Hacker News Reader

Comment by m0llusk | Hacker News Reader

Anders Puck Nielsen has an under 15 minute video with a compelling explanation for why Russia is most likely to have done it despite the obvious downsides. Just to pick some particular details: At this particular time the primary Russian strategy was to push Europe into a cold and dark winter. Pipelines can be rebuilt and that is not especially difficult when you are making big money from extracting and distributing fossil fuels. Even if you disagree with Anders' conclusions I think the points he raises are generally quite interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido

View on HN

But then why not also destroy the land based ones?

  - There are two that go via Belarus -> Poland -> Germany and Belarus -> Ukraine -> Slovakia -> Czechia -> Germany
  - Another two through Ukraine -> Slovakia -> Czechia -> Germany and Ukraine -> Romania -> Bulgaria -> Turkey
  - Then are two in the Black Sea, South Steam and Blue Stream which go to Turkey

I'm not entirely convinced by the arguments in the video, but I don't think those other pipelines are a strong counterargument either, perhaps the opposite. Let me explain.

Let's say you believe (a) that Germany desperately has to buy gas from Russia in order to survive the winter (not an entirely unreasonable believe back then), and (b) that it's possible for Germany to use its influence to pressure Ukraine into some kind of Russia-friendly peace deal (as has in fact happened after Russia conquered the Krim in 2014). Then forcing Germany to have that gas delivered through the active warzone in Ukraine sounds like a good bet to make (b) happen very quickly.

It didn't work out that way, but there would be an internal logic to this.

Nobody ever talks about all those other pipelines.

Jamal pipeline was closed by Poland early on in the war.

Transgaz is probably more secured on the landside and blowing it up would also limit Ukraine's ability to get gas from western europe. There already were times before the invasion where Gas was pumped towards Ukraine.

The Black sea isn't a safe space to operate in, obviously.

Arguably, these questions only point more fingers at Russia.

Hardly needed to blow it up to stop supplying them.

Plausible deniability on who blew up the pipeline allows invocation of force majeure clauses in delivery contracts.

There's another angle on this which is that it's a signal from Putin that there's no going back. In other words, by removing the pipeline from operation, overthrowing him would not yield any benefit to any new regime. Any factions within Russia who were thinking of doing so and getting back to business as usual were suddenly silenced.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com