Your logic doesn’t follow. The pipeline was in construction up until recently. Germany suspended it due to the war in Ukraine, but it was previously intending to use it, and it had stake in it. Moreover, Nord stream 1 was also in service before the war, and it was part of the sabotage.
Do what? Keep Nord Stream 2 from running? Destroying Nord Stream 1?
Neither really makes any sense. Germany threatened Russia on their own volition to stop Nord Stream 2 from running.
With destroying Nord Stream 1 the US gains nothing and besides, if the US actually did say that they would destroy it then why keep the operation so secretive and make it look like sabotage?
I’m sorry but your analysis is very nonsensical. You’re analyzing motives. But the sabotage already happened. It is not a matter of speculation whether someone will gain from it or not. If you make an argument that they have nothing to gain, well I don’t know what to tell you. It happened, and they delivered on their promises exactly. I provide a link below:
Joe Biden and Olaf Scholz were both committed to take Nord Stream 2 offline. So what happened? Germany simply took it offline as a form of sanction against Russia. This has already happened over half a year ago and has absolutely nothing to do with Nord Stream 1. Besides, why destroy a pipeline that isn’t in use anymore?
You talk as if motives don’t matter when looking at who the perpetrator is. But motives are very important when looking at suspects. Neither the US nor NATO benefit in any way by destroying Nord Stream 1. So why would they do it?
Motives do matter, but when the perpetrator literally said they would do it, then saying “I don’t see what their motive is” does not really refute that they did it.
The video is not out of date. Did he give some expiration date that I happened to miss? Did he take it back? I don’t see you citing any evidence of that.
It’s really weird to see people bending backwards to defend this.
Does this meme say it was? Or are you implying that because it wasn’t in operation yet that it has no benefit to Germany?
Because Nord Stream 2 has never been in operation, it wouldn’t make any sense within the meme to have the US “unplug” it.
And honestly, I don’t think the meme even makes any sense in the first place.
Your logic doesn’t follow. The pipeline was in construction up until recently. Germany suspended it due to the war in Ukraine, but it was previously intending to use it, and it had stake in it. Moreover, Nord stream 1 was also in service before the war, and it was part of the sabotage.
And how does the US fit in?
They literally said they would do this lmao
Do what? Keep Nord Stream 2 from running? Destroying Nord Stream 1?
Neither really makes any sense. Germany threatened Russia on their own volition to stop Nord Stream 2 from running.
With destroying Nord Stream 1 the US gains nothing and besides, if the US actually did say that they would destroy it then why keep the operation so secretive and make it look like sabotage?
I’m sorry but your analysis is very nonsensical. You’re analyzing motives. But the sabotage already happened. It is not a matter of speculation whether someone will gain from it or not. If you make an argument that they have nothing to gain, well I don’t know what to tell you. It happened, and they delivered on their promises exactly. I provide a link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSPfXLPUJHM
The video you sent is way out of date…
Joe Biden and Olaf Scholz were both committed to take Nord Stream 2 offline. So what happened? Germany simply took it offline as a form of sanction against Russia. This has already happened over half a year ago and has absolutely nothing to do with Nord Stream 1. Besides, why destroy a pipeline that isn’t in use anymore?
You talk as if motives don’t matter when looking at who the perpetrator is. But motives are very important when looking at suspects. Neither the US nor NATO benefit in any way by destroying Nord Stream 1. So why would they do it?
Motives do matter, but when the perpetrator literally said they would do it, then saying “I don’t see what their motive is” does not really refute that they did it.
The video is not out of date. Did he give some expiration date that I happened to miss? Did he take it back? I don’t see you citing any evidence of that.
It’s really weird to see people bending backwards to defend this.