With regards to the current conflict in Ukraine, I have been musing over the ‘terrorist sabotage’ attack on the Nord Stream gas pipelines on September 26th 2022 that sabotaged three of the four Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines.
Why did it happen and how?
Nord Stream Background
The company behind Nord Stream 1 (Nord Stream AG) is a partnership between shareholding energy firms in Russia (Gazprom), France (Engie), the Netherlands (Gasunie) and Germany (Wintershall and PEG Infrastruktur) with the Russian firm Gazprom controlling 51% of the company and the others sharing 49%.
The Nord Stream 2 pipelines took five years to build at a cost of £8 billion, were completed in 2021, and at the time of the sabotage were awaiting approval from German regulators before becoming fully operational.
Cheap Russian gas imports into Germany through Russian pipeline systems (including Nord Stream 1, the Yamal Pipeline, Blue Stream, TurkStream, and a number of trans-Ukraine pipelines) were such that a surplus was created that enabled the reselling of gas to other parties, thus significantly and beneficially- impacting the industrial capacity of a number of EU countries, and enabling the price to consumers to remain relatively low.
Such was the scale of total gas imports (155 billion cubic metres) from Russia that they amounted to 45% of all natural gas imported by European states, and almost 40% of total consumption.
The additional capacity of the Nord Stream 2 pipelines was intended to almost double the capacity of the original Nord Steam 1 pipeline to Germany from 60 billion cubic metres to 110 billion cubic metres.
Opposition to Nord Stream
Given the ideologically-driven tenets of ‘net zero’ policies such as the ‘Roadmap to Net Zero by 2050,’ the International Energy Agency aims to reduce reliance upon and use of ‘fossil fuels’ in accordance with the ‘European Green Deal.’
With regards to natural gas imports from Russia via the Nord Stream pipelines (particularly) the aim of the IEA is to reduce imports by one third or more. According to the IEA, this would be achieved through a ’10-point plan.’
The key actions recommended in the IEA’s 10-Point Plan include not signing any new gas contracts with Russia; maximising gas supplies from other sources; accelerating the deployment of solar and wind; making the most of existing low emissions energy sources, such as nuclear and renewables; and ramping up energy efficiency measures in homes and businesses.
As well as a lengthy report (which can be found here), the IEA released a video on their YouTube channel, explaining their 10-point plan:
With regards to the perspective of the United States, the mere existence of these pipelines has always been vehemently opposed. In 2019 the US imposed sanctions (with gay abandon) on any firm that helped Gazprom finish the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, considering the project a security risk to Europe. Both Russia and the EU strongly condemned the US imposition of such sanctions. The German foreign minister Heiko Maas stated that the sanctions amounted to ‘interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe.’
Following the 2020 US election, according to Secretary of State Antony Blinken in reference to Nord Stream 2, Biden would ‘use every persuasive tool that we have to convince our friends and partners, including Germany, not to move forward with it.’ This ‘persuasion’ failed and, prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the German intent to eventually open the Nord Stream 2 system was clear.
Nord Stream Threat
At a press conference held on February 7th 2022, amid concern at the buildup of Russian military forces on the border of Ukraine, US President Biden said the US would ‘bring an end‘ to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. This was a startling assertion and an evident threat (just look at his mean, tough guy face and mafioso-like tone).
It should be noted that Biden stated this while standing next to the German Chancellor Sholtz, who himself neatly side-stepped the pipeline question (and Biden’s threat) by instead talking about the prospect of ‘sanctions’ against Russia in the event of such military action.
Western Sanctions
The sanctions imposed by ‘western’ nations against Russia following February 24th 2022 were intended to devastate the Russian economy. Curiously, however, Russian natural gas imports did not suffer from specifically-targeted German/European sanctions, as was the case with the banking sector and the oil, mining and chemical industries, beyond the ‘suspension’ of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which was as yet inoperational.
Despite issues arising from maintenance and turbine replacement (exacerbated by the sanctions regime), Nord Stream 1 remained operational and unsanctioned following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as did gas imports through other pipelines. From February 24th through to September 26th 2022, Germany did not intend to cease the import of Russian gas via Nord Stream 1 and complained bitterly over such turbine and maintenance issues.
