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
You guys do empire as well as anybody. In fact it’s kind of second level because you’ve convinced the domestic audience that there is no empire, nothing to look at here.
It’s like domestic propaganda. What propaganda? We don’t have domestic propaganda.
I suppose it depends on what you consider the American Empire to be and who you consider to be a part of it. We didn’t do so well with Afghanistan and Iraq. Syria is a pretty big mess too. Libya was a debacle. All hardly the marks of a mighty imperial power.
When all you have is an anti-colonial hammer, every successful nation looks like an empire.
Zafar confuses metaphorical empires with real empires, like Russia and China.
Western Europe for seventy years. Japan. Indonesia. Latin America. Don’t sell yourselves short :-)
There are some fair points there. Japan certainly has been dependent largely on the US for defense by design after world war 2; however, at one point in time they were the great threat to the American economy, that China is today. Japan made a lot of money off the US and had pretty restrictive trade policies on its supposedly “Imperial” master. Normally in an Empire you would somewhat expect it to be the other way around.
Western Europe certainly has relied on the US for its defense since the end of World War 2. This has allowed them to become much extravagant in their social spending, but it has to some extent made them vassal states to the US in terms of foreign policy. That having been pre 9-11 they tended to be fashionable anti-US in rhetoric when it suited domestic consumption. Post 9-11 it is more complicated. NATO invoked article 5 after 9-11 so western Europe has been involved in the Global War on Terror. That has constrained everyone’s foreign policy in certain respects that are unhelpful. Was that an order to Vassal states or was it an act of an alliance of sovereign states. Depends on which side of the debate you want to be on. A case could be made either way. Again too, Europe does chart its own course economically and with respect to foreign affairs. Its dependence on Russia was certainly a sticking point with the US prior to Ukraine. It has played a lot of footsie with China. Also while the Iran deal isn’t necessarily in the US’s long term foreign policy interest it most certainly is in the EUs. In that policy the US has been pushed in the direction of the JCPOA by Europe. Libya was almost completely at the request of Western Europe. I agree though Europe is constrained in pursuing its on foreign policy by its decision to rely on the US for its defense, but this bargain has allowed them to spend a lot of money internally on social programs and grow their economy. They too can be quite restrictive on US imports so again if it be an Empire it is interesting sort of one.
Latin America is a mess. Has been for a long time. It is in our hemisphere so to some extent it is our problem. Plus US drug laws make a lot of things difficult in the region. Also it was somewhat of the last battlefield in the cold war. There are a lot of left over Marxists insurgencies that have turned to drug production as an alternate source of funding after the fall of the Soviet Union. This has brought various left wing governments into tension against the US. I am not so sure this is Empire as much as it is a bunch of very weak states with very powerful and wealthy criminal organizations, and a high level of corruption. I doubt the US can effectively enforce its writ an any country in Latin America, but I also doubt that their local governments can either.
I don’t know enough about Indonesia to even begin to venture a comment on it.
I guess I see your point in Japan and Western Europe not being totally free in their foreign policy choices as long as they depend on the US for their defense; however, those countries have an immense standard of living. Economically they chart their own course and make their own deals often to the detriment of the US, so it is a funny kind of Empire, if it be one at all. I don’t think Latin America counts, unless you want to say it is a failed province I think there may be a case to be made there.
Spheres of influence are not empires.
For example, the US has considerable influence on countries in the western hemisphere.
Nonetheless, when it asked those countries to boycott Communist Cuba, nobody listened.
The US has considerable influence on countries in western Europe.
Nonetheless, it couldn’t get them to spend the mere 2% of GNP on defense that they had agreed to. (That is, not until Putin invaded Ukraine.)
I know some Americans get all uncomfortable with the term ’empire’. Is there an American empire, is there not, semantics, words, ??? Which is more about how Americans perceive themselves than whether there’s an empire or not, jmho.
Some things to consider:
Technically India only became part of the British Empire after the Mutiny in 1857. India had been thoroughly colonised for the seventy or eighty years preceding that by the East India Company – a private company that was thoroughly and increasingly enmeshed in British politics and economy – and to Britain’s immense benefit. So arguably control by proxy, even (especialy?) by private sector proxy, is one aspect of empire, because it achieves the same purpose (economic control) and does so with least responsibility assumed.
American empire is smart, in comparison to the British Raj, because it eschews the political trappings (which are just trappings, but which give people a target to counter), in some regions at least (Western Europe) it has supported prosperity with the result that it gains far more from trade than it would from mere extraction, and it has maintained as far as possible the appearance of the complete independence and equality of the places involved. (All NATO members are equal, for example, except we know that (North) Macedonia is not the equal of the US when it comes to setting NATO’s agenda. Equality is a polite fiction.)
