The US were not thrilled about it when it was being constructed, obviously, but this was normal tensions towards Russia, prescient in the end but here we are.
There were several countries arguably interested in getting rid of that pipeline (Ukraine, Poland, the US), but Ukraine wanted it the most, had easy access, and there's no need to overcomplicate internet theories.
No, "normal" humans don't dive to 80m deep, where the explosion occurred. Any diver, whether professional or recreational (which is my case), will know about this. I don't have a (alternative) theory about this, I'm just stating facts. Well, the alternative theory, if we are speaking of divers, is that they had some very special equipment and were extremely skilled. It wasn't some random people, renting a random boat, renting random diving gear and buying random explosives ..
>Advanced Mixed Gas Diver (80m)...The Advanced Mixed Gas Diver course is a great way to extend already considerable open-circuit mixed gas diving skills.
This simply isn't true, I myself after a technical advancement in my PADI to be certified on a rebreather went >80m many times. It's absolute more common than it was in the past.
Those who are trained with special forces as alleged would also be required to be qualified.
"The open-sea diving depth record was achieved in 1988 by a team of COMEX and French Navy divers who performed pipeline connection exercises at a depth of 534 metres (1,750 ft) in the Mediterranean Sea as part of the "Hydra 8" programme employing heliox and hydrox."
Sounds like 80 meters is cake walk for any modern naval institution.
Yes, it's an operation that requires coordination and planning, which is why it's reasonable to assume it was carried out by an intelligence agency and not a lone fisherman with a grudge. But once you're in the realm of intelligence activities, this isn't exactly the "let's blow up their pagers" level of complexity.
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explos...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-...
The first Kerch Bridge attempt was only a partial success. Traffic continued almost the next day. The second attempt was a complete failure. For the refineries, Ukraine uses at least GPS.
The sail boat theory is plausible from diving standpoint, but they allegedly installed explosives on NS-1 and NS-2 sites that were at least 100km apart, within 10 hours, with no decompression equipment. If they can do that, why do they repeatedly fail at Kerch Bridge?
The bridge is approximately 3km long or so, which makes it relatively easy to maintain a continuous 24/7 armed presence to prevent sabotage. An underwater pipeline is a 1200km stretch mostly in other international territory that is hard to protect. Definitely much easier to blow up a pipeline than it is to blow up a bridge.
it's the clusterfuck of EU police inactivity afterwards that needs to be paid more attention to
For example, Seymour Hersh (renowned wartime investigative journalist), published a brief on US involvement: https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...
AKA: Argument from ignorance
ROLF - that must up there with "we want the hostages back and we're actively working towards that goal".
I didn't know dementia is so contagious.
A month or so later, Russia launched the 2022 offensive against Ukraine, and there was no longer any question of NS2 entering service because it was clear to all that the preconditions for Germany's rescission of approval for the pipeline had been satisfied. With that context, Biden's answer is best understood as him being quite confident in the quality of US intelligence that Russia was planning an imminent invasion of Ukraine that Europe was assessing as faulty. So while Europe was interested in the question of "what if Russia doesn't invade Ukraine?" Biden's answer was (in not so many words) "I'm not contemplating that scenario."
My money is actually on Polish special forces (or one of the Baltic states), in an effort to force Germany to be serious about weaning itself off Russian natural gas.
It didn't make much of a difference to Germany since the gas flow via NS1 was already switched off for a while and NS2 never had delivered any gas before the sabotage happened. In the end it was more of a symbolic gesture to freeze the status quo that was already in place anyway.
The EU is screwed by all energy oligarchies, including transit nations.
The funnier / biggest irony is that US and Russia are working together to fix the pipeline, buy distilleries in Germany to sell to the Germans Russian gas at US prices.
The exact reasons aren't entirely clear, originally they hated NS because it allowed Europe to ignore Ukraine in the gas trade which left them more exposed. By the time of the full scale war I would bet the reason was more "fuck Russia" than anything more carefully reasoned.
"There will be no longer a NordStream 2, we will bring an end to it"
Shocking, there is no longer a NordStream 2. =D
Gas power generation is a necessary evil to balance out the variability of intermittent energy generation (i.e. wind and solar).
Hydropower isn't a feasible alternative because the easy resources have been developed.
The only alternative source of flexibility available today is demand side response.
