Nord Stream sabotage and hybrid war on Europe

[@anguschiu2]

One of the rare occasion I praised the KZbin algorithm is recommending your channel to me. I always learned something new in your video, thank you so much!

[@itsjustameme]

He is pretty awesome. He is more or less the go to person that the danish media use when they need an informed opinion on something relating to war or power politics.

[@chilijohny354]

Yes, and he also doesn't just repeat what everyone else is saying, but truly brings a different analysis on the situation

[@tordsteiro9838]

Same here. Awesome channel!

[@fromthefire4176]

Yeah outstanding channel. Also, I think there’s a trick to cultivating the algorithm to make good recommendations, for one don’t leave anything on your history that you don’t want it influenced by, I also generally don’t leave likes or dislikes since that can sway the returns too. The more you watch short vids the more short it’ll recommend and this is a good example of influencing it in real time, click on a few long vids or so and you’ll start seeing more long ones recommended pretty quick. So if you’re getting frustrated, try opening a few old vids similar to what you want new content on, gaming news etc. don’t have to watch but just get them in your recent history and it’ll fish around, once it gets a feel for what you want it can be pretty good tbh.

[@barnsej98]

@@itsjustameme He is using western Propaganda to say Russia is loosing. Not true, the west is loosing. They are trying to start a nuclear incident but it will not work.

[@excessionary]

Articulate and well thought out argument, presented clearly as always. Thanks from Australia.

[@anderspuck]

Thanks for the nice words and your support.

[@andriib9390]

Very interesting thoughts, thank you! Looking forward for video about war updates and frontline changes

[@anderspuck]

Thanks for your support. Hope you have seen the new video on the frontlines.

[@JelleJanBruinsma]

Thank you sir!

[@anderspuck]

Thanks for your support.

[@Oddingen]

Takk!

[@anderspuck]

Tak for din støtte.

[@mennouphoff8889]

Could you revisit this topic, in light of intelligence leaks blaming Ukraine? I still find it hard to believe as the adverse consequences for Ukraine might have been huge in that case. Or did Ukraine calculate that there is already too much of a commitment from Western states, for them to stop aid if Ukraine were to do such a thing? Makes the matter even more complicated, I'm really interested in further analysis of this case.

[@tylerb9877]

The US government blew it up, and they're changing the narrative because everyone started catching on to their bullcrap.

[@PolishBehemoth]

show me one link or one piece of evidence tbat ukraine did it

[@mennouphoff8889]

@@PolishBehemoth One example, coverage from the Washington Post about Roman Chervinsky. I find it extremely important to support Ukraine, so I do not understand if / why they would risk western support by destroying the pipeline. As most analysis is based on propaganda, I would love more well-informed analysis of this case.

[@David-kg5nn]

What does a clandestine pipeline attack look like then? How do you not create awareness of an attack on one?

[@LinesSoftwareDevelopment]

Great content a well thought out argument and properly defended with good reasoning.

[@anderspuck]

Glad you like it - and thanks for your support.

[@andrzejbarcelonafrlk6416]

Zeit journalist investigation suggests they identified the boat but not the team identity nor who gave the order.

[@clausmadsen6754]

Really waited for a new analysis from this channel

[@jacktenrec472]

Anyone remember Pukin with his buddy Lukashenka dumping several hundreds of immigrants on Polish-Belarusian border? That was around November last year.

[@jasonlast7091]

I totally agree with this analysis. I think Russia saw the writing on the wall with this pipeline and tried to cash in the chips while they still might be worth something. This move sows division in the west (which is working) and can also be blamed on the U.S. (a fan favourite), with the added benefit of intimidating European countries (notably those who are geographically close and may or may not be forming new military alliances with a certain treaty organisation)

[@abrahamdozer6273]

I'm not an American but the notion that the United States would damage a gas pipeline like that is crazy/whacko/QAnan nonsense.

[@Logarithm906]

Well, this comment is promising. I've yet to watch the video but that's basically what my thinking on this situation is. Pipelines are now useless to russia. They're off, they're staying off, Europe is never going to be its main customer again. Blowing up the pipeline in a very visually distinctive way (giant jacuzzis in the Baltics are pretty impressive) is the only thing they're useful for now as it might damage European energy markets more, putting pressure on Europe but more importantly, causing friction between EU states on how to proceed. Blame the US to add more friction.

[@scratchy996]

What people don't realize is that Putin has been waging hybrid war against Europe since he got into power.

[@tellyboy17]

@@Logarithm906 The pipes are not useless, Russia made sure to keep one out of the two Nordstream two pipelines intact, which again proves it was behind the attack BTW.

[@crogeny]

Since the pipelines were attacked Finland and Sweden have not shown the slightest indication of withdrawing their applications to join NATO. Twenty-eight countries have approved their accession bid and when Turkey and Hungary follow suit it will be a done deal.

[@andrewmanning7]

Thanks

[@anderspuck]

Thanks for your support.

[@andrewmanning7]

@@anderspuck No problem at all. Your videos are concise and genuinely informative. Nicely done.

[@Disinformation_Hoax]

I had to watch this again. The conspiratorial nature of this analysis is actually really interesting. It defies logic and deductive reasoning yet still manages to have almost a convincing tone (reminding me of some of the more outrageous french academics of the 20th century) in framing the Enemy. In reality, we of course did it, but the muddyig of the waters Is done exceptionally well here, especially to A certain type of, what i would call average educated viewer. Great Job, this is hybrid warfare at its best. Bellingcat approved. (Also honorary mention In the Colin Powell at the UN prize of the year competition. Not winner though, the competition has been really tough this year)

[@jrnmller1551]

Anders I think there is 3 additions to this: 1) Gas prices were starting to fall the week prior to the bombings, that was not in the interest off Ruzzia, they want gas prices high also to hurt Europe this winter! 2) A Ruzzian professor came up with the theory that the Ruzzians did it because there were rumours off a law suit coming from Germany on breaking the contract! (alternative: Gazprom revencing that their top manegement got lost, falling out off windows) 3) By blaming the US/West for it, their narrative is: see their are coming to get us! (same time distracting from the war and the mobilisation)

[@itube0047]

Absolute nonsense 1) Grasping at straws 2) Irrelevant. Gazprom would not care because they are a Russian company based in Russia, so there would be no reach. 3) More grasping at straws I think a fair assessment is that it was the Americans. You can always find arguments for everything. You arguments for Russia doing it is far weaker, than the arguments for 9/11 being an inside job or that there was no moon landing (not that I would agree - I have no idea, and don't really care). Best regards!

