Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Thoughts on the Nord Stream Explosions
Thanks to @unsk and @hartmannvonaue for their posts on the Nord Stream pipeline explosions. I’ve reviewed the discussion at both, and have some thoughts about possible blame, which are probably too long for the comments.
I start with my understanding of the situation. Please correct me if I get any of this wrong.
There are two Nord Stream natural gas pipelines designed to supply Russian natural gas to western Europe, especially Germany. One has been operational in the past, and one was on the verge of becoming operational when the war in Ukraine began. The non-operational pipeline has not been opened, and Russia ceased gas deliveries through the other pipeline some time ago, claiming technical problems.
Germany and other parts of Europe are already suffering from high energy prices, and face significant pain this winter in the absence of Russian gas deliveries.
There are other pipelines delivering Russian gas to Europe, one through Turkey with limited capacity, and others through Ukraine with larger capacity.
On Monday, two underwater explosions in international waters damaged the pipelines, causing three leaks. I don’t know how severe the damage might be, or how long it might take to repair. If anyone has such information, please let me know in the comments. For the moment, for the sake of discussion, I will assume that the damage to the pipelines will cause serious suffering in Europe this winter. If not, then the event will probably prove to be much ado about nothing, at least in terms of gas flow. The political ramifications could be significant.
There seems to be widespread agreement that this was an act of sabotage, with widely divergent claims about the identity of the responsible party. One strange report comes from Radoslaw Sikorski, a member of the European Parliament and a former foreign minister of Poland, who sent a tweet with a photo of the gas leak and the short comment, “Thank you, USA.” At this time, I have no idea whether Sikorski has actual knowledge of US involvement, or is simply expressing his opinion.
So, here are my initial thoughts about some potentially responsible parties.
I. The US
Tucker Carlson joined Sikorski in suggesting that the US is responsible. I can see a viable argument for this being in the interest of the Biden administration assuming, as I believe to be the case, that they want to continue supporting Ukraine’s war effort.
Russia already had control over gas flow through the pipelines, and had already cut off that flow. Russia’s apparent goal is to pressure Germany and other European countries to stop supporting Ukraine, or face a possible energy crisis this winter. I’ve seen some reports of European demonstrations in favor of opening the pipelines, but I don’t know if this is widespread or is the action of a small fringe.
In any event, there is some possibility of Europe deciding that supporting Ukraine simply isn’t worth the suffering of an energy crisis. Damaging the pipelines eliminates Russia’s ability to resume the flow of gas, eliminating his energy leverage. It does so in a way that is painful for Europe, of course, but it does remove any temptation that the Europeans might have to yield to Russia’s pressure.
I think that this makes it plausible that the US could be responsible. At least, there is an obvious way that the damage to the pipelines would advance US interests, as defined by the Biden administration,
I do think that this possibility is unlikely, though. It seems quite risky, to me, due to the danger of exposure.
How do you think that the Europeans would react to proof that the US damaged the pipelines, causing widespread suffering in Germany and other parts of Europe? I would expect them to be quite upset, perhaps to the point of fragmenting the general agreement to continue supporting the Ukrainians.
II. Russia
I think that it is quite unlikely that Russia is responsible, though I can construct a devious hypothesis that might be to Russia’s benefit.
The idea that Russia wanted to destroy its own pipelines, to cut off the supply of gas to Europe, seems laughable to me. Russia has already stopped the flow of gas through those pipelines. Its evident purpose is to pressure the Europeans to cease supporting Ukraine, a goal that can only be accomplished if Russia is capable of turning the gas back on, if Europe complies.
I’ve seen a few suggestions that Putin would do this so that he has “plausible deniability.” This strikes me as very implausible. Why would Putin need such deniability? Do you think that the Russians object to cutting off the supply of gas to Europe? Why would they? From what I’ve seen, Russia’s oil and gas revenue is significantly up this year.
It is true that Putin has offered excuses for turning off the flow in the operational pipeline. Why would he make such excuses? It seems to me that these stories offer “plausible deniability” to the Europeans. If I were a European politician inclined to believe that supporting Ukraine is not worth the suffering of a winter without Russian gas, I wouldn’t want to be seen publicly capitulating to Russia’s demands. I would want some diplomatic cover. I would want to offer some other reason to stop supporting Ukraine, allowing Putin to “fix” the technical problems in the pipeline and solve my country’s energy problem. Nudge nudge, wink, wink, say no more.
The pipeline sabotage could benefit Russia, though, if it manages to frame someone else. For example, what if Russia framed Ukraine? This might really annoy the Europeans, and lead them to withdraw their support. Similarly, if Russia framed the US, or even Germany, this could undermine European support for Ukraine.
