15 ms·

Common theme I've heard here (Kyiv, Ukraine) is that this sabotage is in Putin's direct interest. There are rumours of political infighting among Russia's lead

Common theme I've heard here (Kyiv, Ukraine) is that this sabotage is in Putin's direct interest. There are rumours of political infighting among Russia's leaders and that there are several factions trying to seize power, however since there is no clear winner, those guys need powerful allies, EU being a very important one. The idea is that Europe really wants to buy Russian gas, but not from Putin, so if Russia somehow gets a successor, he (or she) would stop the war, blame everything on Putin, beg for lifting of sanction and resuming the trade. Since Europe needs gas they'll gladly agree to this. But if there is no gas, then the potential successor would have much less of a value to offer. Basically with gas on the table the upside is high enough to warrant an attempt of an extremely risky coup, but without the gas it's a much less interesting proposition. An alternative POV is that somebody (USA?) does not trust Europe/Germany/... to not "relapse" to the "gas needle" when the things get dire.

jahnu 4y ago
How long would it take to repair the pipelines? A few months? Feels like that would scupper this theory.
- cm2187 4y ago
  As long as it takes longer than the end of the winter
ed_balls 4y ago
There is Yamal, Brotherhood and Turk Stream - more than enough capacity. I don't think anyone is willing to buy more than 10% from Russian, ever. It's too risky. China is keeping it under 15%.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
- monkeydreams 4y ago
  I don't know that Ukraine has the capability to do this. The number of countries capable of this act is quite small.
  - thiagoharry 4y ago
    Ukraine is a proxy in a proxy war. Ukraine would have no capability to do this, but USA would.
  - dividedbyzero 4y ago
    I wonder what would be the bare minimum required to stage an operation like this, if one were willing to take big risks. Like, combat divers operating from an inconspicuous sailing yacht or the like? Sail into position, go down (80 meters should be doable with Trimix), place explosives with timed fuses (set to a few weeks?), go back up, throw the equipment overboard later, sail into Kiel with no one the wiser? Not that such a scenario is very likely, but there have been a lot of crazy stunts in this and other wars.
    - jeffdn 4y ago
      I'm certain that there will be investigations from NATO navies soon, and we will have some explanation. Whether or not that's actually what happened or not will depend on who did it and who is most beneficial to pin it on, but I'm sure there will be pictures that are illustrative.
    - daniel-cussen 4y ago
      That's like week 8 of BUDS (basic underwater demolition system) in SeAL training.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    They have combat divers (one of the special forces units is even the 1st Underwater demolitions Unit, apparently) and the average depth of the Baltic is 50m. So my guess would be: yes they have the capability in principle.
- arisAlexis 4y ago
  Directly in Russian interest as it's the country that is looking for an excuse to escalate.
- mort96 4y ago
  They said Putin's interest, not Russia's interest. Don't make the mistake of assuming Putin will act in accordance with Russia's interests.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    On the one hand, the US explicitly, publicly, and repeatedly threatened to unilaterally stop the pipeline if Russia invaded Ukraine. The US has a clear benefit in the sense that they remove the option for European allies to buy Russian oil. The US also has the ability to do it in the form of ships in the area. On the other hand, perhaps it's in Putin's interest to destroy his own pipelines for some reason.
    - lurquer 4y ago
      Amusing watching the mental contortions posters make to avoid admitting the obvious… It’s like Cirque de Soleil.
      - cjbgkagh 4y ago
        I feel like I've been taking crazy pills
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    The key point is that "they" is the Ukrainian war propaganda machine, which is obviously not a reliable source of news or analysis. It is also a classic propaganda technique to differenciate between the awful dictator and its poor people/country. I do not know what happened and if it was deliberate it is not obvious who did it. People should be prudent and not buy into propaganda from either side.
    - mort96 4y ago
      "They" specifically referred to /u/yznovyak here, I don't know if they're part of a war propaganda machine or not. But /u/yznovyak talked about what's in Putin's interest, /u/mytailorisrich argued that no, it's not in Russia's interest. All I was doing was pointing out that /u/yznovyak was talking about Putin's interest, which might not perfectly overlap with Russia's. And you're right, pointing out that there's a difference between a dictator and their country is a common propaganda technique. But it's also just true, and if it's not part of your analysis you're probably doing it wrong. And to be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of either side, I don't have any clue who did this and I'm not trying to pretend I do.
sorokod 4y ago
