81–90 of 176 posts
> No military is going to arrange for two pipes in the same general area to be destroyed 17 hours apart. This is only true if the operation was conducted in hostile waters. Just saying.
You could lay explosives months in advance and remotely trigger them or have them on a timer.
Russia is economically damaged but once deciding that selling gas to Europe is not more an option, Putin has now a plausible excuse to not fulfill the gas contracts anymore, without being economically penalized for breaking those contracts, because... not my fault.
It is desperate also to spark the flames of war in their population. So can use also the issue as leverage to force apathetic Russian people that for some strange reason don't like to die to accept the new situation.
If Russian people keep refusing to fight in the war, the war is over. And if Russia lose this war, Putin is politically dead and will be removed from the power by any means necessary. And removed means, probably killed by its own people. He needs to put their citizens in a much worse situation, so can justify a full call to arms.
European Union does not have nothing to gain with this.
USA could benefit as gas seller and to force Putin to not use nuclear arms in Ukraine near the remaining pipes. Putin went to Belarus only few days ago.
Other could benefit for undisclosed reasons. (Edited the China could benefit part, it was clearly a stupid idea)
So far the most plausible theory is that Russia sabotaged the pipelines for two reasons [1]: 1) to claim force majeure and avoid massive penalties Gazprom would have to pay for the breach of contract (we are talking billions here; now they just blame the West and good luck proving in courts who actually did it); 2) to further blackmail and coerce the European nations (particularly Germany and Italy) who depend on Rus…
> [1]: 1) to claim force majeure and avoid massive penalties Gazprom would have to pay for the breach of contract (now they just blame the West and good luck proving in courts who actually did it); This doesn't make much sense to me. Even if we assume the premise that they have such a motivation and can't.. simply refuse to pay fines.. there are easier ways for them to destroy their ability to deliver gas without cau…
Also, I think it is a statement to EU: your underwater infrastructure is not safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your theory just doesn't check out. With the pipelines destroyed, Russia can't blackmail the EU with energy as easily as they could before. And why would they destroy infrastructure that they poured billions into when they could have just turned off the taps any time they pleased? The pipelines now being destroyed is a really bad thing for Russia, a worse thing for the EU and a great situation for the USA (and Poland…
Because they would have to pay billions for not delivering the gas due to the breach of contracts. Legally, you cannot turn off the taps just because. Moreover, Russia can still supply very significant quantities of gas via Belarus and Ukraine, so they retain the leverage to blackmail the EU.
Somebody didn't want Germany making a deal with Russia after the reality of winter sets in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think, when war is raging and thousands are dying gruesome deaths, it's reasonable to consider malice.
And who actually gains from this in the long run... Certainly not Germany or Russia... Should make it pretty clear. It could be UK as tradition of breaking down Europe, but they are having enough issues that the timing is entirely wrong... I don't think China cares, so maybe Arabs, but I doubt. Only really leaves USA and we know what they have historically been up to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. US can't really expect to sell much gas to Europe regardless, so if it was then it would be for anti-Russia reasons, which seems like a stretch. Objectively the funniest possiblity is that some cargo ship dragged it's anchor across miles of ocean and a captain is very very worried right now
Why do you think Poland doesn't have the operational capacity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The weight of the random-press aka "we don't know it, but the CIA already told us that could happen in the future, and therefore it must be true and it was russia" sound's like a big minus weight.
I think we are fairly certain it's not an accident?
To be honest, people dont seem to care too much who did it. It was russia: what are they gonna do, sanction them? It was the US: what are russians gonna do, go to war with the west? Whoever did this, they solved a Godrian knot. Imagine going into winter with one pipeline being the lifeline of europe. [My conspiracy theory: this was a arranged via secret negotiations between US and Russia. They want an end to the war…
That was never a possible outcome. Pipelines transiting Belarus and Ukraine remain operational and AFAIK in-service. Who did it does matter. If Russia didn't self-sabotage they may feel some obligation to retaliate proportionally against someone else's energy infrastructure.
The Yamal pipeline (to Poland via Belarus) has been shut down since May. The other pipelines through Belarus and Ukraine (Northern Lights, Soyuz, Brotherhood) all appear to still be operational.
So far the most plausible theory is that Russia sabotaged the pipelines for two reasons [1]: 1) to claim force majeure and avoid massive penalties Gazprom would have to pay for the breach of contract (we are talking billions here; now they just blame the West and good luck proving in courts who actually did it); 2) to further blackmail and coerce the European nations (particularly Germany and Italy) who depend on Rus…
> [1]: 1) to claim force majeure and avoid massive penalties Gazprom would have to pay for the breach of contract (now they just blame the West and good luck proving in courts who actually did it); This doesn't make much sense to me. Even if we assume the premise that they have such a motivation and can't.. simply refuse to pay fines.. there are easier ways for them to destroy their ability to deliver gas without cau…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And who actually gains from this in the long run... Certainly not Germany or Russia... Should make it pretty clear. It could be UK as tradition of breaking down Europe, but they are having enough issues that the timing is entirely wrong... I don't think China cares, so maybe Arabs, but I doubt. Only really leaves USA and we know what they have historically been up to.
I have a hard time with it as well. It harms so many parties, it just doesn't make sense to be state-sponsored. But at the same time, this requires some real resources to execute something like this. I can imagine mid-sized corporations having access to the resources to do it, but not without leaving a significant paper trail. I don't imagine terrorist organizations have that kind of funding. The US is a good candida…
It doesn't matter if it hurts Europe, if it benefits the USA. The capital never cares about the colonies, and weakening own colonies and enemies, while at she same times strengthening themselves, is a valid strategy. Machiavellian or not, doesn't matter.
Long term, Europe is bound to be dependable on LNG gas imports from the USA. Many companies are shutting down in Europe and considering moving to the place with much cheaper energy.