10 ms·

> The next question is, who did it? The Russians. > It doesn't seem like something in Russia's interest, they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved an

> The next question is, who did it? The Russians. > It doesn't seem like something in Russia's interest, they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved and operational. Once their invasion faltered, and with the recent escalation, they had no hope of that happening. The current Russian regime will never be able to repair relations with the west to the extent that will allow the Nordstream pipelines to resume operations. You don't come back from nuclear threats and committing massive massacres on this scale. The next regime might be able to repair relations, but the current regime doesn't care about that: they'll be dead or imprisoned for life before any new regime can take over. This is the Russian regime's way of abandoning the project while causing the worst possible damage to the hated Europeans who are supporting Ukraine against their illegal, atrocious invasion. > That's an intriguing mystery. Nope. Clearly the Russians.

vachina 4y ago
- greedo 4y ago
jpfr 4y ago
That doesn't make any sense. If the Russians wanted to stop the gas supply, they could just stop supplying gas. And they had already stopped. Destroying the infrastructure doesn't give Russia an additional capability (degree of freedom). It removes the degree of freedom to restart supplying gas. And thus removes this option for Russia to use as a bargaining chip in negotiations. I would say this is either the US, Ukraine or a EU state. To remove the threat that the EU later in the winter falters in negotations due to public pressure to turn the heat back on (literally). The US has the additional incentive that they want to become the only gas provider to the EU via LNG terminals. That gives them an edge over the EU both economically and politically. The Ukraine has the additional incentive that the remaining pipelines from Russia to the EU run through Ukraine. Removing the alternative options keeps the EU allied through dependence.
- NeverFade 4y ago
  > It removes the degree of freedom to restart supplying gas. Have you been following the news? The current Russian regime is threatening the use of nuclear weapons, and massacring thousands in war crimes in Ukraine. The EU has already set up permanent alternatives to Russian gas: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/europe-is-ready-for-a-winter-without-russian-gas-bnef-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/europe-is... The current Russian regime will never be able to repair relations with the west to the extent that will allow the Nordstream pipelines to resume operations. The next regime might be able to repair relations, but the current regime doesn't care about that: they'll be dead or imprisoned for life before any new regime can take over. With the EU shifting to other permanent sources for its energy supply, it's doubtful they'll want to switch back to Russian gas ever. Getting burned once by a rogue regime using gas supply for leverage is quite enough.
  - jpfr 4y ago
    > The current Russian regime will never be able to repair relations with the west to the extent that will allow the Nordstream pipelines to resume operations. The new supply chain isn't yet ready to a sufficient level. The pain inflicted by missing gas could become high enough for some "moral flexibility". Apparently some state actor did see a greater-zero-chance for resumed operations. Otherwise, why blow up the pipeline...
    - mechanical_bear 4y ago
      Or Putin calculated the near zero percent chance of restarting the pipeline and found it a worthwhile sacrifice in pursuit of a false flag to rally domestic support (of which he is sorely lacking). False flags are Putin’s MO. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/11/22/finally-we-know-about-moscow-bombings/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/11/22/finally-we-know-... https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-1999-russian-apartment-bombings-led-to-putins-rise-to-power-2018-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-1999-russian-apartme...
  - bulbosaur123 4y ago
pphysch 4y ago
The Russians blew up their own brand-new pipeline, which they spend billions creating (jointly with the Germans) and is one of the few major "hopes" to salvage that relationship, especially as winter dawns. That's frankly absurd. Russia almost certainly sabotaged a LNG terminal in Texas a few months ago (industrial cyberattack). This act was almost certainly done by Washington or their proxies. It drives the wedge further between EU and Russia and makes the EU further dependent on Washington. The cui bono is pretty clear.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  > That's frankly absurd. The notion that NS2 would enter operation is absurd. NS2 has been dead in the water for months, and the prospect of entering service have been dubious for some time before the Russians invaded Ukraine.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    Washington had a very clear policy of never letting NS2 enter production (remember that ominous Biden quip before the war? [1]), which, by the way, is the opposite of absurd: Germany is a major consumer of natural gas and Russia is a major nearby supplier. NS2 is natural in a world without geopolitical drama. "NS2 shouldn't exist" is a narrative manufactured in Washington (and delivered to Germany by Baerbock), that goes against basic economics and the interests of both Germans and Russians. [1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/07/biden-says-nord-stream-2-wont-go-forward-if-russia-invades-ukraine-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/07/biden-says-nord-stream-2-won...
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      > NS2 is natural in a world without geopolitical drama. As I understand it, most of the gas that would be delivered via NS2 would be the gas that wouldn't be delivered through Belarus/Ukraine (depriving them of transit revenue and providing more options for Russia to employ gas politics on its western flank). It rather seems to me that, far from being natural in a world without geopolitical drama, much of its purpose is actually to enable geopolitical drama. And, of course, the main thrust of the argumentation against NS2 was that it was causing Germany to pursue an economic dependency on Russia that was unwise, given Russia's already-demonstrated penchant for using that economic dependency as a lever in global affairs. NS2 died when Russia's invasion of Ukraine demonstrated the lack of wisdom in pursuing economic dependency on Russia (compounded by Russia withholding gas flows to make Europe came back begging to Mother Russia).
gpderetta 4y ago
> The current Russian regime will never be able to repair relations with the west to the extent that will allow the Nordstream pipelines to resume operations They did after the cold war.
- pixodaros 4y ago
  Well, yes: there was a regime change and the Soviet empire partially broke up, so over 30 years, the new Russian regime created friendly relations with many of its western neighbours. Pity an idiot in the Kremlin decided to burn all that work by invading UA, but a hypothetical post-Putin regime could start from scratch again.
vachina 4y ago
Your president gave a hint roughly 7 months ago. > “there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2"[1] > “We will bring an end to it.”[1] > “I promise you: We will be able to do it."[1] [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8
- mmastrac 4y ago
  The amusing thing is that I saw this video popping up from Russian bots before I even saw the Nordsteam news. If you told me that they planned on blowing it up, then pushing the narrative that Biden blew it up, I'd totally believe it. This clip showed up _everywhere_ before the news of the pipeline had really spread far.
AzzieElbab 4y ago
Pretty sure European clients are paying for Russian gas regardless of whether it is delivered or not
holoduke 4y ago
I would say the Ukrainians in cooperation with their biggest friends: the Polish government. It's in no interest for the Russians to destroy their own pipeline. They could as well just shut down the supply. I don't wanna speak to negative about Ukraine. But don't forget that the country belongs to the most corrupt and dirty countries in Europe. The state is controlled by oligarchs. In fact the Oligarchs brought the Zelensky team into power to make sure their needs are executed.
- kbelder 4y ago
  In my mind, the Ukrainians are the only party who could blow the pipelines without being dirty. It's a strategic asset of a country they're in an active war with.
  - phpthrowaway99 4y ago
    And it's a great way to make the rest of Europe never give in to Russian no matter how much they suffer. If enough people in Europe saw their grandmother shivering in January, they might rise up and say hell with it, we need our gas back no matter what the cost somewhere else in eastern Europe. But now they can't say that because it won't get the gas turned back on anyway.
    - bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
      > we need our gas back What makes it their gas?
      - phpthrowaway99 4y ago
        Their ability to buy gas that is usually available to them. People voted and lived in a society where things were handled. You voted and kept your government because things were handled. You voted the way you did because you were satisfied you could keep yourself warm in the winter at a fair price. Eventually, you consider that right yours, since it was described as something you have access to. Then suddenly someone you voted for decides, "hey, I know my party ran on getting that pipeline approved, and we invested in green energy as a certain ratio based on getting this gas to you when you need it, but guess what.... We've changed our mind. There are outside things more important than your ability to heat your home for a price you can afford." I'd consider that the politician turning off my access to affordable life sustaining gas.

