Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2024 04:38pm)
NS2 was a huge loss for Russia. They sunk billions of dollars into it (quite literally) without ever getting their RoI. NS1 was fine, although it didn't do anything that the already existing pipelines couldn't (from a purely economic pov).
NS2 was a joint venture,
fact. And very costly yes which is the argument posted many times, why would they blow up their own expensive infrastructure.
https://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/nord-stream-2-pipeline/Quote
Gazprom invested more than half of the pipeline cost while the remaining was invested jointly by Engie, OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, Uniper and Wintershall.
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2024 04:38pm)
Because completely closing the gas tap is a hostile act and ruins the Western trust in the reliability of them as its primary gas supplier. Closing the gas tap was the figurative 'nuclear option'. Back in 2021, they still thought the West would back off and let them get away with their invasion of Ukraine, still thought that trade relations would survive this conflict. That's why they went with the much more face-saving option of not shipping more than contractually obligated.
Issuing sanctions is also a hostile act.
My point makes much more sense, they were reluctant to do it because of the revenue (sound logic) and kept the gas card in their hands for as long as possible.
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2024 04:38pm)
Russia and later the USSR had already invaded/annexed places like Finland, Ukraine, parts of Poland and the Baltics during the 1910s through 1930s, before the country entered WW2. They were already an expansionist empire before the nazis forced them to go into all-out wartime footing, which subsequently enabled them to steamroll the entire eastern half of Eruope.
Now you go way too far back in time. Stuff that happened in 1910 is simply not relevant.
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2024 04:38pm)
Once more, the idea that these are sovereign nations who are free to pick their alliances doesn't seem to cross your mind. In your mind, all of Eastern Europe seems to be nothing but bargaining chips, faceless entities to which Russia has an eternal claim. :rolleyes:
No dude, just no. Just like the US didn't like it (huge understatement) when Cuba sided with the USSR
We're talking geo-politics here and you know it. BTW arguments like "we're the good guys" also immediately go in the trash bin.
What matters is how strong a certain country is and if it has the will to protect it's geo-political interests.
BTW the USSR withdrew from the Eastern European countries (fact) and nowhere did I state that Russia has the right to eternally claim those Eastern European countries.
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2024 04:38pm)
What's the difference between NATO troops massing or NATO missiles being stationed on the Finnish/Russian border versus the Ukrainian/Russian border? You are the one arguing that NATO is the big boogeyman which is threatening Russia with strategic encirclement and thus forcing their hand. If that premise were true, there should be no difference between Finnish and Ukrainian NATO membership.
Nowhere in this discussion did I argue that NATO is the boogeyman. Quote me where I did. I said NATO should've known better.
And Ukraine =/= Finland for multiple, very obvious reasons.
This post was edited by Djunior on Aug 16 2024 09:13am