▲ 505 points
back
1059 comments
The Swedish national seismic network picked up two explosions within kilometers of the reported gas leak locations yesterday.
The time of the first explosion: Yesterday, Monday morning at 02:03 am, second one Monday evening at 7:04pm (local time, CEST).
The reports of the gas leaks came at 1:52pm and 8:41pm, respectively - by means of ships reporting bubbling at the surface level.
One of the two events registered at magnitude 2.3. They were picked up by stations all over the country.
It's clear from the registered seismic waves that the events are not earthquakes.
- You can clearly see how the waves bounce from the bottom to the surface. There is no doubt that it was a blast or explosion. We even had a station in Kalix [quite far up north, some 1300 km away] that picked this up, says Björn Lund, who is a lecturer in seismology and director of the Swedish national seismic network, which measures Swedish earthquakes and explosions.
Translated and summarized from: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/svt-avslojar-tva-explosio... (Sweden's national public service broadcaster, within the last hour)
So that doesn't look like an accident. I have difficulty imagining accidental ignition in an underwater gas pipeline. Where would the oxygen come from? Plus it's more than one explosion on the same day - can't be a coincidence.
The next question is, who did it? It doesn't seem like something in Russia's interest, they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved and operational. They invested huge sums of money to build it after all. So was this an EU country? The USA? The Ukraine doesn't have resources in the Baltic, right?
That's an intriguing mystery.
Assuming the explosions are relevant, some possible causes, ordered somewhat (but not entirely) by my personal estimation of likelihood:
* Ecoterrorists -- I discount this mostly on the basis that they would have claimed responsibility by now.
* NATO sabotage -- this reduces strategic options for several EU countries (albeit a strategic option that isn't really being exercised and is almost universally disfavored).
* Russia sabotage -- this isn't terribly rational for Russia, but Russia has been unwilling to pursue rational options for a while. I can see someone in Russia thinking this will stoke anger in Germany (and the rest of Europe) that may create European pressure to force Ukraine to end the war (which is the most viable path I see at this point for Russia winning the war).
* Ukrainian sabotage -- pretty much the only actor for whom sabotage makes rational sense. Especially if it is a demonstration of Ukrainian cyberwarfare capabilities.
* Poor maintenance -- this strikes me as unlikely because NS1 is quite new infrastructure (2011), so it would have to be extremely substandard to have failed this quickly, and I believe most of the construction was done by European and not Russian firms, so I don't think that's at all plausible. But there may be some failure modes I'm not thinking of here.
In a radio interview Björn Lund also says it was a relativly large explosion, equivalent to "a couple of hundred kg of dynamite".
I wonder how it compares to the 1982 pipeline explosion the US caused in a similar situation:
https://www.smh.com.au/world/cold-war-hotted-up-when-sabotag...
At the time, it was the largest non-nuclear, man-made explosion in history.
(The grammar of the first few paragraphs of that story is odd, but the source it cites is solid, and it gets better after a paragraph or two -- couldn't find a better link.)
Act of war by USA? (equivalent if done through ally)
If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Poland.
The Polish prime minister immediately called "sabotage" and fingered Russia, while everyone else is still saying "it could be sabotage but we need to investigate first".
Russia wants the taps capable of being turned ON at their discretion, not permanently broken. This hurts their bargaining position in a big way because they've just lost their biggest source of leverage against Germany.
Poland opened a new pipeline to Norway on the same day as the leaks appeared, so there was lots of Polish activity in the waters.
Poland doesn't receive gas via Nordstream, so damaging it doesn't hurt them in any way.
Poland is Ukraine's most ardent supporter in Europe, often leading the vanguard of actions to support Ukraine. They'd have a strong motive to ensure that the rest of Europe doesn't waver in its commitment to keep the Russian taps off.
It could be argued that since Europe has already decided to never turn on Nordstream again, the fallout from such an act of sabotage is minimal.
As a Pole, you're giving our elected representatives and secret services/special forces too much credit.
Especially the latter were gutted by this government in its current and previous(2005-2007) incarnation under the guise of "decommunization" and replaced with people without the, to put it lightly, necessary qualifications.
I mean, quite a few government motorcades got into accidents because the poor fool behind the wheel wasn't a professional.
There's no way Poland pulls this off. If ANY of the government members EVER leak this their position in the EU is done for. It's a direct act of aggression.
This would be an extremely dumb move by Poland.
> Russia wants the taps ON, not off.
