The means is an interesting question. Having done a little scuba diving, the depth of the pipelines (70-90 meters) put it out of range of any diver without a sophisticated mix of gases (Trimix diving). A remotely operated vehicle would also work. The pipelines were made of thick steel wrapped with concrete, so some kind of high-tech explosive was necessary, perhaps shaped charges (used in the oil industry for blowing holes in pipe casing to increase oil flow, for example).
Perhaps locating both of the pipelines deep under the water would be difficult? Point being, the ability to do this might not be as exclusive to nation-states as it has been portrayed (note the ease with which the videographer found the pipelines with an ROV, although the big bubbles probably helped). So, who knows?
As far as who benefited, well, Russia certainly seems to want to continue selling gas to Europe, and is pushing for repair of the pipelines. The USA wants to replace Russian gas with American LNG. Coming up with a reason for Russia to do it would require some mental gymnastics, I think.
Not really. If Russia wanted to continue to sell gas to Europe it could end the war against Ukraine (or have never started it in the first place). Gas sales aren’t a high priority there. Putin doesn’t care one bit about those, and likely had the pipeline blown up as a “no way back” for those who might have wanted to negotiate behind his back.
The US blowing up NS2 for a few billion dollars worth of gas sales is beyond stupid because it risks completely ruining all of the momentum the US has in isolating Russia and having its military completely implode. If your view is that the Russians are the enemy (as the US view is) why would you stop them from making a terrible mistake or put any of that at risk? You wouldn’t.
Ukraine recently discovered it had large reserves of natural gas. Enough that it could potentially threaten Russia as Europe's main supplier. Many people suspect this was the primary reason Russia invaded.
> Many people suspect this was the primary reason Russia invaded.
Regional energy control was possibly a factor but securing a defensible border was the over-arching goal of Russia’s last few wars in the region and Ukraine is no exception. Ukraine has the Carpathian Mountains, and allows access to Poland and Moldova to secure the Polish and Bessarabian gaps.
Securing the borders from what? If he was worried about NATO he would be beefing up troop deployments along the borders of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia where he has withdrawn troops and he wouldn't have his military completely bogged down in Ukraine. Why would Russia need to secure borders anyway? Who is going to invade on foot? They have nuclear weapons and would have a justifiable reason in using them if they were wantonly invaded.
It seems so many want to run away from the straightforward situation which is that Putin wanted to take Ukraine or decapitate its government and make it more like Belarus, and he thought that he would be able to do it. Everything else is a sideshow at best, and Russian propaganda at worst.
Russia has been invaded by land countless times over the centuries as it has few natural barriers. Securing good natural borders has been a major national security concern for Russia for centuries and up until the fall of Soviet Union they had secured all of them. They have been winning those back gradually over the last couple of decades.
> If he was worried about NATO he would be beefing up troop deployments along the borders of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia where he has withdrawn troops
The Baltic states are likely future targets. Thankfully they've been doing so badly in Ukraine they are being forced to withdraw forces from other areas and debasing their ability to achieve those future aims.
> They have nuclear weapons and would have a justifiable reason in using them if they were wantonly invaded
Firstly, there are numerous scenarios where Russia is not wantonly invaded but perhaps different powers use salami tactics either directly or by proxy that wouldn't justify nukes at any particular point. Secondly, Russia may not want to rely on its ability to maintain nuclear weapons long-term especially while its industrial base decays, the result of its crumbling education system unravels, and its demographics rapidly decline. Regardless, it's much better strategically to have good defensive geography and nukes.
> It seems so many want to run away from the straightforward situation...Everything else is a sideshow at best, and Russian propaganda at worst.
The idea that Russia wants a secure border geography and that Ukraine is a barrier to that is not new nor controversial. The (continued) invasion of Ukraine was long expected and the high level reasons long known.[1][2]
> Russia has been invaded by land countless times over the centuries as it has few natural barriers.
Russia has nuclear weapons. They can say that they are worried about being invaded but I certainly reject that as an argument worth consideration.
> The Baltic states are likely future targets. Thankfully they've been doing so badly in Ukraine they are being forced to withdraw forces from other areas and debasing their ability to achieve those future aims.
Agreed and I think initially (I certainly posted) he intended to break NATO by testing the resolve of the alliance in the Baltics, where had he actually had success in Ukraine would have invaded the Baltics and likely took them quickly as well which would have left the US and NATO allies in the position of continuing a war and reconquering land. I think what he miscalculated was that the US was quite serious about protecting the Baltic states and would have for sure gone to war with Russia directly over them.
> The idea that Russia wants a secure border geography and that Ukraine is a barrier to that is not new nor controversial.
