zlacker

> But why the fuck would Russia do it?

Why do so many people act as if it's so unlikely that Russia did it? They had the least to lose, their relations with the west were already ruined at that point and such an incident couldn't make them any worse.

What would be their motive? Before the explosion, Russia had illegally shut down the pipeline. Now that the pipeline has exploded, they have plausible deniability and they can say it's not their fault the gas isn't flowing. Because of that, they won't have to pay additional fines when the economic relations with the west are restored.

And don't forget that one pipe of NS2 was left intact and, unlike NS1, there was no contractual obligation to pump gas through it.

>>pepper+(OP)
>They had the least to lose, their relations with the west were already ruined at that point and such an incident couldn't make them any worse.

>Now that the pipeline has exploded, they have plausible deniability and they can say it's not their fault the gas isn't flowing.

How the hell thinking they have nothing to lose and also worried about a contract at the same time sound or consistent?

>>licebm+YE2
As I wrote in my comment, the contractual obligations will matter in the future, when (if) the economic relations are normalized. Settlement of the outstanding financial disputes will be a prerequisite for that.