Russia Denies Sabotaging Nord Stream Pipelines – Then Who?

On Monday, September 26, underwater explosions in the Baltic Sea caused significant damage to the three existing Nord Stream pipelines carrying methane gas to Europe. Scientists looking at the data following the discovery of the pipeline breaks were quick to rule out naturally occurring seismic events as the cause. Instead, sabotage seemed most likely – and the logical culprit is Russia. Of course, Moscow immediately denied any involvement. Such an act of sabotage is consistent with hybrid warfare or other influence operations practiced routinely by the Kremlin. However, if not Russia, then cui bono, who benefits?

Two of the pipelines involved are known as Nord Stream 1, and the third is a single line designated Nord Stream 2. As seen from above, the mass of bubbles from the Nord Stream 1 break is enormous. The breaches in the gas pipelines have caused a roiling maelstrom of enormous foam surfacing in what some have called the “largest-ever single release” of gas into the atmosphere. Most recently, underwater drones have discovered a fourth leak. The Swedish coastguard reported finding the additional break. The fourth pipeline breach is on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is in Denmark’s economic exclusion zone, while the two Nord Stream 1 pipelines are in Sweden’s, as reported by Sky News.

Nord Stream Attack Is Sabotage

If sabotage is in play, as many have determined, the undertaking was complex and required planning. “Someone committed a fairly sophisticated attack on the pipelines, which are buried 80–110 meters below sea level and are each constructed of 48-inch steel partially encased in concrete sections spaced along the seabed,” Jed Babbin, former deputy undersecretary of defense, writing for The American Spectator explained. Russia has vehemently refuted accusations of being involved. But seeing Moscow as the culprit is a reasonable and easy conclusion. Poland and Ukraine have pointed the finger at Russia. The Kremlin might see some advantage in disrupting the flow of natural gas to Europe. Such a Russian gambit would be particularly troubling for NATO and European countries as winter is rapidly approaching when the bitter cold will require energy to warm homes, businesses, and factories.

Nonetheless, “The Kremlin on Wednesday (September 28) said claims that Russia was somehow behind a possible attack on the Nord Stream gas pipelines were stupid, adding that the United States had opposed the pipelines and its companies had made big profits supplying gas to Europe,” Reuters reported. The United Nations Security Council will convene at Russia’s request to discuss the pipeline attacks. “Russia’s embassy in Denmark said any sabotage on Nord Stream’s pipelines was an attack on Russia’s and Europe’s energy security,” the Australian Associated Press explained. But if not Russia, who would be in a position to benefit from disrupting the flow of natural gas to Europe?

There are reports the pipelines could be out of commission for a very long time, perhaps forever. That would not necessarily benefit Russia in the long term. Seismologists suggest a charge in the range of 220-440 pounds, judging by the scale of the explosions. But that size of a charge isn’t necessarily required. “Even a 5- or 10-pound explosive charge would have been enough to damage the pipeline substantially,” Babbin opined. Because of the incompressibility of water, an explosion under water is magnified. It’s how depth charges can collapse the hulls of submarines without contacting the submarine’s frame.

If Not the Russians, Then Who?

Charges set off remotely could have been in position for some time, with the saboteurs waiting for the opportunity to achieve the most geopolitical damage while not polluting the environment. The pipelines weren’t operating at the time, so only the residual methane leaked out – not enough to have a global impact on climate. If not the Russians, international terrorist groups financed and supported by Iran or North Korea would be in the suspect pool.

Both countries have the technology necessary to pull off the attack. International terrorist organizations sponsored by Iran, for example, are certainly motivated to carry out attacks on the West. A benefit would result from being back in the public eye as a force with which to be reckoned. Iran would benefit by being in the position of having a ready source of natural gas with an estimated 17.3% of world’s reserve, second only to Russia. Iran’s willingness to provide natural gas to European countries in freezing winter temperatures would be strong leverage to get current economic sanctions lifted.

Nonetheless, these questions remain: Who would benefit from taking down the primary source of energy for Europe? Who would have the necessary capability to carry out the attack? Who would be motivated enough? And what nation had the opportunity?

The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliation.