What nonsensical analysis. Start with "if we have an idea about the purpose of the attack, then we know who did it". "Then end with: people put too much emphasis on "why would Russia do this?".
Could you revisit this topic, in light of intelligence leaks blaming Ukraine? I still find it hard to believe as the adverse consequences for Ukraine might have been huge in that case. Or did Ukraine calculate that there is already too much of a commitment from Western states, for them to stop aid if Ukraine were to do such a thing? Makes the matter even more complicated, I'm really interested in further analysis of this case.
@@PolishBehemoth One example, coverage from the Washington Post about Roman Chervinsky. I find it extremely important to support Ukraine, so I do not understand if / why they would risk western support by destroying the pipeline. As most analysis is based on propaganda, I would love more well-informed analysis of this case.
This was the worst analyses I've every heard. First off it doesn't at all take in consideration what we already know. Which is the following: 1) Condoleezza Rice ( Former Secretary of State under President Georgia Bush) Stated in an interview yrs ago that we needed to end Europe's reliance on Russian gas. 2.) That President Biden stated before the invasion that if Russia did it there would be no way that Nord Stream would go forward. When asked by a journalist how that can happen when it's in Germany's control he replied that we have ways to make it happen. 3.) Victoria Nuland (Current Secretary of State of political affairs and previously was the Assistant Secretary of State under President Obama) She was part of the Regime change in Ukraine in 2014. She has stated in a press conference that if Russia Invaded that one way or another there would be no nord stream. 4.) You have Anthony Blinken (US secretary of state) Stating what a great opportunity it is. 5.) The fracture was already in existence before the sabotage of the pipelines. There were protests in early sept. in Germany where people were demanding the Germany gov't turn on the Pipeline. Germany didn't want to sanction gas in the beginning because it knew how detrimental it would be to their people. The US saw their weakness and feared they'd falter which they would have. 6.) It's known that US Marines with Ukraine were playing with submersible drones in the location of those pipelines. 7.) The US is part of the investigation. As a US citizen we all know how that will pan out. Because if it really was Russia it would be a major news story 24/7 here. 8.) If Russia did it as you claim then that means that all Nato countries are a failure at protecting their own infrastructure. Why didn't any of those countries and Yours notice Russian movement in the area? How did they get through? And If the US did which there is plenty statements and behaviors made that point to us doing it it still makes Nato countries look weak. 9.) If you think the US gov't couldn't do it and wouldn't do it then you are being naive. My gov't is the only nation that dropped two atomic (nukes) bombs on another sovereign country that were NEVER justified. It was purely for a flex on the world. Yet they hid the Truth and propagandized the masses about it for decades. Funny how you left this all out of your analysis just so you could tell the uniformed that Russia did it.
I think it is dangerous for people in influential positions to point fingers, when that is not supported by better arguments than Nielsen provides. In my opinion, Nielsen cannot substantiate that the sabotage and its operational design have consequences that align with Russia's assumed objectives, and without a chance of reaching those objectives, there is no reason for Russia to take this risk (the sabotage), whether it is losing or not. Before going into details, let's discuss why this finger-pointing is dangerous. Wars are not won nor ended on the battlefield, but instead on the negotiation table. People at that table are not necessarily friends or in agreement, but they must have a thorough understanding of each other. Without thorough understanding, negotiations are not likely to be effective or to bring lasting results. The lack of understanding additionally reduces the perceived need for negotiation, "because it won't help anyway": a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that, in turn, leads to the status quo of more war and more suffering. Nielsen's story does not provide thorough understanding, but instead seems to consist of arguments that were drawn from a conclusion, instead of the other way round. I am not an expert, and I am open to (substantial) arguments that convince me otherwise, or people pointing out where in my summaries I inadvertently applied logical fallacies! Nielsen's argument to make Russia the most likely sponsor, first disses the idea that motive - who benefits? - plays an important role. It then uses a theory of hybrid warfare to point out consequences of the sabotage and its operational design. He suggests that these consequences align with Russia's, assumed, objectives. Then Nielsen uses prospect theory to explain that because Russia is losing the war, another assumption, Russia was willing to take a risks, the sabotage, to meet those assumed objectives. My critique starts with the number of assumptions necessary to make the argument, in favour of a much simpler explanation: motif. To make it likely that Russia took the risk (the sabotage), Nielsen must assume that the Russians are losing the war, so that he can apply prospect theory: people take (more) risks when they are losing. He does not substantiate this assumption. But even if this assumption holds, he must make another assumption, namely about Russia's objectives. Because, losing or not, a risk will only be taken _if there are objectives and there is a non-zero chance of achieving those._ Hence, Nielsen must link the consequences of the operation (the taken risk) to these assumed objectives, if any. That is a lot of assumptions for one argument! And even if all these assumptions hold, the argument only works if, and only if it can be shown that the sabotage and its operational design indeed lead to the consequences described. I will explain that they (the sabotage and its operational design) do not. One proposed consequence of the sabotage is that it exposes the vulnerability of energy infrastructure and effectively instils fear. There are examples from the past that show the ability and willingness to destroy energy infrastructure on land, for example in the Baku-Novorossiysk case. It is not far-fetched to assume the same capability exists under sea, though it limits the number of suspects. The only new thing we learned from this specific sabotage, is therefore that somebody is willing to do it in this war. But proving that willingness only requires the sabotage of a single pipe. These pipes are long, and more destruction can be done later, at leisure in a remote place. Destroying a single pipe sends the same message, while retaining options. Options to sell gas in the future after all (Russia). Options to threaten Germany and Russia with destroying the rest of the pipeline (another sponsor). But that did not happen. The sabotage resulted in total incapacitation and no options for any party, without sending a stronger message when compared with a situation that left options open. A fail for all, including Russia. Russia doing this only makes sense if we make another assumption: Russia's traded its options away to achieve even better objectives that we don't know about. In summary, even if the assumed objective of this sabotage is to expose vulnerability and instil fear: it could have been done as effectively, at less expense, and with more options for the sponsor, instead of closing all doors. Of course, we can assume (again) that closing doors was the objective. In my opinion a silly one, and it only holds when the other consequences mentioned by Nielsen hold. Add to that the fact that, for all practical purposes, the door (the pipeline) was already closed. Another proposed consequence of the sabotage is that it creates market uncertainty. Imagine a market with suppliers, and with households and industries (consumers). A significant gap in supply capacity causes market uncertainty consumers, because delivery is uncertain and the prices could become out of reach. However, the gap also makes higher prices more certain. This is good for existing suppliers, but also for additional suppliers: new suppliers that could not make a profit at the old price, or more expensive suppliers that now become competitive. After a while, these additional suppliers can stabilize the market. Now imagine that the original gap disappears again, and supply rises. Guaranteed high profits for existing suppliers disappear, and the additional suppliers, that entered the market after the original gap, are priced out of the market. This too will stabilize eventually, like with lower prices for consumers. But the prospect of a variable gap - that can appear and disappear unpredictably - discourages new investors, like the additional suppliers, to join the market. Therefore, a variable gap tends to maintain both uncertainty in terms of delivery, and higher prices that wobble depending on the size of the gap. To summarise, a permanent gap leads to a certain market with higher prices, an permanently absent gap leads to a certain market with lower prices, and a variable gap causes an uncertain market. The situation before the sabotage resembled a variable gap, as Russia controlled it. The sabotage replaced the variable gap by a permanent one. This made the market more certain for still-enabled suppliers - a great opportunity. It also could boost the transition to sustainable alternatives, a long term problem for suppliers. It could make the certainty of delivery worse for consumers. I assume that this uncertainty is not what Nielsen refers to. It would also be weird, given the Russian financial interests and boosting income for its adversaries. Therefore, I rate Nielsen's argument that the sabotage made the market less certain, at most half true. The last proposed consequence is that the sabotage in covert form would lessen Europe's cohesion. I disagree. There was always a probability that Germany would buy and transport gas via Nordstream again, for example because of domestic political and economic pressure. That particular behaviour would be "incohesive" on Germany's part. The sabotage took away the possibility of that particular, incohesive behaviour, thereby forcing an increased likelihood of cohesion. Nielsen takes a different approach, proposing that the covert design of the operation intended to sow discord among friends and raise doubt, both leading to less cohesion Let's entertain that thought. The doubt definitely exists, and Nielsen uses protests as an example. However, the protests throughout Europe, though scarcely reported on, precede the sabotage and were not only about stopping sanctions for lower gas prices, but also about more fundamental issues concerning this war. Whatever the reasons for the protests, generalizing and considering them a consequence of the sabotage is at least a stretch. That leaves sowing discord among friends. Following Nielsen's reasoning, what friend on the winning side (prospect theory) would be so stupid as to risk this sabotage? Nielsen follows through correctly: no friend would. He also rules out the possibility of action-groups, and excellently so. Following through again, the most likely suspect is a losing enemy. However, the operation would therefore rather unite than divide friends that can follow this reasoning and see through the enemy's plot. This united-ness would only break if investigation elevates the operation above the response threshold and the sponsor is a (now former) friend. In my opinion, it is a tad naive to assume that Russia did not also entertain this reasoning and followed it through. It is even more naive as Russia is about the only country that presses for the result of investigations, while other countries refuse to release those for "security reasons." My conclusion is that the sabotage and its operational design would not lead to consequences Nielsen describes. The scaremongering consequence could have been more effectively achieved with different tactics that would leave more control. The market-uncertainty consequences is almost the other way round. And the cohesion consequence has counter examples, and when followed through, negates itself. Without consequences being likely, they cannot establish likelihood that it was possible to meet attached objectives, objectives that were assumptions in the first place. And without a chance of achieving objectives, there is no reason that Russia would take a risk, even if it is losing the war, which is another assumption. Therefore, we are back where we stared: we just don't know. And I already explained why pointing fingers on inconclusive speculation is dangerous. [edit: typos and phrasing fixes]
Anyone remember Pukin with his buddy Lukashenka dumping several hundreds of immigrants on Polish-Belarusian border? That was around November last year.
One of the rare occasion I praised the TH-cam algorithm is recommending your channel to me. I always learned something new in your video, thank you so much!
He is pretty awesome. He is more or less the go to person that the danish media use when they need an informed opinion on something relating to war or power politics.
Yeah outstanding channel. Also, I think there’s a trick to cultivating the algorithm to make good recommendations, for one don’t leave anything on your history that you don’t want it influenced by, I also generally don’t leave likes or dislikes since that can sway the returns too. The more you watch short vids the more short it’ll recommend and this is a good example of influencing it in real time, click on a few long vids or so and you’ll start seeing more long ones recommended pretty quick. So if you’re getting frustrated, try opening a few old vids similar to what you want new content on, gaming news etc. don’t have to watch but just get them in your recent history and it’ll fish around, once it gets a feel for what you want it can be pretty good tbh.
@@itsjustameme He is using western Propaganda to say Russia is loosing. Not true, the west is loosing. They are trying to start a nuclear incident but it will not work.
The West knows who did it and how it was done. Right now they are evaluating their options and whether they wish to make the information public, whether they wish to retaliate or not. They also need to decide if they do wish to retaliate, do they wish to make it public. The public may or not learn the truth, which is what is being debated now.
What a nonsense. Also, perhaps analysis of history of such actions might a point to consider. 1980s ? This is not a first rodeo. Also, what country openly threatens allies with sanctions, including sanctions for NS2 ? [ hint 2020, and 2022]. The paper trail of threats and complaints by multiple US presidents EU officials is a mile long: Germany is undermining EU enery policy, EU unity, it hurts financially Ukraine [ got compensated] or Poland, it benefits Russia, it should be buying US gas instead, etc.
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Simply saying that it can't be X (the United States, in this case), because you're pretty sure that some hypothetical approach would have been better doesn't work as an argument unless you can at least propose an example of what that hypothetical better approach would be. Because without that counter example, you're ignoring the most obvious reason why someone follows a sub-optimal path to a goal: because there is not actually a better alternative, either in means or ends. It's like saying "well I'm pretty sure Hannibal didn't cross the Alps, because anyone would prefer to travel on flat ground." I'm not even saying that the US did this (how could any of us possibly know?) Anyone doing this would be taking a significant risk if discovered, and pretty much anyone other than Germany and Russia has a motive to keep Germany from caving in, and that there are a number of NATO countries, as well as Russia, who could have done it.
In criminal law terms: Means, Motive, Opportunity. The person who had something to gain, had the ability to do it, and an opportunity to do it, is a likely suspect. Ukraine and an NGO are obviously not responsible. As for the USA, Washington has no motive to disturb energy markets, but Putin has many good reasons to cause energy prices to rise.
Your own analysis suggests this is above the 'Attribution Threshold'. We strongly suspect it was Russia we just can't prove it or know quite yet how they did it.
There's lots of speculative nonsense here, although the theory itself has some merits. The deductive reasoning here is not convincing at all; conclusions seem to be quite fantastical.
Someone who has tried very hard to use some gibberish around operational design to find a way to blame Russia for massively benefiting the US by blowing up their own pipelines. Pipelines they can shut any time by turning the taps off. Just look at how happy Blinken is about this.
I agree with your conclusion that it’s the Russian but If so, why USA didn’t immediately made an announcement for not doing it? (Personally I think it would have been a dangerous move if USA did it).
German officials announced that there is no evidence incriminating Russia. Swedish investigation(cleanup) findings are "too sensitive" to be shared. Why would it be sensitive if it was Russia ? Isn't that the obvious ? All fingers are pointed at them, and you explain it very well. You should do a follow up of how theory blends with reality.
Now 8 months after it happened, we know more than before. There are saved radar logs showing Russian presence at the time. A few weeks before the explosions, 4 boats depart from St. Petersburg, halfway through they turn off their transmitters, but continue to the pipelines, where one of the boats then goes back and forth along the pipes several times - even if they have turned off their transmitters, they are visible on the radar. And a few days before the explosions, 2 boats, with transmitters turned off, set out from St. Petersburg one of which (SS-750) is a special craft carrying 2 mini submarines with grappling claws. They stay exactly at the site of the explosions where they are for about 18 hours, before returning. This is also visible on the radar and that the Danish Air Force photographed the boats on the spot. Pretty hard to explain away that it wouldn't be the Russians.
Anders I think there is 3 additions to this: 1) Gas prices were starting to fall the week prior to the bombings, that was not in the interest off Ruzzia, they want gas prices high also to hurt Europe this winter! 2) A Ruzzian professor came up with the theory that the Ruzzians did it because there were rumours off a law suit coming from Germany on breaking the contract! (alternative: Gazprom revencing that their top manegement got lost, falling out off windows) 3) By blaming the US/West for it, their narrative is: see their are coming to get us! (same time distracting from the war and the mobilisation)
Absolute nonsense 1) Grasping at straws 2) Irrelevant. Gazprom would not care because they are a Russian company based in Russia, so there would be no reach. 3) More grasping at straws I think a fair assessment is that it was the Americans. You can always find arguments for everything. You arguments for Russia doing it is far weaker, than the arguments for 9/11 being an inside job or that there was no moon landing (not that I would agree - I have no idea, and don't really care). Best regards!
The contract theory is just gibberish. Russia doesnt care about contracts, money or even reality, otherwise it wouldnt have started the war. Not to mention, he thinks Russia cares enough about law to want to avoid paying fines, but not enough to publically blow up a pipeline? Imma call bullshit on that one.
It's not even a case of price, if it's not there now and you require it immediately, paying 1900 times the price for extra elsewhere in 5 days simply might not be enough.
@@itube0047 The idea that america did this is just as absurd as the reason being gas contracts. If you think so, then you dont understand the situation, like at all. Idk why youre even talking about this. Watch the video. It explains a few reasons why what happened is nonsensical for the US but fits Russias behaviour.
@@termitreter6545 The fact that you are surprised someone is talking about this says enough about your open-mindedness. Lots of strange things happened in the last few years, before that as well but not as much in plain sight. You have to carefully judge each situation, and just because one video disagrees with a point of view, doesn't mean the video is automatically right. That's very narrowly minded. All I know is the Americans can't be trusted as well, I'm also not saying the Russians can be trusted. But the elites are playing their games and it's the common folk who always suffer the most, that's something I'm 100% sure of.
You didn't convince me that the americans were not involved. It absolutely would makes sense that the americans would conduct such an operation closer to allied countries, so as not to be detected by russians (why they wouldn't do it closer to skt petersburg). furthermore there is sadly many examples of the united states having agreements with the governments of their allies, deals which go against popular opinion in those allied countries (the many cases of espionage on european populations by americans, sanctioned by european governments). It takes alot to trust the americans :D and when there senile president made it very clear that they WOULD STOP THE PIPLEINE if russia invades, makes it abundantly clear. You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to think the americans did it. Who is to say that US don't want an all out war against russia? The narrative have changed lately.
@@rykwon4535 haha well damn i'm sure you know more of the sitch as it develops there.. but you guys also stopped talking about this "incident"? right?... never mentioned on network TV in Denmark no more. We actually had an investigative documentary not too long after about the nordstream pipeline bombing. It only really dealt with the possibility of a russian ship being the antagonist of the story :D :D i mean.. people ate it raw here. Safe to say, it's really easy to herd people, much like sheep.
@@zukyozelf7144 are people in Denmark mad about the pipeline being blown up? It affects you guys much more than us (on the contrary it helps our economy). this is a pretty good summary of US coverage: th-cam.com/video/NSZyKYitC3M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zxp8WgsP3DMpeGdo The possibility that it was us wasn’t even allowed to be mentioned lol. Among people I know, they have either a) never heard of Nordstream or b) think I’m a conspiracy theorist for blaming the the CIA. Mainstream news in the US has been in rapid decline since the 2016 Trump victory. They lost a handle on the narrative. That’s why they’re trying to ban TikTok here.
US already blown its up in 1982. Just use google and read history instead of spend time to fantasize why RF shoot themselves in a foot. I wish all to keep agreements by your opponents. And good memory, not to forget this agreements in favourable moment.😅
You're thinking way too deep. Motive is very simple, follow the money. Russia gains nothing. So who has the most to gain monetary? .... America. Who needs to defend their financial fiat currency? … America.
Has it fallen apart? Hardly. Rather the opposite, in fact, as evidence of russian activity in the area is solid, while other "theories" are generally based on anonymous sources, sloppy investigations, failure to consider any available open source evidence, and defy even a minimum of logic cohesion. Oliver Alexander's substack is a good place to start. You may also look into the common investigations conducted by Scandinavian journalists, published earlier this year. Unfortunately, youtube won't let me post links, but you'll find all this if you want to, it is really not difficult.
@@tordsteiro9838 I couldn't help thinking of Puck when I saw this little headline, but then I saw I never did respond properly to you. Didn't seem worth the bother. But this isn't much of a bother at all: "Ukrainian military officer coordinated Nord Stream pipeline attack" - Washington post, just now.
I am impressed. You are very, very convincing. Let me add something that might make your argument even more convincing: the explosions only destroyed PART of the Nordstream pipelines. (If Russia and the EU wanted to, they could pump gas from Russia through the remaining functional half of the NS II pipeline.) Ask yourself: if a country other than Russia had performed this sabotage, wouldn't they have wanted to reduce Russia's ability to pump gas to zero?
What exactly could be done "below the detection threshold" that wouldn't look sus in this situation? Cyber attack or sabotage near St Petersburg would leave people thinking "the Americans did a cyber attack"/etc. We're here saying "who did it? " but also "if NATO did it they would have concealed it better"; how?
I'm not really convinced about the "below detection" option in this particular case. How on earth should it be possible to make these pipelines dysfunctional without anyone noticing that somebody made them dysfunctional?
It was Eskimos, undetected in their leather kayaks. They want to make us drill on Greenland. But it was not Americans. They wouldn't. They are good guys, all of them!
Theres a lot of ways to do this without blowing them up with 100s of kilograms of TNT equivalent. Structurally weaken the pipeline, so they just burst at some point, maybe even try to make it look like an accident. Sabotage the ground stations so that opening the valves again causes a critcal failure. Make it so that its hard to detect, looks like an accident, or only happens when the pipeline is actually reactivated. Im not an expert, but you got a serious lack of imagination if you think making it look like a giant act of terror was the only thing to do this. And you wont understand any of the politics if you cant imagine anything else.
Question is why haven’t they stopped pumping gas into it? Answer, their storage tanks were full, domestic use at 100% and millions of tonnes of gas is still coming out the ground needing moved on. They burn $10m worth a day by flaring off, blowing the pipes has let them off gas and pollute polish, German, Swedish and Danish waters instead of their own air only.
@@stevepirie8130 From what I read, one has to keep the pipes full of gas because the pipe is designed to use the inner pressure to resist the outer pressure. If I understand correctly, this also means the entire pipe is probably not any more structurally safe and would probably be "written off", if ever the EU needs and wants another such pipe (after a regime change in Russia) that means building another one.
below detection doesn't need to mean no one noticed a problem, it just means that the fact it was an attack/operation is left undetected. This can be as simple as intercepting and switching out some replacement machine component in transit, with a weaker one that will break and cause catastrophic damage. To everyone else looking at it, it seems like an accident. Therefore the sabotage remains undetected. A well hidden cyberattack could also be used to cause a machine to damage itself without being obvious. While not an example of an operation meant to remain undetected, when the US sabotaged the Iranian nuclear program, they did so by inserting malware into the devices that controlled the centrifuges that enrich the uranium before they were delivered, then the malware caused the centrifuges to spin so fast they destroyed themselves. So the technical and operational capabilities to cause sabotage covertly was demonstrated.
it wasn't an attack. it was methane hydrate solids. someone shut off a pump. when you shut down a pipeline, methane hydrate solids build up. you can't clean the pipe without gas flow, and there was no gas flow. when methane hydrate solids build up, and the pipe is depressurized, the solids move at near the speed of sound towards the depressurization. then at any valve or constriction in the pipeline, those solids explode. look up "removing methane hydrate solids" on petrowiki. it shows exactly what I'm talking about. the pics of the pipeline show the edges curling out, not in. indicating an explosion from inside the pipe. all explosions happened at valves or constrictions in the pipe. if it makes you feel better, the pump was shut off on the russian end. honestly you can attribute it to incompetence rather than malice,...russian incompetence has few bounds.
mind your (biased) conclusions - at the end of the day this might have very well been our westerly 'friends' (strong motive, ample opportunity, competence). They wanted to settle this issue once and for all and for that very reason they had the interest to act below the attribution threshold: Why this somehow conspirative secrecy even between scandinavien countries ??
So u still don't say why Russia do this even after the high officials in Russia analyze the bad Consequence, only because they are at war so they feel anxious and try every means to let the EU giving up support TO the UKR what ever the cost😂? If that really is, Russia is stupid,but it's not
Usually I really enjoy your videos and follow and agree with you. This however, feels a little "off". You more or less only give the reason "The US would be too afraid to be caught to do it" as the argument for the US not to have done it. I do not think history shows that the US is afraid to do covert operations to interfere with global events, even if there is a risk of getting "caught". Not on their home soil and not abroad. MK Ultra, Bay of Pigs, Midnight Shadow, Bay of Tonkin and more comes to mind. On top of the fact that they have a history of risk willingness, I also think their intelligence surpasses the nations around the Baltic in the sense that they could be fairly sure that they would not be caught. Quid pro quo. They stand to gain most of all from this. Please don't use the quote from Biden as the reason to them wanting to do it. They want to shift the energy dependence from Russia, to the US. Russia has no logic reason to do it, unless you really look for some far fetched reason of making Europe afraid of sabotage attacks. And that Russia doesn't think "normally" now. They could "hide" behind the "we need spare parts, therefore we close the pipes"-reason until the war end. And that would also pressure Germany and the rest of Europe. Glæder mig til næste video. :)
Very much appreciated analysis but as a German I'd like to contradict that a relevant number of Germans believe the US might have blown up the pipelines. These accusations are prominently promoted and orchestrated by certain groups (conspiracy theorists, ultra left and right) but there is a difference between noise and size. The idea that the US would take such a risk to blow up pipelines that are put out of service since weeks or did not even enter service at all is obviously nonsense. By the way, the time when Nordstream 2 was opposed mostly by the US, sanctions where the tool the US has used. It would have been sanctions again before anything more escalating had been applied. Russia knows that the times of big gas business with Germany are gone for good. Sabotaging these pipelines for psychological warfare reasons seems to be the most value that increasingly desperate Russians assumed they can pull off.
To his first point of it being a 4d chess move to make it SEEM like the US did it to create division, I don’t buy that. The vast majority just listens to mainstream media opinions, it’s very unlikely that a significant number of Germans would significantly move from supporting the US side to the Russian side over this. It’s possible but I think it’s a very small benefit to the Russians compared to the cost
To his point that the Americans would have done the operation below the detection threshold. I agree that this would have been more beneficial to the USA but how would the achieve that? How to you destroy a pipeline without it looking like someone deliberately destroyed it? I don’t think that’s possible frankly. Pipelines are extremely robust from what I know and they don’t just break. Especially not 3 pipelines that are right next to each other at the same time
As to why they blew it up in the North Sea and not in Saint Petersburg. I don’t know. That’s an interesting point. But maybe US ships were already in that area, making it more convenient and somewhat less detectable? I really don’t know though
The analysis about it possibly being climate activists was super shallow and made not sense in my opinion, and the saying “the US wouldn’t have taken such a risk to shut down a pipeline that was already closed” is almost offensively dumb and backwards in my opinions. I’m sorry but this point I’m losing faith that you are even arguing in good faith. Why would Russia take this risk over a pipeline that was already closed?? And most importanltly - The lever for that closed pipeline was in RUSSIAS hands not the US. That was their bargaining chip. Those same arguments applied in reverse clearly make for a much much stronger case that Russia wouldn’t do this and that the US would do this. How did you fail to mention this?
I totally agree with this analysis. I think Russia saw the writing on the wall with this pipeline and tried to cash in the chips while they still might be worth something. This move sows division in the west (which is working) and can also be blamed on the U.S. (a fan favourite), with the added benefit of intimidating European countries (notably those who are geographically close and may or may not be forming new military alliances with a certain treaty organisation)
Well, this comment is promising. I've yet to watch the video but that's basically what my thinking on this situation is. Pipelines are now useless to russia. They're off, they're staying off, Europe is never going to be its main customer again. Blowing up the pipeline in a very visually distinctive way (giant jacuzzis in the Baltics are pretty impressive) is the only thing they're useful for now as it might damage European energy markets more, putting pressure on Europe but more importantly, causing friction between EU states on how to proceed. Blame the US to add more friction.
@@Logarithm906 The pipes are not useless, Russia made sure to keep one out of the two Nordstream two pipelines intact, which again proves it was behind the attack BTW.
Since the pipelines were attacked Finland and Sweden have not shown the slightest indication of withdrawing their applications to join NATO. Twenty-eight countries have approved their accession bid and when Turkey and Hungary follow suit it will be a done deal.
I like it, but... as an European i still believe US did it...... Russia had Germany by the balls, US needed to remove that trump card from Russia and get Germany into the war not hiding behind it own economical interests. And looking in the back light it looks like it was a success
It's pretty convient to not mention how happy the U.S. was stating that this is a tremendous opportunity for the EU to not be relying on Russian gas and rely on the U.S. Watched a few videos of yours, and concluded that you do make some fair points here and there, but in the end after excluding key details that occurred in the time, you're pointing the blame on Russia. What about how the U.S. threatened to do this before the conflict started? What about some key politicial figures thanking the U.S. and afterwards deleting the statement? What about the fact this was done in EU waters that are under EU control? What about the fact that the U.S. conducted military exercises a few weeks beforehand in the area? And lastly how come the actual news sites aren't saying its Russia? So far they've been screaming Russia about everything. Your car tire is blown? It's Russia, your car got scratched ? Must be Russia! This has been throughout the conflict like this, and the one moment where they could say it's Russia, all of a sudden complete silence. Trying to create reasons for Russia to do this, and changing the likelihood of other countries being Involved. Not saying it's impossible that it's Russia, however ignoring( or actively hiding) key points that occurred at the moment it happened, and pretending that people that suspect that it isn't Russia are for some reason are stupid for seeing to many coincidences? And now you're telling me that Russia, the Russia that everyone is saying is fighting with sticks and throwing rocks because of how incompetent they are , made such an extraordinary plan and blow up the biggest advantage they had over the EU? I call that non sense.
Better case? Makes no sense. Russia didn't attack their own people. Azov did. Russia is already building back homes the region. Hitting the pipeline makes no sense for the Russians. US or close ally did. People need to wake up United States is becoming a pawn to the United Nations. United? UN is United-ly run by woke tyrants.
Indeed. I think one of the problems with this - at least for me - is that there has been no good arguments presented for why Russia would do this, and an overabundance of "of course Russia did, they're the bad guys". As with origins of Covid it is the absence of speculation, what looks like a manufactured silence in the press, that makes one suspicious. In terms of straight forward effects, cui bono, it is extremely hard not to jump to "someone who wanted Germany to have no choices". My first thought was Baltics + Poland. But the risks there if exposed would be too great, might rupture NATO quite badly.
@@Asptuber That and 'Russia has nothing to lose (i.e. Ukraine War going badly, Putin's only options for escalation; 1. conventional mobilization -which is sputtering out before it begins, 2. attack western civilian infrastructure, 3. nuclear - would likely not have desired effect and have huge downside, so choose Option 2), Putin is acting erratically/irrationally (an argument I'd normally dismiss out of hand but given the conduct of the Ukraine War actually sounds plausible)' is the gist of Anders argument if I understand him correctly. Given the huge downside of attribution if done by a western/european country this doesn't sound quite as crazy on second thought as it does on first blush.
It's funny how you make hypothesis around your conclusions 😁 but I should say you tried your best to convince the unconvinsible theory.. Dead sure it's the US and Nordic who did it 😅
@@andrzejbarcelonafrlk6416 Yes of course but Yanks are masters on that matter. As french i know that we have done a lot of that! But the usa are ready to do anithing toe wreck Russia. Think the way the Deep State think. Out of chaos (they made) they will place they Order. Bless you. Sorry for my poor english.
I agree it was Russia they had much to gain from it legally break contracts and energy black mailing EU and putin seen the nordstteam was done anyway usa wouldn't attack it and risk losing support from Germany and other allies
All the facts and arguments you have mentioned are called circumstantial evidence and analyzis. However, all those facts and conclusions you mentioned can play in support of the suspicion of one or the other of the potential contenders or culprits. For instance, the argument that Russia did it to undermine the cohesion in Europe. it would also be just as sound to argue that the US did it to strengthen such cohesion, and prevent it from waning, especially, in view of the increasing popular suffering and the beginning of some war opposing voices in Europe which may be exacerbated by the coming winter conditions. The sabotage will increase fear and the perception of risk posed by Russia to Europe sovreignty and economic well being, which makes it easier, and more acceptable to pay the price in term of suffering the harch could coming winter, and the ever increasing price of alternative sources of energy imported from so far, and uncertain territories.
You say it does not make sence financially for Russia to blow up their own pipeline. Well, I think it could make sense in the long term, as this leak is probably fixed in short time, but the fear in peoples heads remains that such things can happen anytime. And stock prices can be influenced by fear. So maybe that was part of the thinking. And for that it makes sense to me to do this exactly while the line is shut down anyways.
And of course, Gazprom now says that one of the sanctioned pipes is viable. Whilst the two that they claim are not working are now trashed so is no loss to Russia. Talking about operational design, any Western country that wanted to do such a sabotage will have been able to count to four and got all four pipes.
Thank you for talking about this topic - I was afraid you wouldn’t be allowed to talk more on this issue! Watched you on TV where you also explained the concept of Hybrid Warfare and the space for covert operations - always a bit weird hearing you talk Danish because I’m so used to you speaking English here on TH-cam! Also, you’re definitely spot on on this issue! Tak for din kæmpe indsats for at holde os opdaterede - er virkelig taknemmelig for det!
The pipelines will be obsolete very soon anyway - and the benefit of blowing up their own pipeline is that we can’t even accuse them for an act of war against any of us! Also, now they don’t have to deliver agreed gas through NS1 and can get a much higher price on the gas they do deliver through other pipelines, such as the Yamal-Jamal-Jagal
Same. I thought I heard that the employees at "Forsvarsakademiet"/"The Defense Academy" had been told not to talk publicly about this issue. I was obviously wrong.
Greetings from Norway. That was my impression too! But I am glad that you where able to share your thoughts and insight again. We are quite worried here in Norway with alle the critical infrastructures in 5he North Sea and all 5he people we have working there.
@@raahauge It’s probably just the findings from the investigation then - and as long as they don’t say anything else than what they already has said publicly it’s not a problem - at least that’s my guess!
If you learned something from this video, please like, subscribe and comment. I think this is such a high quality channel that it deserves millions of subscribers.
Feel like the problem is you basically rest your whole argument after 2:50 on the idea that who materially is damaged needs to be set aside. To consider all possibilities certainly this is true. But it hardly makes your theory more plausible.
Another thing you don't mention is that Russia actually can gain money four doing this. The price off gas can raise, they do have more pipeline and they hade have too pay fees if they stopped delivering gas from the nortstream.
useful video... but means, motive and opportunity still applies, russia has the two first, but getting that close to nato countries to blow up the pipelines has some major issues, timing for one, those explosives would have had to have been planted there for quite a while before they where triggered to avoid the nato anti mine exercise and also would have had to be done rather stealthily so as to not raise any alarms while nato have been in a heightened state of readiness... so yes, until we get more information we will have to wait and see... as usa have all three they cannot be discounted at any point - they where there in the area of the explosions and they had everything they needed to do it
This has answered all my questions about how, why and who in regards to the pipeline explosions. Outstanding analysis. I had a hard time making sense of it before. It makes sense now. Thank you Anders.
Can you help me please, because I still cannot understand the reasoning. The first part of the video states that the operation was designed in a special way. My imagination fails to find any other way of permanently disabling the pipeline. US tried stop it through sanctions, it kinda worked, but now it is permanent. No computer attack or policy could do the same thing.
@@eugene7309 Policy would actually do the trick, it would just be very dick move from USA and not clandestine. Also cyber attack on such critical infrastructure would render it inoperable for months if not years until the end of investigation. Not to mention that you could have actually done the cyber attack in such a way that would render pipeline unusable. Over-pressurize it for example (if the pipe wouldn't blow up it would still have to be inspected - this would take years to allow European regulatory bodies to allow it to open). Force shutdowns due to attack and force lengthy investigations. Make use of how all of the European countries involved work and how lengthy the process of restoring faith and not having 80% of population be afraid that it will harm environment or brake down every couple of months, is. There were cyber attacks done on small scale as well as proof of concepts on similar machinery. Destructive cyber attacks. I'm not talking about "ha, ha we hacked your website and you're down for 3 hours". Also there could be gradient - basically invisible cyber attack on gas turbines, so compressors etc. It would take longer and would take some time, but with that you could regulate the damage. Take it down for couple of months for example. And again, you're not seen, in some cases, you're not even suspected. And yes - it is completely doable to physically destroy modern running engine that is controlled by computer - as is case in such huge infrastructure project. For similar cyber attack see Stuxnet. Though there were a lot more tests done on things that are very similar to what is used in Nordstream.
@@jannegrey593 Yeah, Stuxnet is actually a great example . Took a while to realise it was an attack, but once found was obviously a US attack as they were the only one with the tools and motives to do it. Trying to do a non detectable attack makes it more obvious who performed the attack.
The first thing out of Russia’s mouth was that they could fix it if sanctions were lifted. They also control the pigging (the tools used inside the pipe) of the line. Who ever did it also used excessive amounts of explosives. Where as a much smaller amount would have worked since what does not compress so the explosion has only one way to go and that into a empty pipe.
58 lbs of TNT or some equivalent of other explosive per pipeline. The pipe was not empty. It contained gas at over 100 barg to 160 barg. The pipe is 26mm thick wall steel at that point.
This is a fantastic analysis ….however how would you conduct a clandestine action that would seriously prevent the pipeline from operating? Unless you answer this question your analysis isn’t complete. I would be interested to hear your thoughts. You mention a cyberattack but I don’t think that would sabotage the pipeline in the same way. Long term this is still a fantastic opportunity for the US to get Europe hooked on American LNG. Leaving the Baltic pipeline open would seem like a job unfinished if it was the Russians
The idea that Russia did it is torturous. They had the most to lose and the least to gain. Think like a cop: means, motive, and opportunity. You lost a LOT of credibility with me on this one, and discoveries in Germany since you made this video have now completely obliterated your assertions.
They're not really that insightful. As usually, the guy has a conclusion and then looks for a way to reach it. I occasionally get his stuff reccomended by YT and it's always the same MO.
This guy is a military analyst at the Royal Danish Defence College and have a background as a naval officer. Did you expect him risk losing his job by blaming other than the russians?
Very good, insightful analysis. What both gives me confidence and disturbs me is that, except for the models of assessing it, your thoughts and conclusions are exactly those I had tuesday morning when I first heard about the leaks that monday. Tak skal du have!
Well done and Russia also now avoids business liability now as well and doesn't need to use a busted Turbine as and excuse as to why they are breaking their contract temporarily as now the line is broken and they can't deliver gas anyway.
This like many other Anders Puck videos with his disdain for Russia aged like fine milk. Russia blew up the Nord Stream 2, what a fucking joke xD
What a good propaganda tool, it gets more and more sophisticated
Anders, how much money do you make out of brainfarting this much of biased nonsense? Let's be open about this, shall we?
You know they could have stopped sending the gas, right 😂😂.
What nonsensical analysis. Start with "if we have an idea about the purpose of the attack, then we know who did it". "Then end with: people put too much emphasis on "why would Russia do this?".
Could you revisit this topic, in light of intelligence leaks blaming Ukraine? I still find it hard to believe as the adverse consequences for Ukraine might have been huge in that case. Or did Ukraine calculate that there is already too much of a commitment from Western states, for them to stop aid if Ukraine were to do such a thing? Makes the matter even more complicated, I'm really interested in further analysis of this case.
The US government blew it up, and they're changing the narrative because everyone started catching on to their bullcrap.
show me one link or one piece of evidence tbat ukraine did it
@@PolishBehemoth One example, coverage from the Washington Post about Roman Chervinsky. I find it extremely important to support Ukraine, so I do not understand if / why they would risk western support by destroying the pipeline. As most analysis is based on propaganda, I would love more well-informed analysis of this case.
This was the worst analyses I've every heard. First off it doesn't at all take in consideration what we already know. Which is the following:
1) Condoleezza Rice ( Former Secretary of State under President Georgia Bush) Stated in an interview yrs ago that we needed to end Europe's reliance on Russian gas.
2.) That President Biden stated before the invasion that if Russia did it there would be no way that Nord Stream would go forward. When asked by a journalist how that can happen when it's in Germany's control he replied that we have ways to make it happen.
3.) Victoria Nuland (Current Secretary of State of political affairs and previously was the Assistant Secretary of State under President Obama) She was part of the Regime change in Ukraine in 2014. She has stated in a press conference that if Russia Invaded that one way or another there would be no nord stream.
4.) You have Anthony Blinken (US secretary of state) Stating what a great opportunity it is.
5.) The fracture was already in existence before the sabotage of the pipelines. There were protests in early sept. in Germany where people were demanding the Germany gov't turn on the Pipeline. Germany didn't want to sanction gas in the beginning because it knew how detrimental it would be to their people. The US saw their weakness and feared they'd falter which they would have.
6.) It's known that US Marines with Ukraine were playing with submersible drones in the location of those pipelines.
7.) The US is part of the investigation. As a US citizen we all know how that will pan out. Because if it really was Russia it would be a major news story 24/7 here.
8.) If Russia did it as you claim then that means that all Nato countries are a failure at protecting their own infrastructure. Why didn't any of those countries and Yours notice Russian movement in the area? How did they get through? And If the US did which there is plenty statements and behaviors made that point to us doing it it still makes Nato countries look weak.
