alt Hacker NewsThings being a talking point doesn't mean they're untrue. The US is and was the only party that made any logical sense, to say nothing of also being one of only a handful of nations with the technical expertise to do so as well. The US was against the Nord Stream from the beginning because we felt it could deepen ties between Germany and Russia, unilaterally sanctioned companies involved in it, and of course Biden publicly alluded to threats of blowing it up: "If Russia invades ... then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." "How will you do that, since the project is under Germany's control?" "We will, uh, I promise you, we will, uh, be able to do that *smirking*." [1]
With it blown up we're able to make Europe completely dependent upon US gas sold at a high premium. Well, at least that was probably the goal. Technically the attack failed and at least one of the pipelines was/is still viable, but the US probably was hedging their bets because there was no way to anticipate exactly how enthusiastic Europe would be about setting aside their own self interests for the sake of US geopolitics. It also helps ensure less chance of a reconciliation between Russia and Europe which is probably seen as a reasonable way of weakening both.
Reading "Rebuilding America's Defense" [2] by the typical names that show up in basically every US presidency, Democrat and Republican alike, is crucial to understanding US geopolitics. And one thing we obsess over is/was the prevention of the emergence of new superpowers. This is even mentioned quite explicitly in the text, "[Deploying US forces to Europe] is especially important in light of the nascent European moves toward an independent defense "identity" and policy; it is important that NATO not be replaced by the European Union, leaving the United States without a voice in European security affairs."
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8
[2] - https://governamerica.com/documents/RebuildingAmericasDefens...
> Things being a talking point doesn't mean they're untrue.
Obviously, but hence the other things I put in the comment.
> The US is and was the only party that made any logical sense,
I aver none make sense, including the USA. The USA has limited capacity to transport LNG, most already being in use. Not really a growth opportunity.
Also, whoever does this, US or otherwise, runs the risk of getting caught; if it was the USA, the scandal of it would likely push Europe much closer to China.
So far as I can tell, the only apparently-involved nation who wouldn't care about the political fallout of getting caught would be Russia, but it was their gas so why would they attack it?
> to say nothing of also being one of only a handful of nations with the technical expertise to do so as well.
I find that many people over-estimate what can be done by a small motivated team. I understand it is well accepted that human divers capable of this are relatively rare, and there wasn't e.g. really enough time for the accused Ukrainian team to have done so, and the ship they were known to be on was very poorly suited to such a task.
However, the Ukrainians have demonstrated significant skill with remote control vehicles. Hell, the only reason I'd rule out anyone like say Greenpeace is that they didn't claim responsibility, such groups would be whom I'd say have the smallest required dose of sudden insanity to mistake this for a good idea.
> and of course Biden publicly alluded to threats of blowing it up: "If Russia invades ... then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." "How will you do that, since the project is under Germany's control?" "We will, uh, I promise you, we will, uh, be able to do that smirking."
The problem with this, is that Germany had already brought an end to it, before it was blown up. One thing Germany is very skilled at, putting red tape around things.
The explosion turned an indefinite suspension into a kinetic suspension.
> Europe would be about setting aside their own self interests for the sake of US geopolitics. It also helps ensure less chance of a reconciliation between Russia and Europe which is probably seen as a reasonable way of weakening both.
If the US sees the European reaction this way, then the US has misunderstood the European thought process.
It was, and is, in the self-interest of Europe to end the threat posed by Russia.
> And one thing we obsess over is/was the prevention of the emergence of new superpowers. This is even mentioned quite explicitly in the text, "[Deploying US forces to Europe] is especially important in light of the nascent European moves toward an independent defense "identity" and policy; it is important that NATO not be replaced by the European Union, leaving the United States without a voice in European security affairs."
That is indeed something I have heard from other sources.
Unrelated to Ukraine, it is interesting to see how Trump is doing the exact opposite of US interests in this regard.