world

Europe investigates 'attacks' on Russian gas pipelines to Europe

79 Comments
By Anna Ringstrom and Stine Jacobsen

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (Thomson Reuters 2022.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


79 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

So guess who previously threatened to take the Nord Stream Pipelines offline before they were sabotaged on Monday?

But it’s not out of the realm of the possible that the U.S. is indeed behind the attack. President Joe Biden promised on February 7 to prevent Nord Stream 2 from becoming operational if Russia invaded Ukraine. "If Russia invades,” said Biden, “then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

Reporter: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"

Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."

7 ( +23 / -16 )

So guess who previously threatened to take the Nord Stream Pipelines offline before they were sabotaged on Monday?

Ah yes, the US blowing up the pipelines supplying gas for much Europe would certainly bode well for US-European relations.

You know who blows up their own property/citizens to manufacture consent? Russia.

-4 ( +15 / -19 )

That both Nord Stream 1 and 2 have reported unexplained pressure drops followed by visual evidence of raw natural gas appearing on the surface of the water, it is quite unlikely these are unrelated manifestations of malfunctions due to an engineering failure of a pipeline wall or a defective weld or two.

While we might continue to speculate on the exact cause, the geopolitical environment in which this event has taken place on two pipelines some distance apart from one another does lead to the conclusion Russia has just produced a graphic demonstration of its underwater capabilities to attack critical infrastructure far outside a war zone and at a time and place of its own choosing.

The world ought to take note Russia will likely use such capabilities everywhere in order to get what it wants in Ukraine.

-6 ( +12 / -18 )

"We see clearly that it's an act of sabotage, related to the next step of escalation of the situation in Ukraine,

This thing here is getting out of control.

Sabotage to the Gas Pipeline, which is also a big issue for the enviroment and the nature of the ocean.

Russia will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons and Russia do not hesitate to destroy our planet.

Mass murdering of innocent people, killing women and children, raping young girls...the list is without ending of the Russian crimes.

Russia do not hesitate to destroy our planet including millions of innocent lives.

And the world should and will take Russia into full responsibility for that!

-10 ( +10 / -20 )

Hey, remember when the Kursk blew up and sank and Putie claimed it was a result of a collision with a foreign submarine and not operational incompetence?

And then he dithered at accepting help and thus consigned the initial survivors to a slow death?

Yeah, same thing here or worse.

-4 ( +12 / -16 )

Ukrainain are biggest transporter of Russian gas through Ukraine ,too Europe and get 6 million dollar a day in Russian blood money ,this another dysfunctional relationship in the war

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

That both Nord Stream 1 and 2 have reported unexplained pressure drops followed by visual evidence of raw natural gas appearing on the surface of the water, it is quite unlikely these are unrelated manifestations of malfunctions due to an engineering failure of a pipeline wall or a defective weld or two.

While we might continue to speculate on the exact cause, the geopolitical environment in which this event has taken place on two pipelines some distance apart from one another does lead to the conclusion Russia has just produced a graphic demonstration of its underwater capabilities to attack critical infrastructure far outside a war zone and at a time and place of its own choosing.

The world ought to take note Russia will likely use such capabilities everywhere in order to get what it wants in Ukraine.

Definitely, another Russian attempt to get the West out of this conflict. The longer the conflict, the worst it is for Putin. It could be a threat by Russia, or it could be a distraction by Russia.

1) If it is a threat then it means other infrastructures underwater are in danger like electricity cables and internet cables.

2) If it is a distraction then it is more proof that Putin is desperate because no one respects his fraudulent referendum to annex parts of Ukraine, and his own non-ethnic people are revolting and fleeing.

So far, Putin has been sending troops from the mostly ethnic regions of Russian ie. "non-whites." They make a large percentage of the casualties since March.

Now, he is conscripting and sending ill-equipped, poorly trained white men. The casualties will be even higher in a shorter period of time. Thus, you see the news about large numbers of protesters, men fleeing to the border or buying plane tickets, and general dissatisfaction with the invasion by the populace and Putin global allies.

Most "real Russians" did not care until it was their own sons.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

USA is already quietly bragging about it.

