> Initial suspicions in many European capitals focused on Russia, which denied any involvement. Analysts speculated that only a state with a sophisticated military would have been able to carry out such a complicated, underwater attack.
Investigators now, however, are focused on the Andromeda and the six people it carried. German officials who have been briefed on the probe said they were told some of the people who rented the yacht were Ukrainian. Others had Bulgarian passports since determined to be forgeries, they said.
It was obvious from the start to any casual unbiased observer that it was unlikely to be Russia. There was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline. It would be akin to shooting the hostage. Russia wanted to hold Western Europe and especially Germany hostage to natural gas and being able to turn it back on was a big part of their negotiating position. Since they already controlled the input to the pipe, blowing up the pipe did nothing to help the Russians.
Easy to imagine a motive for Russia, if you don't imagine it as a unitary block. Some inside the wealthy elite want to go back to the pre-war status quo, where they get to make $$$ selling fossil fuels to Europe. By blowing up NordStream, you do something like Viking raiders burning bridges behind them; it tells everyone on your side there's no going back, it's victory or death. If some of Russia's elite think they could be getting $$$ a month after a peace deal, they might be pushing for a quick end by withdrawing back to 2014 (or even 1991) line of control, which might work for them but not for Putin.
Now none of this means it actually was Russia, I don't claim to know any better than anyone else. But there was certainly a motive (for some in) Russia to want NordStream out of the way.
Exactly. If you imagine Russia as a unitary rational actor, it makes no sense to blow up the pipeline since they would have had the optionality to shut it down anytime they wanted without destroying it.
However, as part of an internal power structure, it does start to make sense. For example, you could see someone like Prigozhin (sp?) as potentially having a lot to gain from the attack. It would weaken his rivals with ties to the gas industry, and by "shooting the hostage" make Germany more likely to support Ukraine, leading to a longer, more drawn out war which benefits Wagner in all sorts of ways.
Anders Puck Nielsen has an under 15 minute video with a compelling explanation for why Russia is most likely to have done it despite the obvious downsides. Just to pick some particular details: At this particular time the primary Russian strategy was to push Europe into a cold and dark winter. Pipelines can be rebuilt and that is not especially difficult when you are making big money from extracting and distributing fossil fuels. Even if you disagree with Anders' conclusions I think the points he raises are generally quite interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido
But then why not also destroy the land based ones?
- There are two that go via Belarus -> Poland -> Germany and Belarus -> Ukraine -> Slovakia -> Czechia -> Germany
- Another two through Ukraine -> Slovakia -> Czechia -> Germany and Ukraine -> Romania -> Bulgaria -> Turkey
- Then are two in the Black Sea, South Steam and Blue Stream which go to Turkey
Jamal pipeline was closed by Poland early on in the war.
Transgaz is probably more secured on the landside and blowing it up would also limit Ukraine's ability to get gas from western europe. There already were times before the invasion where Gas was pumped towards Ukraine.
The Black sea isn't a safe space to operate in, obviously.
I'm not entirely convinced by the arguments in the video, but I don't think those other pipelines are a strong counterargument either, perhaps the opposite. Let me explain.
Let's say you believe (a) that Germany desperately has to buy gas from Russia in order to survive the winter (not an entirely unreasonable believe back then), and (b) that it's possible for Germany to use its influence to pressure Ukraine into some kind of Russia-friendly peace deal (as has in fact happened after Russia conquered the Krim in 2014). Then forcing Germany to have that gas delivered through the active warzone in Ukraine sounds like a good bet to make (b) happen very quickly.
It didn't work out that way, but there would be an internal logic to this.
There's another angle on this which is that it's a signal from Putin that there's no going back. In other words, by removing the pipeline from operation, overthrowing him would not yield any benefit to any new regime. Any factions within Russia who were thinking of doing so and getting back to business as usual were suddenly silenced.
I disagree - they've kept the pipeline closed since mid last year under (probably false) argument that they cannot repair a turbine due to sanctions, which has been denied by the companies that handle the repairs. So blowing up the pipeline would give them a real reason to not reopen it.
I'm not saying they did it, but just wanted to counter your argument that "there was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline"
This is wrong. Yes, they didn't install the turbine even after it was delivered, but for the most time, there was still heavily throttled throughput. Only a week or so before the explosions Putin shut the pipeline entirely.
>There was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline. It would be akin to shooting the hostage.
Not true, and not the same thing. When you shoot the hostage you now who did it to put the blame in court, this is still unclear who did what.
Russia's motive of destroying the pipeline was to legally shut down gas for Europe during the war without incurring any legal aftermath for it.
Simply just cutting off the gas would have made Russia legally liable for damages in court later when it will want to resume business in the future after the war.
Having the pipeline mysteriously blow up gives Russia plausible deniability for not being able to supply gas to Europe during the war:
"You see your honor, we wanted to fulfill our contractual obligation of supplying gas to Europe, but we couldn't because the pipeline was destroyed. Not our fault."
Do you really think this type of legalistic issue must be considered by global actors at this scale? Who is the "your honor" that Russia would need to address?
Yes, it does. Gazprom is a company that has a presence in Europe that can be (and was) sanctioned, and if Gazprom wishes to make money in Europe then it needs to comply to whatever "your honor" in Europe will say about any breaches of contract, so it makes sense they try to burn as little bridges as possible and protect Gazprom from any legal liability to ensure future revenues from this market.
Gazprom making money from selling gas to one of the world's most lucrative consumers is completely orthogonal to the war Russia started in Ukraine.
