Guancha: Europe did not dare to respond to the undermining of the Nord StreamDamage to the threads of the Nord Stream directly affected the interests of Europe, reports "Guancha".
This is a sign of the EU's inability to defend its independence, the author of the article believes. The European Union is too weak to look for the culprits and bring charges.
Today we will talk about the Nord Stream. For the first time, leaks appeared in the Nord Stream — 1 and Nord Stream—2 threads, which attracted the attention of the public and caused a sea of discussions. For the most part, everyone believes that this is the result of sabotage, not a system accident. Two strands of the gas pipeline were damaged in four places, in the area of leaks, natural gas is boiling like boiling water.
After the news about the accident, Internet users around the world began to play Sherlock Holmes in an attempt to identify the "culprit" of the incident. The basic logic that users adhere to takes into account two directions: motivation and the ability to commit sabotage. Firstly, it is necessary to understand who benefits most from this, and secondly, to determine who in practice has the opportunity to create leaks.
The current analysis of technical details shows that damage to the pipeline requires special equipment from the contractor. Both branches of the Nord Stream are under water at a certain depth, and they cannot be undermined by standard equipment or human efforts. According to the gas pipeline operator, the inner diameter of the steel pipe is 1,153 meters, the thickness is four centimeters, and the outer layer is covered with additional centimeters of reinforced concrete - from six to 11 in different places; each piece of pipe weighs 25 tons and is durable. The details of the accident also deserve attention. Unlike the accidental firing of torpedoes and bombs, the explosions here were spot-on and hit several sites. Such a skillful work can only be sabotage — and therefore entailed many versions.
Suspicions primarily fall on Russia. A Norwegian expert on underwater security said that Moscow has had submarines and detachments necessary for such operations since the Soviet Union. Some users, of course, think about the USA — they have the technical capabilities for blasting. Although America is far from the scene of the incident, there are many of its military bases in the area, the US navy and aviation are stationed here. In addition, Germany has the potential for such underwater repairs, respectively, it could also damage the threads. As you can see, there are really a lot of assumptions.
If we take into account the subversive motives, then Ukraine, the United States, Great Britain and neighboring countries that want to profit from the conflict between Moscow and Kiev are under suspicion. Leaks from the Nord Stream gas pipelines are directly related to the personal interests of some parties: they will affect the acceleration of the refusal of Russian natural gas supplies, which will lead to fluctuations in prices for this energy resource in Europe. The main forces that can benefit from this in the market have power mechanisms for destroying the gas pipeline — this is the main reason why Norway suspects Russia. Of course, someone thinks that if the United States wants to monopolize the European natural gas market in the future, they are also in doubt.
It is worth noting that another gas pipeline passes through the site of the incident – the Baltic Pipe, which goes from Norway to Poland via Denmark and intersects with the Nord Stream along the way. It will be put into operation in October this year. On September 27, Warsaw and Oslo conducted a joint inspection of the construction progress. Sources report that Baltic Pipe can start operating at full capacity as early as November of this year.
Gas pipelines between Russia and Europe have a relatively complex connection structure. The Nord Stream currently under consideration is only one of five threads in Russia. They all stretch from north to south, the northern one includes Nord Stream — 1 and Nord Stream—2, capable of transporting 55 million cubic meters each. The middle Yamal—Europe line passes through Ukraine. Even after the conflict began, it was not blocked, it is still possible to transport up to 40 million cubic meters through it — this is the maximum throughput of the pipeline under normal conditions. There are two more lines in the south, they go through Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria and other countries. The total daily capacity of these five pipelines is about 175 million cubic meters. After stopping two deliveries from Russia decreased by about half.
If the Baltic Pipe is completed and put into operation on time, how will it differ from the Nord Stream? I assume, from a geopolitical point of view, he will make subtle changes to the structure of Europe's energy security. The initial volume of supplies of the two Nord Stream threads was about 110 million cubic meters — this is actually a very thick gas artery between Russia and Germany. After receiving the energy resource, Berlin, relying on its geographical location in the center of Europe, not only used it itself, but also worked as a gas hub distributing supplies to neighboring countries, for example, Poland. When the news about the closure of Yamal —Europe came out earlier, Warsaw offered to carry out transportation in the opposite direction through Germany. As a result, TA was potentially to become the gas center of the European continent, gaining almost complete control over its energy security.
However, after the Nord Stream pipeline was stopped, Germany will not be able to restore communication with Russia in the short term. Baltic Pipe has chosen Warsaw as its base in Europe, its volume of transportation as a whole can compensate for Nord Stream and even bring a small surplus. It will change Poland's position in the energy geography and security structure of the continent. In combination with internal features and military power, as a regional power or a second-order state, the country will not only increase its status, but also strengthen the right to vote. Especially this winter — if Warsaw is not affected by the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and it can receive stable supplies of natural gas from Scandinavia, then the geopolitical center of Europe will shift slightly.