vachina 4y ago

greedo 4y ago

jpfr 4y ago

That doesn't make any sense. If the Russians wanted to stop the gas supply, they could just stop supplying gas. And they had already stopped. Destroying the infrastructure doesn't give Russia an additional capability (degree of freedom). It removes the degree of freedom to restart supplying gas. And thus removes this option for Russia to use as a bargaining chip in negotiations. I would say this is either the US, Ukraine or a EU state. To remove the threat that the EU later in the winter falters in negotations due to public pressure to turn the heat back on (literally). The US has the additional incentive that they want to become the only gas provider to the EU via LNG terminals. That gives them an edge over the EU both economically and politically. The Ukraine has the additional incentive that the remaining pipelines from Russia to the EU run through Ukraine. Removing the alternative options keeps the EU allied through dependence.

NeverFade 4y ago
> It removes the degree of freedom to restart supplying gas. Have you been following the news? The current Russian regime is threatening the use of nuclear weapons, and massacring thousands in war crimes in Ukraine. The EU has already set up permanent alternatives to Russian gas: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/europe-is-ready-for-a-winter-without-russian-gas-bnef-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/europe-is... The current Russian regime will never be able to repair relations with the west to the extent that will allow the Nordstream pipelines to resume operations. The next regime might be able to repair relations, but the current regime doesn't care about that: they'll be dead or imprisoned for life before any new regime can take over. With the EU shifting to other permanent sources for its energy supply, it's doubtful they'll want to switch back to Russian gas ever. Getting burned once by a rogue regime using gas supply for leverage is quite enough.
- jpfr 4y ago
  > The current Russian regime will never be able to repair relations with the west to the extent that will allow the Nordstream pipelines to resume operations. The new supply chain isn't yet ready to a sufficient level. The pain inflicted by missing gas could become high enough for some "moral flexibility". Apparently some state actor did see a greater-zero-chance for resumed operations. Otherwise, why blow up the pipeline...
  - mechanical_bear 4y ago
    Or Putin calculated the near zero percent chance of restarting the pipeline and found it a worthwhile sacrifice in pursuit of a false flag to rally domestic support (of which he is sorely lacking). False flags are Putin’s MO. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/11/22/finally-we-know-about-moscow-bombings/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/11/22/finally-we-know-... https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-1999-russian-apartment-bombings-led-to-putins-rise-to-power-2018-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-1999-russian-apartme...
- bulbosaur123 4y ago

