3 ms·

>That's a potential motive, yes. "Make it look like US/NATO/Ukraine did it to sow discord" is also a plausible potential motive. It's surface level plausible,

by pydry 3y ago

>That's a potential motive, yes. "Make it look like US/NATO/Ukraine did it to sow discord" is also a plausible potential motive. It's surface level plausible, as was the theory that 9/11 was an inside job because it gave the US an excuse to attack Iraq. Russia was trying to reel Germany in with cheap gas as the bait. The whole point of natural gas to putin was to use as leverage. Blowing up their own bait and their leverage (which cost 11 billion dollars to build) doesn't make a whole lot of sense. >When was an explosive resolution specifically threatened? Well if you put it like that I'm pretty sure he didn't mention the precise date, the type of explosives used or the name of the diver that placed the explosives either, so maybe you're right and Putin set the explosives himself. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/if-russia-invades-ukraine-there-will-be-no-nord-stream-2-biden-says-2022-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/if-russia-invades-uk... >Speaking at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Biden said, "If Russia invades... again, then there will be longer Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." >When asked how he would do that, he responded, "I promise you we will be able to do it." He couldn't have been much plainer. The only thing that was required after pressuring the Germans to stop taking the gas was to ensure that they weren't tempted to turn the taps back on again when their economy started to scream: https://apnews.com/article/german-economy-growth-recession-2ff7fc60181970cbbca581e56dcf1f5f https://apnews.com/article/german-economy-growth-recession-2...

ceejayoz 3y ago
Yes, that's the point. You say "one party has threatened to do just that", but it's demonstrably untrue. Again, Nord Stream 2 was "ended" as a going concern well before the explosives showed up. edit: Parent post was extensively edited after this; above was a response to the "Well if you put it like that I'm pretty sure" bit. > When asked how he would do that, he responded, "I promise you we will be able to do it." He couldn't have been much plainer. "I promise you we will be able to do it via sanctions and diplomacy" is an entirely comprehensible statement. > Russia was trying to reel Germany in with cheap gas as the bait. The whole point of natural gas to putin was to use as leverage. Blowing up their own bait and their leverage (which cost 11 billion dollars to build) doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It does if you a) acknowledge internally said pipeline's likely to be shutdown a decade or more and b) if you think it potentially does $billions in damage to Ukraine aid if it sows dissension amongst the allies.
- pydry 3y ago
  >"I promise you we will be able to do it via sanctions and diplomacy" is an entirely comprehensible statement. 9/11 is an inside job is also a comprehensible threat. It doesnt mean it's realistic. The US can and did regularly make specific sanctions threats. This wasn't a sanctions threat it was a deliberately and overtly vague threat that he did not clarify even when clarification was demanded of him. There was no reason for Biden not to make specific sanctions threats while there is every reason for Biden to vaguely and covertly threaten an act of war. When the US makes a "nice pipeline you've got there be a shame if something happened to it" statement then hanlon's razor says that they're probably making a "nice pipeline you've got there would be a shame if something happened to it". When Putin makes this type of vague threat and a violent event results, his loyal supporters react much as you just did. This type of mentality is as common among loyal supporters of the Russian state as it is, I suppose, for similar reasons, among loyal supporters of the American state.

by pydry 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago

Yes, that's the point. You say "one party has threatened to do just that", but it's demonstrably untrue. Again, Nord Stream 2 was "ended" as a going concern well before the explosives showed up. edit: Parent post was extensively edited after this; above was a response to the "Well if you put it like that I'm pretty sure" bit. > When asked how he would do that, he responded, "I promise you we will be able to do it." He couldn't have been much plainer. "I promise you we will be able to do it via sanctions and diplomacy" is an entirely comprehensible statement. > Russia was trying to reel Germany in with cheap gas as the bait. The whole point of natural gas to putin was to use as leverage. Blowing up their own bait and their leverage (which cost 11 billion dollars to build) doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It does if you a) acknowledge internally said pipeline's likely to be shutdown a decade or more and b) if you think it potentially does $billions in damage to Ukraine aid if it sows dissension amongst the allies.

pydry 3y ago
>"I promise you we will be able to do it via sanctions and diplomacy" is an entirely comprehensible statement. 9/11 is an inside job is also a comprehensible threat. It doesnt mean it's realistic. The US can and did regularly make specific sanctions threats. This wasn't a sanctions threat it was a deliberately and overtly vague threat that he did not clarify even when clarification was demanded of him. There was no reason for Biden not to make specific sanctions threats while there is every reason for Biden to vaguely and covertly threaten an act of war. When the US makes a "nice pipeline you've got there be a shame if something happened to it" statement then hanlon's razor says that they're probably making a "nice pipeline you've got there would be a shame if something happened to it". When Putin makes this type of vague threat and a violent event results, his loyal supporters react much as you just did. This type of mentality is as common among loyal supporters of the Russian state as it is, I suppose, for similar reasons, among loyal supporters of the American state.