So Maybe It Wasn't The US Behind The Nord Stream 1 & 2 Explosions

Lawdog has a great post regarding the Nord Stream 1 and 2 incidents (see https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html).

I call them “incidents” for a reason. I grew up in overseas oilfields. I try to, by training, observe everything from as objectively neutral a viewpoint as possible.

In my experience when anything involving energy-industry hydrocarbons explodes … well, sabotage isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. And honestly, when it comes to a pipeline running natural gas under Russian (non)maintenance, an explosion means that it’s Tuesday. Or Friday. Or another day of the week ending in “y”.

“But, LawDog,” I hear you say, “It was multiple explosions!”

Yes, 17 hours apart. No military is going to arrange for two pipes in the same general area to be destroyed 17 hours apart. Not without some Spec Ops guy having a fit of apoplexy. One pipe goes up in a busy shipping lane, in a busy sea, and everyone takes notice. Then you wait 17 hours to do the second — with 17 hours for people to show up and catch you running dirty? Nah, not buying it.

His theory is that it was the result of faulty Russian maintenance.

Honestly, I suspect someone in the Russian government pinged Gazprom, and said, “The EU is about to have a cold winter. make sure those pipelines sodding well work, so we can sell someone natural gas at massively increased prices.”

So, Somebody In Charge started running checks — and came up with hydrate slurry in both pipelines. After the running in circles, hyperventilating, and shrieking of curse-words stopped, somebody started trying to remediate both lines. Of course they didn’t tell folks down stream — no Russian want to look weak, and besides, there’s been a nasty uptick in failed Russian oligarchs getting accidentally defenestrated — they just unilaterally tried to Fix Things.

It’s methane hydrate. Trust me, if there’s a hydrate plug, there’s more than one. With both pipes having no movement for months, if not a year, there were a metric butt-ton of hydrate plugs, slurry, and rime in both pipelines.

The Fixing of Things went bad. One went Paws Up, and they started trying to stop the other — but pressurisation (both ways) is a weeks-long process, and the second went bad, too. 

The effect is the same, though. Natural gas pipeline explosions during the Russian/Ukraine war are one more factor in Russian calculations for conflict escalation (especially if Gazprom doesn't own up to doing it--it's easier and safer to claim an outside force caused it).

Nord Stream 1 & 2 - Cui Bono?

 The recent destruction of Nord Stream natural gas pipelines 1 and 2 begs the question of cui bono - who benefits?

The most obvious beneficiary is Ukraine. It deprives Russia of a potential money stream and removes an economic sword hanging over European nations, especially Germany. Even though Gazprom had stopped natural gas shipments in September 2022, there remained the possibility (most likely a probability) that freezing European populations would force their governments to stop supporting Ukraine in the war with Russia in order to get the gas flowing again. The pipeline destruction now precludes that course of action.

While Russia was responsible for 43% of natural gas supplies to Europe, indigenous European natural gas production could have alleviated this dependence. Unfortunately, 'green' energy policies forced phasing out most of its indigenous natural gas production, resulting in over 90% of its natural gas being imported from outside sources. Many European nations have shut or are shutting down their nuclear and coal power plants, relying on wind and solar power to keep the lights and heat on. As Texas discovered during 'Snowmageddon' in February 2021 wind and solar power failed to support the Texas energy grid during winter.

Liquid natural gas (LNG) production in the United States could compensate for some of the energy lack, but would not be enough to satisfy European energy needs due to a lack of short term production and shipping capacity. (See https://memgraph.com/blog/gas-pipelines-in-europe for a description of Europe's natural gas infrastructure and capacity.)

The next obvious beneficiary is the United States. Again, it deprives Russia of a potential money stream and economic leverage over Europe regarding Ukrainian support. The downside is that it can provide Russia with even more of a casus belli to engage the US directly in war for its direct support of a wartime adversary. Given the ineptitude of the current US administration in all things foreign and domestic, I can very well imagine it would conduct operations against Russia that would result in direct combat with a nuclear armed opponent. 

The real beneficiary, though, is China. Which nation would greatly benefit from the nuclear destruction of its two main adversaries? A nuclear exchange would leave China as the only major unscathed nuclear power on the international scene. Yes, India, Pakistan, England, France, and Israel are nuclear powers, but one could argue that the UK and France would be targeted by Russia as part of an overall strike against NATO for their support of Ukraine and the US. I doubt that India would take part in a nuclear exchange as it would see itself as the new counterbalance to China.

So,  is China influencing the current administration to provoke war with Russia, thus removing the two main competitors for world leadership/domination? The question is what would the United States be doing differently if it weren't.