2 ms·
"Russia wants the taps capable of being turned ON at their discretion, not permanently broken." There's two assumptions embedded in this sentence. Firstly, wh
by hackerlight 4y ago
"Russia wants the taps capable of being turned ON at their discretion, not permanently broken."
There's two assumptions embedded in this sentence.
Firstly, who is saying it is permanently broken? If the repairs are cheap, Russia may decide the cost of that is worth the amount of distrust it has introduced.
Secondly, how do you know that Russia hasn't decided that NS2 will become a sunk cost, due to the way that EU has committed to diversifying away from Russia? If Russia has decided that NS2 is a sunk cost, it's actually optimal to destroy it if destroying it gives some value.
- stingraycharles 4y ago> Firstly, who is saying it is permanently broken? If the repairs are cheap, Russia may decide the cost of that is worth the amount of distrust it has introduced. Experts, apparently. These pipelines weren’t made to carry salty seawater, and are now filling up with that. This means a lengthy repair is required.
- hackerlight 4y ago> lengthy repair I know, but at what cost? If Russia can sow distrust for $X million, maybe it's worth it? And who will pick up that repair bill? Is it strictly Russia? I see a lot of handwaving saying the project is forever destroyed with no sources. If we're going to be speculating on incentives from our armchairs, these details are pretty important.