[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.