[@termitreter6545]

The contract theory is just gibberish. Russia doesnt care about contracts, money or even reality, otherwise it wouldnt have started the war. Not to mention, he thinks Russia cares enough about law to want to avoid paying fines, but not enough to publically blow up a pipeline? Imma call bullshit on that one.

[@jamesgornall5731]

It's not even a case of price, if it's not there now and you require it immediately, paying 1900 times the price for extra elsewhere in 5 days simply might not be enough.

[@termitreter6545]

@@itube0047 The idea that america did this is just as absurd as the reason being gas contracts. If you think so, then you dont understand the situation, like at all. Idk why youre even talking about this. Watch the video. It explains a few reasons why what happened is nonsensical for the US but fits Russias behaviour.

[@Dennell_Mount_and_Blade]

@@termitreter6545 The fact that you are surprised someone is talking about this says enough about your open-mindedness. Lots of strange things happened in the last few years, before that as well but not as much in plain sight. You have to carefully judge each situation, and just because one video disagrees with a point of view, doesn't mean the video is automatically right. That's very narrowly minded. All I know is the Americans can't be trusted as well, I'm also not saying the Russians can be trusted. But the elites are playing their games and it's the common folk who always suffer the most, that's something I'm 100% sure of.

[@b.griffin317]

Interesting. You made a better case than I've heard elsewhere. Thanks Anders.

[@Spin-U]

Better case? Makes no sense. Russia didn't attack their own people. Azov did. Russia is already building back homes the region. Hitting the pipeline makes no sense for the Russians. US or close ally did. People need to wake up United States is becoming a pawn to the United Nations. United? UN is United-ly run by woke tyrants.

[@Asptuber]

Indeed. I think one of the problems with this - at least for me - is that there has been no good arguments presented for why Russia would do this, and an overabundance of "of course Russia did, they're the bad guys". As with origins of Covid it is the absence of speculation, what looks like a manufactured silence in the press, that makes one suspicious. In terms of straight forward effects, cui bono, it is extremely hard not to jump to "someone who wanted Germany to have no choices". My first thought was Baltics + Poland. But the risks there if exposed would be too great, might rupture NATO quite badly.

[@b.griffin317]

@@Asptuber That and 'Russia has nothing to lose (i.e. Ukraine War going badly, Putin's only options for escalation; 1. conventional mobilization -which is sputtering out before it begins, 2. attack western civilian infrastructure, 3. nuclear - would likely not have desired effect and have huge downside, so choose Option 2), Putin is acting erratically/irrationally (an argument I'd normally dismiss out of hand but given the conduct of the Ukraine War actually sounds plausible)' is the gist of Anders argument if I understand him correctly. Given the huge downside of attribution if done by a western/european country this doesn't sound quite as crazy on second thought as it does on first blush.

[@FranzBinder20]

"Better" in the sense that with some insane mental gymnastics he managed to blame Russia, which makes no sense at all in this case.

[@jornzander1285]

I've been waiting for this video so desperately. Thank you for explaining this. Probably what the media will analyze for us in a month or so.

[@geopolitix7770]

Yup! I've been waiting for this and wasn't disappointed!

[@mike_oe]

hahaha, yes.

[@africadeclassified]

I think you are being VERY generous to the American side here. 1. There are few if any real alternatives for the US to going above the detection threshold. Their objective is to STOP Nordstream, not some feable delay that that can easily be circumvented like a cyber attack. 2. The risk to the US going above detection threshold assumes that a) There is an ABILITY & b) a WILLINGNESS to do anything on the part of the EU nations that suffer from this action. Which clearly there is not. Sweden REFUSED to make public their findings about the attack, it's pretty obvious that if their evidence pointed to Russia, it would have been made public IMMEDIATELY as it fits the narrative that they are ALREADY pushing. So no, you haven't thoroughly ruled out the USA or any EU-NATO country in this.

[@DanielArnolf]

German officials announced that there is no evidence incriminating Russia. Swedish investigation(cleanup) findings are "too sensitive" to be shared. Why would it be sensitive if it was Russia ? Isn't that the obvious ? All fingers are pointed at them, and you explain it very well. You should do a follow up of how theory blends with reality.

[@tsentenari4353]

excellent point

[@LasseEklof]

Now 8 months after it happened, we know more than before. There are saved radar logs showing Russian presence at the time. A few weeks before the explosions, 4 boats depart from St. Petersburg, halfway through they turn off their transmitters, but continue to the pipelines, where one of the boats then goes back and forth along the pipes several times - even if they have turned off their transmitters, they are visible on the radar. And a few days before the explosions, 2 boats, with transmitters turned off, set out from St. Petersburg one of which (SS-750) is a special craft carrying 2 mini submarines with grappling claws. They stay exactly at the site of the explosions where they are for about 18 hours, before returning. This is also visible on the radar and that the Danish Air Force photographed the boats on the spot. Pretty hard to explain away that it wouldn't be the Russians.

[@davidelias1994]

Great analysis Perhaps another scenario to consider would be an internal Russian one. There are almost certainly groups in Russia that want to stop the war and go back to supplying Europe with gas take that option away from them and it makes that path more difficult and perhaps no other option but to knuckle down and continue with the war. Perhaps similar to Hernan Cortez burning his ships to stop the faint hearted from abandoning the conquest

[@scottt5521]

Thanks!

[@stdata2000]

Very much appreciated analysis but as a German I'd like to contradict that a relevant number of Germans believe the US might have blown up the pipelines. These accusations are prominently promoted and orchestrated by certain groups (conspiracy theorists, ultra left and right) but there is a difference between noise and size. The idea that the US would take such a risk to blow up pipelines that are put out of service since weeks or did not even enter service at all is obviously nonsense. By the way, the time when Nordstream 2 was opposed mostly by the US, sanctions where the tool the US has used. It would have been sanctions again before anything more escalating had been applied. Russia knows that the times of big gas business with Germany are gone for good. Sabotaging these pipelines for psychological warfare reasons seems to be the most value that increasingly desperate Russians assumed they can pull off.