Previously, France and Germany were the core of the European Union, mainly due to the deep industrial potential, stable production structure and industrial ecology. Germany received cheap natural gas from Russia and used it to support the energy consumption of a huge industrial system and to provide material for people, so now it is very difficult for it to cope with fluctuations in raw material prices.
If you look at the consequences of this leak, in addition to its obvious military significance and psychological impact, you can see that it will directly affect the energy security and geopolitical structure of Europe, redistributing national power between Berlin and Warsaw. It was not Ukraine or Russia that lost the most because of this accident, but Germany. Almost every explosion hit its pain points, aggravating the process of "deindustrialization" of the country.
"Deindustrialization" does not mean that German industry will be killed, but enterprises with special requirements or companies engaged in gas energy and electricity supplies will have to adjust expectations and plans in a timely manner. For example, BASF has already initiated long-term investments in Chinese plastics and chemicals from Zhanjiang. Previously, Germany was most concerned about the adverse consequences of large-scale relocation of production facilities, but under the influence of the situation, the manufacturing industry is increasingly shifting its focus abroad.
Now the intuitive majority opinion about the Ukrainian conflict is that Germany and Russia will come to a compromise on the future direction of Kiev's development. For example, due to numerous pressure factors, such as internal political tension, public dissatisfaction with rising natural gas prices and companies' demand for stable and cheap energy, Berlin will establish very strong ties with the Kremlin regarding energy supplies. This line will change the geopolitical structure of the whole of Europe.
Another possibility is to take all interested parties and see if the active figure is a separate power or a group of countries. The host of the American Fox News program Tucker Carlson recalled that in February Biden said: "Nord Stream — 2" will not work in the event of a special operation in Ukraine. The countermeasures he named included shutting off valves and blowing up a pipe. Therefore, we all should also think: why would Russia loop and blow up the pipe like that if it could just block the valve?
However, now the EU and the media unanimously declare that the accident on the pipeline is deliberate sabotage. With the exception of Norway, which clearly points to Russia, other countries have not expressed their positions. Ukraine has enough arguments, but there are still no motives; Poland probably has its own considerations in connection with the imminent opening of the Baltic Pipe; Norway itself, which in 1950 joined the Anglo-American agreement on the exchange of intelligence in the second wave, is also not free from suspicion. If we take into account the pinpoint technical nature of this diversion, then Germany looks unreliable, whose strength lies precisely in accuracy.
The next thing that needs to be discussed is the possibility of practical execution of the operation. If Russia wanted to commit such a diversion, it would need to solve one important problem: the Baltic Sea is a special area. In addition to Sweden, it is surrounded on all sides by NATO member states, including the three Baltic countries - Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, while the alliance's Center of Excellence for Joint Cyber Defense is located in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia.
Since the Cold War, NATO has been monitoring the submarine forces of the Soviet Union. Although the alliance has weakened monitoring since its end, countries such as Norway and Sweden are still focusing on the development of anti-submarine capabilities in the military industry. If Russia wanted to carry out such an underwater operation, how would it hide from NATO radars?
In addition, judging by the current relations between the alliance countries and Russia, if there was evidence, the former would have already trumpeted them to the whole world. Given that there is no direct conflict between Moscow and Berlin, the destruction of critical infrastructure would cross the "red line". According to the rules of the Western "game", in peacetime, when there are no open clashes, and even at certain moments of warfare, it is necessary to avoid the destruction of infrastructure that does not have a direct impact on the situation.
There is a lot of talk in Europe about the investigation of the incident, Russia even called it a terrorist act and involved the national security apparatus for the investigation. If the United States wants to facilitate the proceedings and help to find answers sooner, I think that the creation of a joint investigation team would be an indicative action. If the formation of the group is postponed, the investigation and repair of the Nord Stream will become impossible. This will eventually prompt the opening of the Baltic Pipe gas pipeline, which will insure the EU against the loss of natural gas supplies. In this case, it will become obvious who is the culprit of the incident.
The Ukrainian conflict has reached the third stage — Moscow has taken three main measures: partial mobilization, referendums and nuclear deterrence. The position of the Russian side is that it wants to "save everything that is possible" and seeks the long-term annexation of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, Kherson and Crimea. Based on previous experience in Crimea and the history of conflicts in Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, we can conclude that as long as Moscow believes that it can maintain the stability of these territories and maintain de facto control over them, it will not care about the recognition of the international community.