Russia unilaterally turned the taps OFF repeatedly in the last months to keep Germany from meaningfully supporting Ukraine.
I don't see a mention that today is the day Poland officially opens up its pipeline to Denmark and Norway. The pipeline Russia (and to a much lesser extent Germany) put a lot of resources trying to jeopardize.
Some of the things those two countries did include: Financing of various "grassroots ecology groups" that managed to find an extremely important field mouse (no joke!) habitat on the planned route which caused many months of delays in Denmark. Constant media pressure and a smear campaign of lies against PL in Europe and elsewhere. And many more including those we don't know about. No one is surprised at all that they would blow up their own pipeline to gain various PR points in sympathetic media.
My theory is that Putin ordered it. He recently made two major escalations, mobilization and annexation, that greatly decrease the odds of a peaceful settlement and increase the odds of him being overthrown internally. This move undercuts the leverage a new leader would have after a coup, since it will be harder to get gas flowing again following a truce.
Putin seems to be staking his entire regime on this war and likely feels that upping the stakes is to his benefit. His odds of winning a conventional military victory are looking more and more slim, but ratcheting up the risk might get the West to back down, at least in his mind.
More details:
Although neither was in operation, both pipelines [Nordstream 1 and 2] still contained gas under pressure.
Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said the leaks were caused by sabotage, while his Danish counterpart Mette Frederiksen said it was “hard to imagine” they were a “coincidence”.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/27/sweden-issues-warni...
A plausible theory for why Russia has done this could be to avoid fines. It is likely that Russia has agreements with steep penalties for if they voluntarily don't provide gas like they agreed too (like what they are doing with Nord Stream 1).
Blowing large holes in the pipelines could allow Russia to claim that they cannot provide gas because the pipelines are broken, effectively avoiding the fines.
It's so easy to spin a just so story around incentives to think anyone is responsible.
US did it because their gas industry want to sell to Europe, and also Biden was clipped saying he can stop NS2.
Russia did it because the repair costs are low and hence the distrust propaganda value is worth that cost, and because EU is going to stop buying their gas anyway so may as well capitalize on the sunk cost.
Forgetting incentives for a minute and instead looking at recent patterns of behavior and reckless disregard for both others as well as self-preservation, my default assumption is that Russia did it. This is the best lens to use when the incentive picture is murky, because it clearly is murky here.
To me, the most fascinating thing about this is the complete and utter uncertainty. Who is responsible, USA? Russia? Ukraine? Poland? Terrorists? No one?
You'd think that in the 21st century, a piece of infrastructure getting blown up during a war, between two clearly defined sides, there wouldn't be nearly as much mystery surrounding the events.
Might be shocking to some, but not all of Russia is one people. There are multiple interests there among country's leaders. And one such interest: to get rid off Putin's regime quickly. One way of doing this is to prevent any notion of "restorable" economic relationships with Europe under Putin. Without Gas, who needs Putin's Russia...
A prediction: we will see more of such actions in the coming months, leading to the winter
I read talks of sabotage but I struggle to understand the point, surely russia wouldn’t sabotage their own pipelines (they can just shut them) and I understand they are not in use right now. In fact doesn’t that mean that the pipeline will be flooded? Is that recoverable?
Does anybody know what this means in terms of bringing the pipeline back online? I'm assuming it's filling with seawater, which seems like it would cause all sorts of problems between the salt and debris.
Is it a matter of repairing the breaches, removing the water, cleaning the pipeline out, and pressurizing it or is this pipeline effectively destroyed?
Somewhat related; recently, unidentified drones have been observed at several oil installations in the North Sea, including Johan Sverdrup and Gullfaks C.
https://www-nrk-no.translate.goog/rogaland/uidentifiserte-dr...
The US is working hard to keep a coalition of NATO countries together (for instance, avoiding secondary sanctions that EU generally thinks are extra-judicial). I don’t believe Germany would agree with this course of action and if the US unilaterally did it it would severely risk the strategic goal of a Ukrainian victory.
Obviously there is no way to know for sure, but I have a very hard time believing Russia is behind it. Russia controls the flow of gas, they can simply turn it off whenever they wish - they have no need to blow up their own pipeline. Russia has spent many years and many billions of dollars constructing these pipelines. They want the power to use their control over the supply of natural gas as leverage and negotiation power over EU countries. Destroying this pipeline removes this leverage and lessens the capability of Russia to pressure the EU with gas restrictions. On the other hand, NATO/US officials have been openly stating their opposition to the Nordstream pipeline even before the recent invasion of Ukraine. It is entirely consistent with the desires of NATO/US officials who seek to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia to destroy the pipeline and eliminate any chance of some sort of negotiated settlement between Germany and Russia as the cold of winter sets in.
