4 ms·
> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. How so? The pipeli
by partiallypro 4y ago
> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it.
How so? The pipeline(s) was/were already off, so the US and Norway already had a new customer because of this. If the US risked blowing up the pipeline(s) (which was already not delivering,) it would put NATO in jeopardy which is explicitly against US interests and WAY more valuable than natural gas. The entire theory doesn't even make sense from the standpoint of US needs/wants.
- cpursley 4y agoIt absolutely does. Blowing up the pipeline took away Russias ability to hold the EU hostage with the energy card.
- partiallypro 4y agoThe pipeline was already not operational. What are you missing? If you think the US had a profit motive (which it seems you are saying this), NATO is much much more profitable than gas which will be diversified over time. So why would they risk the entire NATO alliance for this? Again, the theory makes no sense.
- cpursley 4y agoI didn’t say a thing about US profit motive. I was very clear: Russia can’t blackmail the EU with energy if they don’t have a way to deliver it. Why would they want to lose that leverage (and their billions in investment)? And EU industry very much depends on low cost gas (chemical manufacturing, vehicle and other industrial manufacturing, greenhouse heating, etc). There’s report after report of vital industrial facilities shuttering due to high gas prices.
- partiallypro 4y ago> Russia can’t blackmail the EU with energy if they don’t have a way to deliver it. Why would they want to lose that leverage (and their billions in investment)? Because the pipeline was already off. The second pipeline was not operational. They already had no leverage. > And EU industry very much depends on low cost gas (chemical manufacturing, vehicle and other industrial manufacturing, greenhouse heating, etc). There’s report after report of vital industrial facilities shuttering due to high gas. So, your theory is that the US not only endangered the entire NATO alliance, but also sought to weaken NATO members? Again, how does that make any sense? You also fail to mention that gas prices currently are actually pretty low relative to before this event occurred and Europe never ran out of gas.
- LarryMullins 4y ago> Because the pipeline was already off. There is a substantial difference between the pipeline being off and the pipeline being off the table.
- pillefitz 4y agoGas prices are low due to American LNG imports. The US have fought entire wars for profit motives and are certainly willing to weaken any country for it, NATO or not.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- IshKebab 4y agoThere's a huge difference between "off" and "destroyed".
- Animatronio 4y agoYou are missing the very, very obvious fact that NS could have become operational at any point. Taking it out physically means that it's impossible without lengthy and costly repairs. The profit motive is there - diversification (if possible) takes time. Companies can and do take advantage of that.
- pasquinelli 4y agoit prevents the pipeline from being turned back on. what's the benefit to russia if russia did it?
- partiallypro 4y agoI'm not making a claim that Russia did it, but they would have -more- to gain than the US would have to lose if the US were found to have actually done it...given it would upend and basically destroy NATO and completely isolate the US from its own allies. Hence the theory doesn't hold water.
- pasquinelli 4y agoNATO is america's show. america would never be shown to have done it-- even if they were, they wouldn't.