"...he (or she)" couldn't help smiling at the instinctive political correctness. Reminds of of a story about a person from US visiting South Africa and at some point referring to black people in the audience as African Americans.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  My university announced an call for applications to an initiative supporting Ukrainian students and one of the bullet points read “impact on Indigenous and minority peoples of Ukraine” Now Roma aside, the only Ukrainian law about this covers Tatars, Krymchaks and Karaim in occupied Crimea (not even Hutsuls) so basically they wrote the law because EU told them to, and in such a way so they wouldn’t have to lift a finger
  - miguelazo 4y ago
  - belltaco 4y ago
    Not true. https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/europe/students-allege-racism-ukraine-cmd-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/europe/students-allege-racism...
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      If the students in question do not possess Ukrainian nationality the scheme at my university wouldn't have covered them.
thiagoharry 4y ago
Why is Putin direct interest destroy a source of income and leverage to the country!?!? Now Germany can buy gas from 2 sources: Ukraine and USA. This explanation makes no sense to me.
- greycol 4y ago
  Just because doing something has a negative outcome it doesn't mean not doing it can't have a worse outcome. i.e. if a car jacker threatens to shoot you if you don't hand over your car that doesn't mean handing over your car was a great outcome. In this hypothetical Putin had the choice between having a higher chance of accidentally falling down the stairs/out a window, or weakening his country economically. Putin doesn't mind watching Russia suffer more if it means a better personal outcome for him so the hypothetical choice is easy.
  - georgeplusplus 4y ago
    How do you know that Putin is suffering? I think this is really outlandish to say so. Putin is still selling its energy to the largest economies in the world while Europe is stocking up on wood so they dont freeze this winter. I will leave it to your own device to determine whose economy sounds more fragile.
- mort96 4y ago
  It should be extremely clear that the health of Russia as a country isn't Putin's primary goal. If (and it's a big "if") destroying a source of income or leverage to the country can make Putin safer against assassination and coup attempts, I don't see why he wouldn't do it.
  - gnull 4y ago
    Absolutely. This line of thought actually best explains a lot of things he was doing in the last months and maybe years.
  - scottLobster 4y ago
    Winning the war in Ukraine, however, is a primary objective. Wasn't his whole plan to energy-starve Europe over the winter until they came crawling back? The only way Putin has a remote chance of winning the war at this point is if western support stops, destroying the one mechanism that might actually do that seems counterproductive.
jmyeet 4y ago
Online I've seen some takes that America is responsible for this. I get why. America's foreign policy has done and continues to do some appalling things (eg any number of coups). The idea is that the US doesn't want Europe to be reliant on Russian gas or that Russia may be able to use the prospect of that gas (coming into winter) to sway Europe with respect to Ukraine. I don't buy it. The blowback potential would be enormous. It's also not America's style. Coups? Sure. Unjustified military action? Absolutely. Directly destroying infrastructure of critical importance to supposed allies? I have trouble seeing it. If this is by human action (which seems entirely possible) then Russia seems the most likely suspect. The counterargument is that why would Russia destroy something that they're dependant on? Sure Russia isn't selling gas today but the possiblity of them selling it in the future has value (to Russia and Europe). But Russia, like probably every country and certainly the US, is not a monolith. There are competing interests. Putin is reportedly facing dissent for how badly the war in Ukraine is going. Russia has hardline nationalists, those who are anti-war and other factions. The example I'm reminded of from history is Cortez who 500 years ago upon arriving in South America burned his ships. Why? So there'd be no way out. There could be no mutiny if there was no means of escape. So sabotaging the pipeline could be to undermine the anti-war movement who might seek to oust Putin and resume trade with Europe. It might well solidify any wavering nationalists. Who knows? Another theory: Russia is demonstrating a capability. I think that makes less sense.
- XorNot 4y ago
  The question no one asks is "how long does it take to repair a break in the pipeline?" The whole pipeline is still there, this is damaged sections. This would be a known risk of an undersea pipeline: stuff undersea gets damaged by ships all the time [1]. I would wager, were we in normal circumstances, we'd be talking 6 months. There'd be big money at stake, vital infrastructure, and that's about as long as you've got till winter in Europe normally. We would have spare pipe sections, we've still got all the plant and equipment for putting them in place. Basically, this is not unplanned for event. But does Russia, Putin specifically, think the pipeline will be of any benefit to them over the next 6 months? If Russia withdraws from Ukraine, sure. But why would that happen? Because Putin has been deposed (and is probably dead) - and the main way to accrue the sort of allies you'd need to do it would be to promise them a bigger cut of the new revenue to the state provided they played ball. Taking the pipelines out of circulation in the short term cuts off internal negotiating power for would be usurpers for Putin specifically. Which for current day Russia, is the only consideration that matters. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamchatka_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamchatka_(ship)