[@spaceowl5957]

I’m German and I think the US did it. It just makes the most sense from everything I know. (But I haven’t watched the video yet)

[@spaceowl5957]

To his first point of it being a 4d chess move to make it SEEM like the US did it to create division, I don’t buy that. The vast majority just listens to mainstream media opinions, it’s very unlikely that a significant number of Germans would significantly move from supporting the US side to the Russian side over this. It’s possible but I think it’s a very small benefit to the Russians compared to the cost

[@spaceowl5957]

To his point that the Americans would have done the operation below the detection threshold. I agree that this would have been more beneficial to the USA but how would the achieve that? How to you destroy a pipeline without it looking like someone deliberately destroyed it? I don’t think that’s possible frankly. Pipelines are extremely robust from what I know and they don’t just break. Especially not 3 pipelines that are right next to each other at the same time

[@spaceowl5957]

As to why they blew it up in the North Sea and not in Saint Petersburg. I don’t know. That’s an interesting point. But maybe US ships were already in that area, making it more convenient and somewhat less detectable? I really don’t know though

[@spaceowl5957]

The analysis about it possibly being climate activists was super shallow and made not sense in my opinion, and the saying “the US wouldn’t have taken such a risk to shut down a pipeline that was already closed” is almost offensively dumb and backwards in my opinions. I’m sorry but this point I’m losing faith that you are even arguing in good faith. Why would Russia take this risk over a pipeline that was already closed?? And most importanltly - The lever for that closed pipeline was in RUSSIAS hands not the US. That was their bargaining chip. Those same arguments applied in reverse clearly make for a much much stronger case that Russia wouldn’t do this and that the US would do this. How did you fail to mention this?

[@pacificostudios]

In criminal law terms: Means, Motive, Opportunity. The person who had something to gain, had the ability to do it, and an opportunity to do it, is a likely suspect. Ukraine and an NGO are obviously not responsible. As for the USA, Washington has no motive to disturb energy markets, but Putin has many good reasons to cause energy prices to rise.

[@Diamonddavej]

Another thing to consider is that Gazprom sent out letters warning customers they could invoke Force Majeure at any moment: “Known as an “act of God” clause, a force majeure clause is standard in business contracts and spells out extreme circumstances that excuse a party from their legal obligations.” If it is not proven that Russia blew up the pipelines, it means that Gazprom can extract itself from contracts with existing customers and avoid paying fines by invoking Force Majeure. It fits with Gazprom's / Russia's behaviours, they did not admit to deliberately switching off gas on Sept 2nd, but blamed an oil leak at a pumping station. If they admitted to deliberately switching off the gas, it leaves them open to fines / paying compensation for failed deliveries.

[@fluffybunny5518]

I really wish the general population had Nielsen's analytical and logical deduction capabilities.

[@Gezira]

Be happy, they have it!

[@Gezira]

The Russian are at war, they do crazy things!! 😂

[@TheEmmef]

I think it is dangerous for people in influential positions to point fingers, when that is not supported by better arguments than Nielsen provides. In my opinion, Nielsen cannot substantiate that the sabotage and its operational design have consequences that align with Russia's assumed objectives, and without a chance of reaching those objectives, there is no reason for Russia to take this risk (the sabotage), whether it is losing or not. Before going into details, let's discuss why this finger-pointing is dangerous. Wars are not won nor ended on the battlefield, but instead on the negotiation table. People at that table are not necessarily friends or in agreement, but they must have a thorough understanding of each other. Without thorough understanding, negotiations are not likely to be effective or to bring lasting results. The lack of understanding additionally reduces the perceived need for negotiation, "because it won't help anyway": a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that, in turn, leads to the status quo of more war and more suffering. Nielsen's story does not provide thorough understanding, but instead seems to consist of arguments that were drawn from a conclusion, instead of the other way round. I am not an expert, and I am open to (substantial) arguments that convince me otherwise, or people pointing out where in my summaries I inadvertently applied logical fallacies! Nielsen's argument to make Russia the most likely sponsor, first disses the idea that motive - who benefits? - plays an important role. It then uses a theory of hybrid warfare to point out consequences of the sabotage and its operational design. He suggests that these consequences align with Russia's, assumed, objectives. Then Nielsen uses prospect theory to explain that because Russia is losing the war, another assumption, Russia was willing to take a risks, the sabotage, to meet those assumed objectives. My critique starts with the number of assumptions necessary to make the argument, in favour of a much simpler explanation: motif. To make it likely that Russia took the risk (the sabotage), Nielsen must assume that the Russians are losing the war, so that he can apply prospect theory: people take (more) risks when they are losing. He does not substantiate this assumption. But even if this assumption holds, he must make another assumption, namely about Russia's objectives. Because, losing or not, a risk will only be taken _if there are objectives and there is a non-zero chance of achieving those._ Hence, Nielsen must link the consequences of the operation (the taken risk) to these assumed objectives, if any. That is a lot of assumptions for one argument! And even if all these assumptions hold, the argument only works if, and only if it can be shown that the sabotage and its operational design indeed lead to the consequences described. I will explain that they (the sabotage and its operational design) do not. One proposed consequence of the sabotage is that it exposes the vulnerability of energy infrastructure and effectively instils fear. There are examples from the past that show the ability and willingness to destroy energy infrastructure on land, for example in the Baku-Novorossiysk case. It is not far-fetched to assume the same capability exists under sea, though it limits the number of suspects. The only new thing we learned from this specific sabotage, is therefore that somebody is willing to do it in this war. But proving that willingness only requires the sabotage of a single pipe. These pipes are long, and more destruction can be done later, at leisure in a remote place. Destroying a single pipe sends the same message, while retaining options. Options to sell gas in the future after all (Russia). Options to threaten Germany and Russia with destroying the rest of the pipeline (another sponsor). But that did not happen. The sabotage resulted in total incapacitation and no options for any party, without sending a stronger message when compared with a situation that left options open. A fail for all, including Russia. Russia doing this only makes sense if we make another assumption: Russia's traded its options away to achieve even better objectives that we don't know about. In summary, even if the assumed objective of this sabotage is to expose vulnerability and instil fear: it could have been done as effectively, at less expense, and with more options for the sponsor, instead of closing all doors. Of course, we can assume (again) that closing doors was the objective. In my opinion a silly one, and it only holds when the other consequences mentioned by Nielsen hold. Add to that the fact that, for all practical purposes, the door (the pipeline) was already closed. Another proposed consequence of the sabotage is that it creates market uncertainty. Imagine a market with suppliers, and with households and industries (consumers). A significant gap in supply capacity causes market uncertainty consumers, because delivery is uncertain and the prices could become out of reach. However, the gap also makes higher prices more certain. This is good for existing suppliers, but also for additional suppliers: new suppliers that could not make a profit at the old price, or more expensive suppliers that now become competitive. After a while, these additional suppliers can stabilize the market. Now imagine that the original gap disappears again, and supply rises. Guaranteed high profits for existing suppliers disappear, and the additional suppliers, that entered the market after the original gap, are priced out of the market. This too will stabilize eventually, like with lower prices for consumers. But the prospect of a variable gap - that can appear and disappear unpredictably - discourages new investors, like the additional suppliers, to join the market. Therefore, a variable gap tends to maintain both uncertainty in terms of delivery, and higher prices that wobble depending on the size of the gap. To summarise, a permanent gap leads to a certain market with higher prices, an permanently absent gap leads to a certain market with lower prices, and a variable gap causes an uncertain market. The situation before the sabotage resembled a variable gap, as Russia controlled it. The sabotage replaced the variable gap by a permanent one. This made the market more certain for still-enabled suppliers - a great opportunity. It also could boost the transition to sustainable alternatives, a long term problem for suppliers. It could make the certainty of delivery worse for consumers. I assume that this uncertainty is not what Nielsen refers to. It would also be weird, given the Russian financial interests and boosting income for its adversaries. Therefore, I rate Nielsen's argument that the sabotage made the market less certain, at most half true. The last proposed consequence is that the sabotage in covert form would lessen Europe's cohesion. I disagree. There was always a probability that Germany would buy and transport gas via Nordstream again, for example because of domestic political and economic pressure. That particular behaviour would be "incohesive" on Germany's part. The sabotage took away the possibility of that particular, incohesive behaviour, thereby forcing an increased likelihood of cohesion. Nielsen takes a different approach, proposing that the covert design of the operation intended to sow discord among friends and raise doubt, both leading to less cohesion Let's entertain that thought. The doubt definitely exists, and Nielsen uses protests as an example. However, the protests throughout Europe, though scarcely reported on, precede the sabotage and were not only about stopping sanctions for lower gas prices, but also about more fundamental issues concerning this war. Whatever the reasons for the protests, generalizing and considering them a consequence of the sabotage is at least a stretch. That leaves sowing discord among friends. Following Nielsen's reasoning, what friend on the winning side (prospect theory) would be so stupid as to risk this sabotage? Nielsen follows through correctly: no friend would. He also rules out the possibility of action-groups, and excellently so. Following through again, the most likely suspect is a losing enemy. However, the operation would therefore rather unite than divide friends that can follow this reasoning and see through the enemy's plot. This united-ness would only break if investigation elevates the operation above the response threshold and the sponsor is a (now former) friend. In my opinion, it is a tad naive to assume that Russia did not also entertain this reasoning and followed it through. It is even more naive as Russia is about the only country that presses for the result of investigations, while other countries refuse to release those for "security reasons." My conclusion is that the sabotage and its operational design would not lead to consequences Nielsen describes. The scaremongering consequence could have been more effectively achieved with different tactics that would leave more control. The market-uncertainty consequences is almost the other way round. And the cohesion consequence has counter examples, and when followed through, negates itself. Without consequences being likely, they cannot establish likelihood that it was possible to meet attached objectives, objectives that were assumptions in the first place. And without a chance of achieving objectives, there is no reason that Russia would take a risk, even if it is losing the war, which is another assumption. Therefore, we are back where we stared: we just don't know. And I already explained why pointing fingers on inconclusive speculation is dangerous. [edit: typos and phrasing fixes]

