zlacker

>>hungle+(OP)
Seymour doesn’t provide any proof or any evidence. It’s argument by assertion. What he writes is plausible but without any sources or other corroborating evidence. I think it more believable that Seymour has been paid to write this by a Russian aligned entity.

I don’t know the truth of the matter and Seymour could be right. We just can’t tell from the evidence provided.

>>syzari+A2
If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. Of course this is not evidence but this the sort of operation where success means no evidence (at least no evidence available to the public at large as it is possible and, one might hope, likely that neighbouring countries know).

>>mytail+5s
> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it.

I disagree.

The most logical explanation is tha Russia did it as a capacity demonstration and threat against Baltic Pipe to pressure contries in the region regarding Ukraine, but that, like all their threats against the West over Ukraine policy so far, the threat was hollow.

>>dragon+Cv
You think Russia tried to send a message by……destroying its own infrastructure?!

It was their biggest leverage over the EU. Now it’s gone and there’s no possibility of restoring Russian gas flows to the EU.

If they were gonna destroy critical international infrastructure wouldn’t it make more sense to blow up something else?

>>rank0+Vq1
If what you say is true, why has Russia blown up their own pipelines twice before?

>>cactus+js1
Neither of the two sources you linked claim that Russia destroyed those pipelines.

Play out the game theory here. Russia has nothing to gain and lots of leverage to lose by destroying the pipelines. They can just keep the gas flows off FFS!

That doesn’t mean the US was involved but it makes zero sense for the Russians to do it to themselves.