5 ms·

Russia could just stop the flow of gas without blowing the pipeline up. They had Zero reasons to blow it up and very good reasons to keep it alive if and when

Russia could just stop the flow of gas without blowing the pipeline up. They had Zero reasons to blow it up and very good reasons to keep it alive if and when the Germans wanted that gas again. The only beneficiary of the pipeline going bust are the USA.

bandyaboot 4y ago
Russia had zero logical reasons to blow it up. I don’t have any trouble believing that Putin’s devotion to rational decision making is less than complete at this point—particularly when it comes to doling out retribution to the west. The idea that the US would risk making itself a pariah amongst its NATO allies, particularly right now does not seem believable to me.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  It's easier to call your enemies insane than to admit you don't understand their motivation.
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    Humans routinely prioritize retribution over rationality.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      That goes for our guys too.
      - bandyaboot 4y ago
        Except between the US and Russia, Russia is the country where one man is in complete control with no checks on his whims.
- philippejara 4y ago
  The US had no qualms making itself a pariah amongst its UN allies by spying on them back in 2010, germany included, when biden was still vice president no less, so I don't think that's much of an argument against them doing it. Especially when you are talking about NATO, an organization where the US power imbalance is even higher. That isn't enough to blame them for it of course, but to assume that Putin is not behaving logically because the alternatives are so "unthinkable" is misguided.
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    Spying on a close ally is not even remotely comparable to destroying said ally’s means of getting energy.
  - jryle70 4y ago
    > Spying on them back in 2010, germany included News for you: Everyone is spying on everyone else. Always have, always will be. Germany was also spying on the US. Spying, a.k.a having inside knowledge, is always a preference by all regimes. Whether one has the means to do it is another matter.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"The idea that the US would risk making itself a pariah amongst its NATO allies" NATOS biggest financial backer, strongest military that is actually capable of something and projects force all over the world, financial power that can tell to Swiss banks how high to jump or else and tell other countries what they can sell and to whom. Without the US NATO is irrelevant. I think your "US would risk making itself a pariah" statement is pure fantasy. There is zero risk for the US.
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    I suppose debating the finer points of international diplomacy would be a rather pointless endeavor at this point if we can’t even agree that, depriving a close ally of energy that it uses to fuel its industry and keep its citizens warm through the winter, would entail some non zero level of risk.
ArnoVW 4y ago
No longer supplying means that they get geopolitical flack for 'using hydrocarbons as a weapon'. And will get dragged before the courts for not honoring their long term contracts. So blowing the pipeline up is the better alternative.
- wheelerof4te 4y ago
  A famous journalist, American no less, does not agree with you. Also, as soon as that pipeline got blown up, EU got forced to take much more expensive American liquid gas. It's not hard to believe in and it makes 100x more sense than Putin blowing it up for funzies.
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    It’s not even just a little difficult for you to believe that the US would risk totally destroying its standing within NATO in order to do something that Russia was already doing on their own accord?
    - wheelerof4te 4y ago
      "US standing within NATO?" I have news for you, US is NATO. It does not care what it's "allies" say. And it will do all it can to make them toe the line. And that line is: Russia is the enemy that needs to be dismantled and destroyed. You shall not deal with Russia, period. Why is it difficult for you to understand this simple logic?
      - bandyaboot 4y ago
        Why is it difficult for you to understand that Europeans have agency and pride like anyone else and they would not “toe the line” if the US did something so brazen and aggressive. It’s absurd.
  - dilyevsky 4y ago
    > A famous journalist, American no less, does not agree with you A famous journalist who believed obl was imprisoned by pakistan in 2006 and the assassination was staged, siria didnt use chemical weapons, and skripals weren’t poisoned by novichok. You see the pattern here?
philwelch 4y ago
> The only beneficiary of the pipeline going bust are the USA. Ukraine and Norway are also beneficiaries. Ukraine because it reduces the risk of Germany getting squishy about supporting them and Norway because they’ve cornered the European natural gas market.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  But ukraine is unable to do it by themselves, and norway probably to. On the other hand, USA (biden) literally said that they will stop the nord streams on tv.
  - wheelerof4te 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - philwelch 4y ago
      If the US did blow the pipeline I would be impressed and fully supportive of the decision. I just think Biden lacks the courage to authorize such an action. It’s possible that it was done behind his back, since I very much doubt Biden himself is in control of things to any real extent.
      - wheelerof4te 4y ago
        "If the US did blow the pipeline I would be impressed and fully supportive of the decision." Then you are also fully supportive of starting (more like escalating, at this point) a WWIII. I hope you never find about the true cost of such a decision, and of war in general. But seeing how you support this act of war, don't be surprised when one day it comes knocking at your door.
        philwelch 4y ago
        Russia isn't capable of waging a WWIII. It's been almost a year and they haven't even reached the Dnieper.
bryananderson 4y ago
This only holds if you think of Russia as a single abstract actor with its own interests. Instead Russia, like every country, has individual decision-makers with their own personal interests. The “Russia did it” argument for Nord Stream is about internal politics. Putin’s war ruined the lifestyles of his elites, who spent most of their time in mansions and yachts in the West. All of that is gone now. It’s tempting for those elites to want to find a way to turn back the clock to February 23, 2022, get the gas money flowing again, and get back to the family villa in the Amalfi Coast. Like Cortes burning the ships to remove the temptation to mutiny, blowing up Nord Stream lets Putin close off this avenue. Truth is you can tell a plausible story for a lot of actors to do it. But I lean toward the Russia hypothesis because they had less to lose if they got caught. The US has spent immense political and literal capital on building a coalition to sanction Russia, which could all be undone if it got caught committing an act of war against Germany (no, phone spying is not the same, everyone does that to everyone). Besides, the benefits for the US are hazy, since Germany did not appear open to ever reactivating the pipelines. Why take such a huge risk to prevent something that didn’t appear likely to ever happen, let alone any time soon? But if it was Russia, what is Germany gonna do to Russia that it’s not already doing? Maybe it would’ve sped up tank deliveries by a few months if they’d caught Russia red-handed, but tanks still happened eventually.

