Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
Yeah I just can't agree.
It only makes sense in retrospect, but when you look at it from before this event and ask "what can we blow up or destroy that will signal our ability to do this", why pick Nordstream? It's so damned valuable to Russia.
Blow up a couple of those seized superyachts for example, they're spectacular targets.
There are probably thousands of other options. And why blow up both pipes, if the point was to demonstrate ability? Wouldn't just blowing up one of the two pipes achieved all the same things?
|
Another thing that kind of goes against the theory that Russia chose a soft target to show that they can hit EU and NATO infrastructure is that predictably, the area is now at heightened alert making future attacks more difficult. Sweden and Norway both have their armed forces protecting the Baltic pipeline now, and sites on land are also being made more secure. Russia basically gave up the element of surprise for something that has relatively little reward for them.
Although Russia making grave strategical errors and failing to predict outcomes isn't exactly inconsistent with current events either. If Russia did do it, it would really speak to how desperate and out of good ideas they are at this point.