Blinken says it’s great for the EU. He says EU can buy US oil and gas and invest in green energy without relying on Russia.

7 ( +16 / -9 )

Another scary way to look at this is Putin has finally realized his "mortality"; thus, he is hell bent on cementing his legacy in Russian history by any means necessary (bucket list)!

If he is truly ill and dying then he is far more dangerous than people realize.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

Numan, majority of Ukrainain and Russian are Slavic,their is really any difference,but nationality

0 ( +8 / -8 )

@Yrral

Numan, majority of Ukrainain and Russian are Slavic,their is really any difference,but nationality

That does not disapprove my point. Twenty-percent of the Russian people are not of European descent (minorities).

Russia is a multinational state, home to over 193 ethnic groups nationwide. In the 2010 Census, roughly 81% of the population were ethnic Russians, and the remaining 19% of the population were ethnic minorities; and over four-fifths of Russia's population was of European descent, of which the vast majority were East Slavs, with a substantial minority of Finnic and Germanic peoples. According to the United Nations, Russia's immigrant population is the world's third-largest, numbering over 11.6 million; most of whom are from other post-Soviet states.

What is your point again?

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Both pipelines were shut down. Hard to believe that Russia would attack its own idled infrastructure and remove the possibility of operating them again.

If it was an attack it could even have been China that would gain from a permanently damaged EU economy.

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Russia blew up both of their pipelines as a false flag operation....anyone suggesting otherwise will be branded a Putin lover.

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

Possibly an accident, or possibly eco-terrorism. If it’s eco-terrorism, the Russians seem to be, with their assaults on nuclear reactors and their nuclear threats, the more likely wrongdoer.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

Are people just losing logic or have people really become dumber.

So the accusations are Russian did it to themselves.

Really?

Think all Russia needed to do is what it already has done claim the pumping system is broken.

That is it claim the system is broken and sanctions prevent repair.

Blowing up the pipeline and not being able to turn it on and off as a threat which was far more useful!

Seriously think!

10 ( +19 / -9 )

The EU will suspect the US but won't be able to say so. The Russians could simply turn it on or off - there is no benefit for them in this. Ukraine might have wanted to do it, but have better targets in Russia. Eco worriers would have loved to do it, but I doubt they have the ability. The Chinese rarely engage in stuff like this, so far from their own turf. The most likely suspect would be an official or unofficial US operation, switching the EU from a dependency upon Russia to a dependency upon the US.

11 ( +16 / -5 )

Not an accident or malfunction. Two large blasts sound like explosives.

16 ( +17 / -1 )

Somehow the narrative that the US is behind this has started to spread from the Kremlin recently. Possibly Ukraine to get money for gas through their territory. Same phrases and they appeared at the same time.

And that the Russians didn't have to do it, that all they had to do was turn off the valve.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine was also presented as fiction and ridiculed even hours before the actual invasion.

It turns out that if the Russians are saying something, the truth is quite the opposite.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

Russia blew up both of their pipelines as a false flag operation....anyone suggesting otherwise will be branded a Putin lover.

thanks for the info Biden Lover

4 ( +10 / -6 )

USA is already quietly bragging about it.

Blinken says it’s great for the EU. He says EU can buy US oil and gas and invest in green energy without relying on Russia.

Yeah, it does sound very suspicious.

10 ( +17 / -7 )

Both pipelines were shut down. Hard to believe that Russia would attack its own idled infrastructure and remove the possibility of operating them again.

It is a warning to the west. Seismic stations clearly recorded explosions, one of which was quite large. Ther are also reports of unmanned submersible vehicle activity. That same day a brand new gas pipeline from Norway to Poland began operating. There is also a new pipeline called the Balticconnector connecting Finland to Lithuania and the rest of Europe. Russia now has every navy in the region on edge finding ways to protect western gas pipelines and probably a couple of big underwater electrical transmission cables like those connecting UK to France and Norway.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

It is a warning to the west. Seismic stations clearly recorded explosions, one of which was quite large. Ther are also reports of unmanned submersible vehicle activity. That same day a brand new gas pipeline from Norway to Poland began operating. There is also a new pipeline called the Balticconnector connecting Finland to Lithuania and the rest of Europe. Russia now has every navy in the region on edge finding ways to protect western gas pipelines and probably a couple of big underwater electrical transmission cables like those connecting UK to France and Norway.

