this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2022
1 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32311 readers
889 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Russia invested billions into infrastructure, and lost a lot gas that was pumping through it. All theyhasd to do was turn off the tap. The pipelines were also a big bargaining chip for Russia.
Was going to comment this same thing, but you already did it
The lost of gas isn't a problem for Rusia, but a big problem for the EU. In any case, I do not dare to affirm the authorship of this, if it was Russia, as a response to pressure and boycotts from the EU or the US to alleviate their economic problem with money from the Europeans, capable of this sabotage are both. Pointing the culprits in this economic war between Russia and the US is risky until you have reliable evidence, which is not easy either with these "objective and independent" information media that we have. The first death in a war is always the truth.
Thing is that Russia already demonstrated they're perfectly capable and willing to simply turn off the tap at the source. There is no pressure from US or EU that can force Russia to send gas to Europe. This why it's a bargaining chip for Russia, they are the ones who get leverage from the pipelines.
So, while both Russia and US have the capability, it's pretty clear US has a much clearer benefit from this. With the pipelines out of the way, Russia can't use them to pressure Europe to back away from the war. Meanwhile, US LNG companies get a big market.
they already had enough leverage to do such things
They don't need any additional leverage, and they've already turned off flow without having to bomb their infrastructure. They literally have no motive here. Your American masters decided that you shouldn't get any gas this winter.
Pipes had obvious value given that the gas flow could be resumed which made them a big bargaining chip with Europe going into a cold winter. Imagine lacking intellectual capacity to understand this.
when your 'discussion' is of such low quality, why wouldn't he insult you?
Resorting to cheap shots and personal insults is a weakness, not a strength. All it does is cheapen debate. That's especially true in spaces like Lemmy that tend towards an echo chamber where minority opinions routinely get shouted down.
The "debate" is cheap and meaningless to lib posties like you
Gasp, me, liberal? Caught in the act! If you are going to try to insult people, maybe don't use the ideology they openly identify with.
It's an observation and surprise that somebody could lack basic reasoning skills to understand that there is zero benefit for Russia to blow up their own infrastructure.
Who's investigation?
I understand perfectly, but precisely cutting off gas to Europe allows Russia to put pressure on it, since it forces Europe to pay these horrendous prices to the US and they cannot get money to support Ukraine. It's an easy game for Russia to send a submarine to put a couple of torpedoes into the pipelines, since they have it patrolling the Baltic and North Sea anyway. Both Russia and the US have plenty of reasons to cut off the tap to the EU, albeit for different reasons. In Spain and Portugal we are luckier as we do not depend on Russian gas, because we have a good infrastructure of our own renewable energy and because we receive gas from Algeria, but the rest of Europe expects a long winter.
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.