Hacker News Reader

Comment by j0057 | Hacker News Reader

The potential downside for Russia to blow up the Nordstream pipelines is: it would require some investment to repair the pipeline in the event Russian-German relations would improve, Germany's security outlook on purchasing Russian gas would flip 180 degrees and there would be peace in Ukraine. In other words, pipeline or not, Russia won't be selling gas to Germany anytime soon, so there's really not a lot of downside to blowing up a useless pipeline. And it's easy to deny too, as you and others point out: why would Russia blow up their own pipeline?

Here's why: the upside for Russia is getting European NATO countries to point fingers at each other, accusing Poland or USA or Great Britain of (nearly) violating Denmark's territorial integrity. Creating distrust inside NATO is a pretty useful strategic result!

The line of 'why would Russia blow up their own pipeline' is terribly simple-minded.

View on HN

You are forgetting that repairing the pipelines is not easy and longer they stay in sea water, less likely it can be done reliably due to corrosion. Also secretly blowing up a pipeline in effectively NATOs backwater is easier said than done for Russia (remember the Nordic countries blaming Russian subs for suspicious sonar readings?), meanwhile for UK/US it's much easier.

Are there not valves along the pipeline to seal off sections? I've done some small amount of work on above ground gas pipelines and I feel like the majority of the pipeline would be undamaged, assuming the valves were closed in a reasonable time.

I never heard about such valves in underwater pipelines. How would they be powered? It's possible that they could have reverse sumps, so water would flood only one section and the rest will be protected by residual pressure, but I do not know if NS/NS2 have anything like this.

This is incredible mental gymnastics.

Occam's razor provides a better explanation, the West did it because it handicaps a rival power.

You can call it mental gymnastics, but I just call it thinking. I notice you're not really engaging with the point, which is that yes, Russia attacked its own infrastructure, and that hurts their own interests, but the effects of the attack – 1) creating more uncertainty on the European energy market on the day a Norwegian pipeline opened; 2) creating a sense of insecurity in the states around the Baltic sea; and 3) creating distrust between NATO members – are all worth the price to the Russians, because they are losing their war. One moment we're discussing nuclear warfare and mutually assured destruction, and the next we're not considering Russia blowing up some of their own infrastructure. Compared to M.A.D., blowing up a pipeline seems like a pretty cheap deal if it would benefit the Russian war effort.

So, let's do some more thinking. What would USA have to benefit from attacking the pipeline between Russia and Germany? A higher price for their LNG, so more money from Europe (economically weakening their ally), and if it would come out that USA did it, it would lead to severe fractures in NATO — not at all to the USA's benefit. And how, if the USA did it, would it have increased Russia's inability to sell gas to Europe? The flow was already zero, with no prospect of it returning anytime soon, sabotage or not. According to you, the USA sabotaged an ally, at the risk of ending NATO, at almost no detriment to Russia, for some increased LNG sales money. That, I would call mental gymnastics.

The US has literally blown up Russian pipelines in the past to prevent influence in Europe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r...

Very doubtful this is some sort of 8d chess game by the Russians.

That cause for that event is not undisputed, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage.

You still haven't explained why you think it's doubtful Russia would use sabotage in this way. This is what their entire modus operandi, just think of the various Polonium-210 and Novichok operations. You can't dispute that people are suspecting USA of having done it, does that not harm cohesion inside NATO?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido

Mental gymnastics? It’s what Russia is best known for. Applying Occam’s razor brings you precisely to the conclusion that it was Russia.

It also means that a Putin replacement can’t easily put things back how they were.

The side of this that is most opaque is the Russian one.

*it was never going to be easy, but it’s harder now.

Why stop there? Maybe Martians blew it as now humans are pointing fingers at each other which is a pretty useful strategic result.

Pretty sure Russia exists but Martians do not. That’s a reason to stop there.

That’s just what the Martians would like you to believe. Try doing your own research.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com