9 ms·

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 explanatio

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.
  - mort96 4y ago
    Staying alive, and staying in charge, are probably even more primary than winning the war. I'm not saying I believe this is the cause, mind you. I'm firmly undecided on that one.
    - miguelazo 4y ago
      Helps to stay alive and in charge when your economy is still benefiting from the massive revenues the pipleline brings. It's amazing the lengths some people will go to distort reality to fit their preconceptions.
    - libertine 4y ago
      This is how I see these events. It's all the product of someone that wants to survive and keep the perks until his death - at all costs. If there was a greater interest at play Russia would be a very different place, and Ukraine would willingly join their sphere of influence.
      - zhoujianfu 4y ago
        “The Dictator’s Handbook” is a great book that argues (convincingly) that countries “act” not in their “own” self-interest but in the self-interest of their leader. Which is always to stay in power (and maximize their power). So I agree as short-sighted and bad it would be for Russia to do this, if it helps Putin stay in power right now, it makes sense. And honestly, who else would do it?
        jvm___ 4y ago
- miguelazo 4y ago
  Wow, you really took the Putin Bad Guy theme way out on a limb! Completely devoid of any logic or historical context.
  - piva00 4y ago
    And you didn't add logic and the historical context you feel it's missing, what exactly is the point of your comment then?
    - miguelazo 4y ago
      I mean, we could also start with basic logic: Who gains from disabling the pipeline? This absurd theory that Putin doesn't benefit from the revenue isn't even worth addressing. On the other hand, Pompeo explicitly stated the US would do "anything" to prevent Nordstream 2 from coming online, Biden alluded to the same: Biden in Feb 2022: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." Q: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?" Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that." Add to that the Polish FM (husband of The Atlantic hack Anne Applebaum) thanking the US for destroying the pipeline on Twitter. Maybe you could try doing your own research-- outside of the security state stenographers like WaPo and Wikipedia.
WinstonSmith84 4y ago
Like on any crime scene, who profits from the crime? Well, a few things first: 1- NS1 along NS2 are (were) shutdown and clearly these were not going to re-open, not before the end of the war - not politically acceptable for Putin, even less for Germany 2- The war is going to last for many more months (best case scenario) or a year or two or ... No matter how long it will really last, Europe, after having survived Winter 2022 will not be reliant to Russian gas anymore. It's clear to everyone that NS1 / NS2 will likely never re-open again. 3- Based on #2, you can assume that NS2 like NS1 are just dead ... So again, who profits from the crime? 1- USA: why would they take the risk to destroy the pipeline knowing Germans won't buy Russian gas in the foreseeable future? Their utmost priority is that Ukraine defeats Russia to send a strong message to China. They can't care less about NS2 at the moment, but they care most about unity among western countries, that's how Russia will lose and that's how they will win. Of course, Germany becoming dependent on US gas is a good thing for them, but it's not really a strategic objective, at most tactical ... 2- Russia: they are losing the war and now throwing conscripts with not a day of training on the front. That's pretty desperate move to say the least. Whenever they escalate, they see that as a chance to break unity among the west. Blowing up their (now useless) pipeline is in line with another desperate move: at least try to make something useful out of it. If Russia loses the war, Putin is just dead (at least politically). He can't care less about Russia economy at the moment. 3- Eastern Europe: their hate for Russia is very strong and they obviously welcome such a move. But like for the US, they want very hard Ukraine to win, and blowing up such a pipeline is not clear the immediate benefit. Besides, it's still a risky operation and it's not clear whether they just have the capacity to carry out such an operation without taking the risk of being detected.
- Animatronio 4y ago
