4 ms·
But is it really? The EU can just respond with: "no". And while that would hurt the economy of the EU it would also hurt the economy of the US. I do not really
by jeltz 4y ago
But is it really? The EU can just respond with: "no". And while that would hurt the economy of the EU it would also hurt the economy of the US. I do not really see any reason for the EU to say yes to this unless the EU gets something in return.
- miguelazo 4y ago[flagged]
- eppp 4y agoDid Germany own the pipeline? A cursory search indicates that it was owned by the hostile Russian government unless I am mistaken?
- miguelazo 4y agoNord Stream AG is a Swiss holding company. Try a little harder next time. And the Russians have only been hostile towards the far-right controlled Ukrainian government (which murdered over 10k of its own Russian-speaking civilians in the Eastern oblasts before February 2022), not Germany.
- TOMDM 4y agoAre you saying that the US/it's allies destroyed Nordstream 2? Is there any proof of that? What lead you to believe this?
- epolanski 4y agoUS is the only party that both benefits financially by this and has the capabilities to strike targets in the midst of NATO waters.
- miguelazo 4y agoLOL... you guys are extremely naive, and now quite behind on the news. Even the Western press is now quietly admitting the obvious. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/21/russia-nord-stream-explosions/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/21/...) https://archive.vn/UpsuY https://archive.vn/UpsuY
- dragonwriter 4y ago> What is Germany getting in return for having Nordstream 2 blown up by the US/allies? Nothing, because that didn’t happen. (Most likely, Russia blew up the not-being-used pipe as a capacity demonstration aimed at Baltic Pipe, to raise the perceived cost by government decisionmakers of continuing support for Ukraine; they probably also juice the propaganda about the US being behind it, to promote internal strife in the West between the people that can be influenced by that propaganda and their governments.) > Besides 10x energy prices and its industrial economic base set back 10 years. Since NS2 wasn’t being used, that didn’t happen as a result of it being destroyed, either.
- miguelazo 4y agoGet a grip. Smoked too much of that Russiagate reefer? Even the Western press now quietly admitting the (extremely) obvious. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/21/russia-nord-stream-explosions/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/21/... (https://archive.vn/UpsuY https://archive.vn/UpsuY)
- _kbh_ 4y agoBut that doesn't say that America or anyone else was behind it either. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence after all. Theres no conclusive proof that any particular party was behind it, but given that a single pipe was left (something America wouldn't do if it was looking to take out Germanys capacity to use Russian gas) the only obvious conclusion was that it was Russia.
- miguelazo 4y agoOf course it doesn't say that explicitly-- are you unfamiliar with the purpose that the Washington Post serves? You think because one pipeline survived that it was intentional? After all of the US disasters in the Middle East you somehow still believe in its omnipotence? And one pipeline surviving means little when the new pipelines that were destroyed had much better economics for Russia (and Germany, for that matter).
- hcks 4y agoIt’s impossible that it was the US that blew Nordstream, because it would have made the European allies very upset, and there is NO WAY the US wanted to make them upset.
- miguelazo 4y agoHaha, nice. You forgot the sarcasm tags, though. Some people still don't get it.