I mean, what are the odds? Coincidence??

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The Russians could simply turn it on or off - there is no benefit for them in this.

No, because if they just turn it off, all countries will complain and then Russia will again looks bad and that they blackmail the world by turning off the Gas lines.

But now, there is a lot of speculations going around the world, who did it.

Including that the US did it or the EU... or whatever....

I hope there will be a deep investigation and that the real truth will come to light, but I personally would bet my ass that Russia did it, to implement exactly the situation we have now: Blame the US or the EU.

That is exactly what Russia want: Let Russia looks innocent and give the blame to the US or the EU.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

Through June of this year, the U.S exported about 57 bcm of gas as LNG with 39 bcm, or 68%, going to Europe, Refinitiv data shows. That is compared with 34 bcm, or 35%, of LNG exports, shipped to Europe for all of 2021.

The United States became the world's largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter during the first half of 2022, according to data from CEDIGAZ. Compared with the second half of 2021, U.S. LNG exports increased by 12% in the first half of 2022, averaging 11.2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d).

The US would have nothing to gain by blowing up the gas pipeline. The EU/UK are already seeking alternatives to Russian gas and will eventually end their dependency on it. Russia can no longer be trusted.

I don't see why Russia would blow up the pipeline since they could just turn it off unless they were making a statement. They gave, they took away.

I don't see Ukraine doing it and causing trouble for its allies.

RodneyToday 08:28 am JST

USA is already quietly bragging about it.

> Blinken says it’s great for the EU. He says EU can buy US oil and gas and invest in green energy without relying on Russia.

Gross misinformation and a search produce zero results.

bass4funk falling for a post by Rodney. ROFL

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

It is a warning to the west. Seismic stations clearly recorded explosions, one of which was quite large. Ther are also reports of unmanned submersible vehicle activity. That same day a brand new gas pipeline from Norway to Poland began operating.

Wait!

We are to believe to "warm" the west, Russia blew up their own pipeline they could just shut off anytime!

And the non logic is to show what? It can blow up the rival pipelines?

Now which is more likely, the above or now that the new rival pipelines are in operations, certain western powers wanted to guarantee the Russian ones wouldn't operate again.

Again we are being told the sound of hooves is a zebra not a horse.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

zebras and horses did it OMG.

Unmanned sub or drone boat found in the Black Sea.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/09/22/mystery-vessel-may-be-new-ukrainian-attack-drone/?sh=5dbd85fc7a77

Russians also has unmanned subs.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Monty

Today 09:30 am JST

The Russians could simply turn it on or off - there is no benefit for them in this.

> No, because if they just turn it off, all countries will complain and then Russia will again looks bad and that they blackmail the world by turning off the Gas lines.

> But now, there is a lot of speculations going around the world, who did it.

To make the above seem plausible one would need to do backflips in their head.

I can just imagine how the conversation in the Kremlin went.

Putin: hey lest turn off the gas,

Advisor: No we will look bad to the west!

Putin: yeah, as if we look good now,

Advisor: instead let's blow up the pipeline and cut all chance of every selling gas again

Putin: I hope you like Siberia!

New advisor: what if we claim the system is broken and sanctions are preventing us from getting the needed parts!

Putin: guess you get to stay in Moscow for now!

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

I think there are 10 other gas pipes to Europe.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Now which is more likely, the above or now that the new rival pipelines are in operations, certain western powers wanted to guarantee the Russian ones wouldn't operate again.

Well, lets put your hypothesis (western powers blew up the pipeline, not Russia) to a similar level of scrutiny.

A western power blowing up these pipelines is something that would have an extremely high level of risk on the one hand, and very little payoff to justify that risk on the other.

In terms of risk, the pipeline in question is Russian property and a physical attack on it by a western power would in effect be a direct act of war against the Russian state, so the stakes involved in doing something like this are incredibly high. Obviously whoever did this isn't claiming responsibility, but if it had been carried out by a western actor and not Russia, then Russia would be able to easily deduce that they had been attacked by the west and use that accordingly. The fact that they aren't screaming bloody murder about their pipeline having been blown up by the Americans (or whoever) strongly suggests to me that they know the west didn't do it.

