[reitanqild]

(Disclaimer up front: I don't know who cut NS1 and NS2, my bet is on russia, but I can see more than one alternative.)

Which would explain the attacks on their own gas pipeline NS1 and NS2:

- they are dumb and reckless enough to do that (they weren't used anyway, +plausible deniability)

- it signals to NATO the idea that russia can destroy critical infrastructure without actually getting caught for an attack on critical infrastructure

[vkou]

The cost of betting wrong when you attack your own infrastructure is measured in rubles.

The cost of being wrong when you attack NATO infrastructure is measured in war, conventional or nuclear.

That's why Russia attacked Ukraine, but only postures and blusters when it comes to NATO.

There are red lines that you can't cross, and open conflict with a nuclear adversary is one of the latter.

[hackandthink]

"There are red lines that you can't cross, and open conflict with a nuclear adversary is one of the latter."

This is true for NATO powers as well. I can't believe Russia blew it up, it doesn't make sense.

But which NATO Country would blow up pipelines and risk a conflict with a nuclear adversary?

[vkou]

It can make sense if you think about it in the game theory manner. Sometimes, deliberately limiting your options improves your overall outcome.

One theory is that by blowing up the pipeline, Putin is limiting Russia's options. With the pipeline in place, ending the war would immediately cause the flow of gas, and dollars into Russia to resume.

Without the pipeline, ending the war would not cause the flow of gas and dollars.

This might improve his ability to politically maneuver within the country (As other political agents, who care more about money than the war are less incentivized to push for an end to the war.)

It's a similar idea to why the US stations troops around the Korean DMZ. Their job isn't to repel a North Korean invasion, their job is to die in the first few minutes of it, and thus force the US to intervene in any resumed Korean conflict. This very clearly communicates to North Korea how serious the US is about maintaining the status quo. By restricting its freedom of action (Forcing itself to go to war if hostilities resume), the US accomplishes a political objective (preventing hostilities from resuming).

---

Of course, this is all speculation. For all we know[1], the pipeline was blown up by Poland/Ukraine/Germany/the US/the Mossad/Morocco/Aliens.

[1] It's difficult to trust any information about this, as its impossible to impartially verify it, and everyone involved has their own agenda they want to push.

[hackandthink]

OK, this is at least a theory:

Putin wants to continue the war. He takes away his possibility of selling gas to Western Europe so that he is not tempted to make peace and sell gas. And his fellows can not be tempted as well.

(sounds as crazy as everything else)

[reitanqild]

Alternative: some group in the FSB or the Russian navy thought it would be impossible to blame it on Russia (for obvious reasons), then went ahead and blew it up to be able to blame it on someone else (UK, US or NATO in general maybe?)

Somewhere along the line something went wrong (for them).

(Not saying they did it, only that think it is the least crazy of the options I have considered.)

[hackandthink]

It's a kind of nice mystery, at least nobody died (I hope so). There will be novels and movies.

[reitanqild]

> I can't believe Russia blew it up, it doesn't make sense.

I think lot of what Russia does, doesn’t make sense at the macro scale, only in the context of internal power struggles.

[shapefrog]

Rounded to the nearest meaningful number 0.00 cubic feet of gas was going to flow through those pipes in the foreseeable future.

Blowing them up did everyone, on both sides, a lot of favours by ending the whole will they / wont they charade that was taking place on both sides.

[oezi]

I never understood the Northstream strategy on all sides before the war and I don't understand the reasoning for blowing it up either.

For Russia to blow up its own pipeline takes away their ability to offer gas in exchange for money and political influence regarding the Ukraine conflict. Why should they want to give up this bargaining chip they worked hard for the last 20 years?

The only reason I can think of is that they believe there is no way for European to buy any gas anyway. Yet, this is in contrast to the European narrative to become independent of Russian energy over the next years but still continue to buy this energy now even if blood is sticking to it.

Thus Russia was either thinking that they don't need the money/foreign reserves anyway or that there goal of destabilizing Europe with high energy prices can't be achieved unless they turn off gas supplies entirely.

But even her the mere existence of the pipeline might have benefitted Russia because it did allow appeasers in Europe to argue for 'negotiations' with Russia. Since the pipelines were blown up, these appeasers have gotten really quite (at least in Germany) because it is clear that there is no way back with Russia.

Internally inside Russia it might be useful to portray Russia under Western attack but seems to me also projecting weakness.

In summary I don't consider it very plausible that Russia would blow up such a strategic asset.

Looking from the European perspective it also makes very little sense. Yes, everyone except the Germans hated that pipeline but the basic idea to have a pipeline directly to Russia as a carrot & stick worth 20 bn EUR of money transfer per month seems as plausible as ever.

And would any European country risk being found out to execute a bombing of infrastructure that is part of the German sphere of influence? For instance Poland? Kind of inconceivable. The US? Hard to fathom.

Which leaves only two possibilities: It was an operation by Ukraine to simplify European politics or Putin got so mad about the continuous failure that he acted irrationally once again.

Really though 3D chess it seems.

[shapefrog]

Both sides are holding it as a bargaining chip while simultaneously having it held over them as a bargaining chip. Neither side now wants to transact on the pipeline as it will ultimately be a sign of weakness. Either Europe blinks because it is desperate for gas or Russia blinks because it is desperate for money - and neither side is going to blink.

All the while Europe hasnt found it that hard to find other sources of gas and Russia hasnt found it too hard to find buyers willing to get a discount.

[7952]

I guess it could have been a quid pro quo for some kind of support from China. It makes a switch to the east more explicit.

[snapcaster]

Why would it have been Russia? Obviously we don't know who did, but my thoughts were that Russia would want that pipeline to be available as a bargaining chip to get the rest of Europe to pressure Ukraine to concede. How does blowing it up benefit them?

[shapefrog]

> How does blowing it up benefit them?

Destroy the european economy by starving and freezing people to death, make everyone in europe turn against ukrainian supporting politicians and cut off any support for the ukraine government.

[snapcaster]

But they could have done that without blowing it up right? they control the source of the pipeline. So couldn't they have achieved this goal without taking the bargaining chip off the table and limiting their own flexibility?

[shapefrog]

It allows/invites a challenge from a weaker leader who suggests selling some gas to get some money. If there is no option and no flexibility there is no alternative, no challenger.

[snapcaster]

Good thought, hadn't really been considering the internal politics angle of it

[shapefrog]

And that goes for every player. Want to be Germany and not have someone outflank you and say 'lets take the cheap gas from russia' - take the gas off the table. Want to be India and still get half off your energy? Want to be the US and get to sell a ton of gas to europe?

[reitanqild]

> Why would it have been Russia? Obviously we don't know who did,

Agree. As mentioned above I keep multiple options open.

> but my thoughts were that Russia would want that pipeline to be available as a bargaining chip to get the rest of Europe to pressure Ukraine to concede. How does blowing it up benefit them?

Exactly as I outlined above: if they did it, it is (relatively) cheap power signaling: “think if this happened to one of the cables that are in use. We are actually dumb & crazy enough & technically capable to pull it off”.