[snapcaster]

Why would it have been Russia? Obviously we don't know who did, but my thoughts were that Russia would want that pipeline to be available as a bargaining chip to get the rest of Europe to pressure Ukraine to concede. How does blowing it up benefit them?

[shapefrog]

> How does blowing it up benefit them?

Destroy the european economy by starving and freezing people to death, make everyone in europe turn against ukrainian supporting politicians and cut off any support for the ukraine government.

[snapcaster]

But they could have done that without blowing it up right? they control the source of the pipeline. So couldn't they have achieved this goal without taking the bargaining chip off the table and limiting their own flexibility?

[shapefrog]

It allows/invites a challenge from a weaker leader who suggests selling some gas to get some money. If there is no option and no flexibility there is no alternative, no challenger.

[snapcaster]

Good thought, hadn't really been considering the internal politics angle of it

[shapefrog]

And that goes for every player. Want to be Germany and not have someone outflank you and say 'lets take the cheap gas from russia' - take the gas off the table. Want to be India and still get half off your energy? Want to be the US and get to sell a ton of gas to europe?

[reitanqild]

> Why would it have been Russia? Obviously we don't know who did,

Agree. As mentioned above I keep multiple options open.

> but my thoughts were that Russia would want that pipeline to be available as a bargaining chip to get the rest of Europe to pressure Ukraine to concede. How does blowing it up benefit them?

Exactly as I outlined above: if they did it, it is (relatively) cheap power signaling: “think if this happened to one of the cables that are in use. We are actually dumb & crazy enough & technically capable to pull it off”.