4 ms·
Right. The most plausible explanation, given the number of Russian petrochemical executives critical of Putin who have died under suspicious circumstances, is
by KMag 4y ago
Right. The most plausible explanation, given the number of Russian petrochemical executives critical of Putin who have died under suspicious circumstances, is that Putin wanted to greatly reduce the incentive of petrochemical oligarchs to stage a coup in order to re-open the pipeline.
Putin has shown he's very wary of the petrochemical oligarchs. If removing Putin from power doesn't open Nord Stream back up, then that's one less incentive for the petrochemical oligarchs to move on Putin, at least in the short term.
Presumably, Putin also wanted to make threats against the new Norway-Poland Baltic Pipe in a way that kept plausible deniability. He wanted to show he could destroy that pipeline, but without committing an act of war against a Nato member, so instead he blew up an unused pipeline owned by Russia.
- gerikson 4y agoThis is my theory too. Putin blowing up the pipeline serves a number of purposes: - removes options from a potential opposition within Russia - reminds nations around the Baltic that Russia has undetectable underwater assets - serves to potentially split NATO members (Hersh's story is obviously part of that)
- red-iron-pine 4y ago> - serves to potentially split NATO members (Hersh's story is obviously part of that) this is the big one. I can't see a reason why the US even the UK would blow the pipelines, esp. when they already have a very strong NATO rallying cry, and Putin turning off the gas already means N. American Oil & Gas will be making big money. Like, you're already winning, why risk a disaster and blowback? Meanwhile Putin has shown, consistently, that he's capable and willing to play dirty like that, and can actively spite the Baltics and Scandinavia.