SanjayMehta 4y ago
Russia could have just turned off the tap. The sabotage ensures Europe can't back off from the US sanctions now. Wrecks Germany's economy, thereby eliminating a rival. VW et al are already talking about moving production to the US. And Biden promised to take care of NS 2 back in February itself. https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8 https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8
- twelve40 4y ago
  This. Amazing how people get caught up in their fantasies and ignore simple facts.
  - SanjayMehta 4y ago
    Indeed. The demagoguery in their comments are quite revealing.
- mattnewton 4y ago
  The tap was already turned off. I think everyone at the time understood Biden's comments to mean the nordstream 2 pipeline wouldn't be operational because of diplomatic pressure on Germany. And that's exactly what happened, Germany decided not to certify it and it was left functional but not pumping any gas (the current leak was likely just enough to keep the line pressurized). I also don't think the US sees Germany as a "rival" in this way at all, they are a strong trading partner. The motivations are not that clear for any actor really. Someone wanted to burn a potential bridge between the EU and Russia, but it's not clear to me why the US would want to lose their biggest carrot (immediately dumping cash into Russia if sanctions were lifted and gas could be bought), or why Russia would want to lose a pipeline they invested so much into, sitting there and just tempting the west to Germany to ease sanctions.
- kibwen 4y ago
  This is tinfoil-haberdashery. No, Biden did not authorize a clandestine attack on Russian infrastructure just to boost the US auto industry, nor did he subtly broadcast his nefarious intent months ago as part of some game to throw red meat to the conspiratorialists, Q-style. The US would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by engaging in such an action, and has absolutely no impetus to since it already currently has the upper hand in the overall geopolitical conflict. The pipeline can be repaired within months, and the sanctions were already going to last for at least that long. It buys the US none of the the things you mention, even in the fantasy world where someone thinks that those would comprise the US's grand strategic goals. To be clear, with our current information, the sabotage makes sense for nobody, not for the US, not for Russia. The only reason people are attributing it to Russia is because, of all the people currently in the room, Putin is the one acting the most generally irrational. But if we assume irrationality, it could just as easily be any random entity; Iran, or North Korea, or Greenpeace, or mermaids, or the shambling, zombified corpse of Abraham Lincoln.
whatshisface 4y ago
There is no way to shut the gas production down for long enough for Europe to transition to renewables, the most they could do would be to cause Europe an immense amount of suffering while everyone rushed in to post-Putin Russia to repair the sabotage.
melonrusk 4y ago
> if Russia somehow gets a successor, he (or she) would stop the war, blame everything on Putin, beg for lifting of sanction and resuming the trade. If the war stops, deliveries will resume through the overland pipelines, so Nordstream is largely irrelevant so far as Putin's rivals are concerned.
droptablemain 4y ago
This is utterly absurd.
mushbino 4y ago
- abraxas 4y ago
mgoetzke 4y ago
It seems the CIA had warned Germany about such attacks a few weeks ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/world/europe/cia-nord-stream-pipelines-attack.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/world/europe/cia-nord-str... PS: All the reasons you mentioned also went through my head when I heard about it and it will be very interesting to see where this leads
fmajid 4y ago
Given the ridiculous number of oligarchs getting defenestrated of late, it doesn’t seem Putin has lost his ability to cow them. The USA would be entirely right not to trust Germany, but the risks of blowback should it be caught would make it too risky, and Biden doesn’t strike me as a gambler, unlike some. Ukraine would be a good potential suspect but probably doesn’t have the capability. China could also be, turning Russia into a permanent vassal state would have its advantages, but it’s far-fetched. This reminds me of the persons unknown who have been sabotaging Egyptian undersea fiber optic cables.
- foverzar 4y ago
  > but the risks of blowback should it be caught would make it too risky It's the same risk for every suspect, so it's not really a counterpoint.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Russia has already been caught lying about serious things without fazing their believers one bit.
    - greyhair 4y ago
      Russia, as in Russia? Or Russia as in Putin?
  - emkemp 4y ago
    But the risk aversion of each suspect is not the same.

