The US Sabotaged the Nord Stream Pipelines

Part I: Analyzing the Incentives

Let’s consider each possible culprit and work through them, using the process of elimination.

Russia would not have done this. Russia has much cheaper ways of turning off the gas, namely by simply ordering the CEO of Gasprom to do so using some emergency power or by Putin asking him for a “favor.” Furthermore, Russia loses its leverage over Germany and the EU by destroying the pipeline. How can Russia influence German behavior if it doesn’t have the carrot of Russian energy? Once Nord Stream 1 and 2 are destroyed, Russia loses all its negotiating leverage. Causing people pain does not get you what you want. Causing them pain and offering to stop the pain is what makes torture work. Without the possibility of turning the gas back on, there is no point to turning it off. Indeed, such an action—if Russia were discovered to be the culprit— risks increasing German military aid to Ukraine at a moment where Putin definitely does not want to add to Ukraine’s armory. Moreover, destroying the pipeline removes uncertainty around the profitability of new infrastructure investments like liquid natural gas terminals; it actually reduces the pressure on NATO by encouraging investors to act.

The counter argument is that this action “simplifies the legal situation” and prevents Russian judges from requiring Gasprom to turn the pipeline back on. That said, the rule of law is simply not that strong in Russia, and the fact that Russia had already succeeded in turning off the flow of gas, well, suggests that the political and legal machinery to force the turn off existed. More importantly, the damage done to the pipeline is so extensive that it will likely prevent it from being put online for the entirety of the upcoming Winter: Indeed, the pipeline may be irreparably damaged. Someone looking for an excuse to shut down the pipeline would not have irreparably damaged it and would have targeted only the active pipeline; in short, the attack was overkill if you just wanted an excuse to shut down the pipeline temporarily. How does targeting Nordstream 2, which was not yet active, help the Russians if the purpose of the attack was to have an excuse to shut the gas off? Certainly, Russia would not want to lose its negotiating leverage while their army is suffering so many setbacks in Ukraine. The sooner it can use energy to break the Western coalition, the better.

It is not even clear that an action of the Russian military would exempt Gasprom from liability given that it is a majority state-owned enterprise. If your majority stock holder commits an action to get you out of a contractual liability, does that really constitute and act of God legally speaking?

Some have argued that this attack was done to demonstrate Russia’s capacity to demolish underwater infrastructure. Yet no one doubted Russia’s ability to pull off such an attack. And, if Russia were doing this as a demonstration, why attack both pipelines? What does an attack on both pipelines demonstrate that could not be more effectively demonstrated with an attack on just one of them? One key detail most of the “Russia did it” theories cannot account for is the fact that both pipelines were hit, and hit in a way that will cause irreparable damage—not just a medium-term shutoff.

There are those who think Russia may have done this in order to increase gas prices: However, what is the point of increasing gas prices if you are not able to sell your gas at that higher price—it certainly will not increase gas prices in their remaining markets of India and China. Furthermore, investment in other energy technologies including other means of transporting gas will likely increase as a result of this action since investors will no longer have to worry that the pipeline will suddenly be turned on again—introducing a competitor who can undercut them.

In fact, if Russia were considering sabotage against a major pipeline, they would have hit the pipeline in Ukraine or the newly opened Norway-Poland Baltic Pipeline instead: In the case of the Ukrainian pipeline, to frame Ukraine and blame them for any future gas shortages affected by the demolition and, in the case of the Baltic pipeline, to increase Europe’s reliance on Russian energy. The move played would only make sense if Russia’s goal were to frame the Americans for it, but why frame the Americans and damage your major pipeline when you could frame the Ukrainians and damage a less important one? Certainly, the leverage natural gas gives Russia is worth more than even significant short-term harm to US-EU relations—and, in line with the point I made above, why hit both pipelines; you could frame the US by hitting just one.

It is possible it was done by some anti-Putin element inside Russia. However, such an element would be reducing Russia’s prestige and long-term economic prospects in order to oust Putin—furthermore, they would be revealing their capabilities and their existence to do something that will certainly hurt Russia but might not actually lead to the regime’s overthrow. I doubt anyone in their military would be so bold and that anyone outside it would have the necessary resources. This is, of course, more plausible than claiming that the Kremlin did it, but it still seems very unlikely.

Now, let’s consider the possibility that Ukraine did this. This too is unlikely, because Ukraine would not want to risk losing EU support—it requires EU aid to fight its war. Taking such an action against the wishes of the US, UK, Germany, etc. risks the a withdrawal of support for their war effort, and more importantly, assistance with rebuilding Ukraine after the war. Furthermore, the US has overthrown regimes it was actively helping militarily in the past for far, far less. (Consider Diem in Vietnam). Lastly, Ukraine is not exactly rich in naval assets. While it is possible they sent some frogmen abroad to carry out a secret mission, they aren’t the ones best able to carry this out—esp. if they are concerned with hiding their footprints

Also, the fewer benefits Russia experiences when it decides to stop fighting, the harder Russia will fight. For precisely the reasons Ukraine has refrained from hitting the Kherson bridge, they would not want to hit the pipeline.

It is possible Poland did this: They did just open their own pipeline. That said, their government is dependent on EU financial support—which in truth means German financial support. While the action did coincide with the opening of their own Norway-Poland Baltic pipeline, they are only slightly more likely to have done this than the Ukrainians.

Some have suggested that Finland did this. Finland has its own problems with Russia, but would not want to take an action like this so quickly after applying for NATO membership. With Russia on the warpath, they would not want to encourage Germany to oppose their admission to the alliance. Furthermore, as an EU member state, it would complicate its relationship to other governments in the EU.

That leaves the US and the UK—however, the two countries are so closely aligned on foreign policy, esp. this particular piece of foreign policy, that we can consider a UK action as, essentially, being a proxy US action. The UK would be worried about preserving its Brexit agreement and staying on good trade terms with the EU than the US would. It is unlikely that they would have volunteered to anger their most important trade partner unnecessarily.

That leaves the US: A country that has been trying to force Germany’s hand with respect to Nord Stream for some time. Indeed, not only do we have remarks from Biden saying that he had means of shutting down Nord Stream, but the US suffered a cyberattack on one of its own pipelines by Russian hands about a year and half ago. Moreover, the US warned EU allies about “possible attacks on the pipeline” but declined to say who might be carrying out the attacks. Well, it is much easier to predict something that you yourself plan to carry out.

From the US’s perspective, destroying the pipeline will reduce the flow of funds into Russia, will remove any leverage Russia might have over Germany (and other coalition members) coming into the energy famine we all expect to overtake Europe this winter, and serve as retaliation for the Russian attack on the US oil pipeline that happened in May of 2021. The US also has ample resources with which it could carry out such an attack—and would want to undermine Russia’s effort to rearm as it attempts to mobilize its forces. The US might also want to punish Russia for this sham referendum it is carrying out.

Logic suggests that the US was the most likely culprit. I congratulate the CIA, and possibly Joe Biden, on showing some guts. I am not sure how prudent this action was, but it certainly shows the guy has gigantic, pendulous, septuagenarian balls.

(Update: The following article is interesting. Ukraine May Have Been the Culprit)