The Three Escalations - Part I
In the last week three major escalations have occurred in Europe including the apparent sabotage of the Nordstream pipelines in the Baltic Sea
The last several days have seen a marked increase in tensions and escalations around Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. All three greatly complicate the war in Ukraine and risk spillover into Europe which could spark a general war. Conversely, the spillover effects could have dramatic blowback towards Moscow, a series of calculated albeit increasingly risky, plays by Putin to reverse the situation in Ukraine and put pressure on NATO. Indeed one may not be an escalation from Moscow at all but rather a US or NATO escalation or even an act of happenstance.
The three escalations are mobilization of Russian conscripts, the sabotage of the Nordstream pipelines under the Baltic Sea, and a return of nuclear rhetoric largely in conjunction with the sham referenda in Russian-occupied Ukraine.
Breaking down these escalations we can see some of the macroeconomic and larger political consequences that will define the winter of 2022-2023.
Nordstream
War has unexpected twists and turns, this has always been true. This morning, explosions reportedly opened three holes in the Nordstream pipelines that run from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea. Scandinavian seismologists recorded two explosions and video footage of an enormous bubbling gas leak in the Baltic has gone viral.
Europe already stands in an energy crisis with European gas prices sitting at eight times their 10-year averages1. As a result, the Nordstream pipelines along with energy supplies from Russia stand front and center in the geopolitical front of the Ukraine War.
How authorities conduct the investigation, plug the leaks, mitigate environmental damage, and plan for winter will all come to a head over this action. Putting aside the military and clandestine technical aspects of how such sabotage would occur, the question is who is the perpetrator?
There are likely four answers: Russia, a western/European actor, the United States, or Ukraine. Other possibilities include China, a Middle Eastern petrostate, or a third party group, though these potential actors are simply less likely due to the sheer logistics involved. Frankly it seems impossible that a non-affiliated organization like a terrorist cell or some other group would even have the technical skill and equipment to pull this off.
So while the world waits for results, a game of Clue must commence with an examination of motivations.
A European Actor
Which European states have the capabilities to attack the pipeline is hard to determine. Whether or not NATO has the ability to monitor military traffic (such as submarines) through the Danish Straits between Denmark, Norway, and Sweden is also tough to say. Was this done by submarine? From a dropped ordnance from a surface vessel? A limited range submersible? Diving and naval demolition team? Pre-arranged explosives that have sat on the pipe line for months or years? An internal explosion from an inspection drone?
Asking the technical questions shows that the action had to occur from a state with proximity to the Baltic Sea and the pipeline. Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, and Poland all come to mind in this regard. A Norwegian attack would make its own pipeline network far more valuable. A host of pipes run along the North Sea connecting Norway to Britain and northern Europe. Coincidentally, today marks the inauguration of a new major Norwegian project to bring gas into Europe.
A German attack could rid its politicians of the Nordstream headache altogether with the veneer of plausible deniability. A Polish attack could be to remove a confliction point from Europe’s otherwise united response to Russia. Removing the “easy Russia” option from the European energy crisis debate would also light a fire on various European policy makers to rethink their domestic energy policies regarding issues like carbon emissions or nuclear power safety. Interestingly, Polish MEP Radek Sikorski and Chairman of the EU-USA Delegation tweeted this today
Whether Mr. Skiorski tweeted this in jest is unknown.
Frankly there are many reasons why a European actor would do this, even if it (or perhaps intentionally because) it puts Europe in a tough spot in the coming months. The question of who, who all knew, how it was conducted, and the risk to European unity all come to mind. A Polish or Finnish attack on Nordstream could seriously destabilize the unity of NATO for instance.
Ukraine
Ukrainian success depends on European unity, European support, and a Europe that weathers the energy crisis without crawling back to Russian dependence if domestic pressure adds up over the winter. Ukraine is also host to multiple pipelines that supply energy to Europe, one of the factors that make the war so important from a macroeconomic sense.
The loss of Nordstream is a victory for Ukraine in this sense. It makes Ukraine more important to European actors and forces Europe to confront its energy policies that could undermine their support for Kyiv. Because Ukraine stands to gain so much from the loss of Nordstream the finger has been pointed their way. Of course, Ukraine is already at war with Russia so an attack on a Russian pipeline is a bit cleaner than another state’s action (only a bit of course as it has much broader consequence and is literally miles from Danish waters).
Of course, Ukraine lacks a navy and while their forces are receiving NATO training it’s hard to see their forces receiving specialized underwater demolition training that is usually reserved for special forces like SEALs. If Ukraine was going to hit an underwater pipeline to send a message to Russia, the Black Sea is home to several targets.
