|
|
|
|
|
|
by GekkePrutser
1347 days ago
|
|
|
A few reasons I've heard people bring up: - It was not being used anyway and was less likely to be used every single day - Apparently the gas wells in Siberia's permafrost areas have frozen due to lack of use and Russia doesn't have the tech to reopen them without Western help which falls under sanctions (note I read this in another forum and haven't been able to validate this) - The attack happened one day after the opening of the Baltic pipe from Scandinavia to Poland. Could be a way of putting NATO on notice that their infrastructure is vulnerable, without actually attacking it. Like a veiled threat. I also thought it was unlikely to be Russia at the time but in light of the arguments above (which I read brought by other people) it became more likely to me. On the other hand the Ukrainians have always hated Nord Stream because it meant a loss of transit fees for them. Somehow I don't think this is their biggest worry right now though. And I doubt they'd want to risk agitating NATO counties which own half of it. I'm still not convinced either way. I'm not very good at geopolitical insight :( |
|
|
Once EU countries found themselves paying >5x what they're used to paying to keep their houses warm in a month or so, they might well have decided to pinch their noses and start buying Russian gas again. Russia would very much have liked this, non-European NATO countries would not. Now it's not even a question.
> - The attack happened one day after the opening of the Baltic pipe from Scandinavia to Poland. Could be a way of putting NATO on notice that their infrastructure is vulnerable, without actually attacking it. Like a veiled threat.
Shooting yourself in the foot is a strange way to demonstrate that you have a gun.
> On the other hand the Ukrainians have always hated Nord Stream because it meant a loss of transit fees for them. Somehow I don't think this is their biggest worry right now though. And I doubt they'd want to risk agitating NATO counties which own half of it.
I don't think Ukraine would have been involved in it either, but they stand to benefit in the short-term from anything which would isolate Russia further. In terms of agitating European NATO states, they've already gone through the initial shock of cutting off cheap gas, the damage of permanently losing access to it isn't as politically costly.