[yznovyak]

Common theme I've heard here (Kyiv, Ukraine) is that this sabotage is in Putin's direct interest. There are rumours of political infighting among Russia's leaders and that there are several factions trying to seize power, however since there is no clear winner, those guys need powerful allies, EU being a very important one. The idea is that Europe really wants to buy Russian gas, but not from Putin, so if Russia somehow gets a successor, he (or she) would stop the war, blame everything on Putin, beg for lifting of sanction and resuming the trade. Since Europe needs gas they'll gladly agree to this. But if there is no gas, then the potential successor would have much less of a value to offer. Basically with gas on the table the upside is high enough to warrant an attempt of an extremely risky coup, but without the gas it's a much less interesting proposition.

An alternative POV is that somebody (USA?) does not trust Europe/Germany/... to not "relapse" to the "gas needle" when the things get dire.

[thiagoharry]

Why is Putin direct interest destroy a source of income and leverage to the country!?!? Now Germany can buy gas from 2 sources: Ukraine and USA. This explanation makes no sense to me.

[mort96]

It should be extremely clear that the health of Russia as a country isn't Putin's primary goal. If (and it's a big "if") destroying a source of income or leverage to the country can make Putin safer against assassination and coup attempts, I don't see why he wouldn't do it.

[WinstonSmith84]

Like on any crime scene, who profits from the crime?

Well, a few things first:

1- NS1 along NS2 are (were) shutdown and clearly these were not going to re-open, not before the end of the war - not politically acceptable for Putin, even less for Germany

2- The war is going to last for many more months (best case scenario) or a year or two or ... No matter how long it will really last, Europe, after having survived Winter 2022 will not be reliant to Russian gas anymore. It's clear to everyone that NS1 / NS2 will likely never re-open again.

3- Based on #2, you can assume that NS2 like NS1 are just dead ...

So again, who profits from the crime?

1- USA: why would they take the risk to destroy the pipeline knowing Germans won't buy Russian gas in the foreseeable future? Their utmost priority is that Ukraine defeats Russia to send a strong message to China. They can't care less about NS2 at the moment, but they care most about unity among western countries, that's how Russia will lose and that's how they will win. Of course, Germany becoming dependent on US gas is a good thing for them, but it's not really a strategic objective, at most tactical ...

2- Russia: they are losing the war and now throwing conscripts with not a day of training on the front. That's pretty desperate move to say the least. Whenever they escalate, they see that as a chance to break unity among the west. Blowing up their (now useless) pipeline is in line with another desperate move: at least try to make something useful out of it. If Russia loses the war, Putin is just dead (at least politically). He can't care less about Russia economy at the moment.

3- Eastern Europe: their hate for Russia is very strong and they obviously welcome such a move. But like for the US, they want very hard Ukraine to win, and blowing up such a pipeline is not clear the immediate benefit. Besides, it's still a risky operation and it's not clear whether they just have the capacity to carry out such an operation without taking the risk of being detected.

[inferiorhuman]

  Why is Putin direct interest destroy a source of income and leverage to the country!?!? 

Because there's no political will to re-open it for the time being. Pushing the narrative that this was an American action benefits Putin in two ways:

- Spreads discontent in Germany (and elsewhere). While the EU is okay shutting down NS 1+2 for now if things are particularly bad this winter (weather, value against the dollar, inflation) being able to turn on pipeline again is a relief valve. Blowing it up and blaming the Americans makes it easy to push a narrative that lack of independence from America is putting the EU (especially Germany) at risk.

- While it would be really hard to spin an American attack on NS 1+2 as a rationalization for escalating the war (e.g. nukes), it does create a nice narrative that America is actively hurting Russia unfairly. Sanctions are a lot easier to lift than that pipeline is to repair. That kind of narrative could help popularize recruitment.

Look. Russia is already losing their war badly. The Russian draft is wildly unpopular and the US stands to lose a lot by antagonizing the American left (over environmental issues), Germany, and even Russia. If blaming America can help staunch the mass exodus in Russia and undermine NATO unity then blowing up the pipeline is a small price to pay.

[cbmuser]

Russia doesn’t really care about Western money anymore. They can’t spend it due to the sanctions anyway.