In principle I agree that it doesn't seem rational, but it could have been signal to Western Europe of the lengths they would go to if the West kept supporting Ukraine. The message would be delivered under cover of diplomacy and supported by blowing up a pipe line for which there was (still) one backup.
It was already announced the hostage was going to be shot at that point tho?
Germany said they'd call it quits and then did.
The company construct behind it was going to go bankrupt.
The same people who tried to sell us the idea that Covid didn't come from one of the very few labs worldwide that were performing research on this virus, but instead came from a wet market a few hundreds of meters away are now trying to tell us it wasn't the US that (directly or indirectly) blew up the pipeline. The same people that tried to establish the insane conspiracy theory that Trump got elected due to Russian interference.
And the thing is, it works. Propaganda works. HN is not some enlightened community that is immune, you'll get downvoted for fairly obvious conclusions that run counter to the official narrative.
To be fair he went a bit off the rails in his later years, but he does seem to have a credible source for at least one of the pipeline explosions. Also he is far from the only one offering a convincing line of reasoning, another good thinker on various issues I can recommend is eugyppius.com. Very sharp mind and very well read.
It is indeed sad how Hersh started out so strongly and went so bizarrely off the rails in his later years. I want to believe it was a natural progression, that having seen the great evils the US was capable of, he start to see US evil everywhere he looked, and was easily taken in by people with a story that appealed to his priors.
But I don't know, he so studiously avoids so many things that indicate Russian malfeasance that it's hard not to wonder if its more than just hope the pattern will hold up.
The US is as shady as the day is long, and I wouldn't put this past them if it made any sense, but if you know anything outside of Hersh's article, it doesn't. I fully believe the US is doing much shadier stuff elsewhere, but the article doesn't make a good case.
The fact you're whipping out science.org and Wikipedia links, looking triumphantly and self-satisfied at your apparently water-tight arguments is really the perfect demonstration. How could you loose, after all you are on the side of The Science.
This article goes a little into it but what I don't generally see in most media is explaining just how hard it is do dive at these depths. It isn't just some random guy that has had some scuba time.
The pressure alone for many is too much, then you need special mixture of air, for prolonged work you need re-breathers and a decompression chamber on board the vessel in case of an emergency.
I am also wondering how this work was performed without Norway or the US noticing it.
There was an NPR article that had some quotes about the difficulty in pulling off such an operation successfully. The assumption by investigators was these had to be people with specialized expertise. That would seem to limit the number of people who could pull this off.
I can't verify this, but when the story broke in Germany there were some diving experts that claimed that you can dive there in those depths without decompression chambers and that people regularly do that.
The entire discussion on what exactly you need to perform this operation has resulted in a whole bunch of contradictory opinions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Divers is probably worth a read if you have an interest. Basically it's about a group of hobbyist divers who explored a wreck at around that depth. They were definitely pushing the limits of amateur tech at the time, but I believe they also started using different gas mixes around then.
What I don't understand is why divers would even be needed at all. Torpedoes and depth charges are hardly new tech. If you asked me to do it, I'd just find a commodity underwater ROV for the job and strap a big bomb to it. Problem solved. It's one of the asymmetries of warfare that it's a lot easier to destroy stuff than to build it.
the need for decompression (and the required decompression time) is very much dependent on the duration of the dive (i.e. how much gas is dissolved into your blood depends on how much time your blood was fed gases at higher pressure). If your dive is just a quick down,drop some stuff, and back up right away (especially with a gas mixture optimized for depth)… then yeah, you might be able to do it without decompression…
…whereas if you stay an hour or two down there, giving a long enough time for the gases to reach their high pressure solubility levels, you better not get back up without decompression.
Open Circuit dive to 80m with 15 mins of working bottom time (CCR would cut total runtime down to 85 mins and slash the helium bill). I ran it with Nominal conservatism since I figure we're talking about people crazy enough to play around with explosives. You can likely cut off of half the O2 stop and as long as you pass your saving throwing against type I DCS and don't have a PFO you'll likely be fine for 4 dives. I would assume these people would wind up pushing the tables exceedingly hard.
V-Planner 3.105 by R. Hemingway,
VPM code by Erik C. Baker.
Decompression model: VPM - B
DIVE PLAN
Surface interval = 5 day 0 hr 0 min.
Elevation = 0m
Conservatism = Nominal
Dec to 80m (4) Trimix 15/55 18m/min descent.
Level 80m 15:33 (20) Trimix 15/55 1.34 ppO2, 24m ead, 30m end
Asc to 54m (23) Trimix 15/55 -8m/min ascent.
Stop at 54m 0:45 (24) Trimix 15/55 0.95 ppO2, 14m ead, 19m end
Stop at 51m 1:00 (25) Trimix 15/55 0.91 ppO2, 13m ead, 17m end
Stop at 48m 1:00 (26) Trimix 15/55 0.86 ppO2, 12m ead, 16m end
Stop at 45m 1:00 (27) Trimix 15/55 0.82 ppO2, 11m ead, 15m end
Stop at 42m 1:00 (28) Trimix 15/55 0.78 ppO2, 10m ead, 13m end
Stop at 39m 1:00 (29) Trimix 15/55 0.73 ppO2, 9m ead, 12m end
Stop at 36m 2:00 (31) Trimix 15/55 0.69 ppO2, 7m ead, 11m end
Stop at 33m 2:00 (33) Trimix 15/55 0.64 ppO2, 6m ead, 9m end
Stop at 30m 3:00 (36) Trimix 15/55 0.60 ppO2, 5m ead, 8m end
Stop at 27m 3:00 (39) Trimix 15/55 0.55 ppO2, 4m ead, 7m end
Stop at 24m 4:00 (43) Trimix 15/55 0.51 ppO2, 3m ead, 5m end
Stop at 21m 3:00 (46) Nitrox 50 1.54 ppO2, 10m ead
Stop at 18m 3:00 (49) Nitrox 50 1.39 ppO2, 8m ead
Stop at 15m 4:00 (53) Nitrox 50 1.24 ppO2, 6m ead
Stop at 12m 5:00 (58) Nitrox 50 1.10 ppO2, 4m ead
Stop at 9m 8:00 (66) Nitrox 50 0.95 ppO2, 2m ead
Stop at 6m 10:00 (76) Oxygen 1.60 ppO2, 0m ead
Stop at 3m 16:00 (92) Oxygen 1.30 ppO2, 0m ead
Surface (92) Oxygen -6m/min ascent.
