Background and consequences of the Nord Stream sabotage
- Alitheia
- Oct 3, 2022
- 3 min read
On the 26th of September, the major offshore pipelines, Nord Stream 1 & 2, were sabotaged by “powerful undersea detonations”.
The purpose of these pipelines was to supply Russian gas directly to European markets, augmenting the network that currently passes through Belarus and Ukraine.
Nord Stream 1 was completed and had been in operation since late 2011.
Nord Stream 2 was completed in 2021, yet certification was suspended due to the war in Ukraine, which bankrupted the Gazprom subsidiary that owned and was going to operate the pipeline.
The United States was fiercely against the construction of these pipelines from the very beginning, since they would drastically reduce US market share and further increase European dependence on Russian energy.
Oudkirk told reporters the US Congress had given the president new authority to
impose sanctions against a variety of Russian pipeline projects.
Any companies involved were in “an elevated position of sanctions risk”, she said.
However, she added that Washington was focused on using diplomatic means to halt
Nord Stream 2, one of several Russian projects to export gas to Western Europe via
routes avoiding Ukraine, with which Moscow is involved in a series of disputes
(“US: Nord Stream raises intelligence concerns”. (2018). Euractiv/Reuters.)
The project was in other words partially intended to route Russian gas exports around
Ukraine, reducing the risk of disruptions of vital Russian market access, as well as with the purpose of eliminating Ukraine’s leverage.
In an already redacted article, German officials accordingly and quite explicitly speculate that “Ukrainian or Ukrainian-affiliated forces could be responsible”, since these events imply that Russian gas exports must be rerouted mainly through Ukraine.
One might also connect these events to Biden’s solemn February promise that Nord
Stream 2 would be dismantled in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. This was of course not an idle or meaningless statement, this is a threat to remove an asset vital to the Russian Federation:
In interpreting these events of intentional sabotage, then, we naturally must reflect on
which party or set of parties that really benefit here.
It's difficult to see why this would be Russia’s doing, since there seems to be very little to gain.
Russia is of course interested in pressuring Europe to withdraw support from Ukraine, but they could simply have flipped a switch and stopped delivering gas rather than blowing up their own critical infrastructure which they’ve painstakingly erected in a hostile environment.
One counter-argument I saw in this regard is that Russia would in that case be sued for
breach of contract, but that’s a very naive statement. Who could enforce such claims, and what would really be the meaning of them, especially in a situation of this state being under history’s most extensive sanctions? And how would they outweigh the inevitable ire that intentional sabotage pinned on Russia would entail?
Moreover, Russia not only loses much of their coveted access to European markets
through such a move, effectively handing it to the Americans while at the same time
pushing gas prices further north, they also relinquish their most significant leverage over Europe in the wider diplomatic game (and the leverage over Ukraine mentioned above).
RELATED:
On Tuesday it was revealed that the Nord Stream 1 & 2 pipelines that carry liquefied natural gas under Northern Europe’s Baltic Sea had been sabotaged, rendering them inoperable, possibly permanently.
And almost as quickly the finger-pointing began, with many in the West alleging that Russia had intentionally damaged its own pipeline while others claimed that a more logical explanation would pin the blame on the U.S., likely acting to eliminate any possibility that European countries will revert to relying on Russia as a source of gas.
Jimmy Dore and his panel of The Dive’s Jackson Hinkle and America’s comedian Kurt Metzger discuss the competing theories and possible motives behind the Nord Stream attacks.
Comments