[ajross]

> Why is Putin direct interest destroy a source of income and leverage to the country!?!?

The logic isn't unreasonable. Nordstream is very clearly NOT a source of income, currently. But it could be, if Putin were deposed. Now the Russian gas interests are stuck with Putin, they don't win anything (in the near term) via a coup.

Add to that that clandestine adventurism like this is very much Putin's MO and not the USA's (we do our adventurism with giant flags and 24/7 news coverage), and... it seems the most reasonable guess.

Really the US doesn't have that much interest here, certainly not enough to provoke further escalation. If Ukraine were to straight up fall to Russia, we'd deal with it. That's what we all assumed was going to happen back in the spring anyway.

[greycol]

Just because doing something has a negative outcome it doesn't mean not doing it can't have a worse outcome.

i.e. if a car jacker threatens to shoot you if you don't hand over your car that doesn't mean handing over your car was a great outcome.

In this hypothetical Putin had the choice between having a higher chance of accidentally falling down the stairs/out a window, or weakening his country economically. Putin doesn't mind watching Russia suffer more if it means a better personal outcome for him so the hypothetical choice is easy.

[upsidesinclude]

It does sound like a propaganda story, having so many contingent factors and supposition.

[anovikov]

Because Putin's interest is Putin, not Russia.

[SanjayMehta]

Russia could have just turned off the tap.

The sabotage ensures Europe can't back off from the US sanctions now.

Wrecks Germany's economy, thereby eliminating a rival. VW et al are already talking about moving production to the US.

And Biden promised to take care of NS 2 back in February itself.

https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8

[kibwen]

This is tinfoil-haberdashery. No, Biden did not authorize a clandestine attack on Russian infrastructure just to boost the US auto industry, nor did he subtly broadcast his nefarious intent months ago as part of some game to throw red meat to the conspiratorialists, Q-style. The US would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by engaging in such an action, and has absolutely no impetus to since it already currently has the upper hand in the overall geopolitical conflict. The pipeline can be repaired within months, and the sanctions were already going to last for at least that long. It buys the US none of the the things you mention, even in the fantasy world where someone thinks that those would comprise the US's grand strategic goals.

To be clear, with our current information, the sabotage makes sense for nobody, not for the US, not for Russia. The only reason people are attributing it to Russia is because, of all the people currently in the room, Putin is the one acting the most generally irrational. But if we assume irrationality, it could just as easily be any random entity; Iran, or North Korea, or Greenpeace, or mermaids, or the shambling, zombified corpse of Abraham Lincoln.

[mattnewton]

The tap was already turned off. I think everyone at the time understood Biden's comments to mean the nordstream 2 pipeline wouldn't be operational because of diplomatic pressure on Germany. And that's exactly what happened, Germany decided not to certify it and it was left functional but not pumping any gas (the current leak was likely just enough to keep the line pressurized).

I also don't think the US sees Germany as a "rival" in this way at all, they are a strong trading partner.

The motivations are not that clear for any actor really. Someone wanted to burn a potential bridge between the EU and Russia, but it's not clear to me why the US would want to lose their biggest carrot (immediately dumping cash into Russia if sanctions were lifted and gas could be bought), or why Russia would want to lose a pipeline they invested so much into, sitting there and just tempting the west to Germany to ease sanctions.

[twelve40]

This. Amazing how people get caught up in their fantasies and ignore simple facts.

[sorokod]

"...he (or she)" couldn't help smiling at the instinctive political correctness.

Reminds of of a story about a person from US visiting South Africa and at some point referring to black people in the audience as African Americans.

[selimthegrim]

My university announced an call for applications to an initiative supporting Ukrainian students and one of the bullet points read “impact on Indigenous and minority peoples of Ukraine”

Now Roma aside, the only Ukrainian law about this covers Tatars, Krymchaks and Karaim in occupied Crimea (not even Hutsuls) so basically they wrote the law because EU told them to, and in such a way so they wouldn’t have to lift a finger

[jmyeet]

Online I've seen some takes that America is responsible for this. I get why. America's foreign policy has done and continues to do some appalling things (eg any number of coups). The idea is that the US doesn't want Europe to be reliant on Russian gas or that Russia may be able to use the prospect of that gas (coming into winter) to sway Europe with respect to Ukraine.