But lets say this actually was some undercover operation by a western government. What would be the payoff that would justify risking open war between Russia and NATO should their involvement be discovered (as it seemingly easily would by the Kremlin)? They would be destroying pipelines that were clearly never going to operate again anyway. Europe is clearly committed to ending its dependence on Russian gas. This is not going to change. Even if the war were to end tomorrow, Russia's actions have already shown Europe how vulnerable it made itself by its reliance and as a matter of security there is just no way they are going to return to the old dependence.

So the payoff of blowing them up would seem to be so small as to be almost nil - guaranteeing that pipelines would never operate again even though it was already guaranteed that they would never operate again.

This makes no sense.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Sweden and Denmark say Nord Stream pipeline blasts were deliberate attacks

https://www.politico.eu/article/gas-leak-detected-near-nord-stream-2/

6 ( +7 / -1 )

if something serious like happens always ask first old question

cui bono

btw did you ever heard about Tonkin incident and what had followed?

8 ( +11 / -3 )

One would have to be pretty thick to believe that the US would risk its alliance with Western Europe to sabotage a pipeline that is not in operation, but which could have been used in a negotiated settlement as well as causing significant environmental damage right off its Allie’s coast.

But given the people postulating this, it’s not that hard to see how it spreads.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

The Russians could simply turn it on or off - there is no benefit for them in this.

Consider that the Russians have been flaring gas for months on their border with Finland. This gas used to be sold to Finland but Russia cut them off. No big deal for the Finns as they were almost entirely weaned from Russian gas anyway, but Russia makes a display of flaring the gas as if to say to Finland, look what you could have if you were more submissive to us like the old days.

What will be telling is how long the Russians pump gas uselessly into that pipeline. They have created several navigational hazards now, both in terms of the explosion hazard and the fact that gassfied water will not provide the buoyancy of the ocean around the leaks.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

rainyday

Today 10:13 am JST

You forgot the one thing the west has been going since the start.

"It wasn't us it was Ukraine with equipment we gave them"

Yep HIMARS need western military satellites but in theory USA and NATO are not doing the attacking.

Well give Ukraine the equipment and again it is a scenario where the west can say " not us" and be factual.

But Russia could just claim technical problems but instead blows up it own pipeline it more believable, right?

4 ( +10 / -6 )

I don't see why Russia would blow up the pipeline since they could just turn it off unless they were making a statement. They gave, they took away.

Now that there are holes in both pipelines lets see how long it takes for them to shut the gas off.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

One would have to be pretty thick to believe that the US would risk its alliance with Western Europe to sabotage a pipeline that is not in operation"

No thicker than to believe that Russia blew up both their pipelines but that narrative will be pushed by many here and as said those who suggest otherwise will be called Putin fanboys as usual.

Swedish seismologist Bjorn Lund told local media it appeared an explosion had taken place at the Nord Stream pipelines.“At least 100kg of TNT has been used, but probably more,” he said.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

rainyday

Today 10:13 am JST

Lete remind you . "Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain!" 

Gulf of Tonkin incident.

weapons of mass destruction.

And more!

The USA has a long long record of such things.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

"Nord Stream 2, which is not in operation, was nonetheless filled with 177 million cubic meters of natural gas — worth €358 million at current prices — to bring pipeline pressure up to 300 bar in anticipation of being allowed to flow. Germany froze approval of the pipeline after Russia's invasion of Ukraine."

The pipelines are at a depth of 80-110m.

Would need resources and equipment to plant explosives on them.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

"The CIA warned Berlin about a possible attack on gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea “weeks ago,” German magazine Der Spiegel reported on Tuesday. German security services are currently examining satellite imagery of the area where the explosions occurred, but see only “unremarkable” naval traffic, according to Spiegel. They are also convinced only a state actor could have done this, suggesting “divers or a mini-submarine” could have installed mines or explosives on the pipeline.The pipeline operator confirmed multiple gas lines suffered “unprecedented” damage and it was impossible to estimate when, or if, service might be restored.