[@mikereid3069]

Your own analysis suggests this is above the 'Attribution Threshold'. We strongly suspect it was Russia we just can't prove it or know quite yet how they did it.

[@warhorse03826]

it wasn't an attack. it was methane hydrate solids. someone shut off a pump. when you shut down a pipeline, methane hydrate solids build up. you can't clean the pipe without gas flow, and there was no gas flow. when methane hydrate solids build up, and the pipe is depressurized, the solids move at near the speed of sound towards the depressurization. then at any valve or constriction in the pipeline, those solids explode. look up "removing methane hydrate solids" on petrowiki. it shows exactly what I'm talking about. the pics of the pipeline show the edges curling out, not in. indicating an explosion from inside the pipe. all explosions happened at valves or constrictions in the pipe. if it makes you feel better, the pump was shut off on the russian end. honestly you can attribute it to incompetence rather than malice,...russian incompetence has few bounds.

[@Raphael-vg2fs]

This is one of the best analyses of something i have ever seen.

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

Thank you for talking about this topic - I was afraid you wouldn’t be allowed to talk more on this issue! Watched you on TV where you also explained the concept of Hybrid Warfare and the space for covert operations - always a bit weird hearing you talk Danish because I’m so used to you speaking English here on KZbin! Also, you’re definitely spot on on this issue! Tak for din kæmpe indsats for at holde os opdaterede - er virkelig taknemmelig for det!

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

The pipelines will be obsolete very soon anyway - and the benefit of blowing up their own pipeline is that we can’t even accuse them for an act of war against any of us! Also, now they don’t have to deliver agreed gas through NS1 and can get a much higher price on the gas they do deliver through other pipelines, such as the Yamal-Jamal-Jagal

[@Salty_old_Viking]

Same. I thought I heard that the employees at "Forsvarsakademiet"/"The Defense Academy" had been told not to talk publicly about this issue. I was obviously wrong.

[@klausnielsen7102]

Greetings from Norway. That was my impression too! But I am glad that you where able to share your thoughts and insight again. We are quite worried here in Norway with alle the critical infrastructures in 5he North Sea and all 5he people we have working there.

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

@@Salty_old_Viking It’s probably just the findings from the investigation then - and as long as they don’t say anything else than what they already has said publicly it’s not a problem - at least that’s my guess!

[@Salty_old_Viking]

@@gorillaguerillaDK I think you are right. In the video Anders is not sharing any information that is not already public.

[@thornshar]

Fascinating analysis, much better than any conventional news source, thanks!

[@maxdelaserna9540]

This is the analysis that makes the most sense so far.good job

[@edwardlarsen8658]

I am impressed. You are very, very convincing. Let me add something that might make your argument even more convincing: the explosions only destroyed PART of the Nordstream pipelines. (If Russia and the EU wanted to, they could pump gas from Russia through the remaining functional half of the NS II pipeline.) Ask yourself: if a country other than Russia had performed this sabotage, wouldn't they have wanted to reduce Russia's ability to pump gas to zero?

[@uribensh]

Another excellent commentary, thanks

[@leopoldbloom4835]

Excellent analysis! Much more in-depth than anything I could find anywhere else. Thank you for sharing your insights!

