I don’t know the truth of the matter and Seymour could be right. We just can’t tell from the evidence provided.
I disagree.
The most logical explanation is tha Russia did it as a capacity demonstration and threat against Baltic Pipe to pressure contries in the region regarding Ukraine, but that, like all their threats against the West over Ukraine policy so far, the threat was hollow.
It was their biggest leverage over the EU. Now it’s gone and there’s no possibility of restoring Russian gas flows to the EU.
If they were gonna destroy critical international infrastructure wouldn’t it make more sense to blow up something else?
Play out the game theory here. Russia has nothing to gain and lots of leverage to lose by destroying the pipelines. They can just keep the gas flows off FFS!
That doesn’t mean the US was involved but it makes zero sense for the Russians to do it to themselves.
Or Russia did it for the internal audience: "Look at what they did the big evil US just wants europe to suffer we are the best"
I'm not sure it makes sense for either the US or Russia to have done it. I bet it was some smaller NATO country or ukraine just whistling in the corner and giggling a little as everyone points fingers.
No, if they were going to make a threat and capacity demonstration against other, active natural gas pipelines in the region, destroying an idle natural gas pipeline makes a lot more sense than “something else”.
(There’s a certain extent to which it doesn’t make sense to make idle threats without the will to carry them out, but that clearly hasn’t factored into Russian action related to pressuring European countries over Ukraine policy.)
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nord-stream-turbine-...
Russia weaponizes energy. Many people assume Russia is rational but it’s just not true. Like John McCain said, it’s a gas station run by gangsters.
> They can just keep the gas flows off FFS!
Russia would have to pay penalties in the contract. They don’t want to do that.
> That doesn’t mean the US was involved but it makes zero sense for the Russians to do it to themselves.
See above points. It is clearly not “zero.”
Uh, yeah, Russia already describes the current war in Ukraine as against “the collective West”.
> they don't need to threaten that at all,
Whether or not you think Russia needs to issue war threats to Western states, rhey’ve been doing it a lot inn last year.
> if it got to that point they might as well just nuke Berli
The point of a threat is to dissaude an opponent before it becomes necessary to execute on. Yhe threat. So other attacks that they might do if the threat fails don’t really effect whether the threT might be seen as useful. Also, Russia has made implicit nuclear thrrats to Germany, most, recently over the decisions to send MBTs to Ukraine.
Keeping the gas flows off has manifestly not given the leverage they are seeking over Ukraine policy, Considering that there is every reason to believe (whether or not this was initially the case, but note that is one of the explicit Russian justificafions foe the war) that Putin sees Western assistance to Ukraine as both an imminenr ans existential threat to Russia, or at least the present regime, scarificing leverage that had already been exhausted without effect on that issue foe something that has a chance, even remote, Of budging that can be worthwhile.
This was why Germany was hesitant to impose full sanctions requested by the US and other NATO countries. They were hesitant to supply tanks and other military equipment.
Since the destruction of the pipelines Germany has capitulated on the tanks issue. Now there’s nothing to gain by working with the Russians because their industrial gas-dependent economy cannot benefit from renewed gas flows.
The sources themselves do not make the assertion that Russia destroyed the pipelines. I’m not looking for an admission from Russia!
> Russia weaponizes energy.
100% agree. Destroying the pipelines eliminates Russia’s ability to continue weaponizing gas flows. The German economy now has nothing to gain by easing sanctions or military aid to Ukraine.
> Russia would have to pay penalties in the contract. They don’t want to do that.
Destroying a pipeline in foreign economic zones does not absolve you of your contractual obligations. That would be a massive escalation and an overt act of war. It’d be much easier and less risky to manufacture justifications for reduced gas flows.
I don’t know who destroyed the pipelines but Russia seems to be the least likely perpetrator of all the players.
There are no other suspects and Russia does benefit.
> 100% agree. Destroying the pipelines eliminates Russia’s ability to continue weaponizing gas flows. The German economy now has nothing to gain by easing sanctions or military aid to Ukraine.
What makes you think Germany doesn't want gas from Russia? That's the whole reason they sent a few thousand helmets to Ukraine at the beginning of the war. I think the German dream is that the war ends and they get their cheap gas again from Russia.
> Destroying a pipeline in foreign economic zones does not absolve you of your contractual obligations. That would be a massive escalation and an overt act of war. It’d be much easier and less risky to manufacture justifications for reduced gas flows.
No one can prove that you did it. That's the whole point. I really don't understand your comment here.