By Monday evening, the German government was convinced the pipeline was targeted in a deliberate attack, according to the daily Tagesspiegel. Berlin was considering the possibility Ukraine or “Ukraine-affiliated forces” could be behind it, but also a “false flag” by Russia to make Ukraine look bad and drive EU energy prices even higher. While acknowledging that the “permanent interruption of gas supplies from Russia” would be in Ukraine’s interest, Der Spiegel said such an attack would have “immense political disadvantages” for Kiev. The only motive for Moscow to blow up the pipeline, according to the magazine, would be to “blame other parties for the incident.”

Earlier on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said an attack on Nord Stream was “in no one’s interest,” but that it also represented a “significant opportunity” for Europe to abandon Russian natural gas in favor of alternative energy supplies, presumably such as US LNG, and “accelerate the transition to renewables” in order to fight climate change."

4 ( +8 / -4 )

At this stage, no one and no country knows who is responsible. It may take some time.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

You forgot the one thing the west has been going since the start.

"It wasn't us it was Ukraine with equipment we gave them"

Yep HIMARS need western military satellites but in theory USA and NATO are not doing the attacking.

Well give Ukraine the equipment and again it is a scenario where the west can say " not us" and be factual.

But Russia could just claim technical problems but instead blows up it own pipeline it more believable, right?

OK, now we have an updated hypothesis to scrutinize: "The Ukrainians blew up the pipelines with US assistance". Lets have a look at that.

This hypothesis does have the benefit of trying to address one of the concerns I raised in my previous comment, which is the risk of instigating a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia.

Despite this, I don't think this hypothesis makes any sense either.

First, while Ukraine doing it would be less confrontational than the US doing it directly, this would still be a significant escalation by the US. The US has been very consistent in limiting its military assistance to Ukraine to things that can be used within Ukraine's borders. It has rejected a lot of Ukrainian requests for things, like long range missiles, that could be used to strike targets outside of Ukraine specifically to avoid the risk of escalation with Russia.

If this was an attack by US-backed Ukrainians, it would be one that occurred against a Russian target very far outside of Ukraine's borders. It occurred in international waters and not Russia itself, but it would indicate that the US was abandoning its intention to geographically limit its involvement in the conflict to Ukraine's borders. So it would still be a significant escalation.

Second, there is a serious geographical problem that is hard to get around, which is that Ukraine doesn't have a maritime border on the Baltic sea, nor does it have any way of directly accessing it. That would mean that physically the attack, even if carried out by Ukrainian nationals, would have had to originate in a country that does border the Baltic. The only ones it could plausibly originate from would be NATO members. Again this would involve a significant escalation by someone in NATO, which in addition to not wanting to spread the war beyond Ukraine's borders also has been extremely careful to prohibit attacks being launched against Russian targets from NATO's own territory.

And remember that this wouldn't have been just a couple of guys in a dingy sneakily rowing over and dropping a few grenades over the side. I'm not an expert in underwater demolitions, but an operation like this would require significant logistical and other support. So the Russians would know that even if it was Ukrainians who actually detonated the bombs that the attack had come directly from NATO territory and would view this as a significant escalation.

Again, this makes Russian silence hard to understand if it really was a Ukrainian attack with NATO assistance. They would be screaming at the tops of their heads about it right now. The fact that they aren't is difficult to explain if your hypothesis were correct.

Also, your new hypothesis fails to address the fact that blowing up pipelines that were never going to be used again anyway doesn't really make much sense from the Western perspective.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

The No1 pipeline stopped supplying gas and the No2 pipeline has never been in service.

Sep 2, 2022 — Gazprom, the state-owned oil and gas firm, said supplies would remain halted indefinitely after a leak was detected.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Earlier on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said an attack on Nord Stream was “in no one’s interest,” but that it also represented a “significant opportunity” for Europe to abandon Russian natural gas in favor of alternative energy supplies, presumably such as US LNG,

so it IS in someone's interest after all, right Blinken?

3 ( +11 / -8 )

rainyday

Today 11:03 am JST

So on the day the vote in occupied areas are in, the day a new rival pipeline is ready, suddenly Russia blows up its own pipeline!