Nord Stream Sabotage
On September 26th 2022 various media outlets reported an explosion as well as a mysterious pressure collapse in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline (an example from The Guardian) with reports of leaks and pressure collapses in both NS1 and NS2 reported on the 27th. Although neither of the pipelines were operational at the time, both contained gas. Reports (including from Russia) suggested acts of sabotage.
Western media outlets and governments immediately pointed the finger of blame squarely at Russia. The Federal Intelligence Service of Germany alleged that Russia had sabotaged the pipelines. Robert Habeck (German Economy Minister) stated ‘Russia saying “it wasn’t us” is like saying “I’m not the thief.”‘ US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told the BBC that it ‘seems‘ Russia was to blame. The Washington Post quoted a ‘senior European environmental official’ as saying that ‘No one on the European side of the ocean is thinking this is anything other than Russian sabotage.’ Ukrainian President Zelenskyy called the sabotage ‘a terrorist attack planned by Russia and an act of aggression toward the European Union.’
Nord Steam Sabotage Conclusions
Compare an article published by Seymour Hersh, (on February 8th 2023) credibly detailing the involvement in the sabotage of the USA and Norway… with the laughable case pushed out in March 2023 that a ‘pro-Ukraine’ group diddit, wherein a yacht was hired for the job…
Six people were involved in the operation to transport explosives to the site, the yacht’s captain, two divers, two diving assistants and a doctor. All six were understood to have used professionally faked passports, said Die Zeit, with their real identities still unclear.
The yacht set sail from the German port city of Rostock on 6 September. The equipment for the secret operation was previously transported to the port in a delivery truck, according to Die Zeit. After its return, investigators found traces of explosives on one of the tables inside the hired vessel.
Personal Thoughts
There must be and will be serious consequences of the ‘terrorist sabotage’ of the Nord Stream pipelines. As an unprecedented, unprovoked and ‘dastardly’ attack on the critical infrastructure of Germany, it is an act of war by the perpetrating nation. I am unsure of how this will be ‘dealt with’ in regard to international relationships and alliances, economic repercussions, and with regard to global diplomacy.
There must be eventual consequences for such an act of terrorist sabotage.
However, I do have an underlying sense of the ultimate cause for such action. Bear with.
To my understanding, there has been a denegration of intellectual capability and capacity in ‘the west’ over the past two or three decades. Nuance has been lost. Common sense has been lost. A critical ideological framework has gained dominance throughout western societies and culture that seeks and promotes conflict under the virtuous cloak of care and compassion.
This state of affairs has, I believe, come about due to the adoption of a purely ‘critical theory’ approach to a variety of subjects and issues including the more obvious issues of race and gender but also in the realm of politics, diplomacy and international relations. Such an approach pits victim against perpetrators and is entirely zero-sum (a win for one side always means a loss to the other).
In short, the intellectual underpinning of this generic approach to the world is incredibly childish in respect to the quality and veracity of thought and understanding, as well as inherently harmful with regard to relationships, whether inter-personal, communal, or between nations.
Issues are reduced to a binary. This plays out in almost every sphere of interraction and argument. Men bad, women good. Women bad, transgender good. Straight bad, queer good. White bad, black good. Etc.
Opposing arguments are also characterised by this binary. For example, those who want open borders and unlimited immigration are good, while those that oppose such measures are bad.
Statues too, can be good or bad, as can museum exhibits, as well as works of literature, art and music and (worryingly) nationalities. Even a silent, unvoiced prayer can be bad if silently prayed in a recently erected ‘exclusion zone’ that is itself a result of such binary, zero-sum thinking; it’s difficult to escape the bounds of the world we’ve created.
Most often the ‘middle ground’ has simply disappeared in a puff of unsmoke, along with such concepts as neutrality, compromise, and even ‘agreeing to disagree.’ Shades of grey simply don’t exist.
Alongside this infantile thought process is a complete disregard for objective truth, scientific reality and evidenced fact. Most often the binary approach is coupled to such disregard.
When truth is abandoned, lies can be expressed freely and at whim.
Lying and dishonesty are thus now permanent facets of ‘western life.’