jahnu 4y ago

How long would it take to repair the pipelines? A few months? Feels like that would scupper this theory.

cm2187 4y ago
As long as it takes longer than the end of the winter

ed_balls 4y ago

There is Yamal, Brotherhood and Turk Stream - more than enough capacity. I don't think anyone is willing to buy more than 10% from Russian, ever. It's too risky. China is keeping it under 15%.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

monkeydreams 4y ago
I don't know that Ukraine has the capability to do this. The number of countries capable of this act is quite small.
- thiagoharry 4y ago
  Ukraine is a proxy in a proxy war. Ukraine would have no capability to do this, but USA would.
- dividedbyzero 4y ago
  I wonder what would be the bare minimum required to stage an operation like this, if one were willing to take big risks. Like, combat divers operating from an inconspicuous sailing yacht or the like? Sail into position, go down (80 meters should be doable with Trimix), place explosives with timed fuses (set to a few weeks?), go back up, throw the equipment overboard later, sail into Kiel with no one the wiser? Not that such a scenario is very likely, but there have been a lot of crazy stunts in this and other wars.
  - jeffdn 4y ago
    I'm certain that there will be investigations from NATO navies soon, and we will have some explanation. Whether or not that's actually what happened or not will depend on who did it and who is most beneficial to pin it on, but I'm sure there will be pictures that are illustrative.
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    That's like week 8 of BUDS (basic underwater demolition system) in SeAL training.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  They have combat divers (one of the special forces units is even the 1st Underwater demolitions Unit, apparently) and the average depth of the Baltic is 50m. So my guess would be: yes they have the capability in principle.
arisAlexis 4y ago
Directly in Russian interest as it's the country that is looking for an excuse to escalate.
mort96 4y ago
They said Putin's interest, not Russia's interest. Don't make the mistake of assuming Putin will act in accordance with Russia's interests.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  On the one hand, the US explicitly, publicly, and repeatedly threatened to unilaterally stop the pipeline if Russia invaded Ukraine. The US has a clear benefit in the sense that they remove the option for European allies to buy Russian oil. The US also has the ability to do it in the form of ships in the area. On the other hand, perhaps it's in Putin's interest to destroy his own pipelines for some reason.
  - lurquer 4y ago
    Amusing watching the mental contortions posters make to avoid admitting the obvious… It’s like Cirque de Soleil.
    - cjbgkagh 4y ago
      I feel like I've been taking crazy pills
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  The key point is that "they" is the Ukrainian war propaganda machine, which is obviously not a reliable source of news or analysis. It is also a classic propaganda technique to differenciate between the awful dictator and its poor people/country. I do not know what happened and if it was deliberate it is not obvious who did it. People should be prudent and not buy into propaganda from either side.
  - mort96 4y ago
    "They" specifically referred to /u/yznovyak here, I don't know if they're part of a war propaganda machine or not. But /u/yznovyak talked about what's in Putin's interest, /u/mytailorisrich argued that no, it's not in Russia's interest. All I was doing was pointing out that /u/yznovyak was talking about Putin's interest, which might not perfectly overlap with Russia's. And you're right, pointing out that there's a difference between a dictator and their country is a common propaganda technique. But it's also just true, and if it's not part of your analysis you're probably doing it wrong. And to be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of either side, I don't have any clue who did this and I'm not trying to pretend I do.

sorokod 4y ago

"...he (or she)" couldn't help smiling at the instinctive political correctness. Reminds of of a story about a person from US visiting South Africa and at some point referring to black people in the audience as African Americans.

