4 ms·
For Russia, in the against you should add that they mostly owned the pipeline, they could have switch it off without destroying it and destroying it means not b
by poulpy123 4y ago
For Russia, in the against you should add that they mostly owned the pipeline, they could have switch it off without destroying it and destroying it means not being able to use it to sell oil to Western europe against. I can't see any way it would make sense to them, even accounting bad calculation like the Ukraine invasion.
- jcranmer 4y agoNS1 was already switched off for about a full month by the time the explosions happened, and NS2 was never put into production (and was unlikely to ever be put into production after Russia invaded Ukraine). One of the theories I've seen espoused is that Russia is basically going "nice pipeline, shame if something happened to it" to the new Norway-Poland pipeline which was inaugurated about the time of the explosion.
- rmu09 4y agoSwitching it off might involve conractual penalties. Blowing it up and blaming it on whoever can be argued "force majeur".
- the_third_wave 4y agoAssuming that Russia aims (or aimed) to (re-)open the pipes one day blowing it up costs far more that those penalties.
- boardwaalk 4y agoThinking of countries as singular, cohesive entities might be over simplified in this case.