Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by MichaelCollins 1362 days ago
> [1]: 1) to claim force majeure and avoid massive penalties Gazprom would have to pay for the breach of contract (now they just blame the West and good luck proving in courts who actually did it);

This doesn't make much sense to me. Even if we assume the premise that they have such a motivation and can't.. simply refuse to pay fines.. there are easier ways for them to destroy their ability to deliver gas without causing such expensive damage. For instance, they could claim more of their turbines failed. Then when the war is over and they want to sell more gas, the repairs would be a lot cheaper.
2 comments
rmind 1362 days ago
I think they calculated that the Nord Stream projects are pretty much dead in the current circumstances. It was a political project to start with.

Also, I think it is a statement to EU: your underwater infrastructure is not safe.

link
MichaelCollins 1362 days ago
> Also, I think it is a statement to EU: your underwater infrastructure is not safe.

I don't buy this "blow up our pipeline to implicitly threaten others" narrative at all, for the simple reason that all the involved countries knew Russia had this capability already. If it was meant as a demonstration, it would be a demonstration of madness, not technical ability.

link
Ekaros 1362 days ago
False flag bombing attack at some part of terminal would seem much more reasonable. And lot cheaper and simpler to sort out.
link