Who stands to benefit from permanently ending European dependence on Russian fuel?
Norway? To conclude Norway (it's not Norway, but for example), one can simply point at the loss of a competitor. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple.
To conclude a German opposition group, one can simply point at the effect of the loss of the pipelines. Scholz government cannot heat Germans this winter, opposition gets to criticize the sitting government for over-reliance on Russia and such fragile infrastructure. Opposition wins the election. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple.
To conclude any one of the Baltic States (or Poland), one can simply point at the effect of the end of European dependence on Russian energy. It removes the most persistent barrier to implementing harsher sanctions, and a weaker Russia is less likely to invade them for a generation or two. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple.
Poland, for its part, has the added lucrative benefit of being the sole endpoint of the sole working trans-Baltic pipeline. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple.
To conclude anyone at all who support Ukraine, one can simply point that it weakens Russia's war effort, hastening an end to the war and making Russia more vulnerable to sanctions. No weird 4D chess, no weird contorted motives. Direct, simple.
To conclude Russia or Putin, one must explain how losing potential access to hundreds of billions of Euros benefits Russia or Putin. (Hint: it doesn't). Requires weird 4D chess, weird contorted motives. Not direct. Not simple.