61–70 of 176 posts
So far the most plausible theory is that Russia sabotaged the pipelines for two reasons [1]: 1) to claim force majeure and avoid massive penalties Gazprom would have to pay for the breach of contract (we are talking billions here; now they just blame the West and good luck proving in courts who actually did it); 2) to further blackmail and coerce the European nations (particularly Germany and Italy) who depend on Rus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Press Source: "Trust us, little ones"
Polarization weakens the conversation. A reminder not to make assumptions one way is not an argument for running on the opposite direction.
Highly speculative opinion not grounded in fact and blatantly pushing a conclusion . . . what else can you say? Why is this even submitted to HN? A conversation starter?
So far the most plausible theory is that Russia sabotaged the pipelines for two reasons [1]: 1) to claim force majeure and avoid massive penalties Gazprom would have to pay for the breach of contract (we are talking billions here; now they just blame the West and good luck proving in courts who actually did it); 2) to further blackmail and coerce the European nations (particularly Germany and Italy) who depend on Rus…
Your theory just doesn't check out. With the pipelines destroyed, Russia can't blackmail the EU with energy as easily as they could before. And why would they destroy infrastructure that they poured billions into when they could have just turned off the taps any time they pleased? The pipelines now being destroyed is a really bad thing for Russia, a worse thing for the EU and a great situation for the USA (and Poland…
To take the option of some future DE/RU agreement regarding restoring the flow of gas off the table. To force everyone to fully commit to their current strategy.
As far as motivation, the US agenda on Europe's fossil fuel market since at least 2008 has been to lock out Russian suppliers (who don't bank their oil profits with Wall Street) in favor of American and Middle Eastern importers (those who do bank their funds appropriately, i.e. Qatar/Saudi/Kuwait/UAE good, Iran bad). This has gained extra impetus since the fracking boom and the rise in production in the USA, leading to pushes to open up export markets.
Now, would Russia want to blow up its own pipelines when it can simply shut them down for 'maintenance' until sanctions are lifted if it wanted to cut off the flow of gas? That's a ludicrous stretch of the imagination. This leaves the USA as the one with the obvious motive to do this.
I personally think Europe would have been better off pushing rapid renewable development for the past few decades, which it has to some extent, but a more concentrated effort over the past few decades would have put them in a position where their economies were not dependent on either the USA or Russia.
[edit: relevant quote - "There are many ways to light Europe" - from the movie, Syriana]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was never a possible outcome. Pipelines transiting Belarus and Ukraine remain operational and AFAIK in-service. Who did it does matter. If Russia didn't self-sabotage they may feel some obligation to retaliate proportionally against someone else's energy infrastructure.
If they wish to retaliate, all the need to do is destroy their own infrastructure
Unqualified opinions are cheap. This random internet guy thinks sabotage is unlikely on the Nord Stream incident based on what is published on news websites? This has a weight of exactly zero.
My first question would be is random internet guy from one of the most likely suspects if this were sabotage? If so, their opinion is probably like many such opinions and based more on projection and defensive posturing than anything else.
Of course, hostile action is also a plausible explanation, but it is very fair to point out that we really don't have any clear evidence either way and both are reasonably likely.
So far the most plausible theory is that Russia sabotaged the pipelines for two reasons [1]: 1) to claim force majeure and avoid massive penalties Gazprom would have to pay for the breach of contract (we are talking billions here; now they just blame the West and good luck proving in courts who actually did it); 2) to further blackmail and coerce the European nations (particularly Germany and Italy) who depend on Rus…
This doesn't make much sense to me. Even if we assume the premise that they have such a motivation and can't.. simply refuse to pay fines.. there are easier ways for them to destroy their ability to deliver gas without causing such expensive damage. For instance, they could claim more of their turbines failed. Then when the war is over and they want to sell more gas, the repairs would be a lot cheaper.
These two pipelines have very different operational histories so the simultaneous formation of a 'methane hydrate plug' in both pipelines seems highly unlikely at best. There's also no apparent reason why such a methane hydrate plug should cause seismic-scale explosions in both pipelines. As far as motivation, the US agenda on Europe's fossil fuel market since at least 2008 has been to lock out Russian suppliers (who…
Whomever did it (and US and Russia are NOT the only actors capable) the clear result is these pipelines are no longer operational and there is very little political will anywhere to rebuild them.