III. Germany
I’ll present this argument about Germany, though I think that it applies to any other European country facing the same problem. Could Germany benefit from the pipeline sabotage?
The argument here is similar to the US. The German government appears to want to continue supporting Ukraine’s war effort, but may face political backlash from an energy shortfall. There could be political pressure to yield to Russia. By damaging the pipelines, Germany would make it impossible for Putin to resume the gas flow, removing the temptation — and political pressure — to negotiate.
As with the US, I think that this is unlikely, because it is risky. What if it were discovered? I imagine that the Germans would be pretty unhappy with their government.
IV. Ukraine
Ukraine is an obvious beneficiary of the pipeline sabotage, as it reduces the risk that Europe will yield to the pressure being exerted by Russia’s gas embargo. Again, if Russia can’t turn on the flow anyway, Europe has nothing to gain by ceasing its support of Ukraine.
As with the US and Germany, this strikes me as a very risky thing for Ukraine to do. If discovered, both the US and Europe might well be outraged.
I do think that Ukraine is more likely to be at fault than the US or Europe, but still not very likely. The reason for this is possible desperation. I don’t know how desperate the Ukrainian situation might be, as they have had some apparent success — and territorial gains — over the past few weeks. What I don’t know is the price that they’ve paid for these gains, and the damage that they inflicted on the Russians. It’s possible that the recent Ukrainian advances, though small now, are something like a mini-Stalingrad, and that they will now begin to drive the Russians back, albeit slowly. On the other hand, it’s possible that we’re witnessing the Ukrainian remake of the Battle of the Bulge, or the German Spring Offensive of 1918 — a last-ditch, desperation attack after which the army collapses. It’s also possible that this is a minor, unimportant shift in the front during what could prove to be a long war of attrition.
I don’t have an opinion about which of these might be occurring.
I think that there was a comment, on one of the other posts, suggesting that Ukraine benefits because it now has control of almost all of the pipelines available to carry Russian gas to Europe. The comment seemed to suggest that Ukraine might take action to cut off that gas supply. A quick internet search indicates that Russia is still sending gas through these pipelines, though perhaps to different parts of Europe.
In any event, I think that it would be an extraordinarily foolish move for Ukraine to deliberately cut off the supply of Russian gas to Europe. Ukraine would be inflicting suffering on European countries that are supporting its war effort. It would be like having a rich uncle giving you money to keep you afloat, and then kicking him in the teeth.
V. Israel
Hey, you always have to consider the possibility that the Mossad is behind something. They may well be the smartest, trickiest, most skilled clandestine organization on the planet. Ruthless, too.
Don’t get me wrong. I actually admire these traits in them. In Putin, too, though I don’t think that he’s in quite the same league as the Israelis.
I can’t come up with any plausible reason for Israel to pull off this sabotage.
VI. China
I have trouble concocting a reason for China to damage these particular pipelines. Frankly, China doesn’t seem to have much practical interest in the war in Ukraine. It seems to tepidly support Russia, making it even less likely that China would want to undermine Putin’s leverage.
VII. A Dark Horse
So, I settle on SPECTRE, so to speak. Some shadowy organization that strongly supports Ukraine, and wants to undermine Russia’s leverage to keep the money and weapons flowing to Kiev. This might be ideological, or it might simply be greed on the part of someone, or some group, that is profiting from such aid. Ukraine seems to be a pretty corrupt place, after all.
Such a “Dark Horse” wouldn’t face the same disincentive to being discovered. They might be caught and punished, of course, but they wouldn’t face the political fallout discussed with respect to the various potentially responsible countries. If they’re smart, and they’d probably have to be pretty smart to pull off this type of sabotage, then the money-men might be hard to identify. Something like the Saudis, or maybe someone else, behind the 9/11 attack by funding Al Qaeda.
To me, this seems the most likely possibility. It’s not very satisfying, as the identity of such a culprit might never be discovered.
Perhaps such a Dark Horse might have a different motive. What if they just wanted to sow chaos, getting everybody to point the finger at everyone else? Conspiracy theories can run rampant. Could there be an anti-Trump agenda? Or an anti-Biden agenda, for that matter?
Based on the statements of Carlson and Sikorski, it seems possible that the bulk of the MAGA folks could end up blaming the US. I’m a MAGA guy myself, and I don’t reach that conclusion, but it might end up being the consensus.
I don’t see the Never-Trump Republicans blaming the US. My impression is that they are likely to join the Democrats in blaming Putin.
Whatever you think of MAGA or Never-Trump, this would continue to split the Republican coalition, already damaged by disagreements over the 2020 election, the Capitol riot, and a number of other issues.
Published in General
Yes. As time goes by the Russian accident scenario is becoming more likely.