[@z33r0now3]

Perun, Joe Blogs, Ward Carroll with Justin Bronk, "Starbaby" Pietrucha on 10 percent true. There, now you got more of this level of quality. I could name 5 more. The notion that only bs is out there is far from the truth. No one single handedly delivers a complete picture.

[@N-JKoordt]

Russian state TV has been busy explaining how the US carried out the operation - so it's also useful for painting a picture of an agressive US pursuing it's own interest in selling LNG. And there's the legal implication of not having to pay compensation for breach of contract in face of force majeure. But a bit hard to see how a medium term stop to gas flow could be done clandestinely.

[@sharonrose9552]

The US probably sends more NG to Mexico, then it has to Europe, and sending LNG to Europe has helped create inflation in the US. Had European countries stayed on track for their renewable energy goals, this would be a lot less of an issue.

[@martinjuulandersen9694]

@@sharonrose9552 Well if you by that mean that EU had built numerous nuclear plants I would agree. But Wind and solar production is one major problems of the energy crises. The Technology isen’t mature. Its lacking and cannot produce Secure baseload for a grid. Denmark would have had Rolling Brown and Black outs if couldn’t use the Swedish nuclear based grid as back-up. Power to X is a mirage and isen’t an option in scale for the next 10-15 years if ever. So if your green mean nuclear your right. If you by green you solar and Wind your wrong and properly worse German.

[@jjc1347]

Mr Nielson is trying very hard to fit in a country into a pretty straight forward situation into his operational "detection threshold" and prospect theory. How would we know that the actors didn't do any clandestine activity? I would assume those activities will have minimal effect compared to what happened so they would need to go to the next level. Blowing up control rooms or hacking won't have the same effect as a pipeline sabotage. Prospect theory. It depends on who is "winning" or "losing". Following that same idea, it could be said that the Ukraine is about to get 4 of their territories annexed to Russia and thereby they feel like they are "losing" and thereby need to take more risks. You believe that the Russian economy is collapsing but the ruble is actually doing well, and inflation is controlled. Even with partial mobilization, Putin's rating has gone down but nowhere close to the Western leaders. So who would need to do more "riskier" activities? How about the Occam razor theory? NATO controls and monitors that area of the ocean heavily from ships to submarines. If Russia with their weak navy compared to NATO wanted to destroy it (based on your theory), they could do it much closer to their shores. They are now reporting that one pipe wasn't damaged and the others could be repair. Why would they want to report that if their goal was to destroy it?

[@edc1569]

The idea the US is that desperate to sell a few more litres of LNG is pretty mad

[@scratchy996]

@@jjc1347 "they could do it much closer to their shores. " - so it looks like they did it ? "Why would they want to report that if their goal was to destroy it?" - the goal is to create panic and divide the Europeans. It's just a continuation of their hybrid war against Europe and NATO.

[@FranzBinder20]

I'm not really convinced about the "below detection" option in this particular case. How on earth should it be possible to make these pipelines dysfunctional without anyone noticing that somebody made them dysfunctional?

[@hrvojebartulovic7870]

It was Eskimos, undetected in their leather kayaks. They want to make us drill on Greenland. But it was not Americans. They wouldn't. They are good guys, all of them!

[@termitreter6545]

Theres a lot of ways to do this without blowing them up with 100s of kilograms of TNT equivalent. Structurally weaken the pipeline, so they just burst at some point, maybe even try to make it look like an accident. Sabotage the ground stations so that opening the valves again causes a critcal failure. Make it so that its hard to detect, looks like an accident, or only happens when the pipeline is actually reactivated. Im not an expert, but you got a serious lack of imagination if you think making it look like a giant act of terror was the only thing to do this. And you wont understand any of the politics if you cant imagine anything else.

[@stevepirie8130]

Question is why haven’t they stopped pumping gas into it? Answer, their storage tanks were full, domestic use at 100% and millions of tonnes of gas is still coming out the ground needing moved on. They burn $10m worth a day by flaring off, blowing the pipes has let them off gas and pollute polish, German, Swedish and Danish waters instead of their own air only.

[@uffa00001]

@@stevepirie8130 From what I read, one has to keep the pipes full of gas because the pipe is designed to use the inner pressure to resist the outer pressure. If I understand correctly, this also means the entire pipe is probably not any more structurally safe and would probably be "written off", if ever the EU needs and wants another such pipe (after a regime change in Russia) that means building another one.

[@rapter229]

below detection doesn't need to mean no one noticed a problem, it just means that the fact it was an attack/operation is left undetected. This can be as simple as intercepting and switching out some replacement machine component in transit, with a weaker one that will break and cause catastrophic damage. To everyone else looking at it, it seems like an accident. Therefore the sabotage remains undetected. A well hidden cyberattack could also be used to cause a machine to damage itself without being obvious. While not an example of an operation meant to remain undetected, when the US sabotaged the Iranian nuclear program, they did so by inserting malware into the devices that controlled the centrifuges that enrich the uranium before they were delivered, then the malware caused the centrifuges to spin so fast they destroyed themselves. So the technical and operational capabilities to cause sabotage covertly was demonstrated.

[@thekaiser4333]

Nielsen What are the results of the Danish Police investigation? What explosive was used, what evidence was secured and who did it?

[@l.ijspeert9040]

Very enlightening as always, thanks!

[@enricogattone432]

Every time you publish a new video, I get more and more convinced that your channel has about a couple million subscribers less than it should

[@jornzander1285]

Yes! Definitiv!

[@kamerona]

This is such a great video, it clarified some important ideas that i kind of understood but had no idea how to frame in my thinking. Thank you.

[@Kiaorafranz]

Hahaha, it's just, everything is wrong.

[@gregoryedwards9097]

Please, this is propaganda. The Russians do not have unlimited money like the US has, and they literally just finished building this pipeline that would have given them hundreds of billions of dollars. Please recognize the West has perhaps more propaganda than any other nation in the world, simply because it has the massive amounts of funds at its disposal. Europe is heavily under Western propaganda as well.

[@mrmjunhy]

The pipeline was already shut. But still acted as leverage for future negotiations. Now it is blown up. And that leverage is gone. Who benefits?

[@quedeixisenpauelmeucomptej3852]

NS1 was shut , NS 2 wasn't open yet. Mind please that one pipeline of NS2 is left untouched, so it's more 'treat or trick' than leverage now.