9.) If you think the US gov't couldn't do it and wouldn't do it then you are being naive. My gov't is the only nation that dropped two atomic (nukes) bombs on another sovereign country that were NEVER justified. It was purely for a flex on the world. Yet they hid the Truth and propagandized the masses about it for decades.
Funny how you left this all out of your analysis just so you could tell the uniformed that Russia did it.
I think it is dangerous for people in influential positions to point fingers, when that is not supported by better arguments than Nielsen provides. In my opinion, Nielsen cannot substantiate that the sabotage and its operational design have consequences that align with Russia's assumed objectives, and without a chance of reaching those objectives, there is no reason for Russia to take this risk (the sabotage), whether it is losing or not.
Before going into details, let's discuss why this finger-pointing is dangerous. Wars are not won nor ended on the battlefield, but instead on the negotiation table. People at that table are not necessarily friends or in agreement, but they must have a thorough understanding of each other. Without thorough understanding, negotiations are not likely to be effective or to bring lasting results. The lack of understanding additionally reduces the perceived need for negotiation, "because it won't help anyway": a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that, in turn, leads to the status quo of more war and more suffering. Nielsen's story does not provide thorough understanding, but instead seems to consist of arguments that were drawn from a conclusion, instead of the other way round.
I am not an expert, and I am open to (substantial) arguments that convince me otherwise, or people pointing out where in my summaries I inadvertently applied logical fallacies!
Nielsen's argument to make Russia the most likely sponsor, first disses the idea that motive - who benefits? - plays an important role. It then uses a theory of hybrid warfare to point out consequences of the sabotage and its operational design. He suggests that these consequences align with Russia's, assumed, objectives. Then Nielsen uses prospect theory to explain that because Russia is losing the war, another assumption, Russia was willing to take a risks, the sabotage, to meet those assumed objectives.
My critique starts with the number of assumptions necessary to make the argument, in favour of a much simpler explanation: motif. To make it likely that Russia took the risk (the sabotage), Nielsen must assume that the Russians are losing the war, so that he can apply prospect theory: people take (more) risks when they are losing. He does not substantiate this assumption. But even if this assumption holds, he must make another assumption, namely about Russia's objectives. Because, losing or not, a risk will only be taken _if there are objectives and there is a non-zero chance of achieving those._ Hence, Nielsen must link the consequences of the operation (the taken risk) to these assumed objectives, if any. That is a lot of assumptions for one argument! And even if all these assumptions hold, the argument only works if, and only if it can be shown that the sabotage and its operational design indeed lead to the consequences described. I will explain that they (the sabotage and its operational design) do not.
One proposed consequence of the sabotage is that it exposes the vulnerability of energy infrastructure and effectively instils fear. There are examples from the past that show the ability and willingness to destroy energy infrastructure on land, for example in the Baku-Novorossiysk case. It is not far-fetched to assume the same capability exists under sea, though it limits the number of suspects. The only new thing we learned from this specific sabotage, is therefore that somebody is willing to do it in this war. But proving that willingness only requires the sabotage of a single pipe. These pipes are long, and more destruction can be done later, at leisure in a remote place. Destroying a single pipe sends the same message, while retaining options. Options to sell gas in the future after all (Russia). Options to threaten Germany and Russia with destroying the rest of the pipeline (another sponsor). But that did not happen. The sabotage resulted in total incapacitation and no options for any party, without sending a stronger message when compared with a situation that left options open. A fail for all, including Russia. Russia doing this only makes sense if we make another assumption: Russia's traded its options away to achieve even better objectives that we don't know about. In summary, even if the assumed objective of this sabotage is to expose vulnerability and instil fear: it could have been done as effectively, at less expense, and with more options for the sponsor, instead of closing all doors. Of course, we can assume (again) that closing doors was the objective. In my opinion a silly one, and it only holds when the other consequences mentioned by Nielsen hold. Add to that the fact that, for all practical purposes, the door (the pipeline) was already closed.
Another proposed consequence of the sabotage is that it creates market uncertainty. Imagine a market with suppliers, and with households and industries (consumers). A significant gap in supply capacity causes market uncertainty consumers, because delivery is uncertain and the prices could become out of reach. However, the gap also makes higher prices more certain. This is good for existing suppliers, but also for additional suppliers: new suppliers that could not make a profit at the old price, or more expensive suppliers that now become competitive. After a while, these additional suppliers can stabilize the market. Now imagine that the original gap disappears again, and supply rises. Guaranteed high profits for existing suppliers disappear, and the additional suppliers, that entered the market after the original gap, are priced out of the market. This too will stabilize eventually, like with lower prices for consumers. But the prospect of a variable gap - that can appear and disappear unpredictably - discourages new investors, like the additional suppliers, to join the market. Therefore, a variable gap tends to maintain both uncertainty in terms of delivery, and higher prices that wobble depending on the size of the gap. To summarise, a permanent gap leads to a certain market with higher prices, an permanently absent gap leads to a certain market with lower prices, and a variable gap causes an uncertain market. The situation before the sabotage resembled a variable gap, as Russia controlled it. The sabotage replaced the variable gap by a permanent one. This made the market more certain for still-enabled suppliers - a great opportunity. It also could boost the transition to sustainable alternatives, a long term problem for suppliers. It could make the certainty of delivery worse for consumers. I assume that this uncertainty is not what Nielsen refers to. It would also be weird, given the Russian financial interests and boosting income for its adversaries. Therefore, I rate Nielsen's argument that the sabotage made the market less certain, at most half true.
The last proposed consequence is that the sabotage in covert form would lessen Europe's cohesion. I disagree. There was always a probability that Germany would buy and transport gas via Nordstream again, for example because of domestic political and economic pressure. That particular behaviour would be "incohesive" on Germany's part. The sabotage took away the possibility of that particular, incohesive behaviour, thereby forcing an increased likelihood of cohesion. Nielsen takes a different approach, proposing that the covert design of the operation intended to sow discord among friends and raise doubt, both leading to less cohesion Let's entertain that thought. The doubt definitely exists, and Nielsen uses protests as an example. However, the protests throughout Europe, though scarcely reported on, precede the sabotage and were not only about stopping sanctions for lower gas prices, but also about more fundamental issues concerning this war. Whatever the reasons for the protests, generalizing and considering them a consequence of the sabotage is at least a stretch. That leaves sowing discord among friends. Following Nielsen's reasoning, what friend on the winning side (prospect theory) would be so stupid as to risk this sabotage? Nielsen follows through correctly: no friend would. He also rules out the possibility of action-groups, and excellently so. Following through again, the most likely suspect is a losing enemy. However, the operation would therefore rather unite than divide friends that can follow this reasoning and see through the enemy's plot. This united-ness would only break if investigation elevates the operation above the response threshold and the sponsor is a (now former) friend. In my opinion, it is a tad naive to assume that Russia did not also entertain this reasoning and followed it through. It is even more naive as Russia is about the only country that presses for the result of investigations, while other countries refuse to release those for "security reasons."
My conclusion is that the sabotage and its operational design would not lead to consequences Nielsen describes. The scaremongering consequence could have been more effectively achieved with different tactics that would leave more control. The market-uncertainty consequences is almost the other way round. And the cohesion consequence has counter examples, and when followed through, negates itself. Without consequences being likely, they cannot establish likelihood that it was possible to meet attached objectives, objectives that were assumptions in the first place. And without a chance of achieving objectives, there is no reason that Russia would take a risk, even if it is losing the war, which is another assumption.
Therefore, we are back where we stared: we just don't know. And I already explained why pointing fingers on inconclusive speculation is dangerous.
[edit: typos and phrasing fixes]
This aged like milk.
Anyone remember Pukin with his buddy Lukashenka dumping several hundreds of immigrants on Polish-Belarusian border? That was around November last year.
One of the rare occasion I praised the TH-cam algorithm is recommending your channel to me. I always learned something new in your video, thank you so much!
He is pretty awesome. He is more or less the go to person that the danish media use when they need an informed opinion on something relating to war or power politics.
Yes, and he also doesn't just repeat what everyone else is saying, but truly brings a different analysis on the situation
Same here. Awesome channel!
Yeah outstanding channel. Also, I think there’s a trick to cultivating the algorithm to make good recommendations, for one don’t leave anything on your history that you don’t want it influenced by, I also generally don’t leave likes or dislikes since that can sway the returns too. The more you watch short vids the more short it’ll recommend and this is a good example of influencing it in real time, click on a few long vids or so and you’ll start seeing more long ones recommended pretty quick. So if you’re getting frustrated, try opening a few old vids similar to what you want new content on, gaming news etc. don’t have to watch but just get them in your recent history and it’ll fish around, once it gets a feel for what you want it can be pretty good tbh.
@@itsjustameme He is using western Propaganda to say Russia is loosing. Not true, the west is loosing. They are trying to start a nuclear incident but it will not work.
The West knows who did it and how it was done. Right now they are evaluating their options and whether they wish to make the information public, whether they wish to retaliate or not. They also need to decide if they do wish to retaliate, do they wish to make it public. The public may or not learn the truth, which is what is being debated now.
Seeing that the Karlskrona naval base is right there, I agree with you.
What a nonsense. Also, perhaps analysis of history of such actions might a point to consider. 1980s ? This is not a first rodeo. Also, what country openly threatens allies with sanctions, including sanctions for NS2 ? [ hint 2020, and 2022]. The paper trail of threats and complaints by multiple US presidents EU officials is a mile long: Germany is undermining EU enery policy, EU unity, it hurts financially Ukraine [ got compensated] or Poland, it benefits Russia, it should be buying US gas instead, etc.
Zeit journalist investigation suggests they identified the boat but not the team identity
nor who gave the order.
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Simply saying that it can't be X (the United States, in this case), because you're pretty sure that some hypothetical approach would have been better doesn't work as an argument unless you can at least propose an example of what that hypothetical better approach would be.
Because without that counter example, you're ignoring the most obvious reason why someone follows a sub-optimal path to a goal: because there is not actually a better alternative, either in means or ends.
It's like saying "well I'm pretty sure Hannibal didn't cross the Alps, because anyone would prefer to travel on flat ground."
I'm not even saying that the US did this (how could any of us possibly know?)
