The US Sabotaged a USSR Natural Gas Pipeline in 1982 (2004)
smh.com.au
smh.com.au
A report in the Moscow Times quoted KGB veteran Vasily Pchelintsev as saying that there was a natural gas pipeline explosion in 1982, but it was near Tobolsk on a pipeline connecting the Urengoy gas field to the city of Chelyabinsk, and it was caused by poor construction rather than sabotage; according to Pchelintsev's account, no one was killed in the explosion and the damage was repaired within one day.[2] Reed's account has also not been corroborated by intelligence agencies in the United States.[3]
Another point of criticism of the sabotage allegations is that, according to Prof. V. D. Zakhmatov, an explosion safety expert who has overseen the safety measures on many of the Soviet oil and gas pipelines built in the 1980s,[4] at the described timeframe Soviet Union simply didn't practice digital control of its pipeline system.
Nord Stream 1 and 2 failed in a similar way. I wonder if it could have been a software attack, and what sort of resources would have been required.
One of the architects of this scheme wrote about it for the CIA's internal 'trade journal', which article has since been declassified. It adds an interesting additional dimension. This is very old-fashioned classic spycraft in some respects, but I'm surprised and impressed that the idea of a slow-burning software fuse was deployed so early.
https://www.cia.gov/static/887689795bd91ed08ca926a2f6278ee4/...
Neat! Where can I read more of these?
Those aren't normal-grade pipes underwater. They are concrete reinforced. Unless something ignited the gas then I have a hard time believing it was a software attack. Those pipes are usually purged of oxygen as well meaning ignition would be...surprising. Moreover I've been reading that the pipes were empty anyway. Do they keep those pipe pressurized all the time?
Whoever did it most likely used an explosive by my estimation. Special forces dive teams are capable of the depths needed and wouldn't be detected by submarine searches. Further, it would make no sense for the US to sabotage the pipeline because the LNG supply chain from the US to Europe is by boat. Frankly I wouldn't be shocked if Russia did this to declare a sort of "official" separation. A false flag is possible too just given the situation Europe is in I find it hard to believe NATO would do that. Usually with a false flag there is some, even seemingly inconsequential, motivation.
If natural gas from Norway is disrupted, all bets are off.
This might have been an preventive "intervention" to make such a "relapse" impossible.
Of course it might just as well have been a russian false flag with exactly the aim of strengthening the "the US is secretly controlling Europe" narrative.
Why would there be submarine searches? Are these pipelines patrolled 24/7 by submarines?
>Further, it would make no sense for the US to sabotage the pipeline because the LNG supply chain from the US to Europe is by boat.
I don't follow the logic here. Presumably the US's motive is to disrupt europe's gas supply from russia, so russia can't use it as a bargaining chip. I don't see how the US -> europe gas supply being LNG contradicts this.
Yes, the US can profit HUGELY off this but it seems stupid to hurt their ally considerably for the sake of stopping bargaining (which may avoid a world war). Given that the US can't supply immediate relief the profit over winter is severely limited and Europeans will suffer even with the shipments. I just can't see the US doing such a thing because it would certainly mean being driven out of NATO, and potentially Europe going to war with the US.
There is no practical way to drive the US out of NATO, without disbanding NATO altogether.
The location of the breaks is in relatively shallow water, busy with commercial shipping traffic, and also next door to the HQ of the Russian Baltic fleet.
Any submarines in Baltic Sea are of great interest to all nations in the area.
Can you explain your logic? If US sabotages the pipeline, wouldn't it force Europe to expedite buying more (expensive) LNG, instead of hoping that flow of Russian gas will resume?
It seems to me that both USA and Russia have incentives to see the pipe decommissioned. It could also backfire against either of them.
- USA: LNG sales soar. False flag op attributed to Russia. Both put pressure on Europe to align with US interests, despite the high economic price. More important, deprives Russia of the ability to use gas as a bargaining chip.
- Russia: False flag op attributed to USA. Perhaps avoids contractual penalty clauses for not supplying Europe with enough gas. Makes energy crisis in Europe worse so that there will be popular pressure for a Ukraine deal.
It's not impossible. It just seems entirely unlikely the US would destroy the pipeline knowing they can't supply immediate relief. If NATO found out it would likely lead to war.
Eh, if you live in the US-centric info-sphere, you'd likely have that kind of a "good faith" opinion, but this is actually quite in line with their foreign policy patterns.
> If NATO found out it would likely lead to war.
Please, the US IS NATO. What are they gonna do, go to war with the US, using it's own intelligence, military infrastructure and America's own military industrial complex for supply? The US holds all the cards in NATO.
The original supply chain attack was to supply a manipulated control software which changed turbine and valve configurations so that the pipeline was running with unsafe levels of pressure.
Eventually the pressure was too much and the line burst.
The manipulations were subtle enough that personnel couldn't easily distinguish them from normal operation - which is why the attack went undetected until the explosion happened.
In the current case however, the pipeline was already shut down and the pressure levels where monitored on the european side (and probably on the russian side too). A cyberattack would have to turn the turbines back on while also rigging the monitoring stations on both sides in such a way that everyone still believes the pipeline is off. (And hope no one physically present at the stations wonders why turbines for a pipeline that's supposed to be off are running at full speed)
I think Ockham's razor would favourite the submarine hypothesis here :)
"Under pressure" could just be 5 bar to keep it at a sane level.
I had no idea that it was predated by this by decades. It looks like it's pretty recently released information too.
In 1982 the only 'computer'-like electronics most people would have had would have been a Nintendo Game & Watch. Even 8-bit home computers were only just emerging. Pretty eye-opening history lesson for me.