“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

Gazprom, Russian gas monopoly, has on Kremlin’s orders first threatened to, and then suspended gas supplies to Europe in an attempt to blackmail it to stop supporting Ukraine under a threat of, as they put it, “freezing Europe”. In the process unilaterally breaking existing delivery contracts. There were no Western sanctions targeting Russian gas - it was entirely a political operation initiated by Russian government, “weaponizing energy supplies” as it often referred to, in the course of hybrid war.

Kremlin has miscalculated - Europe was able to largely avoid the intended crisis, while simultaneously Gazprom lost its largest market. The pivot from Russian supplies did come at a significant cost though.

Now that the Western sanctions are strangling Russian economy - if Gazprom wanted to come back to European market - they would be first greeted by billions of dollars of contract charges in arbitration courts.

It has long became obvious that Gazprom will likely attempt to use claims of force majeure to try to avoid financial penalties. And as it became customary for Russia - start preparing fertile ground in the courts of public opinion by planting various stories misdirecting the blame and muddying the waters.

Russia is a brutal dictatorship engaging in a war of aggression against the Ukraine and using natural gas as weapon in it's war.

But is that a reason to not to address or even mention the topic of the post, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline? I mean, are implicitly saying that covert act was justified? If people believe that, they should say it.

One of the worst effects of war is an attitude of "not only is everything our side does automatically justified, we're going to stomp on any investigation of what our side does".

You seem to be pretty convinced that US is behind it, where I am not so much.

I wouldn’t presume to know if destruction of the pipeline is justified if you look at it from Russian perspective, if they are responsible, but I can volunteer a few motives why they might be:

- an attempt to introduce a force majeure factor into any future contract disagreements

- an attempt at escalating the seriousness of threats, signalling “we aren’t backing down”

- an attempt to drive a wedge between allies by implicating a sabotage behind ones backs. US vs Germany etc.

… or a little of all of the above.

One of the key strategies employed by Russia in the conflict - is a periodic display of belligerence bordering on unhingement. I think Russia being behind it fits the MO.

I find your arguments pretty weak. - War is enough of a force majeure, literally the first case. There's no need to sabotage infrastructure. Or at least do it on land, where it's easier to fix. - One very weird way to escalate. I can think of a couple of more effective ways. - There was no wedge after all. Germany got a bloody nose, the Russians as well. Did anyone dare accuse the US immediately after the explosions? No, but they're starting to now, probably judging that there will be no retribution.

Russia and Europe are not at war. Whether a war that Russia itself started elsewhere on it’s own accord is considered a valid excuse to unilaterally terminate existing contracts - that the courts will decide.