Quote:
Originally Posted by Monahammer
I don't buy the money argument. The US profits unbelievably from the integrity of the global alliance system. This move potentially jeopardizes or undermines that system. Imagine if NATO allies stopped buying US military equipment, for example. Natural Gas revenues are fleeting compared to that long term captive customer.
|
I don't buy the money argument either.
IF this was something conducted within the alliance, and I say that with a big capital IF because I am not jumping to that conclusion, I would think it was more of an intervention to reduce Russian influence over Germany.
Germany is like a heroin junky and Russia is the drug dealer. The pipeline is like a big long syringe ready to inject that heroin once the cold, dark winter arrives. Germany already circumvented sanctions once for the sake of Nord Stream (with Canada's assistance mind you). Their future reliability may have very well been in question and I wouldn't be shocked if other NATO countries wanted to head that off before they could be tested. It's not like it would be an attack on Germany. It would be an attack on infrastructure that is a majority owned by Russia and served Russian interests more than NATOs in the long run.
I get it though. Russia does stupid crazy stuff all the time. There is always a really good chance they are guilty just based on how they tend to do things, their affinity for using scorched earth, and for using false flags. The argument for Putin doing it to take it away as a tool for a successor to use in peace negotiations, and therefore making one less reason to depose him, is also a pretty compelling argument.
I just think there are many different scenarios that make logical sense.