3 ms·
The pipeline, despite being valuable for its purpose, was a hostage for Russia, and there can't be any reasonable doubt who destroyed it and why. "Harry Temple
by vba616 4y ago
The pipeline, despite being valuable for its purpose, was a hostage for Russia, and there can't be any reasonable doubt who destroyed it and why.
"Harry Temple: All right, pop quiz. Airport, gunman with one hostage. He's using her for cover; he's almost to a plane. You're a hundred feet away. Jack?"
- miguelazo 4y agoPlease explain how a pipeline owned by a consortium of European partners and Gazprom, that was (very) mutually beneficial to Europe and Russia, was a "hostage for Russia"? Maybe it had something to do with the US, which has been trying to sell more LNG to Europe? https://peoplesworld.org/article/pipeline-ploy-how-u-s-natural-gas-interests-are-fueling-the-ukraine-crisis/ https://peoplesworld.org/article/pipeline-ploy-how-u-s-natur...
- vba616 4y agoIt was a conflict of interest for some in Europe between helping Ukraine and securing their energy supply. The pipeline provided an incentive to hold back regarding Russia. Someone made the judgement that it was better to take the risk of doing without the pipeline than let it affect policy. And do it covertly so as not to have a public controversy. I can't guess exactly who was involved, but likely some combination of NATO members at some level, probably including the US. US LNG seems like an important factor in judging the risk - you would want to be confident in the possibility of replacing the gas supply. It seems like with hindsight, the calculations that people wouldn't freeze to death en masse were correct, doesn't it? What is unclear?