Two primary Russian natural gas pipelines to Europe partially or wholly owned and operated by Gazprom cross the Baltic Sea, the Nord Stream I and II. European dependence (particularly Germany) on Russian natural gas has been a key issue, particularly in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Biden/West European subsequent economic sanctions . Actually only Nord I has been in production and not recently over the last few weeks, Russia arguing "maintenance issues" related to Western sanctions; Nord 2 was still waiting on German approval, post-invasion, with Germany recently declining. (Biden obviously lobbying against approval).
Recently there have been reports of unexplained ruptures off Sweden and Denmark marked by detectable explosions, not accounted for by natural causes like earthquakes:
CIA warned weeks ago the pipes could be attacked after agents sent a 'strategic warning' to European allies including Germany, sources told Der Spiegel last night, though they refused to say whether Russia was identified as a culprit. The warning was not specific and did not pinpoint a time or location for an attack, the New York Times added.
Note that the US and Russia are the 2 leading global producers of natural gas. US exports are constrained by the need to liquefy natural gas, including specialized processing facilities and a limited number of relevant tankers for transport. (Conventional pipelines aren't feasible.) Also, a new Baltic pipeline (Baltic Pipe) between Norway and Poland provides a competitive alternative to Russian gas.
So the speculation has been, what sabotage, if any, was done to the pipelines and by whom. I first saw a crackpot conspiracy theory on the topic, arguing the US was the likely source, via the Ron Paul folks and a Polish member of the EU parliament. The principal argument is that Biden vowed that Nord Stream 2 would not move forward if Russia invaded Ukraine.
There is no indication whatsoever that this was anything but a comment on the potential diplomatic pressure the U.S. government would exert on German authorities to at least freeze that specific pipeline project, something that very publicly happened.
They also suggest Russia had no rational reason to sabotage its own pipelines, impairing future gas delivery.. These arguments have been repeated by the Russian press, of course. Daniel McAdams, Ron Paul's co-host, [Ron Paul is frequently quoted in RT clips] has also argued that the US had the personnel and resources in the area to engage in sabotage, citing Russian embassy talking points:
[T]hey must also have seen the U.S. warships’ activities at the very site of the Russian infrastructure disruption just the day before. Or noticed drones and helicopters fly over there. Or observed U.S. Navy exercises with underwater explosives that have been conducted in the same area some time ago.
Conclusion: The viral claim by a Russian think tank on Telegram that an American helicopter was responsible for the gas leaks is untenable and misleading. The helicopter did not get close to the locations of the gas leaks.
These insinuations have been based in part on the presence of a U.S. Navy amphibious assault ship, the USS Kearsarge, and a P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol plane, among other assets, in Baltic Sea around the time the leaks were reported. The U.S. military routinely operates in the region and has publicly stepped up its presence as part of efforts to bolster NATO's posture in light of the war in Ukraine. No hard evidence has been put forward to link American forces to the pipeline incidents in any way.
I don't have knowledge beyond conventional media sources like the above. But this conspiracy theory is absurd on multiple points.
First of all, Russia, as one of the 2 top oil & gas producers, has profited immensely from tight global supplies, even with discounts to sanctions-ignoring customers like China and India. Uncertainty in the global market, caused by things like the disruptions, could easily lead to spikes in demand and prices for energy resources.
Second, Russia has built and maintains a significant military presence in the Baltic region. On the other hand, NATO defenses in the area are, in the terms of others, dangerously exposed. It seems to me rather curious that Russian forces in the area would not be monitoring key Russian-built infrastructure, an attack on which could be considered an act of war.
Göran Swistek, a German frigate captain and expert for maritime security, believes that special explosives may have been attached by submersibles. "I know from my own research that Russia has built up a very strong undersea research program in recent years," Swistek said in an interview with the German public broadcaster ZDF. He pointed out that Russia recently tested precisely unmanned underwater drones in the North Sea and North Atlantic, among other places, near important communication cables.
The Times newspaper in the United Kingdom, citing an unnamed U.K. "defense source," reported today that a "likely scenario" for the attacks involved Russian uncrewed underwater vehicles, deployed from a mothership vessel of some kind on the surface, possibly something as innocuous as a fishing boat. Those undersea drones would then have laid explosive devices along the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines.
The Russians have a number of equally specialized surface vessels that can conduct various kinds of deep-sea operations, including salvage. Discussions about these assets typically focus on concerns about Russia's ability to tap or even potentially cut undersea communications cables, but the same capabilities that enable those kinds of activities could easily be employed to plant explosives or otherwise launch destructive attacks on other undersea infrastructure.
Third, whereas much has been made that Russia doesn't seem to benefit from damage to its own pipeline, it might be willing to sacrifice a pawn for a perceived long-term gain. For example, if the EU buys into the US sabotage hypothesis, it would likely rupture the US/EU alliance. The EU was not receiving gas from either pipeline. Russia basically shut down Nord Stream 1 for "maintenance', but many argue it was an embargo over EU support for Ukraine and Western sanctions on Russia. Note also the competitive Baltic Pipe to Poland recently went live, and one might speculate if it is vulnerable to a similar attack.
The US has little to gain from European economic chaos, both politically and economically. There is no transatlantic pipeline; it is constrained, as described above, on liquefaction capacity (to and from) and transport. Yes, Biden wanted a boycott of Russia over the Ukraine intervention, but not at the expense of the Western alliance
Not to mention a pattern of false flag attacks. Turkey is currently also dependent on Russian gas. Russia claims it thwarted a Ukrainian "terrorist" attack on a gas pipeline to Turkey. Putin is still unhappy Turkey didn't have his back in rejecting NATO membership to Sweden and Finland.
I'm still awaiting more evidence from the purported explosions. But I tend to be skeptical of Putin's manipulative misinformation. I don't like his ugly terror threats of possible nuclear war. I think desperate, failed leaders say and do some desperate things.
