Today it was reported that the two Nord Stream undersea pipelines, designed to carry gas from Russia to Germany, developed huge leaks, and one of the pipelines has dramatically exploded:
Questions are being raised as to whether this is due to sabotage.
If this was sabotage, who would have done so and how would they benefit from it? Neither pipeline was in use, since Germany had decertified one in response to Russia’s involvement in Ukraine, and Russia cut off the gas supply to the other in what is believed to be a tit-for-tat move. All indications pointed to the shutdowns being indefinite.
I don’t see why Russia would have sabotaged the pipelines; they hardly needed to because they already control the source of the gas. That is, I don’t see how destroying the pipelines brings any benefits to them over and above simply keeping the taps switched off at their end. In any case, the pipelines are actually owned, in whole or in majority, by a Russian state company, and back when the gas was flowing, the company was making record profits on it. I could kinda sorta see how Russia might want to blow up the pipelines if they thought that the source of gas was in imminent danger of being captured by pro-Ukrainian forces, but that’s obviously not the case.
Similary, I don’t see why Germany and the EU would want to sabotage the pipelines. In their unused state, they were doing neither good nor harm.
Could a third party have done the deed? If so, what would the motivation be? Ukraine, or Ukrainian sympathizers in Russia, might have liked to see Russian-owned infrastructure destroyed, but then again, this infrastructure was set up to provide an important resource for Ukraine’s western allies. And it seems like a lot of wasted effort to sabotage something that’s already non-operational.
I’m putting this in Factual Questions for now in case there’s some obvious answer that doesn’t call for much speculation. But of course the mods may see fit to move it if they consider it more a question for debate.
My guess is, it’s sabotaged by someone who really wants to ensure that Germany is no longer dependent on Russia for gas and severs its energy relationship completely. A pro-Ukrainian person, or entity, would very much be keen on seeing to this.
Exactly, if someone sabotaged it (may be it was an accident? poor maintenace?), it would be someone who intends to prevent Germany from going back to Russian gas, eliminating the temptation to return to good relations with Russia and cheap gas.
One suspect is Russia - a form of “burning the ships”. This stops any future use of the pipeline, thus stopping any future flow (not in use for now) without Russia having to overtly say “we turn off gaz.”
The other suspect is the USA or Ukrainian sympathizers - stop any chance that Russia may use these as a form of blackmail in future, getting the flow going and then in the middle of a January cold spell, issue an ultimatum. Also limits the revenue that Russia might gain.
Either way it’s tricky - hurting the European supply could work either way - make the Europeans more annoyed at Russia or more willing to cave in to demands. Hard to say which - either option is wishful thinking for one side or other.
The capability to damage a pipeline is not that hard anymore. You don’t need manned submarines and torpedoes. A drone ROV with a bomb strapped to it is all you’d need. Lots of companies make pipeline inspection robots. Hell, James Cameron could do it.
The most likely suspect IMO, assuming it was sabotage, is someone who wanted to take negotiations with Russia over gas off the table.
Russia has nothing to gain from making negotiations impossible. In fact, they would lose any negotiating advantage they had by freezing Europe.
If they aren’t going to use their gas as a carrot and stick to get Europe to stop backing Ukraine, they might as well just start selling it again and use the money to fund their military.
You could argue that destroying the pipeline could get Russia to the negotiating table if they were holding out in hope of flipping Europe this winter when things get dire. Take away that possibility, and ending the war early becomes more likely.
Also, if Europe is holding back on reopening nuclear and coal plants in hope of Russian gas flowing soon, this could force them to take action if they realize relief is not coming.
If it were sabotage, and I’m not denying the possibility, I’d put money on one of the Western Powers, rather than Russia. I’d suspect that with more right wing / national populist leaders getting elected (Italy for example) and the pressure of the upcoming winter, that it would make sense to remove the possibility of a populist desire to end the immediate suffering and take Russia up on a compromise that secures energy at the cost of the Ukraine.
And I won’t rule out, having seen what state the Russian military was in, that it’s neglect rather than an active issue. As a possible point failure, they may have been designed to run with positive pressure in them all the time, and leaving them empty / near empty for this length of time weakened them. But I’m not any sort of structural engineer.
But all this seems to fall more under the heading of IMHO / Great Debates rather than FQ, as noted in the OP. I think it will be some time before more details arise.
“If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the – the border of Ukraine again, then there will be – there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2,” Biden said during the press conference with Scholz, who did not go as far as Biden, but insisted the U.S. and Germany remain “absolutely united.” Pressed on how he can commit to that given that Nord Stream 2 is under German control, Biden doubled down, saying, “We will – I promise you – we will be able to do it.”
Not as silly: follow the money. If Russia can’t sell gas to Europe, who will it sell to? China. China will have a better bargaining position on price and volume if Russia doesn’t have good alternatives. Also, the Russians who would benefit from selling to China might not be the same as those who would benefit from selling to Europe.
The ORP Orzeł, of Poland, is in a good position to do the work.
The US certainly has the means and motive. But so do many others and, as you note, that’s been true since all the way back in February and yet the lines haven’t been blown up until now.
The most obvious reason for someone to do it now would be because they know something. They have some reason to think that someone, somewhere in Europe, was thinking of cutting a deal with Russia to get gas. So probably the best way to find a culprit would be to see which country was arguing to negotiate with Russia, and who (which other country) most recently went to have a meeting with them, to convince them not to do it. That would be your most likely candidate.
I do like @Pleonast’s answer. China does get a very sweet deal out of it - Russia is already dependent to a degree on Chinese support, while China secures more energy at low cost and favorable bargaining terms.
And if/when there is a sincere effort on the part of Russia to come to the negotiating table, it’ll leave China with a very strong hand to play if they want to take the world stage as the great Statesmen who brought about a peaceful end to the way.