Edit: I appreciate the down votes, as I've not explained in detail. It is a complex issue. My opinions are based on having a phd in the topic, 10+ years in control rooms, years of market operations and design, and years contributing to europe-wide risk assessment methodologies.
I emplore anyone who is actually interested in how energy mix actually impacts grid stability/reliability to look into the Eirgrid DS3 programme (https://www.eirgrid.ie/ds3-programme-delivering-secure-susta...).
Reactors are only good at providing baseload but that isn't how grids operate anymore. Renewables are too cheap, if a power plant can't drop output fast enough it is punished.
An exercise to the reader, calculate the space and materials required to replace the average norwegian hydro reservoir with batteries.
Nuclear tech doesn't provide required ramp rates at a useful price. I do agree however that more nuclear helps.
The problem is dispatchability/flexibility, not storage. At a more complex level the issue is grid inertia and frequency response.
> The problem is dispatchability/flexibility, not storage. At a more complex level the issue is grid inertia and frequency response.
That's something batteries are extremely good at.
If prices continue to drop, there will be a powerwall alike in every second house in some years.
It also does nothing to help transmission grid frequency stability and control.
Meanwhile team tRump are all in on oil and gas because non carbon is for libtards.
China is heavily reliant on coal.
The US Grid is presently less carbon intensive than the Chinese grid.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
The question is how deep they'll have to go in 3 years. Can they stall it out, or will the US actually demand they fulfill the promise, causing at least some amount of lock-in?
But if that happens, maybe the US Fossil Fuel "Cartel" will revolt. I think the EU really need to accelerate their renewal push even more. From what I read they are doing good w/renewals, but I would be nervous if I was in the EU until renewals and/or nuclear power provides 90% of the power.
There is an obvious rift between Europeans, European leaders, and the US. Europeans seem tired of the US and it's policies, however simultaneously are unaware that the cushy "European" lifestyle they love only exists because of the US. Which is something that European leaders are keenly aware of.
So it creates a situation where the leadership will constantly bend at the knee to the US's demands, and the populace will get progressively more and more anti-US. However in it's current state, Europe is stuck under the thumb of the US on three sides - tech, military, and energy.
The only "clean" way to rectify this problem is for Europeans to slash regulations, slash social programs, and dramatically increase annual working hours. All things which are the antithesis of contemporary Europeans ideals. Europe desperately needs a modern industry hub, right now it's all US and China on the board.
Could you elaborate ?
https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/hours-worked.html
The lifeblood of the European economy is still the same things that were the lifeblood 30 years ago.
There is no tech scene in Europe, despite tech being at the global economic forefront for those 30 years.
The US spent more per capita than Europe did on support to Ukraine. It also provided the lions share of weapons and armaments.
And now Europe is turning to the US to supply most of it's energy. Which is methane. Heaven forbid the EU give green investment funds special economic rules to foster growth, it might generate a few billionaires.
Europe is a trust fund state burning old money and milking old industry. It desperately needs to build its own independence. Russia coming knocking seems to have been a bit of a wakeup call, but even still single child Europeans are sitting on the beaches of the Mediterranean complaining that they cannot retire at 55.
Wake up.
Why do so many Americans believe this? I would like to see some real accounting of the US-EU relationship. Americans only focus on the supposed defense relationship, where supposedly the EU is under investing because the US will supposedly come to the rescue. Every single other aspect of the US-EU relationship is ignored.
Even if you were to show them data, you could never convince them, as their position is based on emotions. And you can't argue someone out of a position using facts, if that person didn't arrive at that position using facts to begin with.
After the illegal and horrible Russian invasion (which was provoked nonetheless) the EU got progressively drawn into the US proxy war. They were criticized for not doing enough in 2022 by the US. In 2025 on the other hand they were criticized for wanting to prolong the war by Trump.
The EU pays the bill, the US reaps its benefits from weakening Russia, which is the entire goal of the slow moving war of attrition. Successes include US dominance in Syria, attempted dominance in Venezuela and possible Greenland.
Ruining the EU's social systems will achieve nothing. This is an energy problem and the US tries to control all choke points of energy delivery to the EU.
The dichotomy between social programs and weapons (a variation of the old butter vs. guns nonsense) is false, and I suspect is just used by some people here who want to slash social programs no matter what.
If you want to claim that butter vs. guns is nonsense then please be specific and explain exactly where the money will come from. And let's not have any vague non-answers like "tax the rich" or "cut waste".
https://www.nzz.ch/english/how-the-marshall-plan-is-overly-r...
https://mises.org/mises-wire/marshall-plan-isnt-success-stor...