selimthegrim 4y ago
My university announced an call for applications to an initiative supporting Ukrainian students and one of the bullet points read “impact on Indigenous and minority peoples of Ukraine” Now Roma aside, the only Ukrainian law about this covers Tatars, Krymchaks and Karaim in occupied Crimea (not even Hutsuls) so basically they wrote the law because EU told them to, and in such a way so they wouldn’t have to lift a finger
- miguelazo 4y ago
- belltaco 4y ago
  Not true. https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/europe/students-allege-racism-ukraine-cmd-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/europe/students-allege-racism...
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    If the students in question do not possess Ukrainian nationality the scheme at my university wouldn't have covered them.

thiagoharry 4y ago

Why is Putin direct interest destroy a source of income and leverage to the country!?!? Now Germany can buy gas from 2 sources: Ukraine and USA. This explanation makes no sense to me.

greycol 4y ago
Just because doing something has a negative outcome it doesn't mean not doing it can't have a worse outcome. i.e. if a car jacker threatens to shoot you if you don't hand over your car that doesn't mean handing over your car was a great outcome. In this hypothetical Putin had the choice between having a higher chance of accidentally falling down the stairs/out a window, or weakening his country economically. Putin doesn't mind watching Russia suffer more if it means a better personal outcome for him so the hypothetical choice is easy.
- georgeplusplus 4y ago
  How do you know that Putin is suffering? I think this is really outlandish to say so. Putin is still selling its energy to the largest economies in the world while Europe is stocking up on wood so they dont freeze this winter. I will leave it to your own device to determine whose economy sounds more fragile.
mort96 4y ago
It should be extremely clear that the health of Russia as a country isn't Putin's primary goal. If (and it's a big "if") destroying a source of income or leverage to the country can make Putin safer against assassination and coup attempts, I don't see why he wouldn't do it.
- gnull 4y ago
  Absolutely. This line of thought actually best explains a lot of things he was doing in the last months and maybe years.
- scottLobster 4y ago
  Winning the war in Ukraine, however, is a primary objective. Wasn't his whole plan to energy-starve Europe over the winter until they came crawling back? The only way Putin has a remote chance of winning the war at this point is if western support stops, destroying the one mechanism that might actually do that seems counterproductive.

jmyeet 4y ago

Online I've seen some takes that America is responsible for this. I get why. America's foreign policy has done and continues to do some appalling things (eg any number of coups). The idea is that the US doesn't want Europe to be reliant on Russian gas or that Russia may be able to use the prospect of that gas (coming into winter) to sway Europe with respect to Ukraine. I don't buy it. The blowback potential would be enormous. It's also not America's style. Coups? Sure. Unjustified military action? Absolutely. Directly destroying infrastructure of critical importance to supposed allies? I have trouble seeing it. If this is by human action (which seems entirely possible) then Russia seems the most likely suspect. The counterargument is that why would Russia destroy something that they're dependant on? Sure Russia isn't selling gas today but the possiblity of them selling it in the future has value (to Russia and Europe). But Russia, like probably every country and certainly the US, is not a monolith. There are competing interests. Putin is reportedly facing dissent for how badly the war in Ukraine is going. Russia has hardline nationalists, those who are anti-war and other factions. The example I'm reminded of from history is Cortez who 500 years ago upon arriving in South America burned his ships. Why? So there'd be no way out. There could be no mutiny if there was no means of escape. So sabotaging the pipeline could be to undermine the anti-war movement who might seek to oust Putin and resume trade with Europe. It might well solidify any wavering nationalists. Who knows? Another theory: Russia is demonstrating a capability. I think that makes less sense.

XorNot 4y ago
The question no one asks is "how long does it take to repair a break in the pipeline?" The whole pipeline is still there, this is damaged sections. This would be a known risk of an undersea pipeline: stuff undersea gets damaged by ships all the time [1]. I would wager, were we in normal circumstances, we'd be talking 6 months. There'd be big money at stake, vital infrastructure, and that's about as long as you've got till winter in Europe normally. We would have spare pipe sections, we've still got all the plant and equipment for putting them in place. Basically, this is not unplanned for event. But does Russia, Putin specifically, think the pipeline will be of any benefit to them over the next 6 months? If Russia withdraws from Ukraine, sure. But why would that happen? Because Putin has been deposed (and is probably dead) - and the main way to accrue the sort of allies you'd need to do it would be to promise them a bigger cut of the new revenue to the state provided they played ball. Taking the pipelines out of circulation in the short term cuts off internal negotiating power for would be usurpers for Putin specifically. Which for current day Russia, is the only consideration that matters. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamchatka_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamchatka_(ship)