When push comes to shove, all these obfuscations fall away. Yes, nobody else bothered to embargo Cuba, but that’s because embargoing Cuba was intended to achieve US domestic political aims. It makes just about no difference to US prosperity or actual power, it doesn’t really matter. Making everybody else embargo Cuba would sacrifice the illusion of independence for no return – it wasn’t worth it.
This conflict with Russia, for a number of reasons, is different – the outcome does matter when it comes to US power in the world. And who will be freezing this winter and pretending it was because of the Russians, when common sense tells us otherwise, in order to prosecute a policy to preserve the US’ power? Or to put it another way, the US won’t be suffering to prosecute Germany’s agenda any time soon. That’s empire.
Europe is a lot closer to an aggressive Russia than we are, that might have just a bit to do with motivation. It’s the front line states – the Baltics and Poland – who have been more generous to Ukraine on a per-capita basis than the US. We may have influence, but don’t deny the Euros and the other suspects on your colony list their agency.
I’m not the one who limited their constraints by sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines. Though that definitely acknolwedges their agency :-) on the bright side.
From what they said pre war Germany was willing to sacrifice Ukraine’s NATO ambitions to peace with Russia. May not agree with them, but that was how they wanted to use their agency.
[[Empire refers to a form of political organization. Describing trade relations as an empire is what I meant by empire as a metaphor. If NATO were an empire, Trump could have ordered Germany to stop making itself dependent on Russia. Instead, when he warned them, the German UN delegation literally laughed at him.—Taras]]
[[NATO is hugely costly to the US, and hugely beneficial to the smaller members. Which is why Sweden and Finland are hurriedly joining.—Taras]]
[[A desperate though ingenious rationalization!—Taras]]
[[Biden OKed the Nordstream 2 pipeline to pander to Germany. This made Putin think the US didn’t give a damn about Ukraine. Now US gas & oil prices are going through the roof.—Taras]]
If “US power in the world” were an important consideration to the Biden administration, then it would never have executed its idiotic Afghanistan withdrawal/surrender.
Of course, the Afghanistan debacle was one of the main reasons Vladimir Putin thought he could invade Ukraine without serious reaction from the United States and its borderline senile leader.
BTW, NSC official John Kirby says it was definitely sabotage and the US “had nothing to do with it.” That’s Russian disinformation!
Hmm. . . where have we heard that last part before (Hunter Biden laptop)?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/u-s-official-gives-update-on-act-of-sabotage-against-russian-nord-stream-pipelines
Was staying there endlessly without winning a better look?
When we’re talking about terrorism, the only alternatives are: fight, or surrender — which is like closing all the hospitals, because you haven’t won a “victory” over all diseases.
In a sense, there are no permanent victories. Remember when we thought our victory in the Cold War was “the end of history”?
I would say that, every day the Taliban was kept from power — was a victory. Every day girls got to go to school — was a victory. Every day Afghan law even imperfectly protected women and girls from murder and abuse — was a victory. Every day Afghan women could dream of careers was a victory.
Even in the context of a surrender, the Taliban actually offered the US control of Kabul, which would have given our tens of thousands of betrayed Afghan allies a better chance of outrunning the Taliban executioners. Holding onto Bagram airbase would also have been useful.
But the stupid, pigheaded, senile old man was listening only to his inner voices.
All true, though it’s more accurate to say ‘some women’. We (including Australia) empowered a corrupt elite, and that corruption trickled down to encompass almost every interaction with Govt, not to mention vitiating things like law and order. So every day we propped up that dispensation was a win for some Afghans but a loss for others.
Yeah, it’s two decades of failure imho. Involving multiple administrations, Republican and Democrat. It’s a truly bipartisan outcome, though not in a great way.
I think of it more like a chronically ill patient kept alive by medication for 20 years, until an incompetent new physician takes him off the medication, and the patient promptly dies.
While corruption does reduce the efficiency of a society, and it’s annoying to pay extra for government services that are supposed to be free to the user, nonetheless it will be very hard to find a woman or a girl who is better off now that the Taliban has resumed its misrule.
Yes it was. Leaving a place to fall into chaos is never a good look. We knew what the Taliban were before we left. Letting them win was a mistake. Many decent people are going to pay a terrible price for it. Afghanistan will go back to being a basket case and an exporter of Jihad.
I think it was a mistake to stay in Afghanistan in the first place, mind you. Once you are on the tiger’s back however the best thing you can do is continue to hold on.
Looks like some fiber cables were cut in Germany this morning disabling public transportation. Germany is having bad luck lately.
Actually three or four days ago.