A targeted attack against a strategic resource, during a war, with no [direct] civilian casualties. This doesn't meet the common definitions of terrorism. This is equivalent to bombing train yards, not city centers. The best argument for it being terrorism is the civilians who may freeze to death this winter, but even that is dubious.
if it is by a state, then it could be considered 'aggression' -- the 'supreme international crime'.
as for the no direct / immediate civilian casualties part ("dubious") -- we can think of myriad examples of terror attacks and war crimes where the vast majority of civilians dying as a result of said attacks came later, even from 'indirect' causes -- dresden, hiroshima, nagasaki, al-shifa, etc.
but whether you decide to classify it as a terror attack, terrorism, war crime, or something better or worse, i think we should be consistent, regardless of who the perpetrator(s) is/are.
A terrorist attack is an attack perpetrated in a terrorist campaign. I don't think this really qualify, but i guess i could see why.
It could be a war crime though.
Russia has the most to gain because they'll simply sell the natural gas to Asia or through another pipeline, meanwhile they want to pressure Europe into not supporting Ukraine any longer.
The Ukraine war could literally end modern Russia as we know it, more defeats and the entire current government and structure could collapse. If somehow they survive the war, years of sanctions will. The Ukraine war is an existential threat for the Putin government...
And that's not even counting the fact they love false flags and blaming others...
Which pipeline? They don't have pipelines to Asia that can handle the gas they meant to send through Nordstream.
That would require either pipelines or port facilities for loading LNG transport ships in Russia and in China, either of which would take years to implement.
The gas fields are in North-Western Siberia, which is closer to Europe than to China.
Keep in mind Turkey and Caucasian nations are in Asia...
No, not really, how do you suppose this would work?
There is a pipeline A to Europe, and pipeline B to Asia. Both operational at production capacity.
How something happening with pipeline A would suddenly positively affect pipeline B?
> meanwhile they want to pressure Europe into not supporting Ukraine any longer.
By killing the only leverage it had on Europe? How would that work?
> And that's not even counting the fact they love false flags and blaming others...
Is that fact, though? Could you elaborate, what are you referring to specifically?
I've noticed it became a popular idea over the last few years, but I never really managed to figure out the grounds for it.
as for 'valid reasons' -- i can't think of any.
as for likely suspects, only one country that could do it and expect to get away with it without any serious repercussions -- the US.
and, by extension, our protected partners in aggression -- the UK, in particular. also Nato.
Israel, i suspect, would be out because of close ties to Russia, but you never know.
Russia has officially said the UK was involved in the attack. the UK has offered the Shaggy defense.
the US had the most to gain, and Russia had the most to lose.
so the official word, so far, from most western media including every mainstream pr firm has been:
:-Dour intellectual culture is in bad shape.