The blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea seems to have taken war to a very dangerous level. This is especially so for the West, if suspicions are true that these potentially critical energy lifelines for Europe were destroyed by Washington, or essentially on its order. This is also particularly so given that the attack was well outside the Ukraine war zone. Then again, let us not overly jump the gun at this point as others could have committed this heinous act. But the motivation of the US needs serious consideration, not just Moscow’s.
Yes, it is bad enough that civilian infrastructure or even dams in Ukraine have been attacked by Moscow. And there is evidence of the similar by what Kiev has done or facilitated in Donbas. But without excusing it, one could say this happened in or near the war zone. Also, one could add that attacks there by Ukraine and supported by the US were on Russian controlled or owned assets, not western allies or neutrals.
Also, there is the view that while sanctions by NATO may be harmful to allies in terms of backlash produced by Moscow, there has been some attempt by Washington to push a consensus to a degree—well, at least on specifics such as option to mitigate sanction impacts on the more vulnerable NATO members.
Yet, according to an interview on Bloomberg News, the video of which was relayed by WION on YouTube, Jeffrey Sachs, lead US thinker in international affairs, believes the US likely destroyed those pipelines. He spoke of unusual US helicopter activity nearby around the time of the explosions. Another viewpoint is that after German Chancellor Scholtz could not get any immediate energy supply relief from any country, so he was then about to agree to make concessions to Moscow to get gas flowing again through those pipelines. The thinking is that he had made a last gasp effort with the Saudis, but they refused to send a lot more of their energy to Germany. This nearly coincided with the Saudis even pushing major supply cuts at a recent meeting of OPEC plus in Vienna that were forecasted. The net result is Germans, including major industries, are in desperate shape with some even shutting down due to the Russian energy crunch.
Washington, knowing through its deep surveillance of the German government (previously, including the eavesdropping on Scholtz’s predecessor’s phone) that the risk was heightened that the chancellor was going to do a U-turn and import much Russian gas again, decided to take preemptive action? That is to mangle these main Russian pipelines to so much damage that Germany would be left with near zero options to import Russian gas, a force majeure so-to-speak.
It could be argued, therefore, given the horror of this act and given it is well outside the war zone, that it is not just an act of sabotage. But given the gravity and the potential of the destruction to cause many Germans and other Europeans to freeze in the cold and send them into “energy poverty” this winter that it can be possibly equated as an act of terrorism. And if it was done by Washington or due to its pressure, then the words “state supported” could precede the word terrorism. Of course, this adds salt to the German wounds if its major ally had done this. The suspicions that Washington did such damage was supported by the Polish ex-foreign minister thanking the US for doing it. And not too long after that, the US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, told the Germans that the pipelines’ destruction could also be seen as a great opportunity. One to get Germany independent of the leveraged influence of Russian gas and to spur on its green energy efforts.
Unfortunately, what happened in the Baltic Sea sets a very bad precedent. What it means is that where there is major tension with a geopolitical rival, be it through a proxy war or not, more may believe now that it is fairer game to destroy a rival’s key infrastructure, well outside a war theatre. And on infrastructure that even an ally or neutral have seriously invested in like Nord Stream, so dependent on for economic stability. The dangerous extension of this would be to attack other Russian pipelines. With such a threat who in Europe (or elsewhere) would want Russian pipelines being built in their territories or its oil or gas pipelined through their country. This would make it especially harder for Russian energy companies like Rosneft to find foreign partners. And outside Europe, what about any Russian pipelines going through Mongolia to China, for example? What about discounted and expanded flows of Russian oil and gas that might go through India and Pakistan? Would NATO or certain (other?) state actors of this terrorism see it as more acceptable, say to blow up critical pipelines to, or even in India, for example?
It is true that Putin may have certainly gone too far in invading Ukraine. But if America or its allies destroyed those pipelines in the Baltic Sea off Sweden and Denmark, it may have unleashed a hell worse than anything Putin did? That message may begin to resonate too much that it is fair game of even state actors to destroy life-giving infrastructure of enormous significance well outside a war area. And even to punish allies and neutrals for not supporting sanctions and other key strategic policies of the perpetrator.
The world is in a critical enough condition that we do not need any major states giving ideas about the acceptability of carrying out state-sponsored terrorism of pipelines or such infrastructure. Everyone around the world should be quaking in their security boots given the recent disaster in the Baltics. The question may be whose pipeline is next or other important infrastructure that might be attacked? And in tit-for-tat retaliation to any possible (further?) state-backed, pipeline terrorism. This is another reason to end the war in Ukraine.
Peter Dash is a former professor who was also a researcher at Harvard University. He has worked for European multinationals in Moscow and for BP (oil and gas) in Azerbaijan under contract. He is a graduate in applied science from UBC, Vancouver, and has taught students and trained certified teachers.