  1. NS1 and/or NS2 were ready to reopen according to Putin if Europe were to lift sanctions. 2. EU is trying to stop being reliant on Russian gas, so far it isn't fait accompli. 3. Based on 1+2 we could assume someone wants to push EU as far away from Russia as possible as fast as possible(regarding gas supplying, to be clear) So again, who profits and has the means to do accomplish such feat: 1. USA: very vocal against NS2, wouldn't be affected by such destruction of foreign infrastructure, stands to gain when adversaries lose. Germany becoming dependent on US gas is a massive bonus. Imagine being able to control EU's largest economy on a whim. 2. Russia: assuming they would want to destroy the pipes, and not the much easier land infrastructure, why not let the world know about it ASAP? 3. Eastern Europe: only Poland has the means and maybe motivation to do so.
cbmuser 4y ago
Russia doesn’t really care about Western money anymore. They can’t spend it due to the sanctions anyway.
- twelve40 4y ago
  what? it's paid for in rubles via gazprombank
- vintermann 4y ago
  They absolutely do. The sanctions are very far from impenetrable. They can buy pretty much anything they could before, only at slightly higher prices. Think about what you're saying here: Vladimir Putin, famously corrupt head of a mafia state, doesn't care about money!
anovikov 4y ago
Because Putin's interest is Putin, not Russia.
ajross 4y ago
> Why is Putin direct interest destroy a source of income and leverage to the country!?!? The logic isn't unreasonable. Nordstream is very clearly NOT a source of income, currently. But it could be, if Putin were deposed. Now the Russian gas interests are stuck with Putin, they don't win anything (in the near term) via a coup. Add to that that clandestine adventurism like this is very much Putin's MO and not the USA's (we do our adventurism with giant flags and 24/7 news coverage), and... it seems the most reasonable guess. Really the US doesn't have that much interest here, certainly not enough to provoke further escalation. If Ukraine were to straight up fall to Russia, we'd deal with it. That's what we all assumed was going to happen back in the spring anyway.
- foverzar 4y ago
  > Add to that that clandestine adventurism like this is very much Putin's MO and not the USA's Clandestine adventurism is not the USA's, really??? > we Oh, that explains it. Cuz "we" are always the good guys!
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    He's only wrong about the first half of that.
  - prvit 4y ago
    >Clandestine adventurism is not the USA's, really??? Not this ambitious, no.
inferiorhuman 4y ago
Why is Putin direct interest destroy a source of income and leverage to the country!?!? Because there's no political will to re-open it for the time being. Pushing the narrative that this was an American action benefits Putin in two ways: - Spreads discontent in Germany (and elsewhere). While the EU is okay shutting down NS 1+2 for now if things are particularly bad this winter (weather, value against the dollar, inflation) being able to turn on pipeline again is a relief valve. Blowing it up and blaming the Americans makes it easy to push a narrative that lack of independence from America is putting the EU (especially Germany) at risk. - While it would be really hard to spin an American attack on NS 1+2 as a rationalization for escalating the war (e.g. nukes), it does create a nice narrative that America is actively hurting Russia unfairly. Sanctions are a lot easier to lift than that pipeline is to repair. That kind of narrative could help popularize recruitment. Look. Russia is already losing their war badly. The Russian draft is wildly unpopular and the US stands to lose a lot by antagonizing the American left (over environmental issues), Germany, and even Russia. If blaming America can help staunch the mass exodus in Russia and undermine NATO unity then blowing up the pipeline is a small price to pay.
- vintermann 4y ago
  This is the classical conspiratorial judo-move. Who does this benefit? It seems to benefit A in every meaningful way, but that's too obvious, so clearly it's B doing it to make A look bad! False flag! Usually it's Russia doing this kind of rhetorical judo move. But this clearly benefits Norway, Ukraine, the US and maybe the Baltics in roughly that order, and hurts Russia, Germany and to some extent Netherlands. If you think the US is too noble to play dirty on a powerful European ally, I've got an Airbus to sell you. Russia has condemned it and called it a terrorist act. The US, conspicuously, has not. At least one prominent US commentator has suggested that the US did it and that this was good. The sabotage happened in Swedish and Danish waters, not in Russian ones. No evidence implicating Russia has been presented, although we know that the US and allies are much better than Russia at presenting evidence - when they want to.
  - inferiorhuman 4y ago
    Russia condemned the attacks the fastest so it must be the Americans! Boris Badenov, you may be on to something yet.
upsidesinclude 4y ago
It does sound like a propaganda story, having so many contingent factors and supposition.

