Nord Stream

[Ken]

Did the three investigations find nothing because they were incompetent? Or because they didn't want to find anything? Or because the data didn't lead in the "right" direction?

From what I have read, the investigations provided a great deal of information about HOW the pipeline was sabotaged, but didn't answer the question as to WHO sabotaged it.

Or if it did actually answer the WHO, then they aren't saying who it was.

[Ken]

Just thinking through the geopolitical arguments for why different states or non-state actors may have done this.

THE US or NATO: This seems unlikely for several reasons. First, neither the US nor NATO are really a party to the Ukraine war in any existential way. They are supporting Ukraine to an extent, but only to an extent. They have been dithering around about sending tanks and are now doing so with respect to fighter planes and other weapons. They aren't sending attack helicopters or nearly everything they could. And aren't sanctioning Russia and Russian allies nearly to the extent that they could. So it isn't as taking out the pipeline accomplished any great strategic victory that couldn't be accomplished in less risky fashion. And the risks of blowing up the pipeline were also big. The US probably has more military and commercial infrastructure scattered around the world in insecure places than any other country. I'm not sure it is in the US interest to say it is fair game in war to start blowing up pipelines and such. And the blowback if they had done it and gotten caught red handed would have been extreme. Finally, it really isn't in the US or NATO interest to see gas prices go up. That is politically unpopular. This happened last fall when they were already high and poised to go higher.

RUSSIA: Not sure how it is really in the Russian interest to blow up their own pipeline. One theory is that if they wanted to strangle Europe by turning off gas supplies, this is one way to do it without running afoul of existing contracts which would make them liable for failure to deliver gas. But that seems a bit far fetched. They could come up with a lot of other excuses to cut back on gas supply without blowing up a pipeline underwater like that. They could just fake some big problem at their pumping station at the beginning of the pipeline and then shut it down for 6 months for repairs. And if they had gotten caught blowing up their own pipeline, that would have only shown Europe what an unreliable supplier Russia is and would have given more momentum to Europe's campaign to divest itself from Russian gas.

UKRAINE: Ukraine clearly has an incentive to blow up that pipeline. The question is whether they have the capacity. I don't think they have subs. And also it would be a very high risk gambit because if they had gotten caught the blowback in terms of military support from Europe and the US would have been severe. It would have given the perfect excuse for wavering countries to cut off the support and supply of arms to Ukraine.

NON-STATE COMMERCIAL INTERESTS: There are various non-state actors like big commercial gas suppliers, and even non-aligned state actors like the Gulf States who would all benefit directly from not having to compete with Russian gas. And who probably realized billions in windfall profits from the sabotage of Nord Stream. Could one of them have pulled this off? Maybe. To me it still seems like the most plausible answer.

[Soloist]

I agree with your assessments mostly but I think you are downplaying US and NATO interests in the situation. This is quite beneficial to NATO and the US to support Ukraine even past the obvious protection of a weaker nation. By implication some of Ukrainian interests become US/NATO interests.
Outside of perhaps the Saudis, I don’t really see another party with strong enough interests to actually do anything.
I also don’t accept that we just “don’t know”. I strongly suspect it was a western power based on similar reasoning to your own but not downplaying western interests.
Of course, I’m an armchair political science expert.
I know our military and whispers of what we really do and personally I figure on the ethics of countries being flexible according to their ability to deny it either with plausible deniability or force of arms.

[Ken]

I agree with your assessments mostly but I think you are downplaying US and NATO interests in the situation. This is quite beneficial to NATO and the US to support Ukraine even past the obvious protection of a weaker nation. By implication some of Ukrainian interests become US/NATO interests.
Outside of perhaps the Saudis, I don’t really see another party with strong enough interests to actually do anything.
I also don’t accept that we just “don’t know”. I strongly suspect it was a western power based on similar reasoning to your own but not downplaying western interests.
Of course, I’m an armchair political science expert.
I know our military and whispers of what we really do and personally I figure on the ethics of countries being flexible according to their ability to deny it either with plausible deniability or force of arms.

Yes the US and NATO are obviously supporting Ukraine. But they have so many other ways to support Ukraine directly and even covertly. And they have so many other ways to economically sanction Russia. Blowing up the pipeline just seems like a very high-risk and low-reward way of going about it. The potential for blowback is immense and the gains are only indirect and small.

US foreign policy decision-makers go through an extraordinarily comprehensive and deliberate risk assessment process for any sort of big clandestine operation of that sort. I don't see how they could possibly ever conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks when they have so many other options.

Exxon made a $56 BILLION profit in 2022 in part due to the Ukraine war, Nord Stream and Russian sanctions. If you had made $25 million every single year since the birth of Christ you would still not have made as much money as Exxon made last year.

What do you think some of the big Gulf oil companies made who are closer to that market? Well, ARAMCO made at least 3-times more than Exxon in 2022. They reported $42 BILLION in profits during the 3rd quarter alone, which is when the Nord Stream sabotage happened.

When there isn't another obvious answer, always follow the money. The pipeline blew up on September 26, 2022. Look at Exxon's stock price for the past 12 months. Complete coincidence? Maybe.

