https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/09/29/russian-s...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-turkmenistan-gas-s...
Peeling Europe away from a US alliance through energy partnership and trade, especially trade denominated in Euros which greatly benefited Europeans, was such a powerful lever to play in Russian geopolitical strategy that people claiming Russia blew up their own pipelines and threw this lever away have worms in their brain and simply haven't paid attention to the long term dynamics.
Having Germany/Europe on your side, vs them being on your biggest adversary's side is such an order of magnitude net benefit than saving money on contracts, this is just ridiculous.
Additionally, even if consideration of blowing up the pipelines ever made any sense whatsoever for Russia, blowing them up right now before winter, before further deterioration of Germany/European industrial economy, and before potential financial/energy crisis really bites right around the corner or next year is absurd. If this was a few years from now we could entertain theories of why not having the pipes and trade with Europe is better than having them (it still wouldn't make sense).
But Russia "panic bombing" their own pipelines right before pressure on Europe is about to increase which would potentially get them to capitulate on their sanctions is silly.
This is US propaganda and you bought it. Many different political leaders in congress, the white house, and the administrative state like Victoria Nuland, Ron Johnson, Ted Cruz, Joe Biden, Trump, Marco Rubio, Condoleeza Rice, Lindsey Graham just to name a few have for years attacked the project and promised destruction of Nord Stream.
Anthony Blinken wrote a book in 1988 called "Ally vs Ally" that speculated about blowing up Soviet gas pipelines flowing into Europe, and discussed the Reagan administrations deep opposition to expanding energy trade between Europe and Russia. This is a long term existential threat to US hegemony and dominance of European affairs.
If Russia maybe having to pay a few fees, which I'm sure they could just avoid if they wanted to, was more important than potential energy alliance between Russia and Europe, then multiple US administrations would not have talked and acted to end the project so intensely.
This is another example of the all to common delusional thinking that for some reason, the world hegemon that controls financial system, trade lanes, has massive military power and spending advantage, whose empire is very dependent upon global reserve currency and influence of energy trade, won't actually act like a hegemon and apply their power to suit their interests and thwart rivals building their own power.
What makes you think the US who promised Nord Stream would be stopped, wouldn't stop it with kinetic force and sabotage? This is the Occam's razor, "cui bono" explanation.
Your article claims Russia hasn't called the attacks attacks. They have. Also, it correctly states that destruction of the pipelines "signals a point of no return". Yes, exactly, which is why it makes 0 sense for Russia to do it, and complete sense for US (either directly or through deputized vassals like UK) to do it.
Why would Russia want to reach a point of no return on potential alliance with Germany/Europe against the US?
See Mackinder's heartland theory on potential global power emanating from control of the "world island"/Eurasia:
Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world
A particular path to this goal that he and many others leading US/NATO/UK security strategy saw was a German/Russia alliance, something US has wanted to prevent for over 100 years. Putin would never throw away potential for this, something he was building towards for decades, in a matter of weeks before circumstances could lead to its realization.
Denmark, Sweden, and Germany have begun investigations but have not blamed Russia [0] and in particular are having issues coordinating the investigation and are individually maintaining secrecy about their findings.
Sweden has elected to have a partial separate investigation apart from Germany and Denmark citing national security concerns [1]. The point here is the issue is not resolved and there is confusion on all sides; aside from US media elements or US politicians, the investigators themselves have not said Russia was responsible and you won't find a European official at center of investigation making claims of Russian responsibility.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-shuns-formal-joi...
In reference to sources for original comment:
- Ron Johnson & Victoria Nuland https://youtu.be/rBUIlHM9WSo
- Ted Cruz years of comments attacking Nord Stream https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Atedcruz%20%22nord%20stre...
- Condoleezza Rice https://youtu.be/aF0uYIjaTNE
- referencing Antony Blinken's book "Ally vs Ally" about US opposing Russian/European pipeline gas from 1988, and hypothetical bombing of pipelines to stop gas trade https://twitter.com/frankoz95967943/status/15767507942667141...
- link to book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0275924106/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_GB2BX...
- Victoria Nuland again: "Nord Stream 2 will not move forward" https://twitter.com/ricwe123/status/1586101294334443520
- Biden: "there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it...I promise you we will do that" https://twitter.com/YoThatsCrazyyy/status/157741285229332480...