[@rumination2399]

Feel like the problem is you basically rest your whole argument after 2:50 on the idea that who materially is damaged needs to be set aside. To consider all possibilities certainly this is true. But it hardly makes your theory more plausible.

[@IndianDefenseAnalysis]

Brilliant Analysis ❤

[@larsrons7937]

Very good, insightful analysis. What both gives me confidence and disturbs me is that, except for the models of assessing it, your thoughts and conclusions are exactly those I had tuesday morning when I first heard about the leaks that monday. Tak skal du have!

[@user-lp2op9uu1w]

Stort tack, väldigt informativ!

[@jager6863]

The West knows who did it and how it was done. Right now they are evaluating their options and whether they wish to make the information public, whether they wish to retaliate or not. They also need to decide if they do wish to retaliate, do they wish to make it public. The public may or not learn the truth, which is what is being debated now.

[@nian60]

Seeing that the Karlskrona naval base is right there, I agree with you.

[@Per-se9kv]

Just randomly, I found your profile. It's amazing to see this high-level logic analysis and have to say, that I do agree with all of your points.

[@Kiaorafranz]

Hahaha, 4 months later. Don't you feel fooled by now?

[@keemanaan1734]

I am also reminded of one of Nielsen's earlier comments, paraphrased "...Putin needs a golden bridge to retreat across..."

[@TheKronprinsen]

Thank you for your update on this subject!

[@Gerdienator]

This has answered all my questions about how, why and who in regards to the pipeline explosions. Outstanding analysis. I had a hard time making sense of it before. It makes sense now. Thank you Anders.

[@eugene7309]

Can you help me please, because I still cannot understand the reasoning. The first part of the video states that the operation was designed in a special way. My imagination fails to find any other way of permanently disabling the pipeline. US tried stop it through sanctions, it kinda worked, but now it is permanent. No computer attack or policy could do the same thing.

[@jannegrey]

@@eugene7309 Policy would actually do the trick, it would just be very dick move from USA and not clandestine. Also cyber attack on such critical infrastructure would render it inoperable for months if not years until the end of investigation. Not to mention that you could have actually done the cyber attack in such a way that would render pipeline unusable. Over-pressurize it for example (if the pipe wouldn't blow up it would still have to be inspected - this would take years to allow European regulatory bodies to allow it to open). Force shutdowns due to attack and force lengthy investigations. Make use of how all of the European countries involved work and how lengthy the process of restoring faith and not having 80% of population be afraid that it will harm environment or brake down every couple of months, is. There were cyber attacks done on small scale as well as proof of concepts on similar machinery. Destructive cyber attacks. I'm not talking about "ha, ha we hacked your website and you're down for 3 hours". Also there could be gradient - basically invisible cyber attack on gas turbines, so compressors etc. It would take longer and would take some time, but with that you could regulate the damage. Take it down for couple of months for example. And again, you're not seen, in some cases, you're not even suspected. And yes - it is completely doable to physically destroy modern running engine that is controlled by computer - as is case in such huge infrastructure project. For similar cyber attack see Stuxnet. Though there were a lot more tests done on things that are very similar to what is used in Nordstream.

[@davieb8216]

@@jannegrey Yeah, Stuxnet is actually a great example . Took a while to realise it was an attack, but once found was obviously a US attack as they were the only one with the tools and motives to do it. Trying to do a non detectable attack makes it more obvious who performed the attack.

[@johnle6982]

Don’t you remember how the Israeli/US s worm disabled the Iranian centrifuges?

[@davieb8216]

@@johnle6982 Yep, Stuxnet.

[@Mishn0]

I wish other You Tube channels would adopt your three second intro montage. There's no reason for a 15 minute video to have a 90 or more second intro.

[@tttppp5951]

Great channel,greetings from Slovakia.

[@zloyboy8]

It's pretty convient to not mention how happy the U.S. was stating that this is a tremendous opportunity for the EU to not be relying on Russian gas and rely on the U.S. Watched a few videos of yours, and concluded that you do make some fair points here and there, but in the end after excluding key details that occurred in the time, you're pointing the blame on Russia. What about how the U.S. threatened to do this before the conflict started? What about some key politicial figures thanking the U.S. and afterwards deleting the statement? What about the fact this was done in EU waters that are under EU control? What about the fact that the U.S. conducted military exercises a few weeks beforehand in the area? And lastly how come the actual news sites aren't saying its Russia? So far they've been screaming Russia about everything. Your car tire is blown? It's Russia, your car got scratched ? Must be Russia! This has been throughout the conflict like this, and the one moment where they could say it's Russia, all of a sudden complete silence. Trying to create reasons for Russia to do this, and changing the likelihood of other countries being Involved. Not saying it's impossible that it's Russia, however ignoring( or actively hiding) key points that occurred at the moment it happened, and pretending that people that suspect that it isn't Russia are for some reason are stupid for seeing to many coincidences? And now you're telling me that Russia, the Russia that everyone is saying is fighting with sticks and throwing rocks because of how incompetent they are , made such an extraordinary plan and blow up the biggest advantage they had over the EU? I call that non sense.

[@ChrisGurin]

Prospect theory is new to me, and I have imbedded the concept “people like to win, but really, really hate losing,” in how to think about this conflict. Your videos are like having a personal presidential briefing.

[@cryhavoc8461]

If piqued, you can find the original theory paper here: Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, 'Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk', Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Mar., 1979), pp.263-92.

[@ChrisGurin]

@@cryhavoc8461 Thank you!

[@pierresaelen3097]

@@cryhavoc8461 I also want to thank you for this reference.

[@Bjowolf2]

My money is on Iceland and Luxembourg 😂

[@peka2478]

Kahneman also explains the winning/losing in "thinking fast and slow", if youre more into easier lecture (basically: people react differently to "you have a 10% chance to win 100$" than to "here, take these 100$, and now you have a 90% chance to lose these 100$")

[@SchmidtMueller]

Thank you very much for your deep insights! Your videos help tremendesly to understand the current global situation.

[@simv765]

What nonsensical analysis. Start with "if we have an idea about the purpose of the attack, then we know who did it". "Then end with: people put too much emphasis on "why would Russia do this?".

[@sruththine3689]

That's not really supported by anyone at the moment. And one year ago it was rather unlikely. You are missing one crucial point - the country was already tied up in a bloody war, for which it was not really prepared, and then executing such a complicated and covert operation without leaving any traces in an observed area (given previous fails of the secret service) with no clear objective is completely insane. Nuclear deterrence is not really comparable. It's more like blaming recent ISIS attack in Moscow on anyone else but ISIS. With the exception that we still don't have a good idea who executed this attack on the Nord Stream.