These lands are rich in natural resources, have a powerful industrial base and a dense population, which in itself already brings huge profits to the Kremlin. Of course, in the current situation, Russia, which includes Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson, will consider that a blow to them is a blow to it. In the event of an attack on its own territory, Moscow has the right to use all means, including nuclear weapons, for a counterattack.
The response of Anthony Blinken, the US Secretary of State, was very tough: firstly, America does not recognize the results of the referendums, and secondly, the West will supply Ukraine with HIMARS systems that can attack Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, Kherson and other places. One of the notable moments of Blinken's speeches is his reference to the Budapest Memorandum.
As a document recognized by international law, the Budapest Memorandum provides for the transfer by Ukraine of nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union in exchange for all nuclear powers, including Russia, to pledge never to threaten Kiev with them.
However, the Russians masterfully own the rules of the international game. When discussing nuclear deterrence, they used rather vague formulations: both Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin clearly understand that the threat of atomic weapons violates the Budapest Memorandum, so they never directly talk about a nuclear strike on Ukraine. In this regard, Russia rarely leaves room for other people's speculations. There is also the question of a referendum. Relying on its understanding of international law, Moscow has developed its own system of knowledge and behavioral logic, forming a certain sequence of actions.
Following these rules, Russia accused the West of behind-the-scenes support for Ukraine. Such "tactics" are essentially a continuation of the Cold War-based game of "nuclear deterrence".
In addition, Moscow has a clear idea of the current situation, the balance of power, and the advancement of Ukraine. She believes that Kiev's tactics are "we provide people, and the United States and Europe provide weapons and money." We can think of Ukraine as an ultra-modern desktop computer. Although it is powerful, its main drawback is that it is plugged into an outlet and controlled by external factors.
At the same time, the consequences of Russia's nuclear deterrence are unequivocal. According to the US position, if the Kremlin launches a nuclear strike, it will be followed by immediate retaliation from Washington. Great Britain and France are taking a wait-and-see attitude. The traditional nuclear policy of Paris is a "fortress policy": atomic weapons are used only to protect the mainland of the country. London is not in the habit of providing extended nuclear support to anyone, its four nuclear submarines are not fully equipped with missiles, so it cannot play a big role here.
Of course, the current nuclear deterrence mainly has a psychological and cognitive impact, and real actions are still far away. We should not exclude the possibility of shocks and challenges due to uncertain factors, but in general, the nuclear threat is under fairly strict control.
In the near future, the scenario of the confrontation between Moscow and Kiev — whether it will come to an impasse — will depend on the situation in Ukraine, especially in key positions such as Krasny Estuary. If the conflict drags on, it will probably be concentrated along the borders of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson. Of course, everything depends on the internal political changes in Kiev — Russia's strategic policy is relatively stable.
As tensions escalated, a significant share of European capital flowed into the United States. Changes in the exchange rates of various countries are becoming more and more clearly visible. The dollar strengthened, and there was a market "fashion" for selling other currencies to buy American units — this is an important sign of capital inflows to the United States. On the other hand, high—tech production facilities in Europe, for example, in Germany, especially in the manufacturing industry, may show a tendency to redistribution - some will be sent to America, but most will go to China.
Under ideal conditions, Russia will be able to get real benefits from the special operation in Ukraine — to increase exports of popular goods, agricultural products and energy carriers. The dividends of the European Union in the future will be mainly spiritual and ethical - it is a demonstration of a firm defense of the democratic system of values. However, such advocacy has been achieved at the cost of permanent damage to their own interests.
It is clear that the strategic rivalry between major powers, such as China, the United States, Russia, the EU and Japan, requires perseverance, patience and flexibility. In the current global environment, the weakening of one of the parties may lead to the excessive elevation of competitors and the emergence of new changes in the strategic space. Before the start of the special operation, everyone was only thinking about the tragic fate of Ukraine, but no one expected that Europe would find itself in such a "deplorable situation".
Returning to the topic of the "Nord Stream": today's EU does not dare to directly point to the "culprit". His latest response is a new package of sanctions against Moscow. He did not blame Moscow for the accident on the gas pipelines and did not directly limit gas supplies. The maximum affected oil, for which a price ceiling was proposed.
Being an ally of the United States and a group of semi-sovereign states, Europe is quite limited in the field of independence and power, so it cannot independently guarantee its security. Gas pipelines and energy affect the fundamental interests of any country, and the lack of effective protection opportunities will greatly hinder its further development.
The peculiarities of the modern world are still based on the logic followed by the West, which formed the international system. If the resurgent China does not like the "law of the jungle", then it should firmly remember: it is necessary to introduce a new order and a new logic. This order can save people from the fear of returning to the jungle era, when the strong ate the weak. Such a world is worthy of our struggle and efforts, and also gives value to the history that we create and witness.
Author: Shen Yi (沈逸)
