Destroying NS seemed significant at the time but not anymore - we've drastically reduced dependency on Russian gas so it makes no sense to build/open new infra for that. And even if the war ends, Europeans will be ware of sending their money to a country that may use it against them.

> And even if the war ends, Europeans will be ware of sending their money to a country that may use it against them.

I'd bet a significant fraction of my net worth that Europeans will embrace Russian energy after the war.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/eu-spends-more...

"EU spends more on Russian oil and gas than financial aid to Ukraine – report"

Isn't this comparing government spending to consumer spending? Because that energy is paid for by the population at the end the line directly.

It depends on who wins the war and on which terms. Examples: after a surrender you better have to buy anything from the winner at the price made by the winner. After a stalemate you buy somewhere else.

Only 3/4 NS pipes were blown and in 2 places miles apart. The first explosion was likely and accident, the second intentional.

The Ukranians blowing up NS (allegedly) has to have been one of the most strategically brilliantly covert operations in modern times.

It singlehandedly and instantly removed a major blocker to European support for Ukraine, at an uncertain time.

Yet NS was done by Ukrainian ragtag group (unless there is some new development that I missed on the case), well within the rules of war, not that anybody actually cares about them anymore. And its destruction was a good strategic move for whole Europe, otherwise Germany would be dragging their feet forever. We're happy to do business with almost anybody but if some state keeps stating how it will wipe us out with nukes then no, you don't deserve our money and go f*ck yourself.

Throwing away diplomats for a week, not sure what that would cause, probably 'meh' and continuing if the effort is intentional. Its not like diplomats actually make any serious decisions, they just parrot official policies.

Seymour Hersh published a detailed piece outlining his case that it was carried out by the US military with assistance from Norway (who have expertise in that part of the seabed), using the cover of a NATO naval exercise as partial cover:

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...

I find it more credible that these were the actors involved. Biden wanted to end a future link between Germany and Russia. In Germany there is significant segment of the population that is distrustful of the US (even before the recent Trump shenanigans) and the potential stronger infrastructure ties to Russia. I find it more credible than a ragtag group of Ukrainians did it personally.

Although the truth may never be known.

Edit: for clarity

In 2023 - a full year into the war - Hersh asserted "the Russians have yet to put any of their main forces" into Ukraine (https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1628898816953909251). He's carried water for the Syrian regime repeatedly; the Nordstream report was pretty widely debunked by available open source intelligence. He's not super credible these days.

2022 Pew

"85% of Americans and 77% of Germans see the relationship between their countries as good. This is consistent with recent years, though prior to President Joe Biden’s election in 2020, German views of the relationship were much more negative."

It was as high as 82% positive in 2022. During Trump's first term it was much lower but Trump is an outlier.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/11/27/u-s-germany-re...

Hersh never provided ANY evidence and the german investigation is pretty conclusive that it was done by Ukrainians. Which is pretty understandable since the main and openly stated purpose of NS was always to circumvent Ukraine. That might be ok in peace time but when at war and your enemy tries to freeze you to death, things look differently.

> This sounds like a situation where even if it is deliberate enemy action the appropriate thing to do is ask them to stop.

Do you moonlight as a strategist for the Democratic party?

That's funny; they obviously don't have any strategists.

I'm certain they do, however, have folks who dictate policy so they don't lose any donations from certain large foreign orgs.

> That's funny; they obviously don't have any strategists.

They obviously do; they're the folks who, after a few weeks flatfooted, got the Harris campaign to drop stuff that was resonating like the "weird" thing in exchange for "we've got the Cheneys on our side!"

The best thing the democrats could do on strategy would be to blocklist anyone who worked on the Clinton or Harris campaigns.

Both were like watching Asimov try and write an emotional speech. People != robots.

Fair point, I meant good/effective ones.

I mean, I sure wish they had some good ones.

AOC is the future, IMO, if we do, indeed, have a future.

> invite the Chinese diplomats in, tell them to stop, then expel the embassy for a week and then allocate some extra budget to cable repairs.

It isn't China though its Russia, it was Chinese company that owned the ship but it was a Russian captain and it had just left Russia.

But if China wanted to separate themselves from this it would be extremely easy to punish those involved from their side

> This sounds like a situation where even if it is deliberate enemy action the appropriate thing to do is ask them to stop. Maybe invite the Chinese diplomats in, tell them to stop, then expel the embassy for a week and then allocate some extra budget to cable repairs.

LOL. This is hilarious. Its kind of like someone who has never experienced gang warfare stepping into an inner city turf asking opposite sides to take their grievance to cops.