Off gassing starts at 62.2m
OTU's this dive: 110
CNS Total: 53.2%
Gas density: 5.7g/l
183.8 cu ft Trimix 15/55
32.0 cu ft Nitrox 50
21.9 cu ft Oxygen
237.8 cu ft TOTAL
DIVE PLAN COMPLETE
********* WARNING & DISCLAIMER *********
This V-Planner generated dive schedule could indirectly kill you.
The author does not warrant that it accurately reflects the Varying
Permeability Model algorithms, that it won't get you bent or dead, or that it
will produce safe, reliable results. This dive schedule is experimental
and you use it at your own risk. Diving in general is fraught with
risk, and decompression diving adds significantly more risk.
Deep diving utilizing multiple gasses, including Helium, is about
as risky as it gets.
This schedule is not intended for uneducated users. V-Planner and the
decompression schedules it produces are tools for experienced mixed-gas
decompression divers ONLY. If you have not been properly trained in
mixed-gas decompression diving by an internationally recognized technical
certification agency and/or don't have a firm handle on decompression
planning and mixed-gas diving, then DO NOT USE THIS DIVE SCHEDULE.
I don't dive but 80 meters doesn't sound like much especially for what is purported to be clandestine and independent agents that are clearly motivated and accept the risk. Shit- people are willing to strap explosives to their bodies for the right cause. The pipelines were not all cleanly severed either. Did they even need to dive in order to drop charges near these pipes?
Why should Norway of all countries notice it if it was happening within Swedish and Danish waters?
And how to expect a Navy/Army/Air-force to notice and study in detail what every little boat is doing. And even more difficult to notice what a diver or two are doing.
The sea is big and has many innocuous boats, anything happening under water is effectively invisible.
And you're assuming they actually went all the way down; someone else mentioned an ROV, but if you know where the pipeline is you can probably sink explosives on a weight too. It doesn't have to be accurate, not when the pipe will collapse and be contaminated with little encouragement.
The world’s best free diver did a 214m dive with a weighted sled and buoyancy device. Scuba may make it more complicated in this case if all they were doing was attaching an item.
How deep do they need to go? How close do they need to be? Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be.
Since we're well into speculation mode here, try this: footage of the aftermath[0] reveals an enormous 50-meter hole in the pipe, which was made of pretty thick metal. I suppose it would have to be, to carry gas under pressure from within as well as withstand being kept empty, as it was at the time of the explosion, under pressure from without.
How big does an explosive have to be to cause that much damage? Pretty big, I think. Big and heavy.
How close does an explosive that big have to be? Not very close, I think.
Of course, there's a trade-off! The close it is, the less big it has to be and the farther it is, the smaller it can be. But a 50-meter is much bigger than it needed to be to disable the pipeline. It is almost as if the people dropping the bomb couldn't be sure how close they would get with it, so built a big enough bomb to ensure rupturing it whether it landed directly on top of it or a number of meters away. Maybe they got lucky, and expected a smaller hole. Maybe they got unlucky and expected a bigger one.
I mean, the BBC footage involved zero people getting in the water. They just went to the area and dropped in a camera on a long cable and navigated to the hole.
It's possible that nobody even got in the water for the bombing. They could have used a "fish finder" to make sure they were pretty close to the pipe, and even drop a test object to see how the underwater currents might shift it, but it was a pretty big bomb, I think it probably mostly went straight down. Close enough for a big bomb to make a hole in a big pipe, anyway.
The pipeline is kept full and under pressure even when not delivering gas. It was one of the worst environmental disasters but it's being ignored because of controversy of who blew it up.
You assume the bomb was placed, and not dropped with weight or with underwater "drone"[0](Hilarious). 80 meters is probably not too deep for Sonar/Lidar for spotting the pipe, Xprize Ocean discovery comes to mind.
In addition top free diver athletes do dive for 80+ meters[1].
80-110m is not such a deep dive, I personally know at least 3 SCUBA divers that have taken classes and dived to 100m, it's something that amateur divers can do with enough resources.
The article literally does describe how divers would do so with quotes from a subject matter expert:
>Achim Schlöffel, a German extreme diver who runs a diving school and helps companies protect vessels and underwater installations from sabotage, said explosives could have been planted by a group of well-trained technical divers accustomed to working at such depths—around 80 meters—assuming they had several days to do so.
>Six divers, he said, could have lowered the explosives in several dives using commercially available equipment such as underwater scooters or propulsion vehicles, airlifting bags and buoys, and a portable sonar.
“I know dozens of professional divers who would be up to the task,” Mr. Schlöffel said.
I've been to 80m depth. I have a rebreather and a couple scooters. I probably have nearly enough gear for that entire dive team. Even got some 500# lift bags.
Only thing I'm lacking are the forged passports and the explosives.