In the absence of evidence and with only finger-pointing at this stage, I am inclined to believe that Russia is responsible since they have damaged their own pipelines several times in the past and lied about those instances, too. If Russia had any credibility before, they have essentially none now, and they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
As for their motives, there are several: to avoid paying the "force majeure" penalty, to give an unambiguous signal that no more gas is forthcoming in the immediate future, to threaten Europe's own energy infrastructure with a demonstration, to weaken the alliance by making some EU countries suspect the US, and for Putin to warn Russia's oligarchs that they can't just depose him and resume gas shipments - Russia is now all-in and can't go back to normal anytime soon even after a regime change.
As for Biden saying he would "stop" the pipeline earlier this year, he was talking about a different pipeline, Nord Stream 2 (which had not yet started operation at the time he made that remark), not Nord Stream 1. He was threatening to work with US allies to block it from opening in the first place.
The US has forbidden Ukraine from attacking Russian territory with US weapons, why would we take the escalatory step of attacking Russian infrastructure ourselves? We could have just let Ukraine do whatever they wanted with US weapons and denied responsibility, but the US was careful to avoid provoking Russia too much. It makes no sense that after all that tip-toeing around we would say "to hell with it" and launch a direct attack.
No. It is it not "different" seeing as that very pipeline was attacked and damaged, along with the other one. Nord Stream 1 and 2 were both attacked and damaged. They run parallel for much of their path except at certain parts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_gas_leaks
>block it from opening.
Yes, and given the energy crisis now affecting Europe and Germany, inflation, and potential shortages of gas when winter comes and/or next year plus industrial needs for natural gas as input, it is exceedingly ridiculous that Russia would preempt these immanent crises and throw away their leverage for potential alliance with Europe in opposition to US right as the mounting pressures incentivize Europe to abandon sanctions and push for rapprochement.
You bring up war crimes and war decisions. First of all all wars involved war crimes, including the current one on the Ukrainian side. But put morality aside for a second, I'm addressing interests and realpolitik. That Russia saw it in there interest to attack is one thing. I dispute that they saw it in their interest to blow up their own pipeline and their primary point of leverage and economic strength towards an alliance with Europe in opposition to their primary enemy. No benefit of the doubt is required here to see this reality.
It's actually in the US's interest for the Nord Stream 1 to remain operational for at least a few more months so that Europe can fill its reserves. The extra money Russia/Gazprom pulls in from that is not going to make much of a difference to the war effort, while the extra gas will help ensure that Europe's resolve doesn't break this winter. Next winter hopefully they'll have further transitioned to green energy and LNG. So just looking it at that way, the US should not attack the pipeline at this time. Maybe next string, but not now!
I presented numerous possible motives for Russia to damage its own pipelines at this time, as well as a record of similar past behavior. I think I made a compelling case. I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree with your conclusions. If you don't agree with any of my points and won't budge on this at all then that's fine, but there's nothing more to debate here.
The obvious answer is because regardless of how much text people write, it was clearly Russia who had the most to gain and the easiest ability to do it.
Gazprom has maintenance robots that can be sent down the pipes and could be used to cause an internal explosion.
Much more likely and reasonable than some sort of fanciful special operations mission.
Why? Why after pausing Nord 1? Please enlighten us if you are going to use "obvious" without any source.
There is disadvantage to Russia from every perspective if they blew Nord Stream. To me it doesn't make any sense to commit suicide.
In contrast, that other side of the world has actual products, resources and services backing their money and wealth. They dont allow shenanigans like how Wall Street does to invent new 'derivatives' to bloat the financial sector even more and increase its disconnect from the actual physical economy.
As of this moment, the US government is busy pumping dollars into Ukraine to take them out of circulation to combat inflation by getting it channeled back to the US defense sector to be racked up as profit and stock value. The wealth that was generated in the Angloamerican West is so weakly supported by the physical sectors of the economy that it requires such things to keep it from crashing down.
I intentionally singled out the Angloamerican countries. Because these countries are the ones who allow practically unregulated financial sectors to bloat their economy. The regulations are more strict everywhere including Europe, and neither stock values nor the financial economy are so bloated like in the US.
https://www.wita.org/ustrade/us-trade-trends/the-us-trade-de...