It is in the sense that there was ever any desire to "be secure" as that is a new talking point designed to cause uncertainty in what is desired. It's mostly just about claiming territory perceived to be historically lost and other elements such as this are part of an ongoing propaganda campaign. Putin himself tells you this over and over again in his speeches. Ideas like NATO on the doorstep are recent propaganda tools because NATO has "been on the doorstep" for awhile. It also seeks to remove agency from nations in forming their own security partnerships.
Nukes aren’t the trump cards you seem to think they are. In fact I would go so far as to say that nukes are essentially useless outside of deterring being destroyed by nukes or otherwise imminently existentially threatened. Even then they’re no guarantee as no one knows if MAD would actually be triggered in the event of a devastating attack. Regardless, salami tactics and other less-than-total-defeat strategies are likely to be quite effective at avoiding anything too grave to provoke a nuclear response because they can be conducted in such a way that suicide by MAD remains irrational.
> NATO has "been on the doorstep" for awhile
Not very long by European standards. It is obviously an ongoing concern for Russia having an enemy military alliance next door and that is also not a controversial statement. What country wouldn’t be gravely concerned by that? However, this is a long term strategy regardless of NATO and they have been executing it systematically for decades by gradually capturing the defensive geographies around Russia. They see it as existentially necessary to do this and that’s why they have to be stopped in Ukraine.
> Nukes aren’t the trump cards you seem to think they are.
The idea that NATO would invade Russia on its face is ridiculous, as you know, especially considering it’s a defensive arrangement. The idea that nuclear weapons don’t protect Russia from such an attack is also ridiculous, as you know.
But if you believe that they do not protect Russia, it doesn’t follow to then antagonize a far superior military force and risk invasion and destruction.
> Not very long by European standards.
Not a relevant point
> It is obviously an ongoing concern for Russia having an enemy military alliance next door and that is also not a controversial statement.
It’s an ongoing self-inflicted concern, to be certain. But you can choose two options: countries can decide their own security arrangements, or might makes right. If you remove agency from Ukraine you simply give license to other countries such as China or the United States to act as they see fit.
> However, this is a long term strategy regardless of NATO and they have been executing it systematically for decades by gradually capturing the defensive geographies around Russia. They see it as existentially necessary to do this and that’s why they have to be stopped in Ukraine.
If this is what you and/or Russians believe then the United States should immediately go to war with Russia, especially since nuclear weapons aren’t trump cards and they should invade before Russia secures these natural borders you speak of since the two nations are adversaries and there is no reconciliation. Although I’m still wondering what the point would be.
Selling more gas to Europe isn’t a massive windfall to USA. The Biden administration has bigger fish to fry and wouldn’t risk such an intervention in Swedish waters just as Sweden is joining NATO.
My money is on Russian hardliner factions operating rogue without Putin’s approval. He can’t admit he doesn’t know who did it. The Russian state security apparatus is so large, we have no idea what kind of internal tensions exist. Putin may have unleashed something he doesn’t control anymore.
My money is on Putin doing it, to dissuade any would be throne-pretenders in case of a coup. Any new government has fewer funding options, which would be good to negotiate with Europe, and to pay cooperating oligarchs.
It would be cutting the nose to spite the face, except Putin is cutting Russia's nose, not his own. What matters is staying in power, not the good of the nation.
I agree. Scorched earth policy. Putin for whatever reason is going all in on Ukraine.
Even if the war ended tomorrow it would take Russia decades to rebuild it's army.
>The Biden administration has bigger fish to fry and wouldn’t risk such an intervention in Swedish waters just as Sweden is joining NATO.
This is a pretty naive perspective - Since when has Sweden ever stood up to the crimes and misdeeds of the USA? Sweden ranks up there with Australia in the "lackey-state underdog to the USA" rankings ..
It's just not worth the Americans' time to be plotting such a thing now. Selling more natural gas is irrelevant to the Biden administration's survival. And there were general elections in both Sweden and Denmark within the past two months — terrible timing for such an offensive CIA operation in NATO waters because any information leak would have handed a potent electoral weapon to anti-American opposition parties.
The Russians are already a very active presence in the Baltic Sea, and this attack fits with their general pattern of confusion and misdirection.
There is no evidence that the Russians were anywhere near the pipeline around the time it was destroyed.
There is massive evidence that the US and its allies were operating in those waters, and up to something, leading up to the day of the attack.
The idea that the US wouldn't jeapordize its relationship with the Baltic states in order to cut off a vital supply of economic resources to Europe is very, very naive. The US has done far worse to its so-called allies.