I don't buy it. The blowback potential would be enormous. It's also not America's style. Coups? Sure. Unjustified military action? Absolutely. Directly destroying infrastructure of critical importance to supposed allies? I have trouble seeing it.

If this is by human action (which seems entirely possible) then Russia seems the most likely suspect. The counterargument is that why would Russia destroy something that they're dependant on? Sure Russia isn't selling gas today but the possiblity of them selling it in the future has value (to Russia and Europe).

But Russia, like probably every country and certainly the US, is not a monolith. There are competing interests. Putin is reportedly facing dissent for how badly the war in Ukraine is going. Russia has hardline nationalists, those who are anti-war and other factions.

The example I'm reminded of from history is Cortez who 500 years ago upon arriving in South America burned his ships. Why? So there'd be no way out. There could be no mutiny if there was no means of escape.

So sabotaging the pipeline could be to undermine the anti-war movement who might seek to oust Putin and resume trade with Europe. It might well solidify any wavering nationalists. Who knows?

Another theory: Russia is demonstrating a capability. I think that makes less sense.

[XorNot]

The question no one asks is "how long does it take to repair a break in the pipeline?"

The whole pipeline is still there, this is damaged sections. This would be a known risk of an undersea pipeline: stuff undersea gets damaged by ships all the time [1].

I would wager, were we in normal circumstances, we'd be talking 6 months. There'd be big money at stake, vital infrastructure, and that's about as long as you've got till winter in Europe normally. We would have spare pipe sections, we've still got all the plant and equipment for putting them in place. Basically, this is not unplanned for event.

But does Russia, Putin specifically, think the pipeline will be of any benefit to them over the next 6 months? If Russia withdraws from Ukraine, sure. But why would that happen? Because Putin has been deposed (and is probably dead) - and the main way to accrue the sort of allies you'd need to do it would be to promise them a bigger cut of the new revenue to the state provided they played ball.

Taking the pipelines out of circulation in the short term cuts off internal negotiating power for would be usurpers for Putin specifically. Which for current day Russia, is the only consideration that matters.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamchatka_(ship)

[fmajid]

Given the ridiculous number of oligarchs getting defenestrated of late, it doesn’t seem Putin has lost his ability to cow them.

The USA would be entirely right not to trust Germany, but the risks of blowback should it be caught would make it too risky, and Biden doesn’t strike me as a gambler, unlike some.

Ukraine would be a good potential suspect but probably doesn’t have the capability. China could also be, turning Russia into a permanent vassal state would have its advantages, but it’s far-fetched.

This reminds me of the persons unknown who have been sabotaging Egyptian undersea fiber optic cables.

[foverzar]

> but the risks of blowback should it be caught would make it too risky

It's the same risk for every suspect, so it's not really a counterpoint.

[melonrusk]

> if Russia somehow gets a successor, he (or she) would stop the war, blame everything on Putin, beg for lifting of sanction and resuming the trade.

If the war stops, deliveries will resume through the overland pipelines, so Nordstream is largely irrelevant so far as Putin's rivals are concerned.

[ed_balls]

There is Yamal, Brotherhood and Turk Stream - more than enough capacity. I don't think anyone is willing to buy more than 10% from Russian, ever. It's too risky. China is keeping it under 15%.

[mgoetzke]

It seems the CIA had warned Germany about such attacks a few weeks ago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/world/europe/cia-nord-str...

PS: All the reasons you mentioned also went through my head when I heard about it and it will be very interesting to see where this leads

[jahnu]

How long would it take to repair the pipelines? A few months? Feels like that would scupper this theory.

[cm2187]

As long as it takes longer than the end of the winter

[whatshisface]

There is no way to shut the gas production down for long enough for Europe to transition to renewables, the most they could do would be to cause Europe an immense amount of suffering while everyone rushed in to post-Putin Russia to repair the sabotage.

[droptablemain]

This is utterly absurd.

[mort96]

They said Putin's interest, not Russia's interest. Don't make the mistake of assuming Putin will act in accordance with Russia's interests.

[monkeydreams]

I don't know that Ukraine has the capability to do this. The number of countries capable of this act is quite small.

[arisAlexis]

Directly in Russian interest as it's the country that is looking for an excuse to escalate.