On September 26 and 27, gas leaks and explosions were reported on the Nord stream 1 and 2 pipelines. These occurred in Baltic Sea international waters, near the Danish island of Bornholm. Although neither of the pipelines was active at the moment, the amount of gas leakage was still significant. The timing, significance, and location of the leaks has led some to speculate that it was sabotage and that Russia deliberately attacked the pipelines. 

So far, however, Western governments and officials have refrained from pointing fingers directly to Russia. As NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg argued: “This is something that is extremely important to get all the facts on the table, and therefore this is something we’ll look closely into in the coming hours and days”. It has however highlighted the importance of critical infrastructure and its role in the current stand-off between the West and Russia. 

So what consequences did the leakage and supposed ‘sabotage’ have?

Economic consequences

The damage to Nord Stream coincided with news that new arbitrations over payments might lead to Russian sanctions against Naftogaz, Ukraine’s largest oil and gas companies. Consequently, benchmark futures of natural gas jumped 22%, the highest increase in over three weeks. Markets seem to have taken into consideration that now that pipelines have been damaged, the EU can’t request for them to be opened in case of an emergency. Nevertheless, with storage sites nearly at full capacity, heightened LNG imports, and mild weather forecasts for October, markets remained relatively calm. 

Environmental  

The environmental impact has been significant. Gazprom estimated that 0.8 bcm was released at the leaks. That number is almost equal to 1% of annual UK natural gas consumption, or 3% of its annual emissions. Were both pipelines actually active, the impact could have been much worse. 

Political

After Danish and Swedish authorities launched investigations, suspicions of sabotage strengthened. In a statement by the Swedish security police, they said there were “detonations”. And in a joint letter to the UNSC, they stated that leaks were probably caused by an “explosive load of several hundred kilos”. President Biden argued the leaks were a deliberate act of sabotage as well. Meanwhile, Russian president Putin claimed the US and its allies were behind the attack. 

The main logic behind a potential sabotage from the Russian side would be intimidation. Both in the Baltic Sea and the Atlantic, lots of critical infrastructure, such as pipelines or IT-cables, lie on the seabed. The attack on Nord Stream therefore would be a showcase for what Russia could do to other critical infrastructure. Ultimately, however, it would also mean that Russia has lost its element of leverage with gas.  

As a consequence, EU energy ministers discussed the issue and European countries stepped up military patrols. In the North Sea, Germany, the UK, and France helped Norway in a show of force to increase security and patrol near energy sites. This was also a consequence of several unidentified drones being spotted near the sites. In the Mediterranean, Italy increased patrols near its pipelines which connect North Africa to Europe. 

Risks

If this event turns out to be Russian sabotage, it adds a dimension to the conflict between the West and Russia. Although that conflict consisted of economic warfare and aspects of hybrid-warfare, physical attacks (on critical infrastructure) were absent. It begs the question whether we have entered a new phase of the war. 

The risk, however, of physical attacks on other critical infrastructure remains limited. It is important to highlight that no gas flows were disrupted, because of Nord Stream’s inactivity. Combined with the ambiguity that was left about the perpetrator of the attacks, damage could be done without any consequences. This grey-zone aggression has been part of Russia’s playbook for years. Nevertheless, Russia knows the significance of physical attacks on other active pipelines would be far greater, and are more likely to trigger an article 4 or 5 response from NATO, even where proof is hard to ascertain. This limits the risk of physical attacks on other critical infrastructure.   

The risks of 1) cyber attacks on critical infrastructure and 2) physical attacks on pipelines running through Ukraine, on the other hand, are greater, because it is more likely that Russia can maintain ambiguity there. It demonstrates the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and the difficulty of responding to coordinated attacks.