3 ms·

> The US have an interest to disrupt gas production in the EU, since they want to sell their gas to the EU Please. If Russia wanted to keep selling gas to the

> The US have an interest to disrupt gas production in the EU, since they want to sell their gas to the EU Please. If Russia wanted to keep selling gas to the EU they could have, you know, stopped invading Ukraine. Also, comment history is nearly 100% pro-Russian talking points.

Kukumber 4y ago
Don't say "please", it makes you look like someone who want to censor critical thinkers Provide counter-arguments, sources and materials that can help educate the people you think are wrong in their analysis and research I do my best to document and source my claims, and you know that since you checked my past comments, i do my homework And no i'm not pro-russian, it's called impartiality
- optimiz3 4y ago
  1. The current administration in the United States is in general anti-fossil fuel development. 2. The United States is already at max capacity for its export capabilities. There is no incremental supply to satisfy demand. 3. Destroying foreign supply when demand can't be met only serves to destroy demand because it forces the market to move to alternatives (case in point: OPEC and how they try to not let oil prices get too high or low). It's ludicrous to suggest the US has a significant economic interest in executing some sort of industrial sabotage on NS1/2.
  - Kukumber 4y ago
    Well, Biden doesn't seem to agree with you https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662 https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662
    - optimiz3 4y ago
      Nice cherry pick. The president is likely referring to sanctions. Your link doesn't support your claim that this is economically motivated. "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the -- the border of Ukraine again, then there will be -- there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2," Even if it were a threat to destroy the pipeline if Russia invaded, Russia invaded. So now what would you expect to happen?
      - Kukumber 4y ago
        Post flagged, congratulation, to me, i hit the nerve just right :) It's only just the beginning

Kukumber 4y ago

Don't say "please", it makes you look like someone who want to censor critical thinkers Provide counter-arguments, sources and materials that can help educate the people you think are wrong in their analysis and research I do my best to document and source my claims, and you know that since you checked my past comments, i do my homework And no i'm not pro-russian, it's called impartiality

optimiz3 4y ago
1. The current administration in the United States is in general anti-fossil fuel development. 2. The United States is already at max capacity for its export capabilities. There is no incremental supply to satisfy demand. 3. Destroying foreign supply when demand can't be met only serves to destroy demand because it forces the market to move to alternatives (case in point: OPEC and how they try to not let oil prices get too high or low). It's ludicrous to suggest the US has a significant economic interest in executing some sort of industrial sabotage on NS1/2.
- Kukumber 4y ago
  Well, Biden doesn't seem to agree with you https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662 https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662
  - optimiz3 4y ago
    Nice cherry pick. The president is likely referring to sanctions. Your link doesn't support your claim that this is economically motivated. "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the -- the border of Ukraine again, then there will be -- there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2," Even if it were a threat to destroy the pipeline if Russia invaded, Russia invaded. So now what would you expect to happen?
    - Kukumber 4y ago
      Post flagged, congratulation, to me, i hit the nerve just right :) It's only just the beginning