That was very informative thank you.
Is methane flammable/explosive without oxygen? I don’t see how a maintenance issue or a methane bubble is going to hit 2.1 on the Richter scale.
Occams Razor.
Shoddy Russian construction
One of the pipelines was new. It was not a maintenance problem.
People believe what is most comfortable. We repeat it to each other to build consensus.
I want to believe!
Are you losing your religion? Fie!
(Um, no. Never heard the song even once, and, odd post, wasn’t it?) No, I just want to believe it was all a tragic accident, or a one-off Green Terrorist nut-job attack using two-man submarines painted up like killer whales. And not the culmination of a year-old warning from Joe Biden that no matter what, we will! stop the pipeline. (Oh, why did I ever leave Aurstralia just to become a US citizen?)
And it’s probably still too early to tell my joke about the Italian man misreading the headline “Two Hundred Men Die Laying Virginia Pipeline!” (What a woman!)
Read the thing. He explains why it’s a problem to have essentially stagnant gas in a pipeline (it was filled).
Not saying that’s the actual truth, but it’s as credible as most of the whodunnit theorizing (and that’s all it is).
But to what end? Russia loses influence over Europe with the destruction of Nord Stream, it doesn’t gain anything.
Unity is fine, but America won’t be going without heat this Northern winter, Europe (Germany) will. Now there’s no option for Europe to turn the heat back on, which I guess keeps them unified?
Brilliant post, brilliantly titled. jmho.
I will posit a love of deep pan pizza. Amirite?
Yes, I failed to mention in my comment that Russia is able to manipulate Europeans with their pipeline capability. It makes zero sense for them to blow up their influence.
I’ve tried three times to finish it. Can’t. (Maybe it’s the font.)
Hanson’s razor
used this on a similar thread…
Okay, I tried to read it again. From what I understand methane hydrate (or clathrate) are stable at low temps and high pressures, and more stable at high temps that LNG. But even if it were to ever explode outside the presence of air, I see no reason to have a slurry in a brand new, presumably unused pipe.
The article seems to suggest that it’s very hard to remove all of the latent water vapor in the natural gas. The pipe is cold, so water condenses.
Well, if it forms, then what makes it start to burn?
Take a look at the video linked in the article. Compress gas sharply enough and it can ignite; that’s how diesel engines ignite without spark plugs. The author says that large icy formations inside of pipelines can come loose with great force, and when they fly down the pressurized pipe, they compress the gas ahead of them. They can explode, or simply hit a curve in the pipe with such force that they rupture it. He says this is a well known problem with large pipelines and has happened before. He makes a good case without ever claiming that no other explanation (sabotage) is possible.
Firstly, the video showed room air containing 21% oxygen being compressed, to ignite along with another substance: it didn’t show the gas itself burning, but rather the cotton wool burning within the oxygen-rich compressed air. My question is what makes the methane hydrate burn, and where does the oxygen come from? Because with out an oxygen environment, methane doesn’t burn.
I think for the guy to point out that Methane is highly explosive is misdirection. It doesn’t burn without oxygen.
Secondly the NordStream 2 was brand new, so how did methane hydrate become thickly encrusted enough to need removal?
And thirdly, how did repair work take place simultaneously in both pipelines? And by what coincidence did the repairs rupture both pipes in multiple locations the same day?
And fourthly, if this is s simple accident, why is everyone from the US to Russia saying that it was sabotage instead if saying it was a series of multiple unfortunate accidents on two pipelines?
And even lawdog’s source for understanding hydrate plugs and dangers of removal shows, again, that fires only occur in oxygen rich environments.
These are really questions for a chemical engineer to answer. Removal of all oxygen from pipeline flows is a necessary industrial process, as removal of trace water is, and neither process is 100.00% perfect. The article’s author, being more familiar with the oil and gas industry than most of the rest of us, doesn’t have much faith in Russian devotion to strict codes of maintenance. He’s noting the possibility that this might have been a botched “fix”.
Why is everybody saying it’s sabotage? (For one thing, the writer of the article we’re talking about isn’t.) Because in a time of high tensions people are jumping to conclusions.
First the US and others shouted sabotage! Putin did it!
And Russia (and Poland?) said, Yes! Sabotage by the US!
So the US said, Poor Russian manufacture! Then Poor Russian maintenance!
My interest in all this really is that some are now saying. “See? We said it was all Russia — just typical Russian incompetence and no more — and now it looks like we’re being proven right.” All because of the prominence of one lawyer’s rather strange (not to say disingenuous) post. (Hint: he’s not an expert.)