Lastly the political fallout that would occur if Ukraine was exposed as the perpetrator would be enormous. The average European would lose much of their sympathy and NATO support of the war effort would be severely undermined.
Frankly, the risk-benefit analysis does not add up in Ukraine’s favor.
The United States
If any country has the technical expertise to conduct this operation it is the U.S. and Washington has been vocal for years in its opposition to Nordstream. Cutting Europe off from Russian energy achieves a geostrategic goal for the U.S. and benefits U.S. energy sources, namely the LNG industry. Furthermore, returning manufacturing and industrial activity to North America is a chief policy goal for D.C. (and many state capitals) and the European energy crisis combined with high transportation costs, high insurance costs, and the right combination of tax credits are all facilitating this. Like Ukraine, the U.S. is one of the key parties here who only stand to benefit from this action as long as they are not caught.
That is where the risk factor really comes into play. A Ukrainian attack on Nordstream will enrage Europe but it would also be understandable and theoretically (very theoretically) a legal attack on Russian wartime infrastructure. A U.S. attack on Nordstream is purely self-serving while creating an environmental disaster in the Baltic Sea, attacking the infrastructure of a nuclear-equipped country the U.S. is not at war with, in the lead up to critical toss-up elections, next to the the waters of a NATO ally. All at a time when the U.S. is trying to repair years of geopolitical damage.
If Washington decided the risk is worth the consequence of being discovered then DC needs new risk analysts.
Russia
Russia stands to lose a lot by cutting their own pipeline but they also sit in the most desperate situation. On one hand, the loss of Nordstream represents a loss of revenue and the loss of a much needed bargaining chip with Europe. On the other hand, attacking their own infrastructure sends a message to Europe and threatens other underwater infrastructure (Norwegian and Black Sea pipelines or data cables). Nordstream can also be repaired with time. By exacerbating the energy crisis now before Europe is ready for the winter, Moscow can place tremendous pressure on Europe on its own terms. Moscow also has to understand the true conduct of the war and may think that its geopolitical position will not be any stronger than it is right now, cutting energy to Europe and mobilizing its population to double down in Ukraine. Combining this with the annexations and nuclear rhetoric, Putin may be trying to force some kind of solution before the consequences of his mobilization truly begin to add up. Indeed, fall/winter politics in the west could play a factor in his thinking for a decisive action like this. Italy just elected a rightwing party to power, the types of political parties that tend to be more favorable to Russia. The UK sits in political crisis. The November midterms are looming in the U.S. Elections are also scheduled in Latvia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Austria, and Czechia over the next four months. Lastly, while Russia’s own actions fly in the face of international law it should be pointed out that there would essentially be no geopolitical fallout if it was revealed Russia attacked its own infrastructure.
China, Third Party, or Natural Disaster
Frankly, all of these seem highly unlikely. The technical ability to blow three sections of two different underwater pipelines in a highly monitored body of water really narrow down potential actors. China likely has the capability but can it project its capabilities around the world into what is essentially a NATO lake to attack the infrastructure of a casual ally? The consequences and capabilities frankly don’t add up for a lot of actors here. Why would China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Gabon or the Bahamas or anyone get involved when steering clear makes sense for three fourths of the world?
Even if we spot a third party the technical ability to conduct such an operation, the motivations don’t add up. Blowing a pipeline and creating an environmental disaster that might lead to the reactivation of Europe’s nuclear plants or reworking of emissions agreements hardly seems like a sound strategic victory for an environmental terrorist group. Attacking underwater pipeline infrastructure hardly seems the preferred target of a religiously motivated terrorist organization. Why would far-right terrorist organizations do something that ostensibly hurts Russia?
Lastly, there is the Maine reality. At the end of the day the most likely reason the Battleship Maine blew up in Havana harbor 125 years ago wasn’t sabotage, or a mine, or a false flag but a coal fire that sparked the forward magazines. Given the heated political atmosphere of the era, the tragic accident and its uncertain circumstances allowed the Spanish-American War to gain runaway public support. History has a tendency to turn on such coincidences. What we have are confirmed reports of an underwater explosion at multiple seismic offices, a visible gas leak in the Baltic Sea, and reports that three openings exist, two on Nordstream 1 and one on NordStream 2.
Of course this is too coincidental. PMs from multiple countries have formally stated they believe the act to be intentional.
But while the signs point to sabotage or some kind of intentionally destructive event, we should not rule out, at least immediately, an industrial accident or some kind of other accident. That it may have happened in a volatile environment on a highly controversial pipeline stretches the definition of coincidence but it should be noted that World War I turned on a Serbian assassin deciding to get lunch.
Tomorrow Part II will discuss the escalation and disaster that has been Russia’s mobilization call.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/what-is-the-cost-of-europes-energy-crisis/