Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> false allegations against Russia

Only way to know they're false is if you know who actually did it. Do you?



There's also cui bono.

How would Russia benefit from destroying pipelines that it can just turn off?

It's like burning bridges for no reason, so game-theoretically speaking it doesn't make much sense.


- Panic in the gas market causing rising prices

- Causes accusations between NATO members

- An attempt to claim force majeure to get out of their gas contract with Germany so that Germany can't seize their frozen Russian funds for non delivery.

Also, one shouldn't assume that an apparatus which blundered its way into this costly Ukraine quagmire for no benefit is acting 100% rationally.


A commonly missed detail is that only one of the two Nordstream 2 pipes was blown up. After the event, Putin reiterated that he was "ready" to resume gas deliveries, if only the EU would play ball:

https://www.euronews.com/2022/10/12/president-putin-tells-eu...

This followed a crescendo of Russian shutdowns of Nordstream 1, all "explained" with blatant excuses,

https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/87837

https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-nothing-stands-i...

Blowing up one of the Nordstream 2 pipes was the remaining way to put even more pressure on Germany ahead of the heating season. Germany had already decided not to certify Nordstream 2, so from Russia's point of view there was only economic upside to whacking it: a finite chance of Germany caving vs both pipelines remaining unused for the foreseeable future.

On top of that, there was an obvious security-related upside. By demonstrating the vulnerability of Western energy and communications infrastructure, the event delivered a not-so-subtle threat. The choice of locations was also "interesting": in the economic zone of NATO candidate Sweden, close to its electric cable to Poland, and in the economic zone of Denmark, close to the new pipeline from Norway to Poland.


Game theory goes out of the window when considering the actions of megalomaniacs.


It also might have been a play by putin to weaken/put in line his gazprom cronies.


You are not wrong, but as always, reality is more nuanced than assigning utilities to a game. Russia would benefit in two ways:

a) Sending a message about capabilities and willingness to attack infrastructure (in NATO countries!),

b) Sowing distrust and misinformation (see e.g. Hersh article and US-Germany relations).

If you believe (big if!) Hersh's single source was a Russian asset, then b) worked wonderfully.

Overall I'm with you, current evidence doesn't point towards Russia.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: