[kibwen]

This is tinfoil-haberdashery. No, Biden did not authorize a clandestine attack on Russian infrastructure just to boost the US auto industry, nor did he subtly broadcast his nefarious intent months ago as part of some game to throw red meat to the conspiratorialists, Q-style. The US would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by engaging in such an action, and has absolutely no impetus to since it already currently has the upper hand in the overall geopolitical conflict. The pipeline can be repaired within months, and the sanctions were already going to last for at least that long. It buys the US none of the the things you mention, even in the fantasy world where someone thinks that those would comprise the US's grand strategic goals.

To be clear, with our current information, the sabotage makes sense for nobody, not for the US, not for Russia. The only reason people are attributing it to Russia is because, of all the people currently in the room, Putin is the one acting the most generally irrational. But if we assume irrationality, it could just as easily be any random entity; Iran, or North Korea, or Greenpeace, or mermaids, or the shambling, zombified corpse of Abraham Lincoln.

[shswkna]

I beg to differ. To at least consider that the sabotage is in US interest, is sound logic.

Of course there are many factors at play and a lot we don’t know.

The arguments in your post carry a hint of denial in them. Read other posts that outline the benefits to the US position after the sabotage, and consider them without bias. Not saying its the only explanation- but the case is worth considering.

[kibwen]

I have no particular love for the US government or its foreign policy. At the same time, it is neither "a hint of denial" nor "bias" to reject the above claims as nonsense. There is simply no motive. NATO solidarity is at an all-time high, none of the imaginary economic benefits to the US would be worth jeopardizing that solidarity, especially since the US isn't remotely at any point of desperation. In practice it will achieve nothing (other than an environmental disaster), and even the things people imagine it might be intended to achieve are eye-rollingly petty compared to the US's actual strategic objective right now, which is holding NATO together.

[SanjayMehta]

No motive?

Let's see who benefits from this sabotage.

1. Russia doesn't benefit as it disabled their property and removed an important negotiating tool from their portfolio.

2. Germany doesn't benefit for obvious reasons. Now even if they wanted to, they can't try to get gas from Russia.

3. The US on the other hand benefits both by wrecking Germany's industry and opening up a market for their LNG.

4. Ukraine gets to demand more freebies and weapons from NATO. Benefit.

5. NATO gets to dump their own inventory on Ukraine. Benefit.

6. The US weapons manufacturers get new orders. Lots of benefits.

Take a step back and apply some common sense.

[kibwen]

> Now even if they wanted to, they can't try to get gas from Russia.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Nord Stream is the largest pipeline, but by no means the only one. Despite the fact that Nord Stream has been shut down for over a month, Germany continued and still continues to buy Russian gas.

> The US on the other hand benefits both by wrecking Germany's industry and opening up a market for their LNG.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The US is a beneficiary of German industry, it has no financial motive to wreck their industry, let alone the geopolitical implications of wrecking the industry of their key ally. And the US has already been selling gas to Europe literally as fast as it can. There's no new market to open up, the status quo continues.

And the last half of your points appear to be completely irrelevant? None of the sabotage here will have any noticeable effect on the war in Ukraine, let alone have the effect of extending it, which is what you appear to be suggesting.

[SanjayMehta]

> You have no idea what you're talking about.

And you do? Ad hominem make for great debating skills.

And the other points are lost on you, since you appear to be completely taken in by your regime's propaganda.

[mensetmanusman]

It was also in America’s favor for Putin to invade Ukraine, because it strengthened the western alliance.

That doesn’t mean Putin is an agent for America.

[MichaelCollins]

> No, Biden did not

What's with the authoritative tone? You have no clue what American submarines have been up to, and if you did know, you'd be breaking the law by telling us anything about it. And it's absurd to pretend that the premise of submarines doing clandestine illegal stuff underwater is an outlandish "Q-style" 'conspiracy'.

[kibwen]

Can you point to the commenter here who does know what any nation's subs have been up to, and isn't pulling stuff out of their ass to satisfy their geopolitical soap opera fantasies? What's "absurd" is pretending that a nation state would either need or even want to use submarines for an operation like this; reports indicate that these pipelines are at a depth of 80m, which is well within the depths that professional deep-sea divers regularly access undersea pipelines.

In practice there's not a single state on Earth that benefits from the temporary disabling of this unused pipeline, but of all the states that have something to lose from being discovered as the perpetrator, the US is near the top of the list.

[MichaelCollins]

It has nothing to do with the depth. Surface ship diver tenders work great if you don't mind everybody seeing what you're doing. For something like this, it would be stupid.

> In practice there's not a single state on Earth that benefits from the temporary disabling of this unused pipeline,

Severing this tie between Germany and Russia benefits America. If you don't understand this then you haven't been paying attention. Furthermore, doing it in a way that takes the blame off the German government is beneficial to the German government. The German people will be uncomfortable in the short term, but in the long run severing this link between their country and Russia will be good in the long run for them and the rest of NATO.

[kibwen]

> Furthermore, doing it in a way that takes the blame off the German government is beneficial to the German government.

No, the German government knows it needs to weather the winter, and have been relying (and continue to rely upon) Russian gas to fill their reserves. Their goal was to have their gas reserves filled to 95% capacity by November, and they appear to have been at around 75% before Russia started playing games with Nord Stream 1 last month. Of all the states most negatively impacted by this, Germany is probably #1 (yes, even more than Russia).

[thakoppno]

> it could just as easily be any random entity; Iran, or North Korea, or Greenpeace, or mermaids, or the shambling, zombified corpse of Abraham Lincoln.

Obviously a rhetorical flourish but Iran and North Korea would have substantially less capability for an attack of this nature. It’s not impossible but certainly there are more likely perpetrators.

[SanjayMehta]

Putin is acting as irrationally as JFK did during the Cuban missile crisis.

[actionfromafar]

Putin is acting rationally as someone staying in power at all costs to his country.

[SanjayMehta]

You just described the Biden regime with elections coming up.