re: Moneywerx data assessment of the U.S. sabotaging Nord Stream 2 Pipeline

quote:

---

So Europe cut its own dick off?

---

You even said yourself that they are so devoted to opposing Russian oil and gas in the EU that they’ll suffer the winter without question.

How does this affect that?

Also, if it wasn’t being used, how is its destruction “stepping on their own dick”?

quote:

---

Either the EU was at risk of capitulating to Russia or it wasn't.

---

There is no internal pressure at this time for the EU to “capitulate”.

Getting out ahead of it would make sense.

Now, if there are riots this winter, the governments cannot capitulate to the Russians.

If they were going to fully cut themselves off from Russian O&G, this was the best time to do it.

I’m giving the west complete and utter credit for something I deem to be a good thing.

quote:

---

Then Putin kicked them out and they moved a lot of their corrupt operations to Ukraine

---

Where do you get this alternate reality from? You know a big reason why the Russian military has done such a terrible job, because Putin and his hand picked oligarchs siphoned a large portion of the defense budget to fill their own coffers. There is a reason why Putin is one of the richest men in the world.

quote:

---

Also, if it wasn’t being used, how is its destruction “stepping on their own dick”?

---

The theory that the US (or US-EU) blew up the pipe was fear of capitulation by the EU.

quote:

---

Now, if there are riots this winter, the governments cannot capitulate to the Russians.

If they were going to fully cut themselves off from Russian O&G, this was the best time to do it.

---

This is like 11/10 on the risk scale. If the argument is based on riots, imagine the response when those putative rioters find out their government did this

If you remove any sort of risk assessment, it can appear logical for the US or EU (or both) to have done this. However, adding in risk makes it much less likely.

This doesn't mean that the Russian theory doesn't have holes. They all do, which is why these don't make sense with the data that we have.

quote:

---

The theory that the US (or US-EU) blew up the pipe was fear of capitulation by the EU.

---

From pressure within.

So, how is this stepping on their own dick?

This frees the governments from even worrying about that.

Brilliant, IMO.

quote:

---

This is like 11/10 on the risk scale. If the argument is based on riots, imagine the response when those putative rioters find out their government did this

---

Who would ever report that story?

The NYT? BBC? Washington Post? CNN? MSNBC? Fox News?

This idea of governmental actions being leaked and reported by ANY credible news source is in no way a factor anymore.

Hell, it has never been a factor.

There is zero fear from any government that a leak would even be taken seriously.

Hell, every one of those media entities would likely berate and chastise the paper that even stated that.

We saw that exact phenomenon with Covid.

quote:

---

Also, note the timing as Poland and Norway announce a new Baltic Pipeline just days after the sabotage and the EU has secured a deal with Israel going forward so they will no longer rely on Russia for the gas and oil. We simply waited until everything was shored up and made our move.

---

How long for those to come online?

If, big IF, we bombed this, seems premature?

quote:

---

the incremental escalation that potentially leads to American blood.

---

The incremental escalation already took place. That's what Russia and NATO have done since 2012.

quote:

---

Who would ever report that story?

---

Several European outlets would absolutely report that story.

quote:

---

This idea of governmental actions being leaked and reported by ANY credible news source is in no way a factor anymore.

---

What? If this action was unilateral, European intelligence agencies would absolutely leak whatever evidence they had to the press. You are assuming the West is united front, which it isn't, as the differing views between the three main factions in NATO on Russia's invasion plans showed.

quote:

---

What? If this action was unilateral, European intelligence agencies would absolutely leak whatever evidence they had to the press.

---

I don’t believe it was unilateral.

Again, y’all seem to have this view that I am criticizing the west for these supposed actions.

I believe it was a brilliant move, and something that should have been considered (from different angles) years ago.

quote:

---

You're all insane conspiracy theorists.

This would be like if we secretly sold weapons to Iran to fund some rebel groups in Nicaragua or something crazy like that. It's all just pure qanon nonsense.

---

How does this reference help the overall point? The NYT started publishing leaks about CIA-Nicaragua before the November 1986 leaks because two Americans died in a crash in Nicaragua in October of 1986. The leak to the Arab newspaper which published the connection between Iran, the hostages, and the arms deal was likely leaked from a US official as well.

quote:

---

I don’t believe it was unilateral.

---

Again, if this was multi-lateral, and there are riots in Germany or elsewhere over the prices of gas, this would absolutely get left-wing papers and papers associated with the Greens to publish stories. It would also get right-leaning papers to publish it as well.

quote:

---

Again, y’all seem to have this view that I am criticizing the west for these supposed actions.

---

Because you aren't accounting for any discontents, as you are just using the frame that you don't trust the media to report anything, when European media culture is more diffuse and more likely to report things that make whatever government in charge look bad.