pphysch 4y ago

The Russians blew up their own brand-new pipeline, which they spend billions creating (jointly with the Germans) and is one of the few major "hopes" to salvage that relationship, especially as winter dawns. That's frankly absurd. Russia almost certainly sabotaged a LNG terminal in Texas a few months ago (industrial cyberattack). This act was almost certainly done by Washington or their proxies. It drives the wedge further between EU and Russia and makes the EU further dependent on Washington. The cui bono is pretty clear.

formerly_proven 4y ago
> That's frankly absurd. The notion that NS2 would enter operation is absurd. NS2 has been dead in the water for months, and the prospect of entering service have been dubious for some time before the Russians invaded Ukraine.
- pphysch 4y ago
  Washington had a very clear policy of never letting NS2 enter production (remember that ominous Biden quip before the war? [1]), which, by the way, is the opposite of absurd: Germany is a major consumer of natural gas and Russia is a major nearby supplier. NS2 is natural in a world without geopolitical drama. "NS2 shouldn't exist" is a narrative manufactured in Washington (and delivered to Germany by Baerbock), that goes against basic economics and the interests of both Germans and Russians. [1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/07/biden-says-nord-stream-2-wont-go-forward-if-russia-invades-ukraine-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/07/biden-says-nord-stream-2-won...
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    > NS2 is natural in a world without geopolitical drama. As I understand it, most of the gas that would be delivered via NS2 would be the gas that wouldn't be delivered through Belarus/Ukraine (depriving them of transit revenue and providing more options for Russia to employ gas politics on its western flank). It rather seems to me that, far from being natural in a world without geopolitical drama, much of its purpose is actually to enable geopolitical drama. And, of course, the main thrust of the argumentation against NS2 was that it was causing Germany to pursue an economic dependency on Russia that was unwise, given Russia's already-demonstrated penchant for using that economic dependency as a lever in global affairs. NS2 died when Russia's invasion of Ukraine demonstrated the lack of wisdom in pursuing economic dependency on Russia (compounded by Russia withholding gas flows to make Europe came back begging to Mother Russia).

gpderetta 4y ago

> The current Russian regime will never be able to repair relations with the west to the extent that will allow the Nordstream pipelines to resume operations They did after the cold war.

pixodaros 4y ago
Well, yes: there was a regime change and the Soviet empire partially broke up, so over 30 years, the new Russian regime created friendly relations with many of its western neighbours. Pity an idiot in the Kremlin decided to burn all that work by invading UA, but a hypothetical post-Putin regime could start from scratch again.

vachina 4y ago

Your president gave a hint roughly 7 months ago. > “there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2"[1] > “We will bring an end to it.”[1] > “I promise you: We will be able to do it."[1] [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8

mmastrac 4y ago
The amusing thing is that I saw this video popping up from Russian bots before I even saw the Nordsteam news. If you told me that they planned on blowing it up, then pushing the narrative that Biden blew it up, I'd totally believe it. This clip showed up _everywhere_ before the news of the pipeline had really spread far.

AzzieElbab 4y ago

Pretty sure European clients are paying for Russian gas regardless of whether it is delivered or not

holoduke 4y ago

I would say the Ukrainians in cooperation with their biggest friends: the Polish government. It's in no interest for the Russians to destroy their own pipeline. They could as well just shut down the supply. I don't wanna speak to negative about Ukraine. But don't forget that the country belongs to the most corrupt and dirty countries in Europe. The state is controlled by oligarchs. In fact the Oligarchs brought the Zelensky team into power to make sure their needs are executed.

kbelder 4y ago
In my mind, the Ukrainians are the only party who could blow the pipelines without being dirty. It's a strategic asset of a country they're in an active war with.
- phpthrowaway99 4y ago
  And it's a great way to make the rest of Europe never give in to Russian no matter how much they suffer. If enough people in Europe saw their grandmother shivering in January, they might rise up and say hell with it, we need our gas back no matter what the cost somewhere else in eastern Europe. But now they can't say that because it won't get the gas turned back on anyway.
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
    > we need our gas back What makes it their gas?
    - phpthrowaway99 4y ago
      Their ability to buy gas that is usually available to them. People voted and lived in a society where things were handled. You voted and kept your government because things were handled. You voted the way you did because you were satisfied you could keep yourself warm in the winter at a fair price. Eventually, you consider that right yours, since it was described as something you have access to. Then suddenly someone you voted for decides, "hey, I know my party ran on getting that pipeline approved, and we invested in green energy as a certain ratio based on getting this gas to you when you need it, but guess what.... We've changed our mind. There are outside things more important than your ability to heat your home for a price you can afford." I'd consider that the politician turning off my access to affordable life sustaining gas.