It 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 regar

It 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?