Hacker News Reader

Comment by ttctciyf | Hacker News Reader

I wonder what Biden was referring to when he stated

> "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

> When asked how, the president says, "I promise you, we will be able do that."

(C-SPAN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 )

View on HN

Considering the context was about sanctions, and no one at the time thought he was suggesting he would blow it up, then it’s not reasonable to try to retroactively change the context.

I realize I'm just some guy on the internet, but damaging/destroying a section of the pipeline is exactly what I thought President Biden meant when he said that.

He didn't say no gas would flow. He said the pipeline would no longer exist. Also, why would he be hesitant to use the word "sanctions?" Sanctions would be a totally reasonable explanation. What he said clearly implied the pipeline would be forcefully made inoperative.

Like the Europeans, Biden miscalculated that income via Nordstream would be crucial to Russia. Nobody would have predicted that the Russians are so crazy to cut off Europe on their own in an attempt to force them (Germany in particular) into submission. Alas that didn't work as European customers saved on Gas and shouldered the increase in cost.

Prima facie, in the context of Hersh's story, it sounds a lot like there's a plan to blow up the pipeline, doesn't it?

I'm anticipating there are more plausible explanations of what his words "We will bring an end to it" might refer to, and was hoping replies might provide them.

Bringing an end to it can just imply calling chancellor Scholz and making it clear to close the pipelines. Germany could have stopped receiving Gas if they were pressured to.

It does, but there is a good argument that it was in Russia's strategic interest to blow up the pipeline and blame it on NATO. 'Burning your boats' exists as a catchphrase because it is a real historic strategy to impose force cohesion. In the context of gas supplies, it shuts down internal political dissent about whether the military object outweighs the economic object.

I don't have a firm opinion on who destroyed the pipeline; there are valid strategic arguments for doing so on both sides, and the ambiguity over who did it is the geopolitical equivalent of a smoke bomb.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com