“Britain received twice as much aid as West Germany did, but economic growth in Britain dramatically lagged behind that of the Germans.”
Germany needs nukes and a navy to project power to solve the energy dependence. It isn't that expensive and could be done by eliminating waste in the procurement process. The money is already there. Oh yes, and tax the rich, especially landowners with multiple properties.
(Why would I listen to you preemptively ruling out viable strategies? I do not take orders here.)
What an absurdity to say that the only way out for Europeans is to follow the U.S. in their hyper-capitalist folly, as if speed-running their way to more concentration of power & capital was Europe's only salvation.
Yes, Europeans have to accept the fact that they will have to work longer given the current demographic trends and Brussels needs to make sure EU regulations don't impede innovation. But for the the most part European leaders just need to initiate a strategic shift and move on from the dogma that Europe's success is tied to U.S. dependency.
What has so far looked like pragmatism on the part of EU leaders is increasingly looking like a lack of courage to assert the EU's power and chart a path of their own
And to lock yourself in with the Trump admin.
I'm guessing a lot of of people/countries are aiming to just string him along as long as possible.
At least we were an ally at the start of this of this trend
Batteries are an expensive solution that doesn't scale well at the grid level. It is useful for grid stability (fast frequency response) but simply a non-starter when you're dealing with national grids.
Batteries are an added cost to the system, without producing more electricity, and as a result prices will go up.
A far cheaper source of flexibility is Demand Side Response. Particularly data centres that are willing to be market actors. Compute can happen anywhere, so it should happen where the wind blows and the sun shines. It is cheaper to transmit bits than Megawatts.
It has real costs because it limits the utilization of involved infrastructure and is simply not feasible for a lot of industries. It does not help when residential demand exceeds the available supply either.
The most practical solution will probably be a mix of overprovisioning (especially considering how cheap solar panels have become), battery storage and fuel powered fallback, with the balance shifting as long as batteries and panels get cheaper.
Grid level battery storage is already coming online at scale (e.g. https://www.ess-news.com/2025/08/18/statera-energy-powers-up...).
LiFePo cells are already down to ~$60 for 1kWh (8000 cycles), which is pretty palatable for a lot of applications and prices still trend down.
LNG imports will be demand driven, not supply driven. And demand is going to decrease over time; not increase. That calls into question the need for more infrastructure. On both sides. Germany already topped up its reserves for the coming winter; ahead of schedule. There is no shortage.
The US is building a big LNG bubble with investments that might end up under water. What happens if demand flattens and decreases mid to long term, as can reasonably be expected at this point? Can the US sustain high LNG prices when cheaper sources become available? What will high export prices do for domestic pricing for energy? How eager will investors be to make big multi decade investments in this (given all this)?
The existing terminals are underutilized already (below 50%). It's hard to see where all this extra demand to fill even more terminals is going to come from. There is no urgency for any of this on the EU side.
However there is quite a bit of urgency on lowering energy prices for industry and consumers. LNG is not the way to do that. I don't see that changing.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
US and EU provide each other money through swaplines by printing freshly created respective currencies and exchanging them.
Then EU can use those dollars to buy US LNG.
Is this a far fetched idea? This is like undercover QE.
mytailorisrich•1h ago
The US love Europe's policies...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/surging-us-lng-expor...
adrianN•1h ago
mytailorisrich•1h ago
Investments in fossil fuel infrastructure still happen, too, in the form of LNG terminals.
ourmandave•1h ago
seszett•1h ago
The root problem is needing gas at all, of course.
mytailorisrich•1h ago
There is very little strategic thinking in Europe.
nradov•1h ago
myrmidon•8m ago
Maybe, but the vast majority of gas use in dustry is for heat and power and electricity is a trivial substitute there.
And even the direct use as process input is far from unavoidable, because in a lot of cases this use could be reduced/eliminated or shift to synthetic inputs, which would happen organically if prices shifted long-term anyway.
pandemic_region•1h ago
jajko•1h ago
thiago_fm•1h ago
If the US is willing to destroy certain areas of its country in exchange for money, Europe will give them the dollars.
If Europe has nobody else to do it for them, I'm sure they'll do it themselves.
