redjard

If you’re talking price, then that was caused by the war, and actually reduced by the detonation by creating certainty in the market and proper political action. As seen in the graph.

As it happens, the price the day before detonation has never been gotten close to since. And the drop in price for the next year was always more than the rise over the previous year (over more than a year it crosses into pre-aggression territory on the past side)

Like, to say it another way, if you pick some N days, where N is less than 365, and check the gas price N days before nordstream detonation, it will be more expensive than N days after nordstream detonation.

I don’t see how you can think detonating nordstream raised gas prices for industry or anyone.

There are no price spikes ever since (ignoring Iran which is unrelated and caused from wanting to replace Oil). I wonder what this would look like had germany kept using russian gas (somehow) when Ukraine started bombing Russian fossil fuel infrastructure.

Maybe they mean Y STOP or N STOP

EditEdit: apparently I made this “edit” as a duplicate of the post oops

Edit:
Oh also germany did not import or use basically any LNG until way after nordstream. It’s not even 0.1% of germanys gas in 2021 and 2022, as you can see from the graph further up.

And your substack blog link seems untrustworthy (and is quite old), but I can’t investigate more because it’s paywalled

There was no industry collapse though.

This is the (to be fair consumer) price history, and it pretty clearly shows the price calm down and return to pre tension levels due to the detonation and proper action after.
So, since the price remained the same, noone was ever forced to act due to price pressure from norstream. Industry and private housing probably did start retooling before that, due to the price spikes at the start of the war.

It also seems to show that “the market” did not expect the pipeline to reopen, given the spikes.

Give this, I change my opinion to “the nordstream detonation probably improved the german economy and reduced industry downturn”. Be it from added confidence or from creating proper political action.

Actually, is this available at all yet? I’ve just tried using it and it seems completely missing.

No, it wasn’t. Germany switched to far pricier […] LNG

The instability and fear, the supply since 2023 is solid and has not been doubted by anyone.

They had it as a barganing chip, and you seem to take it as a given they wouldn’t bargain with it.

It had sat for months before, and months before that it was trickling down. Russia would have at minimum waited the entire winter too, hoping Germany would cave or act less determined to replace the supply.
And then after that winter, would they have just resumed exports like nothing at the old low prices?

American LNG where it has remained.

I’d like a source on that, from what I’ve seen they are decreasing gas use internally to more than compensate, mainly in heating (mostly moving to heat pumps). Initially they were getting a lot of supply from inside the EU and Norway, and brokered some temporary deals with middle eastern nations (also they did have some storage to buffer it out). With LNG accounting for almost none of the total imports. The numbers I’ve found myself so far don’t seven split out the US or middle east from the “other” category, being in the low single percent or less.

https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2026/20260112_GAS.html
This would be one reliable (though not terribly specific) source I found for this.

The largest suppliers of gas were Norway (44%), the Netherlands (24%) and Belgium (21%).

This sums to 89%. Other statistics I found split the remainder between LNG and other.

https://www.bayern-innovativ.de/en/emagazine/detail/en/page/where-germany-gets-its-gas-from

I don’t see any notable issue in any of this.

In looking into this I saw that the EU at large has more notable LNG imports, about half of the total, so as much as Norway and eastern (non-eu) europe combined. Which is also about as much as Russia used to supply, though has not increased by that amount so just taken up some of the slack.

Btw. my initial guess for who did nordstream was germany itself, or in cooperation with whomever (like the us), to gain the political decisiveness to properly migrate away from russian gas without constantly fighting against people still wanting to bargain with russia. May still well have been complicit or explicit support, with various players deciding to let it happen for example. Or could have truly been a few people deciding it would be best and winging it themselves.

2.8 billion is nothing. Damage due to market speculation was (very) short lived and, like, the market always spikes around. A random car bridge somewhere rusting through (thanks to germany hating trains) probanly has more impact in replacement cost and economic downturn than that.
You can’t blame the economic trend of a major country on 3 billion €.

but was unlikely to remain off for years as it has

I don’t see why. Russia manufactured the original turning off of nordstream 1, they wouldn’t have reengaged it until pro russian politicians got to power and deepened the influence by opening ns2. Which based on current trends would have been at minimum till the start of 2025 government change, or more likely still not. And who knows what it’d have done for germanys rising nazi party.

The effects were constrained to a few months, by spring 2023 it was thoroughly patched up. Germany did invest a lot for that, but outside state finances, to the wider economy, leaving russia controlling the market speculation would have been way more damaging for way longer.

Nordstream was already dead, russia wasn’t gonna send anything more unless germany aligned themselves more with russia. If you claim the lack of gas caused a depression, then that blame is on russia.
Whoever blew it up for good just removed the political pressure around it.

As for that depression, iirc, Germany paid a lot but gas was never in short supply, and I don’t think increased state expenditure on imports causes depression while a country is still solvent. What do you base your claim on?

Thanks, that’s pretty clear.

Don’t see how @chungus_eater@lemmus.org is calling people retards for not memorizing looks of niche apple products though.

As a fellow retard, I would like it explained how to know this is ai.

I mean this is gotta be obvious bait.

I’ve had it on my todo for years to work through ddc and trusting trust.
Which is a method to verify a compiler is matching its source and thus trustworthy.

An orthogonal approach is reproducible builds, which among many benefits can make sure a few people verifying things benefit everyone who can then see they have the same verified binaries.