bandyaboot 4y ago

Russia had zero logical reasons to blow it up. I don’t have any trouble believing that Putin’s devotion to rational decision making is less than complete at this point—particularly when it comes to doling out retribution to the west. The idea that the US would risk making itself a pariah amongst its NATO allies, particularly right now does not seem believable to me.

willcipriano 4y ago
It's easier to call your enemies insane than to admit you don't understand their motivation.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  Humans routinely prioritize retribution over rationality.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    That goes for our guys too.
    - bandyaboot 4y ago
      Except between the US and Russia, Russia is the country where one man is in complete control with no checks on his whims.
philippejara 4y ago
The US had no qualms making itself a pariah amongst its UN allies by spying on them back in 2010, germany included, when biden was still vice president no less, so I don't think that's much of an argument against them doing it. Especially when you are talking about NATO, an organization where the US power imbalance is even higher. That isn't enough to blame them for it of course, but to assume that Putin is not behaving logically because the alternatives are so "unthinkable" is misguided.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  Spying on a close ally is not even remotely comparable to destroying said ally’s means of getting energy.
- jryle70 4y ago
  > Spying on them back in 2010, germany included News for you: Everyone is spying on everyone else. Always have, always will be. Germany was also spying on the US. Spying, a.k.a having inside knowledge, is always a preference by all regimes. Whether one has the means to do it is another matter.
FpUser 4y ago
>"The idea that the US would risk making itself a pariah amongst its NATO allies" NATOS biggest financial backer, strongest military that is actually capable of something and projects force all over the world, financial power that can tell to Swiss banks how high to jump or else and tell other countries what they can sell and to whom. Without the US NATO is irrelevant. I think your "US would risk making itself a pariah" statement is pure fantasy. There is zero risk for the US.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  I suppose debating the finer points of international diplomacy would be a rather pointless endeavor at this point if we can’t even agree that, depriving a close ally of energy that it uses to fuel its industry and keep its citizens warm through the winter, would entail some non zero level of risk.

