> It is an asset they fully control. The idea that they damaged their own asset "to show the world they are serious" or whatever is about as likely as "to threa

> It is an asset they fully control. The idea that they damaged their own asset "to show the world they are serious" or whatever is about as likely as "to threaten Alice, Bob shot off his own foot." Is it possible? I guess so... but it doesn't make sense as the go-to explanation. I thought the Russia's problem was that they'd already withheld delivery of gas they were contractually obligated to deliver, and this gives them a cover. i.e. "Bob had a contract with Alice to deliver her a truckload of gold, but didn't deliver it, and swore never to deliver it. Later Bob's truck mysteriously blew up and now Bob is saying he's freed from his contract."