3 ms·
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 l
by 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 agoA 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 agoIt’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 agoWhy 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?
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago> siria didnt use chemical weapons This was reported at a simmilar timeframe (compared to the war) and from the same groups of people who said iraq had weapons of mass destruction, so not trusting them would not be that stupid... especially if you have better inside sources that "normal people" do.
- latchkey 4y agoEver wondered why they published that piece on substack and not somewhere else?
- ajsnigrutin 4y agoOh come on... just look at the list of anti-russia sanctions and trying to legalize literal stealing of russian assets in europe... closing the valve on the pipeline is miniscule compared to eg. cutting russia out of SWIFT. On the other hand, this has cause many other countries to think the famous "what if we're next?", and switching from dollars to their local currencies, forming new alliances (either within BRICS or SCO) which seriously endangers the power of dollars and in turn euros.
- ArnoVW 4y agoNote to those trying to explain to me I am wrong: note that I did not say who blew the pipeline up. Just that Russia did have credible motives, and that for Russia, blowing up the line anonymously is better than just saying "no more gas for Europe". But given the stakes, they are not the only ones that have motives. And I never said otherwise.
- LarryMullins 4y ago> No longer supplying means that they get geopolitical flack for 'using hydrocarbons as a weapon'. They've already invaded a nation. What you're suggesting here is like a violent machine-gun toting bank robber in ski mask making sure to pay his parking bill before driving off, because he's worried about what other people might think of him. Using international trade to coerce nations is a far lesser crime than invading them and leveling their cities with artillery.
- redeeman 4y ago> get geopolitical flack so as opposed to now, someone will talk poorly about them? I dont quite know how putin would sleep at night if someone said he was a bad dude