GuB-42•1h ago
Furthermore, China doesn't want to be dirty anymore, in fact they are maybe the ones who take green technologies the most seriously. So the dirtiest jobs are pushed to other countries, mostly in southeast Asia.
llm_nerd•1h ago
Can you give examples? What "dirty jobs" is China, and now apparently other countries, being purportedly forced to do? So is Trump really an environmentalist when he levied massive tariffs on countries in the region?
No, when countries devastate their environment they do it on their own volition. China was disastrously dirty mostly due to domestic reasons like the absolute lack of pollution controls, coal burning, and so on. China introspected and decided that they wanted to be better than that (the Olympics might legitimately have been a major turning point) and have done an amazing job cleaning the country up, and many areas are now truly Western. Air quality is infinitely better...at the same time that the country is making more than ever for the rest of the world.
Other countries haven't got there yet. India, the Philippines and so on have only themselves to blame for the state of their country, however self-comforting the delusion that it's really outsiders that are to blame might be.
altcognito•1h ago
So, China is free to choose to pollute, as is Europe and the US free to choose production from a source that doesn't pollute as much.
Their electrical infrastructure that is built on coal (60% of current generation) even if they've made huge improvements. Rare earth mining and building of all those electrical batteries and solar panels is a pretty dirty business. Reality is China produces a colossal amount of stuff, and much of it is pretty dirty (it would probably be dirty anywhere as that's the nature of making things at an industrial scale)
Right now China seems headed in the right direction for pollution, moreso than the US. And probably the only way they end up reducing pollution completely is to grow wealthy enough to replace old methods.
GuB-42•1h ago
And sure the the western world wasn't forced to trash China, but when a country decides to buy Chinese production that we know was made with no regard for the environment because it is more competitive than doing it locally where one has no choice but to care, then you are effectively exporting pollution.
As for Trump being an environmentalist with his tariffs. A few decades ago, he would have been, not so much anymore. If he didn't insist on trashing his own country that is.
llm_nerd•49m ago
No one "dumped" anything. There weren't random ships sneaking onto the coast and dumping their contents. No airdrops tossing out garbage bags.
This was a pull industry and China had such a negligent position on their environment that people -- Chinese people, in China, allowed by China -- made money tendering for recycling contracts and then just stacking it into a giant pile, presumably awaiting some innovation that would make it worthwhile to process. That precisely speaks to exactly what I was saying, and externalizing that and blaming it on others is the sort of patronizing, laughably bigoted infantilizing that people do about developing nations, and it's extraordinarily unhelpful. China started caring, and regulated these exploiters out of business.
> and India and several southeast Asia countries took over (Indonesia, Vietnam, ...)
Vietnam is a surprisingly clean country. Like you can drop a Google Maps pin almost anywhere in Vietnam and while it might not be glitzy and rich, there is a sense of pride in environment and a care and a concern about the commons.
India and Bangladesh, on the other hand... Yeah, this isn't covertly imported garbage, but instead is 100% domestic sourced, just as the vast majority of China's was before it became more enlightened. Countries that are cesspools overwhelmingly have themselves to blame.
I just had to respond because this sort of infantilizing "every bad thing is caused by outsiders" angle isn't remotely helpful. Like almost all of the world's ocean plastics come from Southeast Asia, and it's amazing seeing people try to rationalize how in cultures where plastics are used for everything, and discarded thoughtlessly everywhere, actually it's somehow the West's fault.
sampo•1h ago
In past decades, we had this system that China manufactures goods, they are shipped in ships to US and Europe, and because US and Europe don't manufacture much anything, often the ships would travel back empty. Western countries started to legislate mandated plastic waste recycling, but didn't really have facilities to actually recycle. So we would ship our plastic waste to China, with a promise that it will be recycled. Legislators were happy. In practice, plastic waste is not so easy to recycle, and was often just dumped somewhere in Asia.
In 2017, China stopped accepting imports of plastic waste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_waste_import_ban
Some countries like Sweden, burn their household waste in combined heat and power generation plants. If you incinerate in sufficiently high temperatures, and have exhaust filters, you can do in cleanly without causing air pollution.
https://www.blueoceanstrategy.com/blog/turning-waste-energy-...
Etheryte•1h ago
fulafel•50m ago
panstromek•1h ago
bryanlarsen•1h ago
panstromek•1h ago
mytailorisrich•1h ago
Shale gas exploitation is banned in Europe so no-one is spending money looking for it, but estimates are that reserves are significant.
panstromek•16m ago