Hacker News Reader

Comment by syzarian | Hacker News Reader

Shortly before the explosions Russia had shut down Nordstream1 for “maintenance”. This was believed at the time to be an attempt to squeeze gas supplies in Europe in retaliation for sanctions and helping Ukraine. By September 2022 Nordsteam1 was operating at 20%. I think part of the issue for Russia is that contracts specified payment in euros but Russia was blocked out of SWIFT. This effectively meant Russia wasn’t paid for gas it delivered. If the pipes were inoperative then the contracts were void. Germany had already decertified Nordstream2 by this time.

I think it is unreasonable to believe that the U.S. attacked the energy sources of NATO allies as they scrambled to get enough energy before the onset of winter.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/22/european-gas-prices-surge-as...

View on HN

Shutting them down for maintenance means you have leverage because you can return the flow. Irreparably destroying the pipelines means you destroy the leverage Russia might have been able to use over Germany and others.

> I think it is unreasonable to believe that the U.S. attacked the energy sources of NATO allies as they scrambled to get enough energy before the onset of winter.

Why? Physically cutting off the flow of gas from Russia has been a hug boon to US LNG business. It's had the effect of decreasing their energy reliance on Russia and increasing their reliance on the US. That's not necessarily a bad thing in the long run, as this war has demonstrated.

It also gives European elites an out to avoid pressure from their common folk to make a deal with Russia as things get cold. Harder to do that when they can theoretically just flip a switch to return the gas flow and resolve the pain.

As stated it got Russia out of the Nordsteam1 contract without any legal repercussions. What you say is plausible. It’s also plausible Russia wanted this. I don’t know the truth of the matter. I don’t believe the U.S. decided that adding more energy uncertainty was a good thing just before the onset of winter. That doesn’t make any political sense to me and it’s not like Biden could reasonably expect that doing this could boost his political power or prospects.

The part you are missing is that Russia has many other pipelines to send oil/gas to Europe. This was only one.

> I think it is unreasonable to believe that the U.S. attacked the energy sources of NATO allies as they scrambled to get enough energy before the onset of winter.

You haven't read enough history of mankind, I think.

It’s clearly reasonable to believe that a major power would attack energy supplies against an adversary. It is not reasonable to believe that just before winter a major power attacks the energy supplies that its essential allies need. Especially when that major power desires a unified political and military response to said adversary. It defies common sense and logic to think the U.S. did this. Of course, there are lots of examples of countries doing things that defy common sense and logic.

On the contrary, it's exactly what said "major power" would do and has done in the past.

The United States attacked the energy supplies of an ally? When was this? It doesn’t seem reasonable that Biden faced with criticism at home for higher energy prices would exacerbate that problem by attacking the gas supplies of NATO allies. He had nothing to gain from doing this. The explosions didn’t bolster his political standing at home or increase his political capital.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com