Hacker News Reader

Comment by VincentEvans | Hacker News Reader

You seem to be pretty convinced that US is behind it, where I am not so much.

I wouldn’t presume to know if destruction of the pipeline is justified if you look at it from Russian perspective, if they are responsible, but I can volunteer a few motives why they might be:

- an attempt to introduce a force majeure factor into any future contract disagreements

- an attempt at escalating the seriousness of threats, signalling “we aren’t backing down”

- an attempt to drive a wedge between allies by implicating a sabotage behind ones backs. US vs Germany etc.

… or a little of all of the above.

One of the key strategies employed by Russia in the conflict - is a periodic display of belligerence bordering on unhingement. I think Russia being behind it fits the MO.

View on HN

Agreed. And all you have to do is understand that the fallout from the US destroying this pipeline in secret would be devastating and pointless. Russia reunited NATO and gave the US a gigantic upper hand and what would be the value in throwing all of that away? It just doesn’t make any sense.

People say “but the gas companies” but that’s just an immature conspiracy fairy tale that projects far, far too much power into the hands of but one corporate constituency among many.

The simple answer is that Russia did it. And since gas was never coming back online anyway might as well blow it up and cause chaos. It also helped further made sure that Russian energy companies wouldn’t go behind Putin’s back thinking if they depose him they can sell oil again.

I think the only thing we can be sure of is that this was perpetrated by government.

The Baltic Sea is quite shallow, so not even necessarily a government. Someone did it so.

Mars is unusually bright... blood will be spilled tonight.

Nah, I have no idea.

Now, that I read your post in more detail, it's an argument for why Russia might have done it. OK. You could have made that a lot more clear.

I find your arguments pretty weak. - War is enough of a force majeure, literally the first case. There's no need to sabotage infrastructure. Or at least do it on land, where it's easier to fix. - One very weird way to escalate. I can think of a couple of more effective ways. - There was no wedge after all. Germany got a bloody nose, the Russians as well. Did anyone dare accuse the US immediately after the explosions? No, but they're starting to now, probably judging that there will be no retribution.

Russia and Europe are not at war. Whether a war that Russia itself started elsewhere on it’s own accord is considered a valid excuse to unilaterally terminate existing contracts - that the courts will decide.

Are they not? Gee, I must've been living under a rock. I'm sorry, I thought you said that if Russia blows up its own pipes that;s a valid force majeure, but starting a war is not. As for the courts, they will decide whatever the country they're based in decides. Simple as that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com