A sufficiently rich Ukrainian in the construction industry or something like that could probably have the right contacts for both of those[*].
It also probably takes less explosives than you think since the water is going to amplify the blast (pretty sure the US Navy dive manual has a good section on explosives in water and top tips like making sure that you at least get your torso out of the water if you can).
You wouldn't need a decompression chamber for those dives at that depth.
(The _Shadow Divers_ book also documents a colossal screw up on bad gas for the depth, and the hazards of going inside of wrecks at depth, which don't apply here)
> I am also wondering how this work was performed without Norway or the US noticing it.
Most things that most boats do aren't noticed by anyone. If it wasn't that way, then drug smuggling would be a whole lot harder.
[*] I'm betting Ukrainian because the pipeline wasn't benefiting them and was supplying piles of cash to their enemy, it seems kinda obvious to me.
I won't lie, I'm a little envious of whomever secured the undoubtedly very exciting job to plan this whole thing. Every new emergence reads like a scene in a movie. I can imagine the scene where the sailboat pulls up in tiny, unsuspecting Wiek and gets loaded with explosives in the middle of the night.
I don't know who did it, but I do know one thing: the political angle on this is far too strong for me to trust any intelligence agency's conclusion, whether Germany, Denmark, US, or anyone else. Or, for that matter, and private sector news organization's article. Ten years from now, it might be possible to have an objective, just-the-facts investigation into it, but in the middle of a war and a worldwide economic shockwave from the war, there is far too much politics for me to trust any conclusion.
Claiming the US is too dumb to trigger those bombs with a digitally encoded signal and has to use an analog one which can be triggered accidentally is straightup ridiculous. Additionally, he states that Stoltenberg is the leader of the NATO, which is wrong, same as that he's a strong Anticommunist and was hating Russia already as prime minister. He actually solved the disputes Norway and Russia had and is member of Norway's socialist party.
Nothing about Hersh's story makes any sense at all. Unfortunately, while Hersh developed a strong reputation decades ago, that story reads like Russian propaganda. Embarrassingly so[0].
Not saying the US didn't do it, but that theory makes less sense than any of a few other actors.
Accusations of "Russian propaganda" are quickly becoming a great way to identify things that make our power structure uncomfortable.
Like, we're talking about destroying important russian-owned infrastructure here, and the suggestion that Russia's biggest adversary did it should be dismissed out of hand? Let's just say the Russians themselves did it and anyone who says different is a secret Russian propagandist.
Hi, I wrote the comment that you seem to be responding to, a comment that includes the phrase "Not saying the US didn't do it," so I'm not sure how that qualifies as "dismissed out of hand."
My point was that Hersh's article very strenuously avoids anything that makes Russia out to be anything other than an innocent victim, lining up exactly with what Russian ministers had already said in public. That is why I mentioned propaganda, it's hard to describe it any other way.
The US is full of propaganda, too, if that helps. We've got 24-hour news channels that pretend to be in opposition to each other but seem to somehow "report" in lock-step on a variety of subjects that exactly mirror official government statements, mostly involving the military.
The US might have done this. Russian might have done this. Someone else might have done this. But Hersh's article is poor reporting, and not something a determination should be based on. Which is too bad! Hersh used to be amazing. Not sure why he so missed the mark here.
Unless you think Hersh is working with Russians to manufacture the story, it's not Russian propaganda. He may be wrong on every particular, doesn't make him Russian.
For my money, I'd bet a large sum that NATO, probably US or UK did it. Motive and opportunity.
That is a fascinating definition of propaganda. So if I'm involved in state and want to ensure that the free press in my country spreads my message, all I need to do is ensure that there's no direct private coordination between my department and theirs? If I hold a press conference in which I state the party line, and new outlets reports on that press conference with no pushback, and then editorialists around the world write think-pieces that assume what I said at that press conference as truth, that's not propaganda unless I made some phone calls in the meantime? Amazing.
I don't assume Hersh is Russian, that would be bizarre. I haven't said Russia is making him do it, or that he's avoiding saying anything negative about Russia out of fear or as a result of blackmail, or anything like that. I have offered no conspiracy at all. I think it quite possible that Hersh just has a Russia-shaped blind spot. Having been witness to so much US malfeasance over so long a period of time, he might just assume that everything he see must be appropriately struck with the same hammer.
Perhaps his single unnamed source is a Russian plant, or perhaps it's an anti-American plant, or perhaps it's someone who misinterpreted things he witnessed, or who knows? I don't have any particular theories about that, either. I just think it's probably important to consider all the players, not just one. It's probably important to consider important and deeply-relevant public facts when forming or accepting a theory. That's all. Otherwise you might accidentally find yourself spreading propaganda, possibly without even realizing it.
I genuinely don't see what any party really gains from the destruction. It was already an unused pipeline for which there are alternatives, so the destruction seems symbolic more than anything. That facts since then have shifted slightly in the US' favor doesn't seem to have much to do with the pipeline destruction, things were already shifting that way.
I'd probably go with 50/50 NATO/Russia, but it's still not clear why, or how we'd ever find out absent a confession in a few decades.
I'm just saying that "Hersh said something Russian propaganda may find useful" is not the same thing as "Hersh is doing russian propaganda".
It's red scare all over again with this stuff. Matt Taibbi recently did a take down of accounts labeled "Russian bot" by natsec think tanks.. most of them were just generic pro Trump morons, but free association knows no bounds.
For sure, there's many different motivations from many different parties to forcefully shut it down like this.
I don't believe Russia did it though; sure they wanted to shut down gas flow to Europe, but they did that by just... turning it off.