[@OzzMazz]

The next step is clearly to determine whether the explosion was internal or external. This information is known but not publicly released. Strange.

[@geennaam2712]

You can really explain things very good about this topic thx for covering this! Also, I saw you on the Dutch national television about the northstream

[@jeppelarsen7862]

Always a pleasure to watch! I learn a new logical way of thinking every time I watch this channel! Bravo!

[@jw362]

Another excellent analysis!

[@z33r0now3]

Operation design and prospect theory, thanks for that. Highly enlightening.

[@hewi1352]

Tak, Anders. Du er virkelig skarp til at fortælle hvad det er der sker. Deprimerende, men også meget meget interessant.

[@pmakins95]

This like many other Anders Puck videos with his disdain for Russia aged like fine milk. Russia blew up the Nord Stream 2, what a fucking joke xD

[@djc9727]

The first thing out of Russia’s mouth was that they could fix it if sanctions were lifted. They also control the pigging (the tools used inside the pipe) of the line. Who ever did it also used excessive amounts of explosives. Where as a much smaller amount would have worked since what does not compress so the explosion has only one way to go and that into a empty pipe.

[@bipl8989]

58 lbs of TNT or some equivalent of other explosive per pipeline. The pipe was not empty. It contained gas at over 100 barg to 160 barg. The pipe is 26mm thick wall steel at that point.

[@johnjoeflanagan]

It's so refreshing having you analyse these issues. I always feel better after listening to your interpretation.🤝

[@1inAtrillion]

too bad its all wrong

[@Thomey90]

Very good video that could help counter a lot of misinformation

[@wulff21]

I like it, but... as an European i still believe US did it...... Russia had Germany by the balls, US needed to remove that trump card from Russia and get Germany into the war not hiding behind it own economical interests. And looking in the back light it looks like it was a success

[@bipl8989]

Best analysis I've heard so far. Prospect theory makes quite a bit of sense. War uses different logic. Common sense rules do not need to apply.

[@kyoungd]

I was confused about this, but your analysis cleared it up. Wonderful analysis. Tight reasoning.

[@globalshiffft]

You may like our channel @globalshiffft for independent analysis and reporting on the Ukraine war and other geopolitical events. We're all here to learn

[@MrChronicpayne]

Good video, love the subject matter. But I disagree with your first points where you kind of hand wave away the logic behind the US doing it: Disabling Nordstream 2 in a long term fashion precludes the action being Clandestine. If your goal is to physically prevent the pipeline from transporting gas, and its pressurized, there is no way to do it without it being detectable. When you look at this situation with the bar being raised to covert as the minimum option, coupled with the rapid development of commercial underwater ROVs (or navy options) suddenly this becomes a lot less risky and a lot more plausible. You get to pick the time and place, and contrary to many types of operations you can abort at any stage prior to the final step of blowing up the pipeline without discovery. Hacking would be short term at best, seemingly not the goal of the operation. As for doing it closer to Russia's border that would make less sense, not more - the pipeline is owned by Gazprom, which is owned by the state. You start to destroy Russian state infrastructure on or near Russian soil and suddenly the 'measured' response increases exponentially.

[@darrenkoch1718]

This is a very good point. It doesn’t alter the prospect theory argument though, which seems to completely rule out the U.S. taking such a serious risk. But I think the difficulty of performing the action and remaining below the detection threshold seems very high.

[@pierresaelen3097]

When you were applying Kahneman's and Tversky's Prospect Theory, I constantly had to think back to WW1 and the Germans and their Calculated Risks that backfired so hard: 1) Initiating a war when the odds were so against them, with an operational Schlieffen plan that conceptually was almost a decade old: the Russians and Serbs had become much stronger, and the Italian Dreibund ally could no longer be trusted to side with Germany and Austria-Hungary. However, Germany felt so encircled (Einkreisung) that it thought that it could no longer postpone the war. They wasted almost a decade in which they would have had less of an uphill struggle, but then the risks didn't seem worth it, while suddenly they did. 2) The Schlieffen plan of bypassing the strong French fortifications by invading through Belgium always risked being the final drop that would make the British bucket flow over and thus join the war against Germany. However, Germany took the risk gambling that the speed of their operation would give them such a victory in the West that they could strengthen their Russian front prior to the full Russian assault and that it would offset any negative results from the UK joining the war. Guess what: Germany lost too much time conquering the old Belgian fortresses. So the envisaged gains didn't pan out as expected, whereas all the risks materialized. 3) With the UK and its Commonwealth joining the war Germany faced an ever tighter naval blockade which changed the nature of this war: it became a war of attrition it could not win, unless it obtained a decisive victory, quickly. Germany tried to achieve this in: - 1915 by means of undersea warfare. It stopped/reduced this approach when fearing an American intervention; - 1916 by starting a war of attrition in manpower by attacking the French stronghold of Verdun. (The Russian battle of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk at a far bigger and more destructive scale.) Germany sorely missed those men in 1918; - 1917 by launching an unlimited submarine attack on merchant shipping that supplied the allies, including ships from neutral countries, thinking that if this would trigger the US to join the war, it would be too slow to mobilize and train its men to have an effect prior to the decisive battles at the Western front (since the Russian army collapsed in 1917). Again, it didn't pan out as expected. I've been wondering for several months why none of Russia's elite is reminding Putin of these German examples. Prospect theory helps to explain why Putin's Russia is steering the same disastrous course. The only difference: Putin has nukes. Putin is already the father of the Ukrainian nation state: he transformed it from a country in search of its common identity, to a country with a unifying set of values and storyline which led to a common identity. Does Putin realize that when going nuclear he not only risks destroying Russia as a state (break-up) and a country (level of destruction if going into a full scale nuclear war), but that he would then become the founding father of the EU as a nation state? The use of nukes when your country's survival is not at risk being such a taboo in Europe that violating this taboo could unify all other Europeans in a way nothing else would.

[@SianaGearz]

Very sharp observation, thank you. I grew up in Ukraine and it was an intensely divided country; over the last 8 years, it became quite united and sharply focused, even more so with the ongoing large scale invasion.

