zlacker

Russia is a brutal dictatorship engaging in a war of aggression against the Ukraine and using natural gas as weapon in it's war.

But is that a reason to not to address or even mention the topic of the post, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline? I mean, are implicitly saying that covert act was justified? If people believe that, they should say it.

One of the worst effects of war is an attitude of "not only is everything our side does automatically justified, we're going to stomp on any investigation of what our side does".

>>joe_th+(OP)
You seem to be pretty convinced that US is behind it, where I am not so much.

I wouldn’t presume to know if destruction of the pipeline is justified if you look at it from Russian perspective, if they are responsible, but I can volunteer a few motives why they might be:

- an attempt to introduce a force majeure factor into any future contract disagreements

- an attempt at escalating the seriousness of threats, signalling “we aren’t backing down”

- an attempt to drive a wedge between allies by implicating a sabotage behind ones backs. US vs Germany etc.

… or a little of all of the above.

One of the key strategies employed by Russia in the conflict - is a periodic display of belligerence bordering on unhingement. I think Russia being behind it fits the MO.

>>Vincen+Y1
I think the only thing we can be sure of is that this was perpetrated by government.

>>TEP_Ki+J2
The Baltic Sea is quite shallow, so not even necessarily a government. Someone did it so.

>>joe_th+(OP)
> are implicitly saying that covert act was justified?

This is still taking the OP at face value. If we're being honest, the destruction of the pipeline doesn't really make geopolitical sense for either the US or Russia, given the information we have. If we must assume that one of them did it, then in the absence of evidence we should prefer to assume that it was the action of an irrational actor, and Putin is clearly the more irrational of the two here (as evidence, allow me to gesture towards the war in Ukraine).

>>Vincen+Y1
Nah, I have no idea.

Now, that I read your post in more detail, it's an argument for why Russia might have done it. OK. You could have made that a lot more clear.

>>Vincen+Y1
Agreed. And all you have to do is understand that the fallout from the US destroying this pipeline in secret would be devastating and pointless. Russia reunited NATO and gave the US a gigantic upper hand and what would be the value in throwing all of that away? It just doesn’t make any sense.

People say “but the gas companies” but that’s just an immature conspiracy fairy tale that projects far, far too much power into the hands of but one corporate constituency among many.

The simple answer is that Russia did it. And since gas was never coming back online anyway might as well blow it up and cause chaos. It also helped further made sure that Russian energy companies wouldn’t go behind Putin’s back thinking if they depose him they can sell oil again.

>>joe_th+(OP)
This almost sounds like you are suggesting that people look at the situation, the motivation and context, to judge the possible consequences and see the reasoning behind those actions. That despite the bad optics of a situation, they can look at the larger picture and consider the unfortunate, grim reality of war. That they are aware of their own blindspots, missing information, lack of understanding of geo politics and judge their own possible ignorance carefully and introspective... before coming up with an opinion on military aid to ukraine.

But no that can't be it, that would be complete insanity.

>>Vincen+Y1
I find your arguments pretty weak. - War is enough of a force majeure, literally the first case. There's no need to sabotage infrastructure. Or at least do it on land, where it's easier to fix. - One very weird way to escalate. I can think of a couple of more effective ways. - There was no wedge after all. Germany got a bloody nose, the Russians as well. Did anyone dare accuse the US immediately after the explosions? No, but they're starting to now, probably judging that there will be no retribution.

>>Animat+Nd
Russia and Europe are not at war. Whether a war that Russia itself started elsewhere on it’s own accord is considered a valid excuse to unilaterally terminate existing contracts - that the courts will decide.

>>Vincen+ik
Are they not? Gee, I must've been living under a rock. I'm sorry, I thought you said that if Russia blows up its own pipes that;s a valid force majeure, but starting a war is not. As for the courts, they will decide whatever the country they're based in decides. Simple as that.

>>hef198+b3
Mars is unusually bright... blood will be spilled tonight.