Unfortunately, barring the emergence of a whistleblower, we will likely never know the truth, as whoever is responsible for this bombing will never openly admit it. Even more unfortunately, mindless partisans will reflexively point their finger at whoever their chosen propaganda outlets claim (without any evidence whatsoever) is responsible for this bombing, and use those accusations to further escalate hostilities.
Just last week Putin was saying "we want to keep selling gas", like in quite a desperate tone, "just lift the sanctions on NS2, we want to keep seeling gas." Watch his press conference at the SCO summit it's 10-15 mis long.
Now is the time to use his bargaining chip when Germany will be desperate, why will someone make their own position weaker at the time when they can extract the most leverage, that too for no reason - destroy their own property and that too go all the way up to an area where NATO was doing naval exercises a few months ago and risk confrontation with NATO..
The resident hawk at National Review is already doing a touchdown dance. "Who Will Rid Me of This Meddlesome Pipeline?"
Three leaks in two days? Wow, that’s a shame! Sounds like the pipeline’s falling apart and just won’t be a reliable way to get natural gas from Russia to Germany. I guess hopes of Germany and Russia eventually putting aside their differences over the invasion of Ukraine, and reestablishing long-term German dependence on Russian energy, just won’t happen for the foreseeable future. Just terrible luck for Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin, who clearly thought a cold winter with limited energy supplies would make Germany and other European countries come crawling back to the negotiating table.
Just about anyone could have cut the pipeline, but whoever it was, they wanted to make sure the Nord Stream pipelines would not be an option for a long time.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/who-will-rid-me-of-thi...
This is really interesting. Russia knows (if we didn't do it then must be USA), USA knows (if we didn't do it then must be Russia). Germany would never know, but now they are fully dependent on Poland, Ukraine or US Navy for their energy needs.
Another thread on the topic here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32993521
And since you're going to speculate, it's worth knowing: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/europe-is...
I recall of an old story, say from 3-5 years ago, of some non military (geomagnetism?) sensors in that area that seemed to be damaged on purpose by an unknown actor, and one of the speculations was that they could be used to detect alterations to the (edit: measured) Earth magnetic field by submarines passing by.
What a pity what happened to these pipelines for Russian gas.
I mean, the west will not be buying Russian gas anytime soon anyway, Putin knows that.
But what if such accident happened to some another pipeline? For example, the one that is being open just this week from Norway to Poland. The one that should help EU survive the winter.
Interested timing of such unfortunate accident..
It's in large part a warning -- there's no other explanation for the timing:
> The turmoil came on the same day of the inauguration of a long-awaited pipeline that will bring Norwegian gas to Poland, which used to rely heavily on Russia for supplies.
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-gas-baltic-pipelines-leaks/32...
A single torpedo could sever the Pole's new energy supply.
If you're reading the news, and wondering why russia might blow up the gas pipeline they own, Telegraph has a pretty decent discussion on the matter[0].
[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/27/putins-nor...
The author of 'How to Blow Up a Pipeline' is from Sweden.
Gas was providing Russia a strong leverage in its relationship with Europe.
This leverage is now gone.
It will only make the whole region more unstable, more dependent on other international powers.
Friendly backstabbing from your allies is not something unheard of.
This winter people will die of cold, because somebody needed to make a point and get everyone on board.
Politics can be harsh sometime, but you cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs.
What is the status of insurance of those pipelines?
If there's still someone obliged to foot the bill in case of a catastrophic failure, it might create an incentive to just destroy everything.
Of course proof of sabotage would get in the way of that, but the leaks are not particularly accessible at the moment.
I really hope I am wrong, but this looks like a "false flag" operation.
Putin no longer sees this as an economic conflict, all decisions they have taken are against their economic interests, as is the war itself. They are currently killing the rest of their economy with mobilization for some south Ukrainian fields and destroyed towns. They stopped supplying gas and are running deficits at the same time. So assuming an economic motive is just wrong this has become a classic political conflict, the only use the Russian leadership has for an “economy” is as a political tool.
So this attack makes perfect sense, distrust in the West, confusion, no way back.