[@pierresaelen3097]

@@SianaGearz With pleasure. As a Fleming from Belgium who was partially raised in French and from his twelve years on refused to speak any French at home, because I then understood that French was used as a weapon to destroy the culture of Dutch speaking Flemings and annex even more parts of it by Brussels or Wallonia, I recognize a lot of similarities in the Ukrainian plight, although your history is a far bloodier one than ours. Prof. dr. Timothy Snyder rightfully calls it a part of the Bloodlands. Like so many others I've been positively impressed at how Ukrainians are dealing with the current challenges. I wish your leaders all the wisdom necessary to achieve complete victory without unleashing all the evil that is breeding within Russia. Russians need such a victory by you, just as the Germans needed the allies to defeat them in WW2 in order to really set them free and change Germany into a peace loving country.

[@gabunka65]

Tak for at gør militær teori forståelig og hermed slå luften ud af diverse lomme teorier

[@glyons1843]

Great video as always. I always learn something watching your stuff. Thank you!

[@187Rajah]

Great bullshit, US / Britain did it

[@Slavic_Goblin]

They're not really that insightful. As usually, the guy has a conclusion and then looks for a way to reach it. I occasionally get his stuff reccomended by YT and it's always the same MO.

[@snirge]

How's that Nordstream investigation coming along?

[@Neil.Swinnerton]

This was cogently argued and very informative. Thank you!

[@calibri1182]

I don't think an operation below threshold level is possible in this case. I mean, the pipes were pressurized. If someone blows them up, everyone is going to see the bubbles in the surface, you know. Therefore, there is no "operational choice".

[@thevoxdeus]

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Simply saying that it can't be X (the United States, in this case), because you're pretty sure that some hypothetical approach would have been better doesn't work as an argument unless you can at least propose an example of what that hypothetical better approach would be. Because without that counter example, you're ignoring the most obvious reason why someone follows a sub-optimal path to a goal: because there is not actually a better alternative, either in means or ends. It's like saying "well I'm pretty sure Hannibal didn't cross the Alps, because anyone would prefer to travel on flat ground." I'm not even saying that the US did this (how could any of us possibly know?) Anyone doing this would be taking a significant risk if discovered, and pretty much anyone other than Germany and Russia has a motive to keep Germany from caving in, and that there are a number of NATO countries, as well as Russia, who could have done it.

[@michalduska9770]

Thank you! I like the theoretical background you planted in our heads 😉.

[@rgicquaud]

Wow... Amazing analysis!

[@mettegoldmann9674]

thank you for a very educationel analysis ( as usual ). I allways look forward to your next video. Understanding is really important for me.

[@willemvanriet7160]

Brilliant and insightful analyses! Loving your channel and content

[@peterhenkel9957]

I always enjoy your professional analysis.

[@andreruegg9490]

Your analysis is unbelievably thorough, detailed and well put forward. KZbin amazes me again, we get access to such well made piece of information for free, yet so few people consume it. Keep it up Anders, your analysis is fantastic.

[@spaceowl5957]

It's totally superficial and doesn't make any sense

[@j.calvert3361]

Yes very good analysis. Regrettably KZbin also has heaps of dumb sh*t.

[@Disinformation_Hoax]

@@spaceowl5957 Yes it's total drivel, unless it is meant to preach to the unsuspectful choir. As it seems to be the case. Then it's great piece of disinformation.

[@danielwykowski6069]

My gut feeling is it was Norway and Poland, Russia has been screwing with Norway for years and Norway has its own pipeline to take up the slack.

[@GJonesCPT]

This is the definitive analysis that everyone needs to watch regarding this incident.

[@Blackburnian737]

These are great, thanks for making them I suspected Russia but this really explains why they would want to do this. Trying to do my part to get these boosted by the algorithm!

[@zenlei8258]

Nonsense. Do you have data proof Russia did this ?

[@chriscoomans4434]

I'm glad i found your channel. It really adds to my yt experience and is very educative! Much appreciated. You deserve more subscribers.

[@psionicpowers132]

Yt, u mean albians aka European hybrids grafted by Yakub aka jacob in the Bible?

[@markignatiev7194]

Great insights and analysis as always! Thank you!

[@Kasperthelarsen02]

Good analysis and video

[@pinchofsalt8677]

Amazing quality muh man! Cant believe you can get this level of lnowledge on yt nowadays...

[@psotos]

Wow! What an incredible piece of analysis! Thank you Anders!

[@vinzenzkratzer210]

Awesome, thanks! I think you are on the top tier of useful content on ukraine out there. thank you for your work!

[@amirdepaz888]

I agree with your conclusion that it’s the Russian but If so, why USA didn’t immediately made an announcement for not doing it? (Personally I think it would have been a dangerous move if USA did it).

[@LondraCalibro9]

woah.....this just made everything way more scary! Great video as always, love your work - thank you!

[@treyd3433]

Thanks for such an eye opening video!!

[@donaldduck4888]

Someone who has tried very hard to use some gibberish around operational design to find a way to blame Russia for massively benefiting the US by blowing up their own pipelines. Pipelines they can shut any time by turning the taps off. Just look at how happy Blinken is about this.

[@paulstewart1557]

Wow - such a lucid and compelling explanation without sensationalism. Congratulations! I will think about any new developments with a different sense of priorities now.

[@jack_batterson]

I value Anders' videos for exactly the reasons you state. 👍

[@spaceowl5957]

I don't think it's compelling at all if you put a little thought into it

[@KevinSmith-qo3lv]

@@spaceowl5957 it makes a lot more sense than the US did it when the gains for the US are minimal those pipelines were dead and wouldn't have been used for a long time even if they didn't explode so Russia lost basically nothing and the US gained basically nothing, even when you do cost analysis Russia had more to gain than the US, especially when you take into account the one of the pipes survived which basically means that for the US the operation was a failure and from the Russian side it would be considered as a success (the one pipe surviving)

[@spaceowl5957]

@@KevinSmith-qo3lv I'm German this is terrible for our economy. The prospect of reopening the pipelines would've (and already had) created a lot of pressure domestically to step away from the American line and be more cooperative with Russia. Just one of the reasons why the US has a credible interest in this. Which Russia does not.

[@spaceowl5957]

@@KevinSmith-qo3lv "even when you do cost analysis Russia had more to gain than the US" that's laughable

[@mattiasthorslund6467]

If you learned something from this video, please like, subscribe and comment. I think this is such a high quality channel that it deserves millions of subscribers.

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

True, it really does!

[@enricogattone432]

And share the link on other channels comment sections whenever discussing about topics that Anders covered. His videos are consistently an eye-opener

[@Richard-iq8xb]

@@enricogattone432 Anders and Perun together really help you understand the war in Ukraine.