Ukraine is a candidate, because forcefully shutting off a source of income to Russia would help them. I don't believe that (+ the sanctions) have been able to stop Russia though, they've got other sources of income, enough savings to last a while, and a strong grip on the population so it cannot revolt or anything.
And the US is a candidate, on the one side as an ally of Ukraine trying to force Europe to stop sending money to Russia, and on the other as a seller of LNG at increased prices.
But it could be any, and I doubt any conclusive investigation will be published as-is or unsealed during our lifetime.
Why Ukraine need to blow up empty pipes instead of working one?
Gazprom, turned off gas pipeline breaking their contract to supply gas to EU, so they need something like that to avoid huge fine, while Ukraine don't, because Ukraine paid higher price for natural gas as consequence.
Compressors are actually easier to repair as all the infrastructure is on the land, while underwater pipeline requires a lot of effort and very few ships can actually do such work.
First of all, pipelines were not empty. They need to be filled with gas to stay operational on the sea bed.
Gazprom turned off pipelines because Germany and Canada were refusing to return one turbine with proper guarantees and maintain the others (Nord stream one was built with Western turbines, NS2 has Russian ones).
Ukraine tried to sabotage NS1 and 2 for many years as both were basically a replacement for the old Soviet gas transport system that fuels Ukraine up to this day. So, they had a very strong motivation to do it.
But my bet is on USA, as they have even stronger motive and much greater capability to physically sabotage it.
I don't have strong opinions about who did it, but I wouldn't dismiss Russia that quickly. Russia has a long history of utilizing false-flag operations. They were pumping them out almost hourly leading up to the invasion. If they had been able to successfully pin it on the US the wedge that would drive in NATO has obvious benefits for Moscow. Their reasons for doing it seem as plausible as for any other state actor. It's also less risky for them. They've already gotten near maximum blowback from the west. Whereas it's a really risky thing for the US to do given the massive blowback that would result if they got caught.
The key point is, "Russia" didn't do it. Someone within Russia, might have, and if so probably mostly for its affect on other Russians. For that matter, the "U.S.A." didn't do it; but it is possible that someone within the US might have. Nations are not unitary actors, even when it is governmental action.
could be any of the US, Ukraine, Belarus or Russia or even China. They all have vested interests. Furthermore it could even be a resourceful private organisation seeking to have influence on the war.
I don't think its easy to categorically state it isn't anyone, everyone had a vested interest within each nation and each nation is so large it has many competing interests making it hard to call in any direction, especially if you consider the potential for private interest groups.
The action prevented gas shipments to the EU so it could have been used as an excuse by Russia to weaponise gas supply. While blowing up the pipe seems a little extreme compared to any other action it was within the context of several 'maintenance issues' in the preceding months that prevented the EU from stocking up for the winter, so gave Russia more plausible deniability.
It could be the US, Ukraine or any private organisation within Ukraine or the EU seeking to force EU governments to no longer pay Russia for their gas.
It could even (4D chess time) be China realising that the loss of EU funds would result in much better negotiations with Russia for its natural resources.
> The profit from EU gas market actually covers any possible costs of any EU involvement in Ukrainian crysis, except maybe nuclear strike by France.
So how much is the life worth of six conscripted Russian soldiers in an APV killed by an NLAW? I struggle to understand how you've done the maths. Furthermore I believe that the Russian Federation's current issues are not wholly money but ability to produce the complex components required for new armour.
You're valuing the impact of a citizen as the compensation paid for their death. You're not factoring in the long-term support of widows, the impact on fatherless children, future birth rate, social unrest or loss to GDP for the jobs they had before their lives were thrown away for nothing in the Donbas.
Some state actor is very likely to have been involved.
However there are benefits and drawbacks for almost anyone who could have done it. That it's "obvious" the US did it doesn't mean the US did it. Russian propaganda thrives in uncertainty and the US being the foregone conclusion certainly reinforces anti-US sentiments in Europe, which ultimately harm the US for the benefit of Russia.
We can't really deduce the motive based on the actual outcome though. It was evidently a literal conspiracy, it's just not entirely clear who was involved and who knew about it.
Personally I believe that if it really was the US, Sweden and Germany were in the know. Not involving them would have sown distrust against the US in a time of crisis (tho the US has a history of performing acts of aggression against its allies, cf. the Diplomatic Cables revelations and Snowden leaks). But this also means Germany willingly handicapped itself, not that this makes it less likely.
Either way, it doesn't seem to me to have shifted significantly the public sentiments of any side. Thus I'd rather follow the money and give more credit to the hypothesis it was a private - which honestly I like much less than the state actor hypothesis.
It's at least the most likely option. The US had most to win from this. This removed Putin having the pipeline as a negotiation tactic.
Putin could already turn it on and off as he pleased.
For the US there were no big consequences either as they would not lack gas. And they could export their LNG.
And having an agent or two rent a boat with fake passports cannot be that difficult and then load it with a Navy SEAL team or whatever divers (even civilian) and place the charges cannot be anything that is extremely difficult. It's like 70-80m.
Below link shows that 100m is "One of the recommended technical diving limits. Maximum depth authorised for divers who have completed Trimix Diver certification with IANTD[9] or Advanced Trimix Diver certification with TDI."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_diving
And regarding the theory that it is Ukrainians, I would think Ukrainians would have better things to do. If they wanted to and where capable to do some high stakes thing they should have blown up the bridge from Crimea or something similar helping them limit the invasion.
Didn't the US have control of NordStream 2 simply by sanctions placed on insurance companies? I recall reading that no insurance company would insure the pipeline since it would go against US sanctions and additionally no company could purchase the nat gas since it would also go against sanctions of dealing with Russian companies.