Anyone doing this would be taking a significant risk if discovered, and pretty much anyone other than Germany and Russia has a motive to keep Germany from caving in, and that there are a number of NATO countries, as well as Russia, who could have done it.
In criminal law terms: Means, Motive, Opportunity. The person who had something to gain, had the ability to do it, and an opportunity to do it, is a likely suspect. Ukraine and an NGO are obviously not responsible. As for the USA, Washington has no motive to disturb energy markets, but Putin has many good reasons to cause energy prices to rise.
🤣🤣🤣 every single person I have spoken to says the US did it to stop the Germans leaving the sanctions regime.
They are right .. US did it
Your own analysis suggests this is above the 'Attribution Threshold'. We strongly suspect it was Russia we just can't prove it or know quite yet how they did it.
This didn’t age well.
Proves this guy is a shill and everything else he’s talked about is suspect.
How's that Nordstream investigation coming along?
There's lots of speculative nonsense here, although the theory itself has some merits. The deductive reasoning here is not convincing at all; conclusions seem to be quite fantastical.
Someone who has tried very hard to use some gibberish around operational design to find a way to blame Russia for massively benefiting the US by blowing up their own pipelines. Pipelines they can shut any time by turning the taps off. Just look at how happy Blinken is about this.
What does a clandestine pipeline attack look like then? How do you not create awareness of an attack on one?
I agree with your conclusion that it’s the Russian but If so, why USA didn’t immediately made an announcement for not doing it? (Personally I think it would have been a dangerous move if USA did it).
German officials announced that there is no evidence incriminating Russia. Swedish investigation(cleanup) findings are "too sensitive" to be shared. Why would it be sensitive if it was Russia ? Isn't that the obvious ? All fingers are pointed at them, and you explain it very well. You should do a follow up of how theory blends with reality.
excellent point
Now 8 months after it happened, we know more than before. There are saved radar logs showing Russian presence at the time. A few weeks before the explosions, 4 boats depart from St. Petersburg, halfway through they turn off their transmitters, but continue to the pipelines, where one of the boats then goes back and forth along the pipes several times - even if they have turned off their transmitters, they are visible on the radar. And a few days before the explosions, 2 boats, with transmitters turned off, set out from St. Petersburg one of which (SS-750) is a special craft carrying 2 mini submarines with grappling claws. They stay exactly at the site of the explosions where they are for about 18 hours, before returning. This is also visible on the radar and that the Danish Air Force photographed the boats on the spot. Pretty hard to explain away that it wouldn't be the Russians.
America did it. saved you 14 minutes
Anders I think there is 3 additions to this:
1) Gas prices were starting to fall the week prior to the bombings, that was not in the interest off Ruzzia, they want gas prices high also to hurt Europe this winter!
2) A Ruzzian professor came up with the theory that the Ruzzians did it because there were rumours off a law suit coming from Germany on breaking the contract! (alternative: Gazprom revencing that their top manegement got lost, falling out off windows)
3) By blaming the US/West for it, their narrative is: see their are coming to get us! (same time distracting from the war and the mobilisation)
Absolute nonsense
1) Grasping at straws
2) Irrelevant. Gazprom would not care because they are a Russian company based in Russia, so there would be no reach.
3) More grasping at straws
I think a fair assessment is that it was the Americans. You can always find arguments for everything. You arguments for Russia doing it is far weaker, than the arguments for 9/11 being an inside job or that there was no moon landing (not that I would agree - I have no idea, and don't really care).
Best regards!
The contract theory is just gibberish. Russia doesnt care about contracts, money or even reality, otherwise it wouldnt have started the war.
Not to mention, he thinks Russia cares enough about law to want to avoid paying fines, but not enough to publically blow up a pipeline? Imma call bullshit on that one.
It's not even a case of price, if it's not there now and you require it immediately, paying 1900 times the price for extra elsewhere in 5 days simply might not be enough.
@@itube0047 The idea that america did this is just as absurd as the reason being gas contracts. If you think so, then you dont understand the situation, like at all. Idk why youre even talking about this.
Watch the video. It explains a few reasons why what happened is nonsensical for the US but fits Russias behaviour.
@@termitreter6545 The fact that you are surprised someone is talking about this says enough about your open-mindedness. Lots of strange things happened in the last few years, before that as well but not as much in plain sight. You have to carefully judge each situation, and just because one video disagrees with a point of view, doesn't mean the video is automatically right. That's very narrowly minded. All I know is the Americans can't be trusted as well, I'm also not saying the Russians can be trusted. But the elites are playing their games and it's the common folk who always suffer the most, that's something I'm 100% sure of.
You didn't convince me that the americans were not involved. It absolutely would makes sense that the americans would conduct such an operation closer to allied countries, so as not to be detected by russians (why they wouldn't do it closer to skt petersburg). furthermore there is sadly many examples of the united states having agreements with the governments of their allies, deals which go against popular opinion in those allied countries (the many cases of espionage on european populations by americans, sanctioned by european governments). It takes alot to trust the americans :D and when there senile president made it very clear that they WOULD STOP THE PIPLEINE if russia invades, makes it abundantly clear. You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to think the americans did it. Who is to say that US don't want an all out war against russia? The narrative have changed lately.
It’s an emperor’s new clothes situation. Everyone can clearly see this was done by the West but no one is allowed to talk about it.
@@rykwon4535 couldn't agree more. where you from man?
@@zukyozelf7144 from the US, the belly of the beast lol
@@rykwon4535 haha well damn i'm sure you know more of the sitch as it develops there.. but you guys also stopped talking about this "incident"? right?... never mentioned on network TV in Denmark no more. We actually had an investigative documentary not too long after about the nordstream pipeline bombing. It only really dealt with the possibility of a russian ship being the antagonist of the story :D :D i mean.. people ate it raw here. Safe to say, it's really easy to herd people, much like sheep.
@@zukyozelf7144 are people in Denmark mad about the pipeline being blown up? It affects you guys much more than us (on the contrary it helps our economy).
this is a pretty good summary of US coverage: th-cam.com/video/NSZyKYitC3M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zxp8WgsP3DMpeGdo
The possibility that it was us wasn’t even allowed to be mentioned lol. Among people I know, they have either a) never heard of Nordstream or b) think I’m a conspiracy theorist for blaming the the CIA.
Mainstream news in the US has been in rapid decline since the 2016 Trump victory. They lost a handle on the narrative. That’s why they’re trying to ban TikTok here.
US already blown its up in 1982. Just use google and read history instead of spend time to fantasize why RF shoot themselves in a foot.
I wish all to keep agreements by your opponents. And good memory, not to forget this agreements in favourable moment.😅
lol! Do people really take this guy seriously?? 😅
Very seriously unfortunately.
I wish other You Tube channels would adopt your three second intro montage. There's no reason for a 15 minute video to have a 90 or more second intro.
You're thinking way too deep. Motive is very simple, follow the money. Russia gains nothing. So who has the most to gain monetary? .... America. Who needs to defend their financial fiat currency? … America.
It's not even been a year and this lie has already completely fallen apart.
Think a little further ahead next time.
Has it fallen apart?
Hardly. Rather the opposite, in fact, as evidence of russian activity in the area is solid, while other "theories" are generally based on anonymous sources, sloppy investigations, failure to consider any available open source evidence, and defy even a minimum of logic cohesion.
Oliver Alexander's substack is a good place to start. You may also look into the common investigations conducted by Scandinavian journalists, published earlier this year.
Unfortunately, youtube won't let me post links, but you'll find all this if you want to, it is really not difficult.
@@tordsteiro9838 I couldn't help thinking of Puck when I saw this little headline, but then I saw I never did respond properly to you. Didn't seem worth the bother. But this isn't much of a bother at all: "Ukrainian military officer coordinated Nord Stream pipeline attack" - Washington post, just now.
I am impressed. You are very, very convincing. Let me add something that might make your argument even more convincing: the explosions only destroyed PART of the Nordstream pipelines. (If Russia and the EU wanted to, they could pump gas from Russia through the remaining functional half of the NS II pipeline.) Ask yourself: if a country other than Russia had performed this sabotage, wouldn't they have wanted to reduce Russia's ability to pump gas to zero?
What exactly could be done "below the detection threshold" that wouldn't look sus in this situation? Cyber attack or sabotage near St Petersburg would leave people thinking "the Americans did a cyber attack"/etc. We're here saying "who did it? " but also "if NATO did it they would have concealed it better"; how?
LOL! What a pile of nonsense. Brandon did it.
The pipeline was already shut. But still acted as leverage for future negotiations. Now it is blown up. And that leverage is gone. Who benefits?
NS1 was shut , NS 2 wasn't open yet.
Mind please that one pipeline of NS2 is left untouched, so it's more 'treat or trick' than leverage now.
I'm not really convinced about the "below detection" option in this particular case. How on earth should it be possible to make these pipelines dysfunctional without anyone noticing that somebody made them dysfunctional?
It was Eskimos, undetected in their leather kayaks. They want to make us drill on Greenland. But it was not Americans. They wouldn't. They are good guys, all of them!
Theres a lot of ways to do this without blowing them up with 100s of kilograms of TNT equivalent.
Structurally weaken the pipeline, so they just burst at some point, maybe even try to make it look like an accident. Sabotage the ground stations so that opening the valves again causes a critcal failure. Make it so that its hard to detect, looks like an accident, or only happens when the pipeline is actually reactivated.
Im not an expert, but you got a serious lack of imagination if you think making it look like a giant act of terror was the only thing to do this. And you wont understand any of the politics if you cant imagine anything else.
Question is why haven’t they stopped pumping gas into it? Answer, their storage tanks were full, domestic use at 100% and millions of tonnes of gas is still coming out the ground needing moved on. They burn $10m worth a day by flaring off, blowing the pipes has let them off gas and pollute polish, German, Swedish and Danish waters instead of their own air only.
@@stevepirie8130 From what I read, one has to keep the pipes full of gas because the pipe is designed to use the inner pressure to resist the outer pressure. If I understand correctly, this also means the entire pipe is probably not any more structurally safe and would probably be "written off", if ever the EU needs and wants another such pipe (after a regime change in Russia) that means building another one.
below detection doesn't need to mean no one noticed a problem, it just means that the fact it was an attack/operation is left undetected. This can be as simple as intercepting and switching out some replacement machine component in transit, with a weaker one that will break and cause catastrophic damage. To everyone else looking at it, it seems like an accident. Therefore the sabotage remains undetected. A well hidden cyberattack could also be used to cause a machine to damage itself without being obvious.
