Sounds awfully conspiratorial. What would the motive be?
edit: nice stealth edit. the original comment was just "what would the motive be?" which imo is a perfectly fine question to ask. the "conspiratorial" line has me wondering though: what would a non conspiratorial theory be?
That's pure bollocks because the pipelines through Poland/Belarus and Austria/Hungary/Ukraine still exist and work. They were able to handle the entire European gas supply before Germany decided to build NordStream to reduce the leverage of these transit countries.
I wouldn’t say its an unrealistic POV though, Ukraine and Poland would likely block gas if the alternative was letting Russia win the war.
Instead, they put two holes in one of them, and a hole in each of the two Nord Stream 1 pipes.
Lest anyone forget, Nord Stream 1 is the pipeline which Russia had been throttling and shutting off and on for months, before finally stating that it wouldn't be reopened until sanctions are lifted - which is obviously not going to happen anytime soon - while Nord Stream 2 is the brand new pipeline which Germany declined to authorize for use following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
As pointed out by Putin, that leaves Nord Stream 2 ready to start sending sweet, sweet Russian gas to Germany as soon as they say so.
Incidentally, the attacks were carried out just in time for the inauguration of the Baltic Pipe from Norway to Poland and close to its southward bend off Bornholm, in the Danish EEZ, AND half a kilometer from the SwePol cable between Sweden and Poland, in the Swedish EEZ.
I guess besides aiding Putin's stick-and-carrot gas policy in Germany, the US also wanted to send a really strong message to Ukraine-supporting Poland and NATO-hopeful Sweden.
Also to shift European dependence away from Russian gas and on to American LNG.
America would like Europe to build more LNG terminals to accomodate its growing gas surplus but first investors will want to feel confident that that tap wont be switched on again soon coz LNG wont ever be able to compete with a pipeline.
That might stretch to 4 if you ration.
that stupid smirk on his face really makes it look like he's eager to blow it up
Ask the British and French what sort of ally the US was during the Suez Crisis.
Since people don't seem to get it: Europe will now be an energy subsidiary of the US. When the next US president says that they need to contribute 4% of GDP to Nato it will come with the promise of an unpleasant winter if they don't.
The Suez Crisis is when the British, French, and Israeli governments conspired behind the back of the US to invade Egypt and install a puppet regime. With the goal of taking back the canal and stealing their oil supply.
Pretty much the same thing Putin just attempted in Ukraine.
It's to Eisenhower's credit that he didn't back their immoral attack. And one of the big wins for the morality of US foreign policy in the 20th century.
Oh wait, you're seriously using a moral argument about the cold war. Let me laugh harder.
That may be true of some people in his administration but I don't think that was Eisenhower's view.
And control of the Suez Canal...
FYI "provoked" is the exact word used by many to rationalize Putin's invasion of Ukraine. One could just as easily say Nasser was provoked to his actions by decades of foreign domination and exploitation.
This stuff is complex but at the end of day those three countries were clearly wrong to invade a sovereign country.