But Russia already was able to cut them off without destroying the infrastructure and rendering it unable to be profitable in the future should the West cave to their demands.
The only party who gains from the destruction of the pipeline is one which desires the West to remain engaged with Russia and not negotiate or capitulate to them in the face of energy shortage in the coming winter.
As I said, while there is no convincing answer available who committed this sabotage, one can only discuss speculation. At least I don’t rule out anything, not even that Putin launches nuclear missiles, even though this would render a country he wants to occupy unusable by radiation, not to mention the geopolitical consequences of starting a nuclear war.
Right, but like, do you have a reason to think Russia would destroy their own pipelines that they control and could be profitable to them in the future as a means of leverage against the West? Because if there’s no evidence who did it, right, then it seems pretty wild to just throw out there that Russia wrecked their own shit.
Unless there’s actually something to point towards Russia, some motivation or something, there’s no reason to even begin to implicate them without evidence unless you’re trying to create a narrative. Even if you shelter that behind “but it could be someone else too,” the natural move for when something gets wrecked is to assume it was caused by someone other than the person who most profits from it not being wrecked until and unless there is a reason to believe otherwise.
But Russia already was able to cut them off without destroying the infrastructure and rendering it unable to be profitable in the future should the West cave to their demands.
The only party who gains from the destruction of the pipeline is one which desires the West to remain engaged with Russia and not negotiate or capitulate to them in the face of energy shortage in the coming winter.
As I said, while there is no convincing answer available who committed this sabotage, one can only discuss speculation. At least I don’t rule out anything, not even that Putin launches nuclear missiles, even though this would render a country he wants to occupy unusable by radiation, not to mention the geopolitical consequences of starting a nuclear war.
Right, but like, do you have a reason to think Russia would destroy their own pipelines that they control and could be profitable to them in the future as a means of leverage against the West? Because if there’s no evidence who did it, right, then it seems pretty wild to just throw out there that Russia wrecked their own shit.
Unless there’s actually something to point towards Russia, some motivation or something, there’s no reason to even begin to implicate them without evidence unless you’re trying to create a narrative. Even if you shelter that behind “but it could be someone else too,” the natural move for when something gets wrecked is to assume it was caused by someone other than the person who most profits from it not being wrecked until and unless there is a reason to believe otherwise.