That article is persistent criticism, but it only dilutes aruguments instead of showing counter evidence. The arguments reduce to, "it's complicated, we're on your team, he's just wrong, trust us."
The obvious answer is that the one who did it was expecting to benefit from it.
The thing is that at that point almost everyone would benefit from it (maybe everyone except Europeans). Russia because they could put pressure on Europe by cutting gas supply during winter, US because they wanted to convert Europe to LNG and put pressure on the gas revenues of Russia.
So my conclusion is that an international task force did it lol
This is a very good podcast with articulate critiques of popular politics and mass media narrative, and interestingly it is Seymour first interview after publication. I also enjoyed their last podcast episode on what is happening in Georgia, seams insightful and with trustworthy guest.
@dang might there be a reason of why my earlier comment is flagged?
How does a small group of terrorists that's not anyone's radar even get this much explosive and how are they able to transport it through Europe without anyone noticing?
114 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 190 ms ] threadIt was obvious from the start to any casual unbiased observer that it was unlikely to be Russia. There was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline. It would be akin to shooting the hostage. Russia wanted to hold Western Europe and especially Germany hostage to natural gas and being able to turn it back on was a big part of their negotiating position. Since they already controlled the input to the pipe, blowing up the pipe did nothing to help the Russians.
Now none of this means it actually was Russia, I don't claim to know any better than anyone else. But there was certainly a motive (for some in) Russia to want NordStream out of the way.
However, as part of an internal power structure, it does start to make sense. For example, you could see someone like Prigozhin (sp?) as potentially having a lot to gain from the attack. It would weaken his rivals with ties to the gas industry, and by "shooting the hostage" make Germany more likely to support Ukraine, leading to a longer, more drawn out war which benefits Wagner in all sorts of ways.
Transgaz is probably more secured on the landside and blowing it up would also limit Ukraine's ability to get gas from western europe. There already were times before the invasion where Gas was pumped towards Ukraine.
The Black sea isn't a safe space to operate in, obviously.
Let's say you believe (a) that Germany desperately has to buy gas from Russia in order to survive the winter (not an entirely unreasonable believe back then), and (b) that it's possible for Germany to use its influence to pressure Ukraine into some kind of Russia-friendly peace deal (as has in fact happened after Russia conquered the Krim in 2014). Then forcing Germany to have that gas delivered through the active warzone in Ukraine sounds like a good bet to make (b) happen very quickly.
It didn't work out that way, but there would be an internal logic to this.
I'm not saying they did it, but just wanted to counter your argument that "there was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline"
They don't, they only care about what people will do.
They could keep the pipeline shut for as long as the wanted on the most ludicrous of claims.
Not true, and not the same thing. When you shoot the hostage you now who did it to put the blame in court, this is still unclear who did what.
Russia's motive of destroying the pipeline was to legally shut down gas for Europe during the war without incurring any legal aftermath for it.
Simply just cutting off the gas would have made Russia legally liable for damages in court later when it will want to resume business in the future after the war.
Having the pipeline mysteriously blow up gives Russia plausible deniability for not being able to supply gas to Europe during the war:
"You see your honor, we wanted to fulfill our contractual obligation of supplying gas to Europe, but we couldn't because the pipeline was destroyed. Not our fault."
Gazprom making money from selling gas to one of the world's most lucrative consumers is completely orthogonal to the war Russia started in Ukraine.
It was already announced the hostage was going to be shot at that point tho? Germany said they'd call it quits and then did. The company construct behind it was going to go bankrupt.
And the thing is, it works. Propaganda works. HN is not some enlightened community that is immune, you'll get downvoted for fairly obvious conclusions that run counter to the official narrative.
The guy who was right about checks notes:
The My Lai Massacre
Watergate
Torture at Abu Ghraib
Domestic Spying
The secret bombing of Cambodia.
But then people come out and go "nonono don't look at that, it was definitely these two guys on a yatch".
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...
But I don't know, he so studiously avoids so many things that indicate Russian malfeasance that it's hard not to wonder if its more than just hope the pattern will hold up.
The US is as shady as the day is long, and I wouldn't put this past them if it made any sense, but if you know anything outside of Hersh's article, it doesn't. I fully believe the US is doing much shadier stuff elsewhere, but the article doesn't make a good case.
https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-chall...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
Propaganda does indeed work, however it is working in the opposite direction to that which you are implying.
The fact you're whipping out science.org and Wikipedia links, looking triumphantly and self-satisfied at your apparently water-tight arguments is really the perfect demonstration. How could you loose, after all you are on the side of The Science.
Once you stop treating Russia like a monolith prone to only rational geopolitical moves, suddenly motives are everywhere.
The pressure alone for many is too much, then you need special mixture of air, for prolonged work you need re-breathers and a decompression chamber on board the vessel in case of an emergency.
I am also wondering how this work was performed without Norway or the US noticing it.
Edit: Sorry, I meant Sweden not Norway
The entire discussion on what exactly you need to perform this operation has resulted in a whole bunch of contradictory opinions.
What I don't understand is why divers would even be needed at all. Torpedoes and depth charges are hardly new tech. If you asked me to do it, I'd just find a commodity underwater ROV for the job and strap a big bomb to it. Problem solved. It's one of the asymmetries of warfare that it's a lot easier to destroy stuff than to build it.
