[plushpuffin]

You are correct that the issue is not yet resolved. However, throughout the course of Russia's illegal war, US credibility has improved and Russia's has plummeted. They lied about the fact that they were preparing for war, they lied about their reasons for launching the war, they've pillaged and looted like medieval barbarians, and they've committed innumerable war crimes against both civilians and Ukrainian POWs.

In the absence of evidence and with only finger-pointing at this stage, I am inclined to believe that Russia is responsible since they have damaged their own pipelines several times in the past and lied about those instances, too. If Russia had any credibility before, they have essentially none now, and they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

As for their motives, there are several: to avoid paying the "force majeure" penalty, to give an unambiguous signal that no more gas is forthcoming in the immediate future, to threaten Europe's own energy infrastructure with a demonstration, to weaken the alliance by making some EU countries suspect the US, and for Putin to warn Russia's oligarchs that they can't just depose him and resume gas shipments - Russia is now all-in and can't go back to normal anytime soon even after a regime change.

As for Biden saying he would "stop" the pipeline earlier this year, he was talking about a different pipeline, Nord Stream 2 (which had not yet started operation at the time he made that remark), not Nord Stream 1. He was threatening to work with US allies to block it from opening in the first place.

The US has forbidden Ukraine from attacking Russian territory with US weapons, why would we take the escalatory step of attacking Russian infrastructure ourselves? We could have just let Ukraine do whatever they wanted with US weapons and denied responsibility, but the US was careful to avoid provoking Russia too much. It makes no sense that after all that tip-toeing around we would say "to hell with it" and launch a direct attack.

[PKop]

>he was talking about a different pipeline, Nord Stream 2

No. It is it not "different" seeing as that very pipeline was attacked and damaged, along with the other one. Nord Stream 1 and 2 were both attacked and damaged. They run parallel for much of their path except at certain parts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_gas_leaks

>block it from opening.

Yes, and given the energy crisis now affecting Europe and Germany, inflation, and potential shortages of gas when winter comes and/or next year plus industrial needs for natural gas as input, it is exceedingly ridiculous that Russia would preempt these immanent crises and throw away their leverage for potential alliance with Europe in opposition to US right as the mounting pressures incentivize Europe to abandon sanctions and push for rapprochement.

You bring up war crimes and war decisions. First of all all wars involved war crimes, including the current one on the Ukrainian side. But put morality aside for a second, I'm addressing interests and realpolitik. That Russia saw it in there interest to attack is one thing. I dispute that they saw it in their interest to blow up their own pipeline and their primary point of leverage and economic strength towards an alliance with Europe in opposition to their primary enemy. No benefit of the doubt is required here to see this reality.

[plushpuffin]

Biden was saying "we'll make sure Nord Stream 2 never opens" while you were using that statement to insinuate that he was threatening both pipelines. Yes, both pipelines were damaged, but he was not threatening an attack with that statement and he was not threatening Nord Stream 1, either.

It's actually in the US's interest for the Nord Stream 1 to remain operational for at least a few more months so that Europe can fill its reserves. The extra money Russia/Gazprom pulls in from that is not going to make much of a difference to the war effort, while the extra gas will help ensure that Europe's resolve doesn't break this winter. Next winter hopefully they'll have further transitioned to green energy and LNG. So just looking it at that way, the US should not attack the pipeline at this time. Maybe next string, but not now!

I presented numerous possible motives for Russia to damage its own pipelines at this time, as well as a record of similar past behavior. I think I made a compelling case. I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree with your conclusions. If you don't agree with any of my points and won't budge on this at all then that's fine, but there's nothing more to debate here.