[mort96]

It should be extremely clear that the health of Russia as a country isn't Putin's primary goal. If (and it's a big "if") destroying a source of income or leverage to the country can make Putin safer against assassination and coup attempts, I don't see why he wouldn't do it.

[scottLobster]

Winning the war in Ukraine, however, is a primary objective. Wasn't his whole plan to energy-starve Europe over the winter until they came crawling back?

The only way Putin has a remote chance of winning the war at this point is if western support stops, destroying the one mechanism that might actually do that seems counterproductive.

[mort96]

Staying alive, and staying in charge, are probably even more primary than winning the war.

I'm not saying I believe this is the cause, mind you. I'm firmly undecided on that one.

[libertine]

This is how I see these events. It's all the product of someone that wants to survive and keep the perks until his death - at all costs.

If there was a greater interest at play Russia would be a very different place, and Ukraine would willingly join their sphere of influence.

[zhoujianfu]

“The Dictator’s Handbook” is a great book that argues (convincingly) that countries “act” not in their “own” self-interest but in the self-interest of their leader.

Which is always to stay in power (and maximize their power).

So I agree as short-sighted and bad it would be for Russia to do this, if it helps Putin stay in power right now, it makes sense.

And honestly, who else would do it?

[jvm___]

At the scale of countries, the world is anarchy. - Some random Reddit comment that stuck with me

[largbae]

But couldn't he have kept his perks by, you know, not invading Ukraine in the first place?

[wonderwonder]

Emperor has no clothes scenario. Everyone is telling him his army is strong and can steam roll Ukraine. Meanwhile his army consists of untrained men in rain boots whose leadership has no idea how to fight but is really good at stealing everything not nailed down.

[virgilp]

Doesn't have a time machine, or else I'm sure by now he would've taken the option of "not invading Ukraine in the first place".

[miguelazo]

Helps to stay alive and in charge when your economy is still benefiting from the massive revenues the pipleline brings. It's amazing the lengths some people will go to distort reality to fit their preconceptions.

[gnull]

Absolutely. This line of thought actually best explains a lot of things he was doing in the last months and maybe years.

[miguelazo]

Wow, you really took the Putin Bad Guy theme way out on a limb! Completely devoid of any logic or historical context.

[piva00]

And you didn't add logic and the historical context you feel it's missing, what exactly is the point of your comment then?

[miguelazo]

I mean, we could also start with basic logic: Who gains from disabling the pipeline? This absurd theory that Putin doesn't benefit from the revenue isn't even worth addressing. On the other hand, Pompeo explicitly stated the US would do "anything" to prevent Nordstream 2 from coming online, Biden alluded to the same: Biden in Feb 2022: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

Q: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"

Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."

Add to that the Polish FM (husband of The Atlantic hack Anne Applebaum) thanking the US for destroying the pipeline on Twitter. Maybe you could try doing your own research-- outside of the security state stenographers like WaPo and Wikipedia.