Doesn't have to be Exxon. Any private interest with billions invested in oil companies made out like an absolute bandits during the first few weeks after Nord Stream was blown up.

[Soloist]

Yes the US and NATO are obviously supporting Ukraine. But they have so many other ways to support Ukraine directly and even covertly. And they have so many other ways to economically sanction Russia. Blowing up the pipeline just seems like a very high-risk and low-reward way of going about it. The potential for blowback is immense and the gains are only indirect and small.

It’s pretty low risk if no one can get evidence to prove one way or another.

US foreign policy decision-makers go through an extraordinarily comprehensive and deliberate risk assessment process for any sort of big clandestine operation of that sort. I don't see how they could possibly ever conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks when they have so many other options.

I think you really fail to understand how exactly these things happen. They don’t involve the public policy decision makers and never have.
When we bombed the wedding, who made that choice?
When we bombed Iran, who made that choice?
When we announced the invasion of Iraq, who decided quietly to do so and order fleets into position?

[Ken]

Yes the US and NATO are obviously supporting Ukraine. But they have so many other ways to support Ukraine directly and even covertly. And they have so many other ways to economically sanction Russia. Blowing up the pipeline just seems like a very high-risk and low-reward way of going about it. The potential for blowback is immense and the gains are only indirect and small.

It’s pretty low risk if no one can get evidence to prove one way or another.

US foreign policy decision-makers go through an extraordinarily comprehensive and deliberate risk assessment process for any sort of big clandestine operation of that sort. I don't see how they could possibly ever conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks when they have so many other options.

I think you really fail to understand how exactly these things happen. They don’t involve the public policy decision makers and never have.
When we bombed the wedding, who made that choice?
When we bombed Iran, who made that choice?
When we announced the invasion of Iraq, who decided quietly to do so and order fleets into position?

They sorts of decisions involve the White House in every one of those cases. And I promise you that very thick briefing books were prepared weighing the pros and cons of each action. That doesn't mean the president or national security advisor or whoever pulls the trigger doesn't make the wrong decision. They often do. But they do make informed decisions. The Pentagon, NSA, and CIA literally have thousands of analysists doing that sort of work. All of it on a clandestine or highly classified basis of course. So we never see any of it.

[Soloist]

They involve the White House in every one of those cases. And I promise you that very thick briefing books were prepared weighing the pros and cons of each action. That doesn't mean the president or national security advisor or whoever pulls the trigger doesn't make the wrong decision. They often do. But they do make informed decisions.

Actually, some decisions are made without those briefing books and you should know that. Also, not every action involves the president. Some are left with specific cabinet members or CIA actions.
We obviously have analysts on hand for the president for these choices but there are other countries outside of the US. I didn’t assume it was the US, I think British ships were actually in the area when it was blown.

[Ken]

They involve the White House in every one of those cases. And I promise you that very thick briefing books were prepared weighing the pros and cons of each action. That doesn't mean the president or national security advisor or whoever pulls the trigger doesn't make the wrong decision. They often do. But they do make informed decisions.

Actually, some decisions are made without those briefing books and you should know that. Also, not every action involves the president. Some are left with specific cabinet members or CIA actions.
We obviously have analysts on hand for the president for these choices but there are other countries outside of the US. I didn’t assume it was the US, I think British ships were actually in the area when it was blown.

I didn't say every decision was made by the president. But every one of those decisions certainly came out of the White House and probably the NSC. The drone bombing of a specific wedding possibly not, but the general policy of using drones against the Taliban? Most definitely. That was not something decided by regional commanders in that theater.

Now when fast decisions are made in response to some action like a balloon floating across the country or a terrorist strike then yes, decision makers might be operating faster. But for operations that are planned out weeks and months or years in advance? They are very thoroughly analyzed, often nearly to the point of paralysis. In fact there are probably bazillions of possible exercises and operations that get analyzed to death but never get the green light for one reason or another. That is what military and strategic planners do.

This was Obama's NSC in the White House situation room. See all those briefing documents?

[temporal1]

Actually, some decisions are made without those briefing books and you should know that. Also, not every action involves the president. Some are left with specific cabinet members or CIA actions.
We obviously have analysts on hand for the president for these choices but there are other countries outside of the US. I didn’t assume it was the US, I think British ships were actually in the area when it was blown.

your first-hand military experience is meaningless against google cut+pastes.

[Soloist]

Actually, some decisions are made without those briefing books and you should know that. Also, not every action involves the president. Some are left with specific cabinet members or CIA actions.
We obviously have analysts on hand for the president for these choices but there are other countries outside of the US. I didn’t assume it was the US, I think British ships were actually in the area when it was blown.

your first-hand military experience is meaningless against google cut+pastes.

My first hand military experience doesn’t cover anything in the White House really. I did know the presidential Urology team, one of them was a good friend but everything he knew was classified even beyond just normal law.
Generally what Ken is saying is correct anyway at least from what I know. I think he is downplaying a political/tactical move that might have been done, but I would say that has more connection with my talk after the military with more combat vets, seemed like a lot of them were conspiracy theorists for some odd reason… not at all connected with guarding poppy fields, or leaving a fire team to check out a abandoned base only to be attacked by over 100 enemy… no support was provided for several hours due to our paper pushing brass doubting field report.