ArnoVW 4y ago

No longer supplying means that they get geopolitical flack for 'using hydrocarbons as a weapon'. And will get dragged before the courts for not honoring their long term contracts. So blowing the pipeline up is the better alternative.

wheelerof4te 4y ago
A famous journalist, American no less, does not agree with you. Also, as soon as that pipeline got blown up, EU got forced to take much more expensive American liquid gas. It's not hard to believe in and it makes 100x more sense than Putin blowing it up for funzies.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  It’s not even just a little difficult for you to believe that the US would risk totally destroying its standing within NATO in order to do something that Russia was already doing on their own accord?
  - wheelerof4te 4y ago
    "US standing within NATO?" I have news for you, US is NATO. It does not care what it's "allies" say. And it will do all it can to make them toe the line. And that line is: Russia is the enemy that needs to be dismantled and destroyed. You shall not deal with Russia, period. Why is it difficult for you to understand this simple logic?
    - bandyaboot 4y ago
      Why is it difficult for you to understand that Europeans have agency and pride like anyone else and they would not “toe the line” if the US did something so brazen and aggressive. It’s absurd.
- dilyevsky 4y ago
  > A famous journalist, American no less, does not agree with you A famous journalist who believed obl was imprisoned by pakistan in 2006 and the assassination was staged, siria didnt use chemical weapons, and skripals weren’t poisoned by novichok. You see the pattern here?

philwelch 4y ago

> The only beneficiary of the pipeline going bust are the USA. Ukraine and Norway are also beneficiaries. Ukraine because it reduces the risk of Germany getting squishy about supporting them and Norway because they’ve cornered the European natural gas market.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
But ukraine is unable to do it by themselves, and norway probably to. On the other hand, USA (biden) literally said that they will stop the nord streams on tv.
- wheelerof4te 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - philwelch 4y ago
    If the US did blow the pipeline I would be impressed and fully supportive of the decision. I just think Biden lacks the courage to authorize such an action. It’s possible that it was done behind his back, since I very much doubt Biden himself is in control of things to any real extent.
    - wheelerof4te 4y ago
      "If the US did blow the pipeline I would be impressed and fully supportive of the decision." Then you are also fully supportive of starting (more like escalating, at this point) a WWIII. I hope you never find about the true cost of such a decision, and of war in general. But seeing how you support this act of war, don't be surprised when one day it comes knocking at your door.
      - philwelch 4y ago
        Russia isn't capable of waging a WWIII. It's been almost a year and they haven't even reached the Dnieper.

bryananderson 4y ago

This only holds if you think of Russia as a single abstract actor with its own interests. Instead Russia, like every country, has individual decision-makers with their own personal interests. The “Russia did it” argument for Nord Stream is about internal politics. Putin’s war ruined the lifestyles of his elites, who spent most of their time in mansions and yachts in the West. All of that is gone now. It’s tempting for those elites to want to find a way to turn back the clock to February 23, 2022, get the gas money flowing again, and get back to the family villa in the Amalfi Coast. Like Cortes burning the ships to remove the temptation to mutiny, blowing up Nord Stream lets Putin close off this avenue. Truth is you can tell a plausible story for a lot of actors to do it. But I lean toward the Russia hypothesis because they had less to lose if they got caught. The US has spent immense political and literal capital on building a coalition to sanction Russia, which could all be undone if it got caught committing an act of war against Germany (no, phone spying is not the same, everyone does that to everyone). Besides, the benefits for the US are hazy, since Germany did not appear open to ever reactivating the pipelines. Why take such a huge risk to prevent something that didn’t appear likely to ever happen, let alone any time soon? But if it was Russia, what is Germany gonna do to Russia that it’s not already doing? Maybe it would’ve sped up tank deliveries by a few months if they’d caught Russia red-handed, but tanks still happened eventually.