From the lie that a man can become a woman or that all white people are racist, that masks are of any use whatsoever in controlling a virus or that vaccines ‘stop the spread,’ through to the public lies of politicians and media outlets (Russia was ‘unprovoked’), there is no consequence or responsibility taken for untruth. The entire concept of ‘net-zero’ is a lie; electric batteries in cars are not ‘clean’ or environmentally-friendly, solar and wind power are insufficient and inadequate providers of energy, and are a disaster for the environment. The morphing of ‘global warming’ into ‘climate change’ cannot hide the fact that the scale of human responsibility for natural disasters is negligible and that, at best, there is no consensus as to the degree, if any.
None of this stops the incessant lying. Any and all naysayers to the narrative of lies are deemed ‘bad.’ How easy and convenient. And abhorrent.
A third facet is the simple lack of ‘good manners’ and general respect that now permeates western society and culture. It seems that we have been primed to infer ‘bad’ in those we interract with; to apply the scale of victim/oppressor to everyone and anyone. We are swift to put our fingers on the scales of our determinations and to hunt for offence even where none was intended. We judge swiftly and express ourselves in cutting and demeaning terms, showing disrespect to those whose views differ from our own.
Thanks to the propagation of such dominant approaches through the education systems of western nations, coupled with a constant and continual reinforcement through bombardment from almost all media outlets, from film and TV through media and ‘news’ outlets, our society has become infected with juvenile understandings about ourselves, our relationships, and the world beyond.
This childishness is most often expressed with adult levels of venom and threat.
Conflict is a direct result of this childish methodology in terms of argument, debate, discussion and overall critical understanding; it may even be an ideological requirement or necessity.
Conflict could be an inevitable consequence of a dramatic lack of a coherent and demonstrably-evidenced, fact and reason-based view of reality.
There are playground fights between good and bad everywhere, with teachers abrogating their responsibility and making no attempt to come between the combatants and stubbornly resistant to making a rational determination as to fault or blame for the fight itself.
The ‘baddies’ are deserving of all negative consequence merely for being ‘bad.’
As to who is bad and who is good? Often it’s a sliding scale of victimhood and, being an infantile approach, is often senseless; white women are gooderer than white men but not as gooder as black or transgender women. Etc. Note that an individuals personality, demeanour and all characteristics are ultimately irrelevant, a facet also true when it comes to international relations, where the ethically and morally bankrupt concept that Nazi Ukrainians are better than Russians is common.
In short then, a binary conceptualisation of virtuous and evil, coupled with a disdain for objective truth and reality, alongside a complete lack of mutual respect towards those individuals and nations designated as ‘bad’ is a state applicable to almost all aspects of western society and culture.
It dominates western behaviour and thought, even with respect to international politics and diplomacy, where the adults in the room are the Russians, Chinese, and others (Turks, Hungarians, Saudis for example) who still practice politics and diplomacy with respect and good manners in the development of trust and mutual understanding, with an eye to demonstrable truth and reality, and with no denial of nuance or context.
It is the adults who seek true understanding and mutual respect between adversaries (real or imagined), who aim to honour agreements made, and who attempt to maintain respectful relationships even through disagreement.
Is it any surprise then that no western government is calling for a ceasefire in Ukraine, or that once neutral european nations (Austria, Finland, Ukraine, Switzerland) no longer practice any semblance of neutrality.
International neutrality is an impossibility in our wonderful and purely binary, zero-sum world.
With specific regard to the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, the planning and execution was undertaken by children playing the good/bad binary game and with no care for the consequences. Lies were (and are being) told. Russia diddit. Even if they didn’t, they deserve everything they get ‘cos they is bad. Ideologues cluster together in support of the lies, with Germany (even!) disinterested that an ally or ‘friend’ (whether the USA, Norway, UK or Ukraine) could be involved.
The western narrative surrounding this act of economic warfare is so thoroughly juvenile and utterly irrational that even the question cui bono isn’t being asked.
The act and the aftermath are entirely indicative of our current western world, where the binary zero-sum lens dictates simplistic determinations of good and evil, where truth, evidence and reality are petulantly ignored, and where there are simply no consequences for lies told from behind a protected puff of asserted virtue.