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.
- mort96 4y ago
  Staying alive, and staying in charge, are probably even more primary than winning the war. I'm not saying I believe this is the cause, mind you. I'm firmly undecided on that one.
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    Helps to stay alive and in charge when your economy is still benefiting from the massive revenues the pipleline brings. It's amazing the lengths some people will go to distort reality to fit their preconceptions.
  - libertine 4y ago
    This is how I see these events. It's all the product of someone that wants to survive and keep the perks until his death - at all costs. If there was a greater interest at play Russia would be a very different place, and Ukraine would willingly join their sphere of influence.
    - zhoujianfu 4y ago
      “The Dictator’s Handbook” is a great book that argues (convincingly) that countries “act” not in their “own” self-interest but in the self-interest of their leader. Which is always to stay in power (and maximize their power). So I agree as short-sighted and bad it would be for Russia to do this, if it helps Putin stay in power right now, it makes sense. And honestly, who else would do it?
      - jvm___ 4y ago
miguelazo 4y ago
Wow, you really took the Putin Bad Guy theme way out on a limb! Completely devoid of any logic or historical context.
- piva00 4y ago
  And you didn't add logic and the historical context you feel it's missing, what exactly is the point of your comment then?
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    I mean, we could also start with basic logic: Who gains from disabling the pipeline? This absurd theory that Putin doesn't benefit from the revenue isn't even worth addressing. On the other hand, Pompeo explicitly stated the US would do "anything" to prevent Nordstream 2 from coming online, Biden alluded to the same: Biden in Feb 2022: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." Q: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?" Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that." Add to that the Polish FM (husband of The Atlantic hack Anne Applebaum) thanking the US for destroying the pipeline on Twitter. Maybe you could try doing your own research-- outside of the security state stenographers like WaPo and Wikipedia.

WinstonSmith84 4y ago

Like on any crime scene, who profits from the crime? Well, a few things first: 1- NS1 along NS2 are (were) shutdown and clearly these were not going to re-open, not before the end of the war - not politically acceptable for Putin, even less for Germany 2- The war is going to last for many more months (best case scenario) or a year or two or ... No matter how long it will really last, Europe, after having survived Winter 2022 will not be reliant to Russian gas anymore. It's clear to everyone that NS1 / NS2 will likely never re-open again. 3- Based on #2, you can assume that NS2 like NS1 are just dead ... So again, who profits from the crime? 1- USA: why would they take the risk to destroy the pipeline knowing Germans won't buy Russian gas in the foreseeable future? Their utmost priority is that Ukraine defeats Russia to send a strong message to China. They can't care less about NS2 at the moment, but they care most about unity among western countries, that's how Russia will lose and that's how they will win. Of course, Germany becoming dependent on US gas is a good thing for them, but it's not really a strategic objective, at most tactical ... 2- Russia: they are losing the war and now throwing conscripts with not a day of training on the front. That's pretty desperate move to say the least. Whenever they escalate, they see that as a chance to break unity among the west. Blowing up their (now useless) pipeline is in line with another desperate move: at least try to make something useful out of it. If Russia loses the war, Putin is just dead (at least politically). He can't care less about Russia economy at the moment. 3- Eastern Europe: their hate for Russia is very strong and they obviously welcome such a move. But like for the US, they want very hard Ukraine to win, and blowing up such a pipeline is not clear the immediate benefit. Besides, it's still a risky operation and it's not clear whether they just have the capacity to carry out such an operation without taking the risk of being detected.

