Quote (Meanwhile @ Feb 9 2023 02:51pm)
I am very sorry but you can't "resolve" it
- US had deep ties with Germany and EU: <- yes, which is why they didnt like the pipeline. why blowing up the pipe while it was possible to simply shut down the valves ? <- because they dont want the pipeline to exist.
- Gazprom no longer had to pay Germany damages for breaches of deliveries of contracted gas (and paid), since there is a case of "force majeure". You completely ignore this. <- russia could just as easily have said we are at war with you we are not paying you squat, you already have us sanctioned why would we pay you a penny.
- The sabotage is also very divisive and this is a very good argument : Russia is the lonely one who gets advantage from blowing it. <- I have already outlined how the US also benefits.
This said it could have been a decision, a message, decided by all allies, that we don't know... No proofs of any kind for anyone here, don't forget it. <- i see this as a compromise from you, and will accept it at face value.
Tip: Farts who claim that covid vaccine kills are the same being sure it was US. Maybe NOT a good idea to mix with these people ? ;) <- this is not relevant so i wont give a view!
cheers. resolved, moving on.
ps
sorry could not help myself (while accepting some of this may be untrue i will bold the relevant sections):
The destruction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany was a terror attack carried out by the US Navy, in a mission planned before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to a report by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh published Wednesday. On September 26, a series of explosions destroyed the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, which shipped natural gas from Russia to Germany. While no one has publicly admitted responsibility, US officials have expressed satisfaction at the pipeline’s destruction. Seymour Hersh is one of the world’s leading investigative journalists, who exposed the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War. He also contributed to revealing the Watergate scandal and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. While Hersh, as usual, does not report his sources, and his accusations cannot be independently verified, his reporting has been confirmed again and again in the past.
Hersh alleges that:
Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.
The terrorist attack on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines destroyed civilian infrastructure valued at over $20 billion. It resulted in the single largest spill of methane gas in human history, releasing the equivalent of 14.6 million tons of CO2, with a major climate impact. The attack contributed to a spike in energy prices through Europe and the entire world.
In congressional testimony in January, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland said, “I think the administration is very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.” These statements strongly suggested that the US and its allies viewed the attack favorably.They also made it appear likely that the attack had been directed by Washington through an intermediary, such as the Ukrainian special forces.
According to Hersh, however, the attack was not only planned by the United States, but actively conducted by the US Navy. If true, what occurred was a staggeringly reckless attack on Germany, a NATO ally of the US. The United States fought against Germany in two world wars, in which hundreds of thousands of American soldiers were killed. In 1917, the United States nominally entered World War I in response to the German policy of indiscriminately sinking American civilian ships using submarines.
In his report, Hersh explained the economic significance of the Nord Stream pipelines:
From its earliest days, Nord Stream 1 was seen by Washington and its anti-Russian NATO partners as a threat to western dominance… The direct route, which bypassed any need to transit Ukraine, had been a boon for the German economy, which enjoyed an abundance of cheap Russian natural gas—enough to run its factories and heat its homes while enabling German distributors to sell excess gas, at a profit, throughout Western Europe…
America’s political fears were real: [Russian President] Putin would now have an additional and much-needed major source of income, and Germany and the rest of Western Europe would become addicted to low-cost natural gas supplied by Russia—while diminishing European reliance on America… As long as Europe remained dependent on the pipelines for cheap natural gas, Washington was afraid that countries like Germany would be reluctant to supply Ukraine with the money and weapons it needed to defeat Russia.
Hersh does not note that following the shutoff of European natural gas imports from Russia, the US massively increased its natural gas exports to Europe, leading to record profits for US energy companies.As one European official told Politico, “The fact is, if you look at it soberly, the country that is most profiting from this war is the US because they are selling more gas and at higher prices, and because they are selling more weapons.”all of the above to my mind is a logical argument that Russia was not the sole beneficiary (if it even was) of the blowing up of nord stream 2.
This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 9 2023 09:11am