5 ms·

The idea that Russia would use it as a reminder that they could sabotage other pipelines doesn’t seem so far-fetched.

pydry 4y ago
It is ridiculously far fetched. It was extremely expensive asset and provided a source of leverage. This is why the US publicly hated on the pipeline.
notinfuriated 4y ago
Extremely far-fetched, you'd have to convince me that the Russian government and military are full of total morons. Building a pipeline is not cheap, not in money or time or bureaucratic effort. It's easier to just stop supplying the gas if you want to make an obvious threat.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  > Extremely far-fetched, you'd have to convince me that the Russian government and military are full of total morons. They launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine while denying they were doing so and failed at every one of their military objectives while causing their economy to collapse due to the massive worldwide sanctions. What other evidence could you require?
  - smcl 4y ago
    Exactly. Putin started an incredibly expensive war that could prove to be financially ruinous for Russia, I don't know why we're supposed to believe he wouldn't be so careless about a pipeline that wasn't even operational at the time. I'm not claiming to know who did this, but I don't think we can say it couldn't possibly be Russia
ed25519FUUU 4y ago
Can you name a single other instance in history where a country at war significantly damaged its ability to raise money for the war to “send a message”? What exactly is the message? The US didn’t think Russia had a submersible and some C4 and now they do?
- tomohawk 4y ago
  In WWI, Germany attacked France, it's largest trading partner.
  - zosima 4y ago
    Germany declared war on Russia which was allied with France. And Germany did not declare war on any of those countries out of will, but due to an alliance with the Austro-Hungarian empire. The situation is not even remotely comparable.
    - smcl 4y ago
      So ... Germany declared war on Russia knowing it would involve fighting France then. Not sure how this changes things unless the alliance was a secret
      - 9dev 4y ago
        As parent said, Germany didn’t declare war willingly, they had no choice but supporting the alliance. You cannot just change sides in war as it suits you.
        int_19h 4y ago
        For starters, Germany declared war on Russia five days before Austria-Hungary did. But even if it were otherwise, they still had a choice whether to honor their obligations or not. Furthermore, there's substantial evidence that Germany - or rather, some German factions - was very specifically pressuring Austria into a war, precisely so that it could then be "joined": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#The_German_%22Blank_Cheque%22_(1%E2%80%936_July) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#The_German_%22Blan...
- vadiml 4y ago
  Well, a strategic goal to let Europeans suffer during winter in order to shatter our resolve to support Ukraine, while avoiding contractual penalties for unilateral cessation of gaz delivery, can explain the benefit of exploding the pipeline. This can explain also the fact that the fourth pipe was left intact - as a potential carrot to Europe... I do not pretend that the above is truth, but it seams to be a plausible explanation.

It is ridiculously far fetched. It was extremely expensive asset and provided a source of leverage. This is why the US publicly hated on the pipeline.

notinfuriated 4y ago

Extremely far-fetched, you'd have to convince me that the Russian government and military are full of total morons. Building a pipeline is not cheap, not in money or time or bureaucratic effort. It's easier to just stop supplying the gas if you want to make an obvious threat.

mikeyouse 4y ago
> Extremely far-fetched, you'd have to convince me that the Russian government and military are full of total morons. They launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine while denying they were doing so and failed at every one of their military objectives while causing their economy to collapse due to the massive worldwide sanctions. What other evidence could you require?
- smcl 4y ago
  Exactly. Putin started an incredibly expensive war that could prove to be financially ruinous for Russia, I don't know why we're supposed to believe he wouldn't be so careless about a pipeline that wasn't even operational at the time. I'm not claiming to know who did this, but I don't think we can say it couldn't possibly be Russia

ed25519FUUU 4y ago

Can you name a single other instance in history where a country at war significantly damaged its ability to raise money for the war to “send a message”? What exactly is the message? The US didn’t think Russia had a submersible and some C4 and now they do?

tomohawk 4y ago
In WWI, Germany attacked France, it's largest trading partner.
- zosima 4y ago
  Germany declared war on Russia which was allied with France. And Germany did not declare war on any of those countries out of will, but due to an alliance with the Austro-Hungarian empire. The situation is not even remotely comparable.
  - smcl 4y ago
    So ... Germany declared war on Russia knowing it would involve fighting France then. Not sure how this changes things unless the alliance was a secret
    - 9dev 4y ago
      As parent said, Germany didn’t declare war willingly, they had no choice but supporting the alliance. You cannot just change sides in war as it suits you.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        For starters, Germany declared war on Russia five days before Austria-Hungary did. But even if it were otherwise, they still had a choice whether to honor their obligations or not. Furthermore, there's substantial evidence that Germany - or rather, some German factions - was very specifically pressuring Austria into a war, precisely so that it could then be "joined": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#The_German_%22Blank_Cheque%22_(1%E2%80%936_July) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#The_German_%22Blan...
vadiml 4y ago
Well, a strategic goal to let Europeans suffer during winter in order to shatter our resolve to support Ukraine, while avoiding contractual penalties for unilateral cessation of gaz delivery, can explain the benefit of exploding the pipeline. This can explain also the fact that the fourth pipe was left intact - as a potential carrot to Europe... I do not pretend that the above is truth, but it seams to be a plausible explanation.