Animatronio 4y ago
1. NS1 and/or NS2 were ready to reopen according to Putin if Europe were to lift sanctions. 2. EU is trying to stop being reliant on Russian gas, so far it isn't fait accompli. 3. Based on 1+2 we could assume someone wants to push EU as far away from Russia as possible as fast as possible(regarding gas supplying, to be clear) So again, who profits and has the means to do accomplish such feat: 1. USA: very vocal against NS2, wouldn't be affected by such destruction of foreign infrastructure, stands to gain when adversaries lose. Germany becoming dependent on US gas is a massive bonus. Imagine being able to control EU's largest economy on a whim. 2. Russia: assuming they would want to destroy the pipes, and not the much easier land infrastructure, why not let the world know about it ASAP? 3. Eastern Europe: only Poland has the means and maybe motivation to do so.

cbmuser 4y ago

Russia doesn’t really care about Western money anymore. They can’t spend it due to the sanctions anyway.

twelve40 4y ago
what? it's paid for in rubles via gazprombank
vintermann 4y ago
They absolutely do. The sanctions are very far from impenetrable. They can buy pretty much anything they could before, only at slightly higher prices. Think about what you're saying here: Vladimir Putin, famously corrupt head of a mafia state, doesn't care about money!

anovikov 4y ago

Because Putin's interest is Putin, not Russia.

ajross 4y ago

> Why is Putin direct interest destroy a source of income and leverage to the country!?!? The logic isn't unreasonable. Nordstream is very clearly NOT a source of income, currently. But it could be, if Putin were deposed. Now the Russian gas interests are stuck with Putin, they don't win anything (in the near term) via a coup. Add to that that clandestine adventurism like this is very much Putin's MO and not the USA's (we do our adventurism with giant flags and 24/7 news coverage), and... it seems the most reasonable guess. Really the US doesn't have that much interest here, certainly not enough to provoke further escalation. If Ukraine were to straight up fall to Russia, we'd deal with it. That's what we all assumed was going to happen back in the spring anyway.

foverzar 4y ago
> Add to that that clandestine adventurism like this is very much Putin's MO and not the USA's Clandestine adventurism is not the USA's, really??? > we Oh, that explains it. Cuz "we" are always the good guys!
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  He's only wrong about the first half of that.
- prvit 4y ago
  >Clandestine adventurism is not the USA's, really??? Not this ambitious, no.

inferiorhuman 4y ago

Why is Putin direct interest destroy a source of income and leverage to the country!?!? Because there's no political will to re-open it for the time being. Pushing the narrative that this was an American action benefits Putin in two ways: - Spreads discontent in Germany (and elsewhere). While the EU is okay shutting down NS 1+2 for now if things are particularly bad this winter (weather, value against the dollar, inflation) being able to turn on pipeline again is a relief valve. Blowing it up and blaming the Americans makes it easy to push a narrative that lack of independence from America is putting the EU (especially Germany) at risk. - While it would be really hard to spin an American attack on NS 1+2 as a rationalization for escalating the war (e.g. nukes), it does create a nice narrative that America is actively hurting Russia unfairly. Sanctions are a lot easier to lift than that pipeline is to repair. That kind of narrative could help popularize recruitment. Look. Russia is already losing their war badly. The Russian draft is wildly unpopular and the US stands to lose a lot by antagonizing the American left (over environmental issues), Germany, and even Russia. If blaming America can help staunch the mass exodus in Russia and undermine NATO unity then blowing up the pipeline is a small price to pay.

vintermann 4y ago
This is the classical conspiratorial judo-move. Who does this benefit? It seems to benefit A in every meaningful way, but that's too obvious, so clearly it's B doing it to make A look bad! False flag! Usually it's Russia doing this kind of rhetorical judo move. But this clearly benefits Norway, Ukraine, the US and maybe the Baltics in roughly that order, and hurts Russia, Germany and to some extent Netherlands. If you think the US is too noble to play dirty on a powerful European ally, I've got an Airbus to sell you. Russia has condemned it and called it a terrorist act. The US, conspicuously, has not. At least one prominent US commentator has suggested that the US did it and that this was good. The sabotage happened in Swedish and Danish waters, not in Russian ones. No evidence implicating Russia has been presented, although we know that the US and allies are much better than Russia at presenting evidence - when they want to.
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  Russia condemned the attacks the fastest so it must be the Americans! Boris Badenov, you may be on to something yet.

upsidesinclude 4y ago

It does sound like a propaganda story, having so many contingent factors and supposition.