- It was not being used anyway and was less likely to be used every single day
- Apparently the gas wells in Siberia's permafrost areas have frozen due to lack of use and Russia doesn't have the tech to reopen them without Western help which falls under sanctions (note I read this in another forum and haven't been able to validate this)
- The attack happened one day after the opening of the Baltic pipe from Scandinavia to Poland. Could be a way of putting NATO on notice that their infrastructure is vulnerable, without actually attacking it. Like a veiled threat.
I also thought it was unlikely to be Russia at the time but in light of the arguments above (which I read brought by other people) it became more likely to me.
On the other hand the Ukrainians have always hated Nord Stream because it meant a loss of transit fees for them. Somehow I don't think this is their biggest worry right now though. And I doubt they'd want to risk agitating NATO counties which own half of it.
I'm still not convinced either way. I'm not very good at geopolitical insight :(
> - It was not being used anyway and was less likely to be used every single day
Once EU countries found themselves paying >5x what they're used to paying to keep their houses warm in a month or so, they might well have decided to pinch their noses and start buying Russian gas again. Russia would very much have liked this, non-European NATO countries would not. Now it's not even a question.
> - The attack happened one day after the opening of the Baltic pipe from Scandinavia to Poland. Could be a way of putting NATO on notice that their infrastructure is vulnerable, without actually attacking it. Like a veiled threat.
Shooting yourself in the foot is a strange way to demonstrate that you have a gun.
> On the other hand the Ukrainians have always hated Nord Stream because it meant a loss of transit fees for them. Somehow I don't think this is their biggest worry right now though. And I doubt they'd want to risk agitating NATO counties which own half of it.
I don't think Ukraine would have been involved in it either, but they stand to benefit in the short-term from anything which would isolate Russia further. In terms of agitating European NATO states, they've already gone through the initial shock of cutting off cheap gas, the damage of permanently losing access to it isn't as politically costly.
I think this is the most plausible theory that explains Russian backing. An alternative theory is that this was an accident from them trying to fix hydrate plugs in the pipes, and doing it wrong. Another possibility is that Russian popular support for the war could be flagging, and Putin was trying to drum up unity.
However, Putin has not been shy about simply seizing assets using the Russian legal system, so destroying an important strategic asset to keep the oligarchs in line seems like an extreme move. The popular support battle, for Putin, already seems to be lost, and it's unclear why blowing up a pipeline would help.
If he did blow up the pipeline, whether it was an accident or a power play, blaming the US (which he is doing) makes a lot of sense.
The elephant in the room is that there is a great reason why the US (or Ukraine, if they had the operational capability, or Turkey or France, for that matter) would blow up the pipeline: it closes off Europe's options to buy oil from Russia this coming winter, which, in turn, ensures that they have no reason not to support the war. However, if they did blow up the pipeline, they certainly couldn't admit it, and they would need to find a scapegoat, and the best scapegoat is the country they want Europe to be angry at: Russia. The US has an additional possible motivation: it opens the path to selling LNG to the EU.
So here we are. Russia blames the US, the US and NATO blame Russia, and nobody has claimed responsibility. This is consistent with either truth of who actually did it. Eventually, we may know the truth about what happened. We certainly don't know today.
- It was not being used anyway and was less likely to be used every single day
- Apparently the gas wells in Siberia's permafrost areas have frozen due to lack of use and Russia doesn't have the tech to reopen them without Western help which falls under sanctions (note I read this in another forum and haven't been able to validate this)
- The attack happened one day after the opening of the Baltic pipe from Scandinavia to Poland. Could be a way of putting NATO on notice that their infrastructure is vulnerable, without actually attacking it. Like a veiled threat.
I also thought it was unlikely to be Russia at the time but in light of the arguments above (which I read brought by other people) it became more likely to me.
On the other hand the Ukrainians have always hated Nord Stream because it meant a loss of transit fees for them. Somehow I don't think this is their biggest worry right now though. And I doubt they'd want to risk agitating NATO counties which own half of it.
I'm still not convinced either way. I'm not very good at geopolitical insight :(