Sorry, but why wouldn't he just blow up the Baltic Pipe then? What use is the threat itself when you admit losing the Nord Stream did cost them something? Seems like a stretch.
Re:
by peterfirefly on Thursday February 09, 2023 @08:04PM
(#34734220)
That would have been treated as an attack on NATO. Why perform a hostile act if a much cheaper threat works? Even if it only gets you 10% of what a successful hostile act gets you, it is worth doing because it is a lot less risky.
Gotta say this threat doesn't sound compelling. Who didn't know Russia could bomb a pipeline? Seems more like Russia punching itself in the face for literally no reason.
Also, given the climate now, if there was even a shred of evidence or any hint that Putin did this, US media and intelligence officials would be blaring that from every rooftop and every talking head would be "Russia this", and "Russia that". I think the relative silence speaks very clearly.
Re:
by peterfirefly on Friday February 10, 2023 @07:00AM
(#34738559)
We also know that kidnappers can kill people. We take them a lot more seriously when they started sending ears in the post, don't we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Pipe
Putin was still trying to energy blackmail Europe back then. It is hard to see the explosions as anything else but a threat that the Baltic Pipe could also be blown up -- and the Nord Stream pipes weren't very useful to Russia at that point so it wouldn't cost much to lose them.