Ok if you believe that fine but it seems strange that instead of the celebratory news all over Russia that the occupied Ukrainian territory voted to join Russia.

The news is pipeline blown up!

Seems oddly strange that Putin would mess up a chance to celebrate his victory in elections.

Before the election several days after I would say it is possible but on the day he (Putin) gets to announce the annexation of captured territory!

Does that sound right?

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

Seems oddly strange that Putin would mess up a chance to celebrate his victory in elections.

There have been no elections. Just an illegal referendum with voters forced at gunpoint.

Horses and zebras, again.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

So on the day the vote in occupied areas are in, the day a new rival pipeline is ready, suddenly Russia blows up its own pipeline!

Ok if you believe that fine but it seems strange that instead of the celebratory news all over Russia that the occupied Ukrainian territory voted to join Russia.

The news is pipeline blown up!

Seems oddly strange that Putin would mess up a chance to celebrate his victory in elections.

Before the election several days after I would say it is possible but on the day he (Putin) gets to announce the annexation of captured territory!

Does that sound right?

No doubt, this is an odd occurrence that is very difficult to explain. I'm not arguing that Russia did it, I simply don't have enough information to draw that conclusion. What I'm trying to point out however is that there are also massive holes in the theories you are advancing to argue that the West did this, which you don't seem to be able to address.

You seem to have already reached a desired conclusion ("the West did this") and are trying to rationalize backwards to create a theory that fits that conclusion. This is not a sound basis for analyzing a situation. A more sound approach would be to look at the information that we have available now and try to develop theories from that. At the moment I believe we don't have enough information to do so in a way that is going to lead to a reliable conclusion.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

rainyday

Today 11:28 am JST

Actually I did the same as you pointed out wholes the the theory Russia did it and gave theories as to others that benefit.

The fact that Germany has a history of this stuff, just before the Italian election Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen made threats that if the Italians did vote the right way it would face consequences like hungry and Poland are, make it as much a candidate for having done this.

So like you I don't know but in most cases the simplest explanation is the right one, and Russia doing it to its own pipeline on the same day a new pipeline opens and results in voting are in just doesn't make sense.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Antiquesaving

you do not know who is responsible.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Biden is on the record as voicing objections to the pipelines and stating action would be taken against them.

Watch US gas imports to the US rise from now..

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Im sure this has nothing at all to do with this, right?

"Speaking at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Biden said, "If Russia invades... again, then there will be longer Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

When asked how he would do that, he responded, "I promise you we will be able to do it."

3 ( +10 / -7 )

To make the above seem plausible one would need to do backflips in their head

Let's wait and see what the investigation will bring to light.

In case there will be one...

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Let's wait and see what the investigation will bring to light.

Fair enough,

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Victoria Nuland, US State Department:

"if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward."

Welcome to "one way or another".

To claim after Biden's quote and Nuland's quote and Blinken's statement that we simply have "no idea" how this happened is simply deflection.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

The only motive for Moscow to blow up the pipeline, according to the magazine, would be to “blame other parties for the incident.”

That is exactly what I said in one of my posts above.

That is exactly what Russia want: Let Russia looks innocent and give the blame to the US or the EU.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Actually I did the same as you pointed out wholes the the theory Russia did it and gave theories as to others that benefit.

Yes, but when I point out holes in your theories instead of engaging with my criticisms you respond by basically ignoring the substance of what I am saying and accusing me of arguing that Russia did it.

The fact that Germany has a history of this stuff, 

Germany does not have a history (at least post-1945) of doing something even remotely as provocative and risky as blowing up a Russian pipeline in the middle of a war.

So like you I don't know but in most cases the simplest explanation is the right one,

And yet the theories you are advancing to argue that the west did this are anything but simple and would require a very large number of assumptions to be true if analyzed in any detail.

and Russia doing it to its own pipeline on the same day a new pipeline opens and results in voting are in just doesn't make sense.