…whereas if you stay an hour or two down there, giving a long enough time for the gases to reach their high pressure solubility levels, you better not get back up without decompression.
https://www.deeptrekker.com
https://geneinno.us/
And how to expect a Navy/Army/Air-force to notice and study in detail what every little boat is doing. And even more difficult to notice what a diver or two are doing.
And you're assuming they actually went all the way down; someone else mentioned an ROV, but if you know where the pipeline is you can probably sink explosives on a weight too. It doesn't have to be accurate, not when the pipe will collapse and be contaminated with little encouragement.
Since we're well into speculation mode here, try this: footage of the aftermath[0] reveals an enormous 50-meter hole in the pipe, which was made of pretty thick metal. I suppose it would have to be, to carry gas under pressure from within as well as withstand being kept empty, as it was at the time of the explosion, under pressure from without.
How big does an explosive have to be to cause that much damage? Pretty big, I think. Big and heavy.
How close does an explosive that big have to be? Not very close, I think.
Of course, there's a trade-off! The close it is, the less big it has to be and the farther it is, the smaller it can be. But a 50-meter is much bigger than it needed to be to disable the pipeline. It is almost as if the people dropping the bomb couldn't be sure how close they would get with it, so built a big enough bomb to ensure rupturing it whether it landed directly on top of it or a number of meters away. Maybe they got lucky, and expected a smaller hole. Maybe they got unlucky and expected a bigger one.
I mean, the BBC footage involved zero people getting in the water. They just went to the area and dropped in a camera on a long cable and navigated to the hole.
It's possible that nobody even got in the water for the bombing. They could have used a "fish finder" to make sure they were pretty close to the pipe, and even drop a test object to see how the underwater currents might shift it, but it was a pretty big bomb, I think it probably mostly went straight down. Close enough for a big bomb to make a hole in a big pipe, anyway.
0. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63297085
A large creator can also occur when the pipe burst from the pressure inside even if punctured by just a small hole.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwIWG5_rgC0 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV2kBfhqkGk
>Achim Schlöffel, a German extreme diver who runs a diving school and helps companies protect vessels and underwater installations from sabotage, said explosives could have been planted by a group of well-trained technical divers accustomed to working at such depths—around 80 meters—assuming they had several days to do so.
>Six divers, he said, could have lowered the explosives in several dives using commercially available equipment such as underwater scooters or propulsion vehicles, airlifting bags and buoys, and a portable sonar. “I know dozens of professional divers who would be up to the task,” Mr. Schlöffel said.
Only thing I'm lacking are the forged passports and the explosives.
A sufficiently rich Ukrainian in the construction industry or something like that could probably have the right contacts for both of those[*].
It also probably takes less explosives than you think since the water is going to amplify the blast (pretty sure the US Navy dive manual has a good section on explosives in water and top tips like making sure that you at least get your torso out of the water if you can).
You wouldn't need a decompression chamber for those dives at that depth.
(The _Shadow Divers_ book also documents a colossal screw up on bad gas for the depth, and the hazards of going inside of wrecks at depth, which don't apply here)
> I am also wondering how this work was performed without Norway or the US noticing it.
Most things that most boats do aren't noticed by anyone. If it wasn't that way, then drug smuggling would be a whole lot harder.
[*] I'm betting Ukrainian because the pipeline wasn't benefiting them and was supplying piles of cash to their enemy, it seems kinda obvious to me.
Stoltenberg was never a member of any of Norway's socialist parties, he was a member of the Norwegian Labour Party.
Not saying the US didn't do it, but that theory makes less sense than any of a few other actors.
0. https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-chall...
Like, we're talking about destroying important russian-owned infrastructure here, and the suggestion that Russia's biggest adversary did it should be dismissed out of hand? Let's just say the Russians themselves did it and anyone who says different is a secret Russian propagandist.
My point was that Hersh's article very strenuously avoids anything that makes Russia out to be anything other than an innocent victim, lining up exactly with what Russian ministers had already said in public. That is why I mentioned propaganda, it's hard to describe it any other way.
The US is full of propaganda, too, if that helps. We've got 24-hour news channels that pretend to be in opposition to each other but seem to somehow "report" in lock-step on a variety of subjects that exactly mirror official government statements, mostly involving the military.
The US might have done this. Russian might have done this. Someone else might have done this. But Hersh's article is poor reporting, and not something a determination should be based on. Which is too bad! Hersh used to be amazing. Not sure why he so missed the mark here.
For my money, I'd bet a large sum that NATO, probably US or UK did it. Motive and opportunity.
I don't assume Hersh is Russian, that would be bizarre. I haven't said Russia is making him do it, or that he's avoiding saying anything negative about Russia out of fear or as a result of blackmail, or anything like that. I have offered no conspiracy at all. I think it quite possible that Hersh just has a Russia-shaped blind spot. Having been witness to so much US malfeasance over so long a period of time, he might just assume that everything he see must be appropriately struck with the same hammer.
Perhaps his single unnamed source is a Russian plant, or perhaps it's an anti-American plant, or perhaps it's someone who misinterpreted things he witnessed, or who knows? I don't have any particular theories about that, either. I just think it's probably important to consider all the players, not just one. It's probably important to consider important and deeply-relevant public facts when forming or accepting a theory. That's all. Otherwise you might accidentally find yourself spreading propaganda, possibly without even realizing it.
I genuinely don't see what any party really gains from the destruction. It was already an unused pipeline for which there are alternatives, so the destruction seems symbolic more than anything. That facts since then have shifted slightly in the US' favor doesn't seem to have much to do with the pipeline destruction, things were already shifting that way.
I'd probably go with 50/50 NATO/Russia, but it's still not clear why, or how we'd ever find out absent a confession in a few decades.
