https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_en...
> It’s especially absurd that Russia was ever even considered a suspect.
So I don't see how it's absurd to suspect a repeat of the nearly exact same situation where the only common party is Russia.
The fact that you think it's absurd without looking into facts either makes you naive or worse.
Also, if you look at the two recent times the US accused Syria of chemical attacks, both turned out to be misinformation, as determined by the international body that investigates these things. Yet the first time it "happened" was called back to as evidence that they "did it" the second time, even though neither even occurred.
https://apnews.com/article/chemical-weapons-syria-archive-al...
So why blow things up, when you can just turn them off?
Maybe for show. By blowing them up, they demonstrate that they'll never be turned on again. What's that good for? It shows Russia's contempt for the cancellation of NS2, for business with the West in general, and for sanctions. Perhaps it's a muscular display of their power in the field of energy.
How can you show off, if you're going to deny that you did it? Well, it won't be the first time. There has been a number of murders by poisoning recently, just in the UK, that were pretty obviously Russia, that are denied by Russia. But the purpose of those murders was likely meant to intimidate - they needed to be obvious. So I recognize the MO.
I still think it's Biden, based on nothing at all. Except that he more-or-less promised he was going to.
These pipeline explosions ocurred in the "exclusive economic zones" of Sweden and Denmark respectively, so I understand. They are being extremely guarded about their investigation, refusing all requests to observe. Including from Germany, who are part owners. I think that's interesting, given that one early suggestion was that "Sweden done it".
Well the US is now on track to be the largest LNG supplier on earth.
The mere fact that you use "perhaps" and have to imagine an interpretation for what could or could not be regarded as a vague signal, tells us that it's not it.
You know, just by definition of what a "display" is.
That’s a misleading summary of their findings. The OPCW was prevented from conducting any on site investigations in Saraqib, meaning it could not conclusively prove the use of chemical weapons. That doesn’t make the claims ‘misinformation’. In Aleppo the claim was made by the Syrian government against rebels, not by the US government.
The Fact-Finding Mission wasn’t able to visit the site of the alleged incident or the hospital where injured victims were treated. It had to rely on data including interviews, hospital records and videos and photographs.
Its investigations and analysis “did not allow the FFM to establish whether or not chemicals were used as a weapon,” according to the report issued Friday.
And there is substantial confirmed evidence of the Syrian government using chemical weapons against its own people, such as at Ghouta amongst other places. [0]
[0] https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/1...
If Gazprom would simply turn off the gas and say f* off to the fines, they would signal to ask buyers that they are willing to disregard contracts for political reasons. This would significantly undermine confidence in doing business with them, and likely lower prices people would pay for their gas.
Or maybe those courts which could somehow force Russia to pay fines for turning off gas should force Russia to pay fines for invading Ukraine.
First, in Aug. Russia cuts NS1 to 20% citing supposed repairs: "Gazprom in July cut gas deliveries via NS1 to 20% of maximum capacity, citing turbine repair delays that it blamed on Western sanctions against Russia because of the war."
There, they say "oh hey but look you have NS2 so why don't you certify it".
Then, they turned it off completely:
"The state-controlled firm disclosed Friday flows on NS1 would be closed from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2 during scheduled maintenance on its only currently operating compressor at a key station, Portovaya CS."
Again, they say "well you can always use NS2". But when Europe didn't bite the bullet and surrender to their demands, they made it even more obvious that the only route for gas would be NS2, by blowing NS1.
If this was UK or US sabotage, they would have blown NS2 completely, while possibly leaving NS1 alone.
Links:
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/russias-gazprom-plans-3-day-...
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/russias-planned-shutdown-of-...
Except NS2 had also exploded.
Even if it didn't, can you explain the purpose of this all? What is there to be gained? NS1 had bigger capacity, which meant more money.
Except it didn't there was a single pipe of NS2 left untouched, if you think it was the US why did they leave a single pipe for Russia to use as leverage to certify NS2?.
More pedantic, but doesn't change my point.
They don't really influence the big politics. Not for the last 20 years or so, at least. Semibankirschina is long gone.