While not an example of an operation meant to remain undetected, when the US sabotaged the Iranian nuclear program, they did so by inserting malware into the devices that controlled the centrifuges that enrich the uranium before they were delivered, then the malware caused the centrifuges to spin so fast they destroyed themselves. So the technical and operational capabilities to cause sabotage covertly was demonstrated.
15 minutes long and missing the crucial US P8 poseidon sub hunter flight data..
it wasn't an attack. it was methane hydrate solids. someone shut off a pump.
when you shut down a pipeline, methane hydrate solids build up. you can't clean the pipe without gas flow, and there was no gas flow.
when methane hydrate solids build up, and the pipe is depressurized, the solids move at near the speed of sound towards the depressurization. then at any valve or constriction in the pipeline, those solids explode.
look up "removing methane hydrate solids" on petrowiki. it shows exactly what I'm talking about.
the pics of the pipeline show the edges curling out, not in. indicating an explosion from inside the pipe. all explosions happened at valves or constrictions in the pipe.
if it makes you feel better, the pump was shut off on the russian end. honestly you can attribute it to incompetence rather than malice,...russian incompetence has few bounds.
mind your (biased) conclusions - at the end of the day this might have very well been our westerly 'friends' (strong motive, ample opportunity, competence). They wanted to settle this issue once and for all and for that very reason they had the interest to act below the attribution threshold: Why this somehow conspirative secrecy even between scandinavien countries ??
Do you know that one pipe of NS2 was left untouched?
+ There are also Russian - EU gas pipes on land ?
This is complete nonsense!
I use USA theory.
Money is the hole grail and I want it!
You won't get it.
Thank you very much for your deep insights! Your videos help tremendesly to understand the current global situation.
So u still don't say why Russia do this even after the high officials in Russia analyze the bad Consequence, only because they are at war so they feel anxious and try every means to let the EU giving up support TO the UKR what ever the cost😂? If that really is, Russia is stupid,but it's not
Usually I really enjoy your videos and follow and agree with you. This however, feels a little "off". You more or less only give the reason "The US would be too afraid to be caught to do it" as the argument for the US not to have done it. I do not think history shows that the US is afraid to do covert operations to interfere with global events, even if there is a risk of getting "caught". Not on their home soil and not abroad. MK Ultra, Bay of Pigs, Midnight Shadow, Bay of Tonkin and more comes to mind. On top of the fact that they have a history of risk willingness, I also think their intelligence surpasses the nations around the Baltic in the sense that they could be fairly sure that they would not be caught. Quid pro quo. They stand to gain most of all from this. Please don't use the quote from Biden as the reason to them wanting to do it. They want to shift the energy dependence from Russia, to the US. Russia has no logic reason to do it, unless you really look for some far fetched reason of making Europe afraid of sabotage attacks. And that Russia doesn't think "normally" now. They could "hide" behind the "we need spare parts, therefore we close the pipes"-reason until the war end. And that would also pressure Germany and the rest of Europe. Glæder mig til næste video. :)
I think it's pretty obvious that Mauritius did it.
Who else would have the motive and ability to do so.😁
The Vatican?
They are in terrible state of mind since the scandals...
Very much appreciated analysis but as a German I'd like to contradict that a relevant number of Germans believe the US might have blown up the pipelines. These accusations are prominently promoted and orchestrated by certain groups (conspiracy theorists, ultra left and right) but there is a difference between noise and size. The idea that the US would take such a risk to blow up pipelines that are put out of service since weeks or did not even enter service at all is obviously nonsense. By the way, the time when Nordstream 2 was opposed mostly by the US, sanctions where the tool the US has used. It would have been sanctions again before anything more escalating had been applied.
Russia knows that the times of big gas business with Germany are gone for good. Sabotaging these pipelines for psychological warfare reasons seems to be the most value that increasingly desperate Russians assumed they can pull off.
I’m German and I think the US did it. It just makes the most sense from everything I know. (But I haven’t watched the video yet)
To his first point of it being a 4d chess move to make it SEEM like the US did it to create division, I don’t buy that. The vast majority just listens to mainstream media opinions, it’s very unlikely that a significant number of Germans would significantly move from supporting the US side to the Russian side over this.
It’s possible but I think it’s a very small benefit to the Russians compared to the cost
To his point that the Americans would have done the operation below the detection threshold.
I agree that this would have been more beneficial to the USA but how would the achieve that?
How to you destroy a pipeline without it looking like someone deliberately destroyed it? I don’t think that’s possible frankly. Pipelines are extremely robust from what I know and they don’t just break. Especially not 3 pipelines that are right next to each other at the same time
As to why they blew it up in the North Sea and not in Saint Petersburg. I don’t know. That’s an interesting point. But maybe US ships were already in that area, making it more convenient and somewhat less detectable?
I really don’t know though
The analysis about it possibly being climate activists was super shallow and made not sense in my opinion, and the saying “the US wouldn’t have taken such a risk to shut down a pipeline that was already closed” is almost offensively dumb and backwards in my opinions. I’m sorry but this point I’m losing faith that you are even arguing in good faith.
Why would Russia take this risk over a pipeline that was already closed??
And most importanltly - The lever for that closed pipeline was in RUSSIAS hands not the US. That was their bargaining chip.
Those same arguments applied in reverse clearly make for a much much stronger case that Russia wouldn’t do this and that the US would do this. How did you fail to mention this?
I totally agree with this analysis. I think Russia saw the writing on the wall with this pipeline and tried to cash in the chips while they still might be worth something. This move sows division in the west (which is working) and can also be blamed on the U.S. (a fan favourite), with the added benefit of intimidating European countries (notably those who are geographically close and may or may not be forming new military alliances with a certain treaty organisation)
I'm not an American but the notion that the United States would damage a gas pipeline like that is crazy/whacko/QAnan nonsense.
Well, this comment is promising. I've yet to watch the video but that's basically what my thinking on this situation is.
Pipelines are now useless to russia. They're off, they're staying off, Europe is never going to be its main customer again.
Blowing up the pipeline in a very visually distinctive way (giant jacuzzis in the Baltics are pretty impressive) is the only thing they're useful for now as it might damage European energy markets more, putting pressure on Europe but more importantly, causing friction between EU states on how to proceed.
Blame the US to add more friction.
What people don't realize is that Putin has been waging hybrid war against Europe since he got into power.
@@Logarithm906 The pipes are not useless, Russia made sure to keep one out of the two Nordstream two pipelines intact, which again proves it was behind the attack BTW.
Since the pipelines were attacked Finland and Sweden have not shown the slightest indication of withdrawing their applications to join NATO. Twenty-eight countries have approved their accession bid and when Turkey and Hungary follow suit it will be a done deal.
I like it, but... as an European i still believe US did it...... Russia had Germany by the balls, US needed to remove that trump card from Russia and get Germany into the war not hiding behind it own economical interests. And looking in the back light it looks like it was a success
It's pretty convient to not mention how happy the U.S. was stating that this is a tremendous opportunity for the EU to not be relying on Russian gas and rely on the U.S.
Watched a few videos of yours, and concluded that you do make some fair points here and there, but in the end after excluding key details that occurred in the time, you're pointing the blame on Russia.
What about how the U.S. threatened to do this before the conflict started?
What about some key politicial figures thanking the U.S. and afterwards deleting the statement?
What about the fact this was done in EU waters that are under EU control?
What about the fact that the U.S. conducted military exercises a few weeks beforehand in the area?
And lastly how come the actual news sites aren't saying its Russia?
So far they've been screaming Russia about everything. Your car tire is blown? It's Russia, your car got scratched ? Must be Russia!
This has been throughout the conflict like this, and the one moment where they could say it's Russia, all of a sudden complete silence.
Trying to create reasons for Russia to do this, and changing the likelihood of other countries being Involved.
Not saying it's impossible that it's Russia, however ignoring( or actively hiding) key points that occurred at the moment it happened, and pretending that people that suspect that it isn't Russia are for some reason are stupid for seeing to many coincidences?
And now you're telling me that Russia, the Russia that everyone is saying is fighting with sticks and throwing rocks because of how incompetent they are , made such an extraordinary plan and blow up the biggest advantage they had over the EU?
I call that non sense.
Interesting. You made a better case than I've heard elsewhere. Thanks Anders.
Better case? Makes no sense. Russia didn't attack their own people. Azov did. Russia is already building back homes the region. Hitting the pipeline makes no sense for the Russians. US or close ally did. People need to wake up United States is becoming a pawn to the United Nations. United? UN is United-ly run by woke tyrants.
Indeed. I think one of the problems with this - at least for me - is that there has been no good arguments presented for why Russia would do this, and an overabundance of "of course Russia did, they're the bad guys".
As with origins of Covid it is the absence of speculation, what looks like a manufactured silence in the press, that makes one suspicious.
In terms of straight forward effects, cui bono, it is extremely hard not to jump to "someone who wanted Germany to have no choices". My first thought was Baltics + Poland.
But the risks there if exposed would be too great, might rupture NATO quite badly.
@@Asptuber That and 'Russia has nothing to lose (i.e. Ukraine War going badly, Putin's only options for escalation; 1. conventional mobilization -which is sputtering out before it begins, 2. attack western civilian infrastructure, 3. nuclear - would likely not have desired effect and have huge downside, so choose Option 2), Putin is acting erratically/irrationally (an argument I'd normally dismiss out of hand but given the conduct of the Ukraine War actually sounds plausible)' is the gist of Anders argument if I understand him correctly. Given the huge downside of attribution if done by a western/european country this doesn't sound quite as crazy on second thought as it does on first blush.
"Better" in the sense that with some insane mental gymnastics he managed to blame Russia, which makes no sense at all in this case.
I really wish the general population had Nielsen's analytical and logical deduction capabilities.
Be happy, they have it!
The Russian are at war, they do crazy things!! 😂
Do you know who else blew up gas pipelines in Nicaragua in 1984? USA!
