Absolutely, no doubt.
deleted by creator
Terror doesnt require death
I’m pretty sure in the long run this will indirectly kill many people.
On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Oh god I just quoted fight club
I think equating “damage to property” and “damage to human (or more-than-human) lives” under the same banner of “violence” is a capitalist ploy. It’s used to discredit riots and justify police killings because “both sides” did a violence
The violence was done over the long term. Forcing people to be reliant on exploitation of mother earth for their own survival. All that happened was a bubble popped. We should focus on who made the bubble more than who popped it
great meme bug honestly libs are just gonna lib. conventional logic doesn’t apply
You have to explain things to libs in simple terms like you would to a child.
More like a war crime.
They’re preparing a war
It’s gonna be real awkward if you find out the US didn’t do it after this title
It’s really not awkward even if they didn’t, the US does terror attacks all the time
Can’t disagree with that champ
The US absolutely did it.
Quite possible, both Russia, to put pressure on the West, and the US, to be able to sell their gas at prohibitive prices, have enough reasons for this sabotage.
Russia invested billions into infrastructure, and lost a lot gas that was pumping through it. All theyhasd to do was turn off the tap. The pipelines were also a big bargaining chip for Russia.
The lost of gas isn’t a problem for Rusia, but a big problem for the EU. In any case, I do not dare to affirm the authorship of this, if it was Russia, as a response to pressure and boycotts from the EU or the US to alleviate their economic problem with money from the Europeans, capable of this sabotage are both. Pointing the culprits in this economic war between Russia and the US is risky until you have reliable evidence, which is not easy either with these “objective and independent” information media that we have. The first death in a war is always the truth.
Thing is that Russia already demonstrated they’re perfectly capable and willing to simply turn off the tap at the source. There is no pressure from US or EU that can force Russia to send gas to Europe. This why it’s a bargaining chip for Russia, they are the ones who get leverage from the pipelines.
So, while both Russia and US have the capability, it’s pretty clear US has a much clearer benefit from this. With the pipelines out of the way, Russia can’t use them to pressure Europe to back away from the war. Meanwhile, US LNG companies get a big market.
I understand perfectly, but precisely cutting off gas to Europe allows Russia to put pressure on it, since it forces Europe to pay these horrendous prices to the US and they cannot get money to support Ukraine. It’s an easy game for Russia to send a submarine to put a couple of torpedoes into the pipelines, since they have it patrolling the Baltic and North Sea anyway. Both Russia and the US have plenty of reasons to cut off the tap to the EU, albeit for different reasons. In Spain and Portugal we are luckier as we do not depend on Russian gas, because we have a good infrastructure of our own renewable energy and because we receive gas from Algeria, but the rest of Europe expects a long winter.
What does Russia gain from destroying their own infrastructure?
They don’t have destroyed the own infrastructure, the destroyed the infastructure that carried gas to the EU. The gas bill of Russian consumers is less than $1.50 per month
The pipelines were built by Russia at the behest of Germany though, and it cost Russia billions to do that. Destroying this infrastructure to cut themselves off from being able to sell gas to Europe seems far fetched.
But Russia already was able to cut them off without destroying the infrastructure and rendering it unable to be profitable in the future should the West cave to their demands.
The only party who gains from the destruction of the pipeline is one which desires the West to remain engaged with Russia and not negotiate or capitulate to them in the face of energy shortage in the coming winter.
As I said, while there is no convincing answer available who committed this sabotage, one can only discuss speculation. At least I don’t rule out anything, not even that Putin launches nuclear missiles, even though this would render a country he wants to occupy unusable by radiation, not to mention the geopolitical consequences of starting a nuclear war.
Right, but like, do you have a reason to think Russia would destroy their own pipelines that they control and could be profitable to them in the future as a means of leverage against the West? Because if there’s no evidence who did it, right, then it seems pretty wild to just throw out there that Russia wrecked their own shit.
Unless there’s actually something to point towards Russia, some motivation or something, there’s no reason to even begin to implicate them without evidence unless you’re trying to create a narrative. Even if you shelter that behind “but it could be someone else too,” the natural move for when something gets wrecked is to assume it was caused by someone other than the person who most profits from it not being wrecked until and unless there is a reason to believe otherwise.
deleted by creator
they already had enough leverage to do such things
They don’t need any additional leverage, and they’ve already turned off flow without having to bomb their infrastructure. They literally have no motive here. Your American masters decided that you shouldn’t get any gas this winter.
deleted by creator
Everything is US’ fault
Pipes had obvious value given that the gas flow could be resumed which made them a big bargaining chip with Europe going into a cold winter. Imagine lacking intellectual capacity to understand this.
Was going to comment this same thing, but you already did it
Yes.
This is absolutely non-news, pure conspiracy, at least in the first 8 minutes I managed to suffer through. Can we agree the guy needs to get to the point and not ramble? For anyone who watched the whole thing, any timestamps of note? Are there any facts or sources presented other than Biden saying “will stop the pipeline” months before anything happened that I may want to skip to?
I’m not saying its not plausible, but just because someone may have done something doesn’t mean they absolutely did it.
I’d say Betteridge’s law of headlines [0] applies in this case until proven otherwise.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
Edit: I see the site (rumble) is associated with truthsocial and locals.com - right wing hate/conspiracy sites. I’mma go ahead and blacklist 2 more domains, thanks for making me aware. 10K + employees at a global corp will no longer have access. Thanks for making me aware.
Spread fact not conspiracy.
The one entity that benefit the most from the attack is the US who is selling gas to EU at 20% price increase overnight. That is in the billions.
It makes no sense for the US to have done this. The risk to reward ratio just doesn’t pencil out. Right now NATO is united behind Ukraine in a way it hasn’t been in decades. There is no need to burn the ships to keep other countries in line. Sabotage like this risks discovery, and discovery would break that unity. I am not saying it was Russia, but it doesn’t pass the sniff test of being the US.
The flaw in this argument assuming that US is a rational actor. If US acted rationally we wouldn’t be where we are now in the first place.
Unpopular opinion, but it was probably Poland. The only way Russia can send gas to Europe now is through the Yamal–Europe pipeline which they control
critical support for comrade biden in his revolutionary fight against the fossil fuel industry o7
