
Which makes it easier for the USA to sell its dirty gas in Europe.
It destabilizes it to the extant that if a bunch of armchair politicos on HN can reason to the conclusion "The likeliest perpetrator is the United States of America," every nation's espionage organization can certainly find that conclusion too, and possibly act on it, for the purposes of framing the US for their own political reasons.
I'm reminded of the worm that was injected into NASA servers back in the '80s that eventually made its way into DOE servers (creating a possible nuclear crisis because the DOE deals with two things: energy policy and the posture of the American nuclear response system). Direct initial investigation pointed to the worm originating from servers in France, but further investigation revealed that those servers had been compromised, and the likely origin of the worm was hackers in the Australia / New Zealand area. The likeliest catalyst for the attack: France's blatant destruction of the Rainbow Warrior in a New Zealand harbor. The attack ended up serving two purposes: bloody the nose of the Americans, who were (in the eyes of the attackers) playing fast-and-loose with nuclear payloads on NASA missions; and if their antics were discovered, embarrass the French with how easily their servers had been compromised. Essentially, a double-"don't fuck with us" via cyberspace from the Aussies or New Zealand.
I mean, its not like Biden didn't make the statement that he'd do exactly this. If him admitting that it was a plan isn't enough for you, I don't think your myopia is going to be altered by any further discussion.
I'm not saying the US definitely didn't do it.
I'm saying that the thing about being an armchair politico on a forum and not a member of an Alphabet Soup organization is that unless someone claims responsibility we won't know who actually did it until maybe a half-decade to a decade out when all investigations are concluded and the various international intelligence agencies and private journalists get the story straight.
They were very certain France hacked NASA until they weren't.
(Something like Biden's loose lips is only further cover for another cloak-and-dagger actor, state or private. Until and unless some country or group comes right out and claims responsibility, all manner of idea-tossing on this forum doesn't give us more than a well-shaped question mark on who actually did it).
Exactly this? He said he was going to blow it up?
He ambiguously stated that the US would "find a way to make sure Nord Stream is done for good".
Policy hasn't worked, in years. In spite of the US' worst efforts, Nord Stream was built and completed and could actually be used to peacefully engage in energy economy between Russia and Europe.
This alliance is intolerable to the USA, so: the last act was destruction.
Lets see, anyway. Evidence is going to be important on this case.
The Baltic Sea is very very shallow, with average depth of just 55 meters. It's not particularly difficult to do, sadly :(
"Fun" fact, mostly unrelated: the Baltic sea floor is full of unexploded munitions from WW2, and some (still?) contained chemical weapons.
I'd think they would have cleared them before, instead of blindly laying some pipes in 'good faith'.
Oh I'm sure it's cleared enough around the various pipes and cables that lie on the bottom. But it's still a far cry from the entire bottom of the sea being safe.
So what's next? Will newly opened Baltic pipe be blown up too by Russia in retaliation for this attack that many people here are suggesting was implemented by USA (directly or indirectly).
It makes complete sense to put Europe in deeper hole.
Can anyone inform me why there is gas in both the pipes when they are in maintenance/not yet in use/no gas is being delivered by russia. Do they always have to be filled with gas for some reason?
Having empty pipes at the bottom of the sea would basically crush them, unless filled with either water or some high-pressure gas. It would be impossible to get rid of water later, and any other gas except an actual gas would be too complicated, so why not fill it with the thing which it is designed to transport anyway?
Understood! Does this mean that this leak will affect the whole pipe or can it be isolated? I assume it will perhaps not crush, but at least fill up with water.
Quick Question: Didn't Russia already turn off all of the actual flow for these? I mean technically it was the Russian gas company ~~sighting~~ citing urgent maintenance rather than Putin himself with a big spanner. But either way, flows were at <1% capacity right?
Nord stream 2 was never operational, Nord stream 1 was in maintenance if I remember correctly. But it raises the question if there are ever going to be operational again..
In a way, it's sort of astonishing how much damage Putin has done to his legacy in Russia with this foolish invasion.
One of the most impressive feats of pipeline engineering in the world and his inability to cooperate with other nations has catalyzed its destruction.
In some poetic fashion, it makes sense. A pipeline like this is symbolic of interstate cooperation. Not surprising it would not survive the breakdown of such cooperation that he instigated. When a state engages in medieval-style aggression, it can't have nice things.
It was in "maintenance", as claimed by the Russian end operators. Germany has successfully pressured Canada to send a replacement turbine to Russia (violating sanctions), after which the Russians said that the turbine isn't any good, it's missing some documents and they will not take and install it. Then Scholz decided to take a photo shoot in front of the massive turbine, looking all sad. The Paper Chancellor in full glory :D
Thanks!
I'm curious about the impact of such leaks in terms of CO2 equivalent emissions Another article mentions 117 million cubic meters of natural gaz in Nord stream 2[0].
[0] https://www.politico.eu/article/gas-leak-detected-near-nord-...
Great timing to close off gulf of Finland to Russian vessels while “investigation” is going on.
this is also why we can't have nice things. spend billions of dollars on an undersea pipeline and someone will blow it up to achieve a geopolitical objective.
Any shared dependencies between the pipelines?
Maybe just a time sensitive maintenance task that was neglected due to current state of affairs?
I'm not an expert on the layout of those pipelines, but it's unlikely that catastrophic explosions damaging all three pipes stemmed from the same root maintenance cause.
Not impossible without further information, but in general the whole point of having multiple pipelines would be to isolate them from this kind of shared failure.
> Maybe just a time sensitive maintenance task that was neglected due to current state of affairs?
How can you suggest this with a straight face?
Mostly since I have zero knowledge of the Nordstrom pipelines, that's why I'm wondering if there's any commonality.
I assume the current mode of operation is far from the normal one, which probably brings a much higher likely chance of "edge case" malfunctions, but yeah just speculating here.
Three of the four "strings", the actual pipes making up Nord Stream 1 and 2, were damaged, and at different spots along their length.
This is absolutely sabotage.
I think the Russian explanation is simple enough and don't believe we have to put tinfoil hat for this.
We knew that this would be the result of sanctions on western tech and knowledge. I've met and talked a lot with a Russian/Khazak "oil engineer" (asylum seeker, hosted by my mom) and to be honest, his knowledge in thermodynamics was abyssimal and wouldn't qualify for "system dynamics 201" (loose translation, sorry) in my country. I know there was difficulty with the language but even mathematic objects (tensor specifically, he knew what a matrix was) escaped his knowledge. He was probably a very good plumber and technician, able to repair a lot of mechanical issues (he found work in a garage), but the fundamental seemed very shaky in my western view.
I think that if trully skilled workers left, and western monitoring and support are hit by sanctions, any issue like this is very likely to happen on its own and stand to happen more and more as the months pass.
Do you really think that incompetence or neglect caused three separate pipelines to fail on the same day?
> I think the Russian explanation is simple enough and don't believe we have to put tinfoil hat for this.
How is the russian explanation simple? I mean, we all knew that Putin will pressure Europe with energy in exchange for a blind eye in Ukraine. But now, how can Putin even play that gambit?