It's funny how you make hypothesis around your conclusions 😁 but I should say you tried your best to convince the unconvinsible theory.. Dead sure it's the US and Nordic who did it 😅
Well i think you wrong. Usa in the past have never stop blowing up contries Chili, Irak, Vietnam, etc
Russia didn't?
@@andrzejbarcelonafrlk6416 Yes of course but Yanks are masters on that matter. As french i know that we have done a lot of that! But the usa are ready to do anithing toe wreck Russia. Think the way the Deep State think. Out of chaos (they made) they will place they Order. Bless you. Sorry for my poor english.
You can really explain things very good about this topic thx for covering this! Also, I saw you on the Dutch national television about the northstream
Thank you for your video, I found it most interesting 😀👍
Best wishes from the West Country area of the U.K.
Nielsen
What are the results of the Danish Police investigation?
What explosive was used, what evidence was secured and who did it?
I agree it was Russia they had much to gain from it legally break contracts and energy black mailing EU and putin seen the nordstteam was done anyway usa wouldn't attack it and risk losing support from Germany and other allies
Really waited for a new analysis from this channel
Shilly.
You should be talking on the TV in every European country...
All the facts and arguments you have mentioned are called circumstantial evidence and analyzis. However, all those facts and conclusions you mentioned can play in support of the suspicion of one or the other of the potential contenders or culprits. For instance, the argument that Russia did it to undermine the cohesion in Europe. it would also be just as sound to argue that the US did it to strengthen such cohesion, and prevent it from waning, especially, in view of the increasing popular suffering and the beginning of some war opposing voices in Europe which may be exacerbated by the coming winter conditions. The sabotage will increase fear and the perception of risk posed by Russia to Europe sovreignty and economic well being, which makes it easier, and more acceptable to pay the price in term of suffering the harch could coming winter, and the ever increasing price of alternative sources of energy imported from so far, and uncertain territories.
You say it does not make sence financially for Russia to blow up their own pipeline. Well, I think it could make sense in the long term, as this leak is probably fixed in short time, but the fear in peoples heads remains that such things can happen anytime. And stock prices can be influenced by fear. So maybe that was part of the thinking. And for that it makes sense to me to do this exactly while the line is shut down anyways.
Another excellent commentary, thanks
Not convincing. Sorry.
hilarious content 😂
I don't think it is Russia... simple and straightforward
And of course, Gazprom now says that one of the sanctioned pipes is viable. Whilst the two that they claim are not working are now trashed so is no loss to Russia.
Talking about operational design, any Western country that wanted to do such a sabotage will have been able to count to four and got all four pipes.
Thank you for talking about this topic - I was afraid you wouldn’t be allowed to talk more on this issue!
Watched you on TV where you also explained the concept of Hybrid Warfare and the space for covert operations - always a bit weird hearing you talk Danish because I’m so used to you speaking English here on TH-cam!
Also, you’re definitely spot on on this issue!
Tak for din kæmpe indsats for at holde os opdaterede - er virkelig taknemmelig for det!
The pipelines will be obsolete very soon anyway - and the benefit of blowing up their own pipeline is that we can’t even accuse them for an act of war against any of us!
Also, now they don’t have to deliver agreed gas through NS1 and can get a much higher price on the gas they do deliver through other pipelines, such as the Yamal-Jamal-Jagal
Same. I thought I heard that the employees at "Forsvarsakademiet"/"The Defense Academy" had been told not to talk publicly about this issue. I was obviously wrong.
Greetings from Norway. That was my impression too! But I am glad that you where able to share your thoughts and insight again. We are quite worried here in Norway with alle the critical infrastructures in 5he North Sea and all 5he people we have working there.
@@raahauge
It’s probably just the findings from the investigation then - and as long as they don’t say anything else than what they already has said publicly it’s not a problem - at least that’s my guess!
@@gorillaguerillaDK I think you are right. In the video Anders is not sharing any information that is not already public.
If you learned something from this video, please like, subscribe and comment. I think this is such a high quality channel that it deserves millions of subscribers.
True, it really does!
And share the link on other channels comment sections whenever discussing about topics that Anders covered. His videos are consistently an eye-opener
@@enricogattone432 Anders and Perun together really help you understand the war in Ukraine.
Quacks like a duck…………
Feel like the problem is you basically rest your whole argument after 2:50 on the idea that who materially is damaged needs to be set aside. To consider all possibilities certainly this is true. But it hardly makes your theory more plausible.
Another thing you don't mention is that Russia actually can gain money four doing this. The price off gas can raise, they do have more pipeline and they hade have too pay fees if they stopped delivering gas from the nortstream.
Most cumbersome BS I have ever heard. Very talented guy.
Very interesting thoughts, thank you! Looking forward for video about war updates and frontline changes
Thanks for your support. Hope you have seen the new video on the frontlines.
useful video... but means, motive and opportunity still applies, russia has the two first, but getting that close to nato countries to blow up the pipelines has some major issues, timing for one, those explosives would have had to have been planted there for quite a while before they where triggered to avoid the nato anti mine exercise and also would have had to be done rather stealthily so as to not raise any alarms while nato have been in a heightened state of readiness... so yes, until we get more information we will have to wait and see... as usa have all three they cannot be discounted at any point - they where there in the area of the explosions and they had everything they needed to do it
when you get putin to say, "l dunnit," him i will believe.
in the meantime, cui bono? that would be the usa.
I think you have a bias here
And it is clear I'm afraid
Very enlightening as always, thanks!
This has answered all my questions about how, why and who in regards to the pipeline explosions. Outstanding analysis. I had a hard time making sense of it before. It makes sense now. Thank you Anders.
Can you help me please, because I still cannot understand the reasoning. The first part of the video states that the operation was designed in a special way. My imagination fails to find any other way of permanently disabling the pipeline. US tried stop it through sanctions, it kinda worked, but now it is permanent. No computer attack or policy could do the same thing.
@@eugene7309 Policy would actually do the trick, it would just be very dick move from USA and not clandestine. Also cyber attack on such critical infrastructure would render it inoperable for months if not years until the end of investigation. Not to mention that you could have actually done the cyber attack in such a way that would render pipeline unusable. Over-pressurize it for example (if the pipe wouldn't blow up it would still have to be inspected - this would take years to allow European regulatory bodies to allow it to open). Force shutdowns due to attack and force lengthy investigations. Make use of how all of the European countries involved work and how lengthy the process of restoring faith and not having 80% of population be afraid that it will harm environment or brake down every couple of months, is.
There were cyber attacks done on small scale as well as proof of concepts on similar machinery. Destructive cyber attacks. I'm not talking about "ha, ha we hacked your website and you're down for 3 hours". Also there could be gradient - basically invisible cyber attack on gas turbines, so compressors etc. It would take longer and would take some time, but with that you could regulate the damage. Take it down for couple of months for example. And again, you're not seen, in some cases, you're not even suspected. And yes - it is completely doable to physically destroy modern running engine that is controlled by computer - as is case in such huge infrastructure project. For similar cyber attack see Stuxnet. Though there were a lot more tests done on things that are very similar to what is used in Nordstream.
@@jannegrey593 Yeah, Stuxnet is actually a great example . Took a while to realise it was an attack, but once found was obviously a US attack as they were the only one with the tools and motives to do it. Trying to do a non detectable attack makes it more obvious who performed the attack.
Don’t you remember how the Israeli/US s worm disabled the Iranian centrifuges?
@@johnle6982 Yep, Stuxnet.
Is Russia still shelling their own nuclear power plant too?
Well, we now know US did it. Great video though 👍
Fascinating analysis, much better than any conventional news source, thanks!
The first thing out of Russia’s mouth was that they could fix it if sanctions were lifted. They also control the pigging (the tools used inside the pipe) of the line. Who ever did it also used excessive amounts of explosives. Where as a much smaller amount would have worked since what does not compress so the explosion has only one way to go and that into a empty pipe.
58 lbs of TNT or some equivalent of other explosive per pipeline.
The pipe was not empty. It contained gas at over 100 barg to 160 barg.
The pipe is 26mm thick wall steel at that point.
Thank you! I like the theoretical background you planted in our heads 😉.
This is a fantastic analysis ….however how would you conduct a clandestine action that would seriously prevent the pipeline from operating? Unless you answer this question your analysis isn’t complete.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
You mention a cyberattack but I don’t think that would sabotage the pipeline in the same way.
Long term this is still a fantastic opportunity for the US to get Europe hooked on American LNG.
Leaving the Baltic pipeline open would seem like a job unfinished if it was the Russians
Man you take this bs too serious
Now, 4 months later he has to admit that he was an Idiot to believe that!
The idea that Russia did it is torturous. They had the most to lose and the least to gain. Think like a cop: means, motive, and opportunity. You lost a LOT of credibility with me on this one, and discoveries in Germany since you made this video have now completely obliterated your assertions.
Thank you for your update on this subject!
Great video as always. I always learn something watching your stuff. Thank you!
Great bullshit, US / Britain did it
They're not really that insightful. As usually, the guy has a conclusion and then looks for a way to reach it.
I occasionally get his stuff reccomended by YT and it's always the same MO.
M8, your president said he'd take care of it.
This guy is a military analyst at the Royal Danish Defence College and have a background as a naval officer. Did you expect him risk losing his job by blaming other than the russians?
💯 .. He probably was tasked to find a way to blame the Russians
Very good, insightful analysis. What both gives me confidence and disturbs me is that, except for the models of assessing it, your thoughts and conclusions are exactly those I had tuesday morning when I first heard about the leaks that monday. Tak skal du have!
Jeg vil også være militæranalytiker ved Forsvarsakademiet i mit næste liv. 😅
Every time you publish a new video, I get more and more convinced that your channel has about a couple million subscribers less than it should
Yes! Definitiv!
Russia obviously did it, lol
Well done and Russia also now avoids business liability now as well and doesn't need to use
a busted Turbine as and excuse as to why they are breaking their contract temporarily as
now the line is broken and they can't deliver gas anyway.
This is such a great video, it clarified some important ideas that i kind of understood but had no idea how to frame in my thinking. Thank you.
Hahaha, it's just, everything is wrong.
Thanks!
Thanks for your support.