SanjayMehta 4y ago

Russia could have just turned off the tap. The sabotage ensures Europe can't back off from the US sanctions now. Wrecks Germany's economy, thereby eliminating a rival. VW et al are already talking about moving production to the US. And Biden promised to take care of NS 2 back in February itself. https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8 https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8

twelve40 4y ago
This. Amazing how people get caught up in their fantasies and ignore simple facts.
- SanjayMehta 4y ago
  Indeed. The demagoguery in their comments are quite revealing.
mattnewton 4y ago
The tap was already turned off. I think everyone at the time understood Biden's comments to mean the nordstream 2 pipeline wouldn't be operational because of diplomatic pressure on Germany. And that's exactly what happened, Germany decided not to certify it and it was left functional but not pumping any gas (the current leak was likely just enough to keep the line pressurized). I also don't think the US sees Germany as a "rival" in this way at all, they are a strong trading partner. The motivations are not that clear for any actor really. Someone wanted to burn a potential bridge between the EU and Russia, but it's not clear to me why the US would want to lose their biggest carrot (immediately dumping cash into Russia if sanctions were lifted and gas could be bought), or why Russia would want to lose a pipeline they invested so much into, sitting there and just tempting the west to Germany to ease sanctions.
kibwen 4y ago
This is tinfoil-haberdashery. No, Biden did not authorize a clandestine attack on Russian infrastructure just to boost the US auto industry, nor did he subtly broadcast his nefarious intent months ago as part of some game to throw red meat to the conspiratorialists, Q-style. The US would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by engaging in such an action, and has absolutely no impetus to since it already currently has the upper hand in the overall geopolitical conflict. The pipeline can be repaired within months, and the sanctions were already going to last for at least that long. It buys the US none of the the things you mention, even in the fantasy world where someone thinks that those would comprise the US's grand strategic goals. To be clear, with our current information, the sabotage makes sense for nobody, not for the US, not for Russia. The only reason people are attributing it to Russia is because, of all the people currently in the room, Putin is the one acting the most generally irrational. But if we assume irrationality, it could just as easily be any random entity; Iran, or North Korea, or Greenpeace, or mermaids, or the shambling, zombified corpse of Abraham Lincoln.

whatshisface 4y ago

There is no way to shut the gas production down for long enough for Europe to transition to renewables, the most they could do would be to cause Europe an immense amount of suffering while everyone rushed in to post-Putin Russia to repair the sabotage.

melonrusk 4y ago

> if Russia somehow gets a successor, he (or she) would stop the war, blame everything on Putin, beg for lifting of sanction and resuming the trade. If the war stops, deliveries will resume through the overland pipelines, so Nordstream is largely irrelevant so far as Putin's rivals are concerned.

droptablemain 4y ago

This is utterly absurd.

mushbino 4y ago

abraxas 4y ago

mgoetzke 4y ago

It seems the CIA had warned Germany about such attacks a few weeks ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/world/europe/cia-nord-stream-pipelines-attack.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/world/europe/cia-nord-str... PS: All the reasons you mentioned also went through my head when I heard about it and it will be very interesting to see where this leads

fmajid 4y ago

Given the ridiculous number of oligarchs getting defenestrated of late, it doesn’t seem Putin has lost his ability to cow them. The USA would be entirely right not to trust Germany, but the risks of blowback should it be caught would make it too risky, and Biden doesn’t strike me as a gambler, unlike some. Ukraine would be a good potential suspect but probably doesn’t have the capability. China could also be, turning Russia into a permanent vassal state would have its advantages, but it’s far-fetched. This reminds me of the persons unknown who have been sabotaging Egyptian undersea fiber optic cables.

foverzar 4y ago
> but the risks of blowback should it be caught would make it too risky It's the same risk for every suspect, so it's not really a counterpoint.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Russia has already been caught lying about serious things without fazing their believers one bit.
  - greyhair 4y ago
    Russia, as in Russia? Or Russia as in Putin?
- emkemp 4y ago
  But the risk aversion of each suspect is not the same.