Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Some unnamed US intelligence officials cited by the New York Times suggest that a pro-Ukrainian group may be involved in the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines.
But at the time of the explosions, was it not already clear that Germany would stop importing Russian gas see related coverage in the Guardian? Doesn’t it seem like any plans by European countries to continue to import Russian gas would have been politically untenable anyways?
There are several factors necessary for continued Ukrainian sovereignty, now and half a year ago. Among them:
If any of those were to disappear, Ukraine would likely be defeated on the battlefield. Now think back half a year. There were serious concerns that Europe might see a severe recession because of energy problems. Possibly large parts of the population could have been unable to afford energy to heat their homes. Fears of public protests. Fears of governments being replaced by populists who promise heat through an end to sanctions, or trying to appease segments of their population to avoid a populist election victory.
This did not happen. There was an exceptionally warm winter.
A destruction of the pipelines, especially one that could be blamed on Russia, would make the "wobbling" of the European countries less likely. If it is not possible to buy Russian gas, it is easier to take the moral stand not to do it.
On the other hand, a partial or repairable destruction of the pipelines that could be blamed on Ukraine would make European support for Ukraine less firm.
Well, if you read the NYT piece in detail, the catch is that "pro-Ukrainian" is a rather broad spectrum. In particular, the same (unnamed) US intel officials agree with the [Russian] FSB insofar as saying that "elements" of the Ukrainian intel/security apparatus killed Dugina... even though said US officials think this was a terrible idea (because it targeted a civilian with little political power, and may open Ukraine to retaliation in kind by Russia, even at higher levels, etc.)
I.e. "pro-Ukrainian" includes those who are or might be blindsided by their hate/dislike of Russia[ns] so much that they don't consider the downsides of their actions. So in that regard, the fact that the pipelines were not even in use at the time may have factored very little in someone's decision to blow them up. And likewise, they might have discounted the fallout [in Western capitals] if the source of the sabotage was tied to Ukraine.
Germany [announced that it] would stop importing Russian gas [....] any plans by European countries to continue to import Russian gas would have been politically untenable
Well, Germany is not the whole of Europe. Hungary in particular has no qualms about importing anything from Russia. And even countries that are more reluctant, e.g. Austria, revealed last month that they are still importing some Russian gas. Even France increased their Russian LNG imports a bit, last fall.
Assuming these "pro-Ukranian" elements had state sanction (acted on the orders of the Ukranian administration and / or military) - No, as the negative political fallout outweighs any political benefit from this act. This is obvious when you consider the pros and cons -
Positive Benefits
Negative Fallouts
An attack on European infrastructure is a hostile act that can be considered terrorism or even as a declaration of war. Any such attack without prior authorisation by NATO will increase the perception that the Ukranian administration / military are reckless and dangerous.
Europeans have contributed a lot to the Ukraine war effort. Any public perception that Ukraine doesn't care about their interest or wants to escalate the war to create a direct conflict between NATO and Russia will turn European public perception against Ukraine.
Four other EU companies have invested in this pipeline, own 49% ownership of it and economically benefit from it. Blowing up the pipelines risks Ukraine alienating support from these EU countries.
Europeans are already very unhappy because of the higher electrical and gas prices they face due to the war.
But public perception in Europe can heavily turn against the Ukranians, especially if the war drags on for another winter, and gas prices remain high and the public believe it is partly because of the destruction of the Nordstream pipelines.
It is true that Germany had already stopped receiving gas from the pipelines. Nevertheless, electricity and gas prices are a very sensitive electoral and political issue and the European public are well aware that the price rise is due to the disruption of cheap gas from Russia, due to the war. (That is exactly why Russia could use oil and gas to put political pressure on its EU consumers by increasing or decreasing the supply).
Ukraine is highly dependent on western assistance and support during this war. Any negative perception among Europeans can derail this. And Ukrainians sabotaging NordStream, even if it is to harm Russia, will generate a negative backlash against them.
And that is why Ukraine has been very quick to publicly dismiss these allegations that they were behind the bombing of the pipelines.
Deciding to take many actions requires a risk management: what is the potential benefit, is it probable, what is the worst case loss, is it likely.
The action of Ukraine blowing up three from the four pipes has poor risk to benefit balance:
The following factors increase the risk:
The following factors may reverse the potential benefit into loss:
Understanding that many secret actions finally went public, I think it would be too risky business to for Ukraine to destroy the pipeline.
But for me, however, pro-Ukrainian does not mean that it was Ukraine. Whoever may be behind this strange term "pro-Ukrainian forces". For me it is not Ukraine, not scandinavian, not germany, poland, etc. It is the country that is currently investing the most in this war.
Even if Germany would have stopped taking gas at some point. As a result of the blast, Germany had to drastically reduce its gas purchases from Russia from now on. And I'm not even sure that would have happened in the next 10 years. Currently there is a large group of people who want to continue heating with gas. The same for German industry. This group would probably have determined the political direction of the next legislature. Up to now, gas heating has been the cheapest and most effective way of heating. But the price is the decisive factor. And it is not possible to compensate for this with liquefied petroleum gas for ecological as well as economic reasons. Then, at the latest, Nordstream would probably become interesting again.
Source: https://www.dw.com/en/how-germany-plans-to-phase-out-oil-and-gas-heating/a-64952051
If one follows the away of money, the USA has the greatest benefit of the blow-up and the least short- to medium-term ecological risk. The countries on the Baltic Sea have the problem that parts of the Baltic Sea are contaminated with heavy metals and other harmful toxins after the blasting. So I wouldn't swim in the Baltic Sea for the next few years. The countries on the other side of the Baltic Sea have to deal with the fact that the heavy metals and toxins affect the ecosystem. First the algae absorb the toxins, then the fish and finally the humans. It has already been established that the toxins disrupt reproduction. That means fewer fish. The sad result for countries around the Baltic Sea: unemployment, increased diseases, higher prices for marine products, possibly reduced human reproduction.
Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nord-stream-pipeline-blasts-stirred-up-toxic-sediment/
Finally, I would like to mention that large parts of Europe have experienced more disadvantages from the blast.
