4 ms·

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

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.
- thakoppno 4y ago
  > 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. Obviously a rhetorical flourish but Iran and North Korea would have substantially less capability for an attack of this nature. It’s not impossible but certainly there are more likely perpetrators.
- SanjayMehta 4y ago
  Putin is acting as irrationally as JFK did during the Cuban missile crisis.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Putin is acting rationally as someone staying in power at all costs to his country.
    - SanjayMehta 4y ago
      You just described the Biden regime with elections coming up.
- shswkna 4y ago
  I beg to differ. To at least consider that the sabotage is in US interest, is sound logic. Of course there are many factors at play and a lot we don’t know. The arguments in your post carry a hint of denial in them. Read other posts that outline the benefits to the US position after the sabotage, and consider them without bias. Not saying its the only explanation- but the case is worth considering.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    I have no particular love for the US government or its foreign policy. At the same time, it is neither "a hint of denial" nor "bias" to reject the above claims as nonsense. There is simply no motive. NATO solidarity is at an all-time high, none of the imaginary economic benefits to the US would be worth jeopardizing that solidarity, especially since the US isn't remotely at any point of desperation. In practice it will achieve nothing (other than an environmental disaster), and even the things people imagine it might be intended to achieve are eye-rollingly petty compared to the US's actual strategic objective right now, which is holding NATO together.

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.

thakoppno 4y ago
> 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. Obviously a rhetorical flourish but Iran and North Korea would have substantially less capability for an attack of this nature. It’s not impossible but certainly there are more likely perpetrators.
SanjayMehta 4y ago
Putin is acting as irrationally as JFK did during the Cuban missile crisis.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Putin is acting rationally as someone staying in power at all costs to his country.
  - SanjayMehta 4y ago
    You just described the Biden regime with elections coming up.
shswkna 4y ago
I beg to differ. To at least consider that the sabotage is in US interest, is sound logic. Of course there are many factors at play and a lot we don’t know. The arguments in your post carry a hint of denial in them. Read other posts that outline the benefits to the US position after the sabotage, and consider them without bias. Not saying its the only explanation- but the case is worth considering.
- kibwen 4y ago
  I have no particular love for the US government or its foreign policy. At the same time, it is neither "a hint of denial" nor "bias" to reject the above claims as nonsense. There is simply no motive. NATO solidarity is at an all-time high, none of the imaginary economic benefits to the US would be worth jeopardizing that solidarity, especially since the US isn't remotely at any point of desperation. In practice it will achieve nothing (other than an environmental disaster), and even the things people imagine it might be intended to achieve are eye-rollingly petty compared to the US's actual strategic objective right now, which is holding NATO together.