It's red scare all over again with this stuff. Matt Taibbi recently did a take down of accounts labeled "Russian bot" by natsec think tanks.. most of them were just generic pro Trump morons, but free association knows no bounds.
I don't believe Russia did it though; sure they wanted to shut down gas flow to Europe, but they did that by just... turning it off.
Ukraine is a candidate, because forcefully shutting off a source of income to Russia would help them. I don't believe that (+ the sanctions) have been able to stop Russia though, they've got other sources of income, enough savings to last a while, and a strong grip on the population so it cannot revolt or anything.
And the US is a candidate, on the one side as an ally of Ukraine trying to force Europe to stop sending money to Russia, and on the other as a seller of LNG at increased prices.
But it could be any, and I doubt any conclusive investigation will be published as-is or unsealed during our lifetime.
Gazprom, turned off gas pipeline breaking their contract to supply gas to EU, so they need something like that to avoid huge fine, while Ukraine don't, because Ukraine paid higher price for natural gas as consequence.
But to your reasoning I would point out that the reason Nordstream was built in the first place: to bypass Ukraine in supplying Germany with gas.
IMHO, if Ukrainians or Americans will try to destroy pipeline, they will target compressors, which are much more expensive to repair.
Gazprom turned off pipelines because Germany and Canada were refusing to return one turbine with proper guarantees and maintain the others (Nord stream one was built with Western turbines, NS2 has Russian ones).
Ukraine tried to sabotage NS1 and 2 for many years as both were basically a replacement for the old Soviet gas transport system that fuels Ukraine up to this day. So, they had a very strong motivation to do it.
But my bet is on USA, as they have even stronger motive and much greater capability to physically sabotage it.
For RF, and other natural gas producers or holders, it better to blow up pipeline at winter, to raise prices.
The action prevented gas shipments to the EU so it could have been used as an excuse by Russia to weaponise gas supply. While blowing up the pipe seems a little extreme compared to any other action it was within the context of several 'maintenance issues' in the preceding months that prevented the EU from stocking up for the winter, so gave Russia more plausible deniability.
It could be the US, Ukraine or any private organisation within Ukraine or the EU seeking to force EU governments to no longer pay Russia for their gas.
It could even (4D chess time) be China realising that the loss of EU funds would result in much better negotiations with Russia for its natural resources.
Russia is increasing LNG gas supply after this pipeline break. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/russia-boosts-ln...
The profit from EU gas market actually covers any possible costs of any EU involvement in Ukrainian crysis, except maybe nuclear strike by France.
So how much is the life worth of six conscripted Russian soldiers in an APV killed by an NLAW? I struggle to understand how you've done the maths. Furthermore I believe that the Russian Federation's current issues are not wholly money but ability to produce the complex components required for new armour.
Mobilized Russian soldier's family gets about 65k usd after soldier's death. The price of MTLB is about 50k usd.
So the whole pack costs about 500k USD(including ammo, personal equipment, etc).
In 2021 Russia's profit of selling gas to EU was about 150 millions of dollars per day.
You do the math.
Keep mathing.
However there are benefits and drawbacks for almost anyone who could have done it. That it's "obvious" the US did it doesn't mean the US did it. Russian propaganda thrives in uncertainty and the US being the foregone conclusion certainly reinforces anti-US sentiments in Europe, which ultimately harm the US for the benefit of Russia.
We can't really deduce the motive based on the actual outcome though. It was evidently a literal conspiracy, it's just not entirely clear who was involved and who knew about it.
Personally I believe that if it really was the US, Sweden and Germany were in the know. Not involving them would have sown distrust against the US in a time of crisis (tho the US has a history of performing acts of aggression against its allies, cf. the Diplomatic Cables revelations and Snowden leaks). But this also means Germany willingly handicapped itself, not that this makes it less likely.
Putin could already turn it on and off as he pleased.
For the US there were no big consequences either as they would not lack gas. And they could export their LNG.
And having an agent or two rent a boat with fake passports cannot be that difficult and then load it with a Navy SEAL team or whatever divers (even civilian) and place the charges cannot be anything that is extremely difficult. It's like 70-80m.
Below link shows that 100m is "One of the recommended technical diving limits. Maximum depth authorised for divers who have completed Trimix Diver certification with IANTD[9] or Advanced Trimix Diver certification with TDI." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_diving
And regarding the theory that it is Ukrainians, I would think Ukrainians would have better things to do. If they wanted to and where capable to do some high stakes thing they should have blown up the bridge from Crimea or something similar helping them limit the invasion.
The thing is that at that point almost everyone would benefit from it (maybe everyone except Europeans). Russia because they could put pressure on Europe by cutting gas supply during winter, US because they wanted to convert Europe to LNG and put pressure on the gas revenues of Russia.
So my conclusion is that an international task force did it lol
On the other hand blowing up the pipe means giving up on :
1. blackmailing the europeans if they don't comply to some demands. 2. A huge revenue - because BTW there's no way it can be repaired.
So I don't think contractual ramifications weighs much in that context
But from historical perspective, the one thing that outlives wars, is Debt and Contracts. Specially if they are owned by the winner.
In any case, Russia could 'turn the gas off' by having 'irrepairable turbine failures' or various other technicalities.
@dang might there be a reason of why my earlier comment is flagged?
If Russia loses the war then it was false flag attack by Russia. Russia will pay.
If Ukraine loses the war, then it is terrorist nazi state, who fooled Western governments and blew up German Infrastructure. Ukraine will pay.
Either way it's not US elites blowing up they allies' infrastructure to capture EU gas market and to increase dependence of EU from US.