Somebody bombed the NordStream pipelines 1 and 2 under the Baltic Sea, causing leaks. That much appears to be clear. Exactly who did that is entirely unclear.
In any such event, you begin by asking cui bono, who benefits? In Watergate terms, “follow the money. Putin might have done it to forestall internal enemies who argued “lets quit blowing up Ukraine and go back to the prewar prosperity of trading gas to Germans for BMWs.” If so, his action reminds me of Cortez burning his ships so his troops can’t retreat.
I’m not a big fan of Tucker Carlson but I saw his opening monologue last night. He had video of both President Biden and some U.S. bureaucrat woman threatening to do exactly what happened.
Carlson questions how the bombing helps Putin, who in any case controls the input end of the pipes and can turn off the valves without damaging expensive and lucrative-to-Russia infrastructure.
The U.S. never wanted Europe to be so dependent on Russian oil and gas. We have the ability, but I don’t see us having the initiative, we tend to be reactive and the gas flows had already stopped. I suppose it could be us burning the European’s ‘boats’ so they can’t cave to Russia in return for resumed gas deliveries
You could argue the Greens might have done it, except they probably don’t have the know-how or the support units needed to accomplish it. Norway benefits as their pipeline bringing North Sea gas to Europe is intact, and Norway has the tech to get it done. But it seems out of character for that normally docile NATO ally.
Does China benefit? Maybe, in the long run. It is a puzzlement.
