Quote (Djunior @ 29 Sep 2022 16:26)
That's quite an expensive and illogical way to make a statement.
In terms of proving that he has the capability, I guess it's sound logic that a nation capable of producing nuclear subs is also capable of blowing up a pipeline in very shallow waters.
He doesn't need to prove that he can do that.
Of course Russia has the ability to outright torpedo undersea pipelines with one of their submarines, that was never in doubt. They could not pull this off, however, without being detected, so this kind of attack on our critical infrastructure would immediately trigger Article 5 and lead to war with NATO. What the attacks on Nord Stream showed, by contrast, is that it is possible to blow up vulnerable infrastructure in the oceans
undetected. Since declaring war against Russia comes with the highest possible stakes, NATO is clearly not gonna do that in reaction to a hypothetical attack on
our gas pipelines later in the winter, not unless they find ironclad proof for Russian responsibility. The attacks on Nord Stream showed that it's possible to blow them up without leaving sufficient evidence.
Both sides, Russia and NATO, know that the Russians could again get away with a similar, future attack on
our pipelines unless we catch them red-handed. The attack against his own, dead pipelines served as a (risk-free) proof of concept for such an attack, it signaled to the West that Putin has the capability and the audacity to pull off such a maneuver. Additionally, it (re)introduced panic in the natural gas market and sent prices soaring again, something which is clearly in Russia's interest. And last but not least, it diminished the potential benefit of a change in leadership in the Kremlin, which (preemptively?) takes the wind out of the sails of a potential/hypothetical coup.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 29 2022 09:40pm