Re:Nord Stream blast 'blew away 50 metres of pipe'
by poulpy123 on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @10:38AM
(#33247888)
For Russia, in the against you should add that they mostly owned the pipeline, they could have switch it off without destroying it and destroying it means not being able to use it to sell oil to Western europe against. I can't see any way it would make sense to them, even accounting bad calculation like the Ukraine invasion.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Nord Stream blast 'blew away 50 metres of pipe'
by jcranmer on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @10:43AM
(#33247969)
NS1 was already switched off for about a full month by the time the explosions happened, and NS2 was never put into production (and was unlikely to ever be put into production after Russia invaded Ukraine).
One of the theories I've seen espoused is that Russia is basically going "nice pipeline, shame if something happened to it" to the new Norway-Poland pipeline which was inaugurated about the time of the explosion.
Re:Nord Stream blast 'blew away 50 metres of pipe'
by rmu09 on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @11:01AM
(#33248296)
Switching it off might involve conractual penalties. Blowing it up and blaming it on whoever can be argued "force majeur".
Re:Nord Stream blast 'blew away 50 metres of pipe'
by the_third_wave on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @11:52AM
(#33249299)
Assuming that Russia aims (or aimed) to (re-)open the pipes one day blowing it up costs far more that those penalties.
Re:Nord Stream blast 'blew away 50 metres of pipe'
by boardwaalk on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @11:10AM
(#33248444)
Thinking of countries as singular, cohesive entities might be over simplified in this case.