Looks like sabotage. Accidents very rarely look like this. (Very high confidence.)
Probably by state actors. It seems like a task that requires significant resources and planning. Also there was plenty of military presence in the area, it’s just hard to believe that non-state actors could perform something like this unnoticed. (Medium confidence.)
It wasn’t an ally of Germany. There is always a chance that you get caught / leave evidence, and after attacking the critical infrastructure of an ally no one will have a reason to trust you. None of the allies of Germany stand to gain anything that is anywhere near comparable to that risk (that I can think of). (High confidence.)
Given geographic reach, the countries that could perform something like this are probably those around the Baltic sea, plus USA, UK, France. (Medium confidence.)
That leaves us with Russia and Germany. I don’t see what Germany could gain from this. I don’t see what Russia could gain from this either, but then Russia has developed a habit of doing things despite having nothing to gain from them. Also, I see some reasons why Russia could think this is a good idea (implicitly threatening the West by demonstrating willingness to use grey-zone warfare against their critical infrastructure, to try to get them to back down).
It wasn’t an ally of Germany. There is always a chance that you get caught / leave evidence, and after attacking the critical infrastructure of an ally no one will have a reason to trust you.
The US has a habit of attacking critical German infrastructure. Until Snowden, nobody in the German government believed but afterward, we had to accept it.
In this case, the information could be restricted to fewer people knowing that the US attacked the infrastructure so it’s less likely that anybody finds out.
Biden was also willing to publically threaten to prevent North Stream 2 from being created. When it comes to taking actions to keep trust, threatening to do something against North Stream 2 destroys trust.
Computer hacking has always been in a separate category from “exploding things”, geopolitically. You may disagree with that distinction, but it’s relevant in the calculus.
I will have to steal the term “proof by lack of imagination”!
I have a slightly lower confidence in “no ally of Germany”. Lets, hypothetically, say it was Poland. The Polish government opposed (very publicly) the making of Nord steam in the first place. They have (very publicly) continued to criticize it and use language of the sort that Germany is doing something immoral by buying the gas. So, if they hypothetically had done it, and were caught they could simply say “Yes. We have been telling you to do this publicly for a decade. We grew tired of waiting.” (Then lean hard into a hopefully muted enough reaction from USA/UK to move on—plus, its not like it would get them kicked out of the EU, I think that requires a unanimous vote, and remaining in the EU I am not sure what Germany could really do to punish them.) Obviously sabotage and diplomatic pressure are different, but I think most people put them closer than you might expect. (Legitimate diplomatic pressure could, for example, involve withdrawing money that was of greater value than the damage of the sabotage).
Given Poland’s populist politics I expect that there’s also a good chance that the Polish population would applaud their government for asserting itself as a player.
On Nord Stream sabotage:
Looks like sabotage. Accidents very rarely look like this. (Very high confidence.)
Probably by state actors. It seems like a task that requires significant resources and planning. Also there was plenty of military presence in the area, it’s just hard to believe that non-state actors could perform something like this unnoticed. (Medium confidence.)
It wasn’t an ally of Germany. There is always a chance that you get caught / leave evidence, and after attacking the critical infrastructure of an ally no one will have a reason to trust you. None of the allies of Germany stand to gain anything that is anywhere near comparable to that risk (that I can think of). (High confidence.)
Given geographic reach, the countries that could perform something like this are probably those around the Baltic sea, plus USA, UK, France. (Medium confidence.)
That leaves us with Russia and Germany. I don’t see what Germany could gain from this. I don’t see what Russia could gain from this either, but then Russia has developed a habit of doing things despite having nothing to gain from them. Also, I see some reasons why Russia could think this is a good idea (implicitly threatening the West by demonstrating willingness to use grey-zone warfare against their critical infrastructure, to try to get them to back down).
So possibly Russia. (Low confidence.)
Epistemic status: proof by lack of imagination.
The US has a habit of attacking critical German infrastructure. Until Snowden, nobody in the German government believed but afterward, we had to accept it.
In this case, the information could be restricted to fewer people knowing that the US attacked the infrastructure so it’s less likely that anybody finds out.
Biden was also willing to publically threaten to prevent North Stream 2 from being created. When it comes to taking actions to keep trust, threatening to do something against North Stream 2 destroys trust.
Computer hacking has always been in a separate category from “exploding things”, geopolitically. You may disagree with that distinction, but it’s relevant in the calculus.
Update: I was probably wrong and you were probably right.
What made you update?
I will have to steal the term “proof by lack of imagination”!
I have a slightly lower confidence in “no ally of Germany”. Lets, hypothetically, say it was Poland. The Polish government opposed (very publicly) the making of Nord steam in the first place. They have (very publicly) continued to criticize it and use language of the sort that Germany is doing something immoral by buying the gas. So, if they hypothetically had done it, and were caught they could simply say “Yes. We have been telling you to do this publicly for a decade. We grew tired of waiting.” (Then lean hard into a hopefully muted enough reaction from USA/UK to move on—plus, its not like it would get them kicked out of the EU, I think that requires a unanimous vote, and remaining in the EU I am not sure what Germany could really do to punish them.) Obviously sabotage and diplomatic pressure are different, but I think most people put them closer than you might expect. (Legitimate diplomatic pressure could, for example, involve withdrawing money that was of greater value than the damage of the sabotage).
Given Poland’s populist politics I expect that there’s also a good chance that the Polish population would applaud their government for asserting itself as a player.