Fair point, but one theory not making sense doesn't by itself address the problems with other theories like the ones you are advancing, which also don't make sense.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Again,

The idea that the United States would unilaterally blow up a pipeline that is not in use, and for which a NATO allie invested billions of USD instigating an act of war as well as a possible environmental disaster is just so unbelievably stupid as to cause one to question the basic cognition of anyone postulating it.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Monty

Today 11:53 am JST

That would make sense except.

For months now the west says Russia is firing on its own positions at the nuclear plant saying Russia is trying to blame Ukraine and look a MSM social media, here no one believes Russia everyone has swallowed the Russia is doing it to itself.

So now we are to believe after supposedly failing with the nuclear power plant situation, Russia is doing the same with the pipelines and on top on the same day Putin gets his "Good news" results on voting in the occupied territory so that celebration gets overshadowed?

Any other day, a few weeks before the vote a week after the vote OK maybe but on the day of the results positive towards Russia, no I don't believe it was a legitimate vote but that doesn't change the fact Moscow was celebrating the results untill this happened.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

According to the news, they don’t want any gas anymore now or in future or take the other newer pipeline into operation respectively. So where’s the problem, when they are dismantled by attack, sabotage or by technical accidents. Both sides want or can consider them as quasi not existing anymore, right?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

A reminder that the Russians (and their Soviet predecessors) gave us a submarine that blew it's own bow off due to poor damage control and a nuclear reactor that exploded during a routine test.

So sheer incompetence is not out of the question.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

The pipelines were built by a Swiss company.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Think about the logic of the "Russia did it" scenario.

Moscow is celebrating it "victory" in the voting in occupied Ukraine.

Now boom.

Moscow looks weak!

No the idea it will say look the west did this or use it as a reason to attack more is far below the Russia looks weak at home and around the world.

There is no positive spin for Putin his pipeline, his blackmail source gone and he looks weak and his day of celebration is ruined.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Repeating opinions does not make them any more true and correct. Nobody knows what happened. The rest is speculation.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Biden is on the record as voicing objections to the pipelines and stating action would be taken against them.

Yeah, or the Putin regime was aware of this and is using to creature division between Europe and the US, exactly like they did with Ukraine and Poland.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I just watch a video said to have been released by Swedish authorities but the markings are Forsvaret with a crowd coat of Arms.

It claims to show the exact moment of the explosion.

Now wait these pipelines run over 1,000 km much of it under water and the Swedish military just happen to be in the exact location and with camera rolling at the exact time!

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The German application for a license for the No2 pipeline was suspended.

Invalid CSRF

7 ( +8 / -1 )

From the Washington Post:

Five European officials with direct knowledge of security discussions said there was a widespread assumption that Russia was behind the incident. Only Russia had the motivation, the submersible equipment and the capability, several of them said, though they cautioned that they did not yet have direct evidence of Russia’s involvement

“No one on the European side of the ocean is thinking this is anything other than Russian sabotage,” said a senior European environmental official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal thinking about the leak.

I guess all the Europeans are hearing Zebras too....

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I just watch a video said to have been released by Swedish authorities but the markings are Forsvaret with a crowd coat of Arms.

?

Where?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

A former Polish Defense Minister, Radek Sikorski, has attributed to the United States the sabotage of two pipelines, Nord Stream 1 and 2, which carry natural gas from Russia to Germany. “Thank you, USA,” Sikorski wrote on Twitter. Sikorski was Minister of National Defense from 2005 - 2007 and served as Deputy Minister of National Defense and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, previously. He is currently an elected member of the European parliament

But President Joe Biden promised on February 7 to prevent Nord Stream 2 from becoming operational if Russia invaded Ukraine. "If Russia invades,” said Biden, “then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

> Reporter: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"

> Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."

>

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Who would sell Europe gas after this war ?

Who has the equipment to plant explosives on a seabed ?

But thinking is dangerous. Just wait until Washington Post or CNN explains it to you.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."*

Well this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Biden did it. I bet he went down there in a submarine and did it himself. Hey, does this come from the same people, who took a 30 clip of an hour-long talk and used it to "prove" Biden was blackmailing Ukraine on behalf of his son? What nonsense.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Hey, does this come from the same people, who took a 30 clip of an hour-long talk and used it to "prove" Biden was blackmailing Ukraine on behalf of his son? What nonsense.

