> It’s extremely obvious who was responsible.
Please tell us more.
> It’s especially absurd that Russia was ever even considered a suspect.
Why?
Please tell us more.
> It’s especially absurd that Russia was ever even considered a suspect.
Why?
I haven’t heard about this at the time or since. Do you have a source for this information?
> And oh, I don’t know seems pretty obvious that Russia has ZERO motive to blow up its own 10 billion dollar pipeline.
Russia is not a monolithic entity. For example if I were Putin I would fear that someone deposes me, then they makes peace with the West and they quickly resume the gas transit. By making it so the gas transit can’t be quickly resumed one also insures one’s self against such plans by lowering the possible reward of it.
Of course the energy situation has economic effects, but it's very far from not surviving the winter.
Most of the storage was filled when the pipeline was operational and pumping gas at full capacity (what did you think they were filling it with?). It was slowly filling with Russian gas for half a year.
Besides, gas storage is only a buffer to temporarily compensate for the difference between supply and consumption (typically in winter).
> but it's very far from not surviving the winter.
And then what? Pump Russian gas like crazy just like this year? Oh wait, they turned off the tap. Guess they'll have to make some kind of deal. Oh wait, someone blew up the pipeline!
I feel like people are overly focused on this winter, rather the next, when the storages are drained, and new pipelines aren't yet built.
Are you implying that LNG carriers are even remotely comparable in terms of economy and bandwidth to a pipeline from one's neighbor?
> The plan is to buy the gas from somewhere else than Russia
It's not really a "plan", it's just a desire. A "plan" involves thought through supply chain, logistics, economics and so on.
This "plan" also implies stopping the gas flow through Ukraine, which is a politically complicated situation.
> so far we're doing far better than the original predictions.
Specifically?
> Doesn't mean there won't be problems, but it's certainly not as terrible as expected.
But nothing has even started yet. There hasn't really even been a real deficit yet. And still some companies already had to shut down production, just cuz it was no longer sustainable.
Relax, they're going to be fine.
Exaggerating (very real) economic harm as an existential matter of survival is silly. Germany's survival is not in doubt.
The language "trouble surviving the winter" plainly suggests massive numbers of Germans freezing to death, which isn't going to happen. Even if I grant that this claim is talking about damage to the German economy (I don't) it is unlikely that the German economy will collapse during this winter. The economic ramifications will be felt for many years to come but there is no chance of Germany ceasing to exist this winter as claimed above.
> And let’s not forget that economic harm inflicted from abroad is precisely what gave rise to WWII.
Fear of that sort of scenario should mostly be focused on Russia, who are going to lose a war as Germany lost WW1, and will be looking for scapegoats. Besides Russia, I can think of other countries which have suffered far more economic damage due to this war than Germany. Particularly, the one that actually got invaded. Germany's economy is still strong and healthy compared to Ukraine's.
You are arguing semantics of specific words people use in informal internet conversations, which is pointless. There is absolutely nothing implying literal meaning of the word "surviving".
I, for example, always assumed that it meant the collapse of German industry, German cozy way of life, and likely German government.
Obviously people won't be actually dying - that would be completely fucking stupid. Worst case scenario they'll just start burning everything they can get their hands on.
Source?
I don't see that the linked article is supporting this particular statement. Namely it does not mention that Germany and Russia were in negotiations about resuming the gas transport before or around the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.
That being said I want to make sure that you don't feel like we are sealioning you.
I think there are more that I agree with you on this topic than what we would disagree on.
I think it is odd that everyone in the media immediately concluded that it must have been Russia with 100% conviction. It seems you also agree with this. (perhaps you would use stronger words than that)
I think we also agree that the USA and the UK had both the means and the motivation. I would also add that there are others with the means and perhaps the motivations. Not sure if you would agree with that.
You seems to be convinced that there were negotiations between Russia and Germany about the resumption of gas transport. I'm not so sure. I just haven't seen proof for it. But! I think it is a pretty safe assumption that there would have been such negotiations once Germany's economy starts to struggle during the winter. So on that we are just disagreeing on the details, not on the fundamentals. (At least that is how it seems to me, don't want to put words into your mouth.)
The fundamental disagreement seems to be in our conclusion. I see your reasoning and I agree that it is enough to warrant a suspicion. But I don't feel that it is enough with what is currently known to say for certain who did it. The tricky bit with logic based speculation is that others can do it too. Some other actor with the means and motivation might have also done the same speculation you just did and concluded that in the case of sabotage the USA and the UK will be blamed.
Not saying that that is what happened. All I am saying is that I don't know who did it. I think we don't know enough. It might come to light soon. It might not come to light during our lifetime. Who knows.