But he’s saying, The methane did it! It formed methane hydrate and exploded! Quote: “And the cotton wool is actually just a section of pipe full of lovely, flammable natural gas. Yeah. Boom. Big bada-boom. If you’re lucky, the wall of the pipe will rupture before the ignition point”.
But the video with the cotton wool that he cites has absolutely nothing to do with anoxic denotation of any sort. He’s either ignorant, or being deceptive or lazy, or all three.
But none of his article anywhere near successfully explains why two different pipelines, of two different ages and presumably two different manufactures, exhausted themselves, in several breaches, on the same day, more or less contemporaneous with the detection of at least two separate earthquake-level tremors.
No, he’s saying the methane could have exploded without deliberate sabotage, because similar events have happened in the industry. At the moment, both pipelines were idle, which is evidently one condition of hydrate formation.
He never claimed that the compression ignition experiment with the little glass tube was a perfect model for what happened in the pipeline. He claimed it demonstrated how pressure spikes can cause ignition. They do.
And if the article I linked says a word about “anoxic” ignition I missed it. It says, in effect, “there’s trace oxygen in transporting gas and we have to make a constant effort to get it out.” Nothing anoxic about that.
Why do you find that so provocative? Why is the very suggestion that this might not be deliberate so unthinkable?
I think this comes back to the whole issue of unity I mentioned. Putin has made a number of miscalculations the past 7-8 months, none bigger than misjudging such a strong and unified Western response. On that he actually had every reason to believe things would go differently though. But when we resolved to work on the same page discussions on a number of issues throughout Europe completely changed. Energy security and diversifying energy sources completely changed. All the discussions surrounding Nord Stream completely changed. It DOES make zero sense IF one concludes they will come out of all this with the same level of leverage. To me, it is pretty clear they would not. It’s not unreasonable to think Putin has concluded they would not enjoy the same level of leverage. So, what does he fall back on? The same as he always does; sowing discord among allies. This time by creating chaos on the gas market here in Europe. A side benefit is letting us know they have the means, capability and will to the same to the new nearby pipeline. It seems a rather small risk considering the potential gain, especially since, from what I understand, they’re quite quick and easy repairs. I believe many still just don’t realize how much the unified Western response changed a number of issues and how much that hurts Putin’s Russia.
Let’s see how that goes. I don’t think sabotaging the pipeline adds to disunity, it adds to mandatory unity because Germany no longer has the option to ‘forget the sanctions, turn the electricity on in ICUs’.
If it is sabotage, then it is an act of war on Germany (depending on how long it takes to fix).
If the saboteur were another NATO country, it would blow up the alliance.
End the alliance if it were the US — which has a terrible track record as to keeping anything secret.
As I have often seen, conspiracy theories simultaneously hold that the Feds are diabolical manipulators and total incompetents.
All the counter-arguments to the methane hydrate hypothesis are answered in lawdog’s posting or the extensive comments, it would appear.
Well it would certainly blow up the fig leaf that it’s an alliance of equals. Whether Germany could actually exit NATO without a convenient colour revolution throwing up a Zelensky equivalent remains to be seen.
I know. I don’t get that :-)
I doubt a colour revolution would work in Germany.
Blowing up the NATO alliance would be a long term strategic win for Russia. It might actually make up for the tactical reversal in Ukraine. It would also be a long term strategic win for Iran and China to add more suspects to the mix if they could successfully pin it on the US, or to a lesser extent some other NATO member. Again I don’t really subscribe to a particular theory yet. If it is the US or a false flag operation the “facts” will leak soon enough and we will have to determine if they are credible.
Because you haven’t seen the US government in operation up close and personal. It is a miracle they can accomplish anything besides shooting vast sums of cash out of a cannon. Also administrations have a certain character. They don’t often do uncharacteristic things. This action seems out of character for the current administration. At least it seems out of character with respect to Germany. I would have less problem understanding them doing something like this with respect to Turkey, Hungary, or now Italy.
I think that’s a Ricochet projection wrt Turkey/Germany/etc.
At the end of the day, empire is empire, and it functions for the benefit of one at the expense of the others.
Though that could be my projection as well?
Possibly. My feeling is that the current administration projects domestic politics on foreign affairs. Turkey, Hungary, and now Italy are considered right wing while Germany and France are considered left wing. The current administration sees right wing countries as suspect and enemies and left wing countries as allies. It is a stupid and simplistic way to look at foreign policy, but about par for the course.
The US doesn’t do empire well at all. We don’t have the bureaucratic competence for it. Additionally the people in charge in the US believe it is a force for evil in the modern world because of past racism and neo-colonial policies. They are unlikely to engage in neo-colonial policies on their own. Although since they are race obsessed It could be they don’t care because Germany is seen as a white country and therefore equally guilty.
Possibly.