Does anyone know the rate at which these leaks are spewing methane into the atmosphere, and how quickly this pipeline can be shut off (if it isn't already)?
For very long decades USSR maintained reputation of a reliable supplier of gas and oil. Russia "inherited" this status after the breakup. However, the first gas war against Ukraine in 2009 already showed that the russian political leadership was ready to trade that status over for the geopolitical gains by using gas supply as a tool of war against Ukraine, against Europe.
It worked then to some extent. Sure, why should russia stop? What works should be used again, right?
Here it is, now russia is playing the gas supply card again. However, at this time it is clear that by its hostile and deliberate actions russia further damaged its reliable supplier reputation on the European market.
Does russia want to give up its influence on that market? Of course, not. It again needs a way to maintain the political pressure yet shift the blame for the reputation damage.
Thus, blowing up already non-functioning pipelines serves these purposes. By painting this incident as a mystery, russia will suggest that the supply disruption was beyond its control and not a deliberate choice. Force majeure. Just as it has been making up "technical" reasons for reducing then shuttering the flow via NS-1. Dishonest and obvious, but can still be claimed in court. If anything, the recent arbitrage vs Ukraine's Naftogaz demonstrated such approach in action.
Additionally, now only the Ukrainian pipeline still remains however vulnerable. This allows russia to advance the blackmailing should there be more hardships during the winter.
Whichever the real reasons are, one thing is fully proven is that russia has consistently used the energy supply as weapons and thus cannot be considered as a reliable and trustworthy member of the market. Whichever country to agree to deal with it will have to bear the longterm consequences of any adverse outcomes on its own (Hungary?).
It’s highly probable that this is a strategic response to Putin’s increasing rhetoric about using nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
I guess the Russians never really got over having to leave Bornholm, cue the bad excuses for having to get close to it again :P
Meanwhile, the gas pipeline through Ukraine is quietly functioning.
I wonder who RUptured it?
Prologue: Putina out-maneuvered the Oligarchs that helped re-elect Yeltsin, and once decreed Pres, started to take them off the board when convenient or when inconvenienced.
####
Clearly not coincidence, probably not an accident, and aligns rather boringly with earlier KGB inspired, and FSB implemented, Putina tactics to remind Russians of FEAR™ and that he can be Strong for Them (see almost any "Chechen" terrorist attack).
Putina (being the current Russian state) isn't going to personally profit from those pipelines short term, so use them as a weapon (all his other ones are evidently shite, or phantom spreadsheet entries). Now EU citizens can see Gas just pissing away in the sea AND at its transmission point (flaring) nightly on TV (TV has special power for him). While they stare directly into the face of a Ned Stark worthy Winter, cold, hungry and dumbfounded as tons of long reliable jobs are furloughed because its too expensive to make things on account of Energy decisions made decades ago.
So, now an easily forgotten, mediocre KGB operative, dulled by Dresden and steeled by the hard realities of life in Leningrad (changed back to Saint Petersburg by the time he skulked back from Dresden) put all his chips on the table, didn't know they were counterfeit, and now is doing whatever he can to change the outcome. Just like a former KGB flame-out with heavy gangster influence would.
I can't see a path of sane negotiation or de-escalation here while he's in play. Any weakening of EU/NATO stance is going to allow cash infusion that quiets Oligarchs (any left alive) and everyone else in the gov't line of embezzlement, while emboldening Putina.
The most tragic (and thusly, Russian) aspect is that he's trying to channel Stalin (in a positive way?) and be that Man of Steel - even using Nazi's as a prop - and just becoming the very boogie man he heard in every story as a wee lad from a nation of people traumatized by the deaths of TWENTY MILLON Soviet citizens. This of course follows not only after, but because of, the un-hinged purging they both initiated on their own, for completely and yet complimentary, paranoid delusions.
Was the pipeline insured? Who will benefit from an incident? :)
I don't think it was the US but the CIA managed to blew up a Russian (USSR) pipeline using just software in 1982. Maybe this was hackers? Maybe state actors (could be anyone from the US to North Korea). Maybe Ecoterrorists. Maybe Ransom gangs?
Russia was at a crossroads, and now there is no return. The boats have been burned and they must march forward.
Maybe the Ukrainians did it, or maybe it was terrorists, or actors trying to accelerate the beginning of WW3.
The methane released by this equals roughly 25% of Denmarks annual greenhouse gas emissions, and could be more or less completely avoided by burning. Is there any reason why it is not set on fire?