No Forbes!

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Who would sell Europe gas after this war ?

Who has the equipment to plant explosives on a seabed ?

But thinking is dangerous. Just wait until Washington Post or CNN explains it to you.

This isn't the question a rational person asks.

A rational person would ask "Is it wise to allow a dictatorship to establish a near monopoly on energy supply?"

"Who would BUY energy from Russia after it has:

arbitrarily hiked prices to customers in violation of existing contracts.

cut supplies to customers in violation of existing contracts.

attempted to use energy as a weapon in it's dealings.

likely blown up a pipe-line costing billions and decades of work to send a message?"

"What idiot in their right mind would sign a contract with such a supplier?"

As for CNN and the Washington Post, far too many awards for journalism to count, but sure, keep going to your FB feed for accurate information and "analysis."

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

People are always too stupid. Actions are believed to be in the national interest. In fact, Russia started a war and people were sent to the battlefield. For a dictatorship, the national interest is the dictator's interest. The purpose of Russia's decades of war is an energy war to control the delivery of energy to Europe. A pile of crap always doesn't see why Russia wants to invade Ukraine. Because energy passes through Ukraine to give Ukraine money. That's why you always make mistakes. Russia's national interests are Putin's security interests. Because Russia wants to annex Ukrainian lands, Russia wants to weaken its support for Ukraine.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Who would BUY energy from Russia after it has yada yada bad things

Europe STILL would.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The EU accounted for 74% of Russia's natural gas exports prior to the war with Ukraine. Russia stupidly failed to develop any LNG ports or pipelines to the East, so pipelines are the only way one can export this gas, in any way. That's gone now!

Yes, there's a pipeline still running...right through Ukraine! Who's your daddy now, Vlad? lol. And there's one to Turkey...where thanks to Erdogan's stupid economic policies, inflation is at 90% while the Lira purchases only a quarter what it did in Feb 2022 (making gas purchases just as expensive as they were at the start of the war!, even with discounts~!) The EU now knows, after doing everything it can to get through this winter, that relying on Russia for gas is at an end. Perhaps forever - certainly as long as Putin clings to his throne. (You hear that, Oligarchs? You know what you all need to do...)

All that needs to happen now is for one or two of those sanctions-defying second-rate Indian or Chinese oil tankers to "malfunction" or be "forcibly boarded" along route, say right outside of Russian waters? And no firm will ever insure another oil tanker to sail into Russian waters for years. 85% of all shipping insurance originates in the West, while a loss or damage to even one ship will quintuple already crushing insurance prices even if nation-states provide their own insurance (wiping out any "cost advantage" of buying discounted Russian oil). The gas is stuck inside Russia - womp-womp! And lets remember, too, that the West can additionally choose to sanction Indian and Chinese companies still doing business with Russia...if necessary.

Then what? No gas pipelines to Asia. All Russian oil must be shipped, while the largest fields in the Urals are already so backlogged that some capping of wells this winter seems certain to occur...never to reopen without Western help? The West has additional sanctions levers to pull, (think removing Gasprombank from SWIFT, for a start) and Winter Is Coming!!

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Watch American gas exports surge!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

With pipelines sitting there waiting to get some gas to the first EU state to place the interests of their population ahead of the interests of America's oligarchs, it would be a real temptation to lots of politicians to do so, and earn, at least for a while, widespread adoration from the voters.

So, who's interests are served by eliminating that possibility?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

There is a production limit to the amount of LNG the US can produce and there is a limit on the number of LNG ship tankers to bring it to Europe.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The West has additional sanctions levers to pull, (think removing Gasprombank from SWIFT, for a start) and Winter Is Coming!!

Probably the folks posting and agreeing with this forgot that oil is a global market and oil prices are a function of supply and demand.

Sanction Russian oil and take it off the market when Iran and Venezuela are already sanctioned. The demand will stay the same so see what will happen to the oil prices, especially since Saudi has already snubbed the US and refused to raise production.

The Western economies are already reeling from inflation, so let’s raise oil prices to double or triple of what they already are.

It’s ok for the US which is self sufficient in oil but not that good for other countries. It’s called shooting oneself in the foot.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites