They have a habit of doing it(for years/decades) and it would really help them if people couldn't rely on other sources of energy than what they're selling.

So, who else?Who has a motive and the capabilities to do this?

I mean.. what does russia gain? Even worse political relations? Germany will fix it system in a day or two, and then what? Does anyone actually expect them to ditch wind power and buy russian gas after russia hacking them?

Realistically... by stirring the shit up in europe, the country that gains the most is.. well.. USA. Do something, blame russia, make EU economy worse, worsen the relations, make european countries stop production due to energy crisis, sell them american products, and if things get even worse, sell weapons, maybe even to both sides if things get desparate enough, watch europe destroyed again while their own economy gets a great boost.

We can ask this question about nearly every action Russia took after it was clear the war wasn't going their way, yet they did do them.

If they consider themselves at war with NATO this attack does make sense.

The same could be said about the invasion in the first place though, after the worsening from 2014, even if they managed to pull off the initial plan.

It seems more of a response/warning to the sending of weapons that has a tiny bit of teeth but not enough to escalate further.

Looking at who has most to gain from an action is an excellent starting point. What should we do, just assume everyone is equally likely until proof appears?

I mean.. what does russia gain? Even worse political relations? Germany will fix it system in a day or two, and then what? Does anyone actually expect them to ditch wind power and buy russian gas after russia hacking them?

Realistically... by stirring the shit up in europe, the country that gains the most is.. well.. USA. Do something, blame russia, make EU economy worse, worsen the relations, make european countries stop production due to energy crisis, sell them american products, and if things get even worse, sell weapons, maybe even to both sides if things get desparate enough, watch europe destroyed again while their own economy gets a great boost.

The US is currently better off with a weakened Russia.

EU <-> Russia relations are about as bad as they can get short of open war, trying to make them worse is somewhere between meaningless and self-destructive for the US. If the US wanted to escalate they have easier ways.

Russia is better off when the alternatives to their energy are poorly performing or nonexistant.

Don't make it more complicated than it is. You can go round-and-round all day with: it looks like A did it, but oh that's what they _want_ me to think, or maybe _that's_ what they want me to think. Really 9 times out of 10 it's the obvious.

The relations are not as bad as the media portrays them, and stuff like this would actually make them worse.

It also looked like iraq had weapons of mass destruction and iraqi soldiers were killing babies... but a few years later, it looked a bit different.

This war is just one of the many in the last decades, and the west only cares, because it's the russians doing it and not americans/nato. The world that didn't care about a 20 year long occupation of afghanistan (... and iraq, syria, libya, etc.), because the media didn't tell them to care... now they care, again, because of the media. So yeah... an attack, where russia literally gains nothing and the result is only worse relations seems iffy to me.

> The relations are not as bad as the media portrays them

They're two hairs away from direct war. You've lost the plot.

It's not that complicated. The US has is fairly open about how much they hate Germany's friendly relationship with Russia for years and has been on a near constant campaign to shame Germany into doing more to oppose them.

This hack attack "attacks" Germany without actually doing any meaningful damage. It serves US interests more than Russian.

>Really 9 times out of 10 it's the obvious.

9 out of 10 hack attacks are attributed on the basis of little more than an IP address and the politically convenient culprit is blamed. It'd be an easy thing to get away with.

> This hack attack "attacks" Germany without actually doing any meaningful damage. It serves US interests more than Russian.

The US has little to gain, Germany<->Russia relations are already in the trash. Why bother trying to achieve what Russia already did for you?

The US has a _lot_ to lose and extremely little to gain. If they were shown to be at fault it would be a huge PR win for Russia and would basically tank the goodwill that intra-NATO has gained.