Sabotage of Nord Stream: Who Wins and Who Pays in Europe's Energy Crisis

The Nord Stream sabotage: the blow that changed European gas

Four simultaneous leaks in a single pipeline system are no accident. The North Stream 1 and 2 were found ruptured in international waters of the Baltic, and from the very beginning, the debate shifted from technical to geopolitical: who gains as Europe is cut off from cheap Russian gas, and who loses? The short answer: whoever sells liquefied gas at premium prices wins; German industry loses. The longer answer is what is currently being discussed.

What is on the table is an uncomfortable fact: the US President publicly promised to end the Nord Stream 2 if Russia invaded Ukraine. The promise was recorded. Months later, the pipelines are out of service. No one has claimed responsibility, no conclusive evidence has been presented, and hypotheses accumulate without any being closed.

What is known about the Nord Stream sabotage

The North Stream 1 was no longer pumping gas to Europe when the leaks occurred. The 2 never entered service: Germany blocked it before the invasion. In other words, the sabotage did not cut active supply but eliminated infrastructure that could be reactivated. This detail completely changes the reading of the attack.

The leaks were detected in international waters, not in Danish territorial waters, complicating legal attribution and military response. Some argue that an attack in Danish waters would have been a direct declaration of war; doing so in international waters sends a more ambiguous message, harder to respond to without escalation.

The Russian hypothesis points to internal sabotage to blame the West. The Western hypothesis points to Moscow as the author of an exemplary punishment. And a third path, the most uncomfortable, points to Europe's allies as the perpetrators. Any of the three is frightening, and none has been proven.

The price of electricity in Germany and the gas that doesn't arrive

The economic impact quickly reflected in markets. The price per megawatt hour in Germany for 2023 exceeded 1,000 euros, a historic high. In just two weeks, the price doubled in the futures market. France also surpassed this threshold amid uncertainty about European electricity supply.

This is the figure that turns the sabotage into more than a spy episode. Europe not only loses a route for cheap gas: it loses the ability to negotiate prices with Russia, Norway, or Algeria. Whoever has the gas sets the price. And whoever does not have it, pays it.

German industry, most dependent on Russian gas, is the first to feel the blow. Plant closures, production relocation, and rising energy bills are consequences that will be felt for years, not just one winter.

Who wins from the Nord Stream sabotage

There is an obvious winner: US liquefied gas, which arrives in Europe in methane carriers and is sold at prices much higher than Russian pipeline gas. Every barrel of gas Europe stops buying from Russia is a barrel bought from the United States, Qatar, or whoever puts the ship.

The second winner is Ukraine, which sees Europe lose any temptation to buy Russian gas again while the war continues. The sabotage effectively eliminates the option to reopen the Nord Stream 2, which was Moscow's major card to divide allies.

And the great loser is Europe itself, which is left without energy maneuvering room and with a bill that will weigh on its competitiveness for the next decade. The question no one fully answers is whether that price is worth it for supply security.

The European response and the silence of allies

The European Union classified the sabotage as an attack on its critical infrastructure but has not identified any responsible party. NATO spoke of a sabotage act without attribution. And the United States, which had promised to end the Nord Stream 2, remained silent when the pipes were found ruptured.

That silence is the most eloquent fact. If the author were Russia, the Western response would have been immediate and decisive. If the author is an ally, the response becomes uncomfortable. And if it is unknown who it is, the response becomes impossible.

Meanwhile, Europe continues to buy gas at market prices, filling its storage tanks at a cost passed on to household and business bills. The Nord Stream sabotage was not just an attack on pipes: it was an attack on Europe's ability to decide its own energy policy.

What can happen now with European gas

The most likely short-term scenario is that Europe continues to depend on imported liquefied gas, with volatile prices and an energy bill that will not drop while the war in Ukraine continues. Diversification towards Algeria, Norway, or Azerbaijan is advancing, but it does not compensate for the volume Russia provided.

The most worrying scenario is that the Nord Stream sabotage is the first in a series of attacks on European critical infrastructure: submarine cables, regasification ports, alternative pipelines. If that happens, the European response will have to be much more decisive than a statement.

And the scenario no one wants to name is that of direct escalation between powers with Europe as a battlefield. The Nord Stream sabotage was not the end of anything: it was the beginning of a new way of waging war without declaring it.

---

Who pays the bill for an attack no one has claimed and that everyone takes advantage of?