So instead of just closing the tap, Russia blew up its own pipeline, which it just finished building last year at a cost of billions of Euros? A pipeline which would make many more billions of profit during its lifetime?
And if it really was Russia, why did they put explosives off the Danish coast, almost in NATO territory? It would be much easier near Saint Petersburg or Kaliningrad. Also, whats the reason that Denmark, Sweden and Germany refuse to release the results of their investigation? They have never been shy to accuse Russia of everything, and it would be very easy to point out if there were Russian ships near the explosion site.
So instead of just closing the tap, Russia blew up its own pipeline, which it just finished building last year at a cost of billions of Euros? A pipeline which would make many more billions of profit during its lifetime?
Yes. The damage is repairable, so the certainty of the cost is overstated. Someone with the power to make this decision can believe that the value of sending a message or the threat or escalation is worth the potential financial loss. There are many possibilities.
And if it really was Russia, why did they put explosives off the Danish coast, almost in NATO territory? It would be much easier near Saint Petersburg or Kaliningrad.
To send a message. Otherwise they would just close the tap.
Also, whats the reason that Denmark, Sweden and Germany refuse to release the results of their investigation? They have never been shy to accuse Russia of everything, and it would be very easy to point out if there were Russian ships near the explosion site.
Because they might feel that publicly acknowledging that Russia launched this attack will put them in a position in which they will have to declare war. How can they tell the voters “we know Russia did this, but we don’t want to escalate the conflict to avoid further damage to the economy, so we will let them get away with it” - that would be very very unpopular.
I am not saying “I know what happened, and this is what happened” - or even that this particular scenario is more likely than an alternative one. I definitely don’t know what happened. The arguments that I have read make me think “yes, that is a plausible scenario”, but I don’t think it is sensible to follow a logical path, show that it makes sense, and then claim that the truth is obvious. What actually happened could easily be a lot more complicated and involve some behind-the-scenes politics that very few people are aware of.
So instead of just closing the tap, Russia blew up its own pipeline, which it just finished building last year at a cost of billions of Euros? A pipeline which would make many more billions of profit during its lifetime?
And if it really was Russia, why did they put explosives off the Danish coast, almost in NATO territory? It would be much easier near Saint Petersburg or Kaliningrad. Also, whats the reason that Denmark, Sweden and Germany refuse to release the results of their investigation? They have never been shy to accuse Russia of everything, and it would be very easy to point out if there were Russian ships near the explosion site.
Yes. The damage is repairable, so the certainty of the cost is overstated. Someone with the power to make this decision can believe that the value of sending a message or the threat or escalation is worth the potential financial loss. There are many possibilities.
To send a message. Otherwise they would just close the tap.
Because they might feel that publicly acknowledging that Russia launched this attack will put them in a position in which they will have to declare war. How can they tell the voters “we know Russia did this, but we don’t want to escalate the conflict to avoid further damage to the economy, so we will let them get away with it” - that would be very very unpopular.
I am not saying “I know what happened, and this is what happened” - or even that this particular scenario is more likely than an alternative one. I definitely don’t know what happened. The arguments that I have read make me think “yes, that is a plausible scenario”, but I don’t think it is sensible to follow a logical path, show that it makes sense, and then claim that the truth is obvious. What actually happened could easily be a lot more complicated and involve some behind-the-scenes politics that very few people are aware of.