> This was a clear threat, clear as day, that the US could destroy Nordstream [2]. It should surprise nobody that the US was involved.
Or you could take a breath and realize that Nordstream 2 was not yet complete. It was an ongoing, non-operational project. In that context, “bringing it to an end” could easily mean not completing it. In fact, that’s the far more reasonable interpretation—-the literal physical destruction interpretation is only made by someone who wants to believe that.
Not sure what you’re referring to here. If you’re analogizing what Biden said with domestic abuse, that’s just ridiculous. It’s more akin to telling the wife they’re going to need to divorce if she doesn’t stop threatening the children. If you’re saying the US in general has a history of doing things that could be compared to domestic abuse, sure, but so could all parties involved, particularly Russia. So we’re back at square one.
> I knew you would take offense at the comparison.
I was stating my opinion that the comparison was of low intellectual quality, not taking offense.
> When the pipeline was in fact blown up, of course we're going to look at vaguely worded threats in another light.
Except it’s only vaguely worded if you’re approaching it from the bias of wanting to think it was a threat of blowing it up. Approaching it a different way, they’re just the words a person would use if they were talking about ending the project, not literally blowing it up.
If Biden were going to be so aggressive as to threaten to blow up an infrastructure project of a close ally, why specifically limit it to Nordstream 2? “We’re going to lose our ever-loving minds here, but only for phase 2 of the project”.
It was not completed in the most important sense for this discussion—it was not operational. The project could still be ended short of completion without blowing it up.
Most people would find it very hard to believe that Germany would allow such a valuable investment to sit unused for any significant amount of time. Other European countries also had significant investment in Nordstream AG. The Germans were merely placating the Americans while a a diplomatic solution was being sought for Ukraine. The Americans undermined the proposed solutions at every turn while they baited Russia to invade per the RAND report game plan and then decided to remove the pipeline from the bargaining table entirely.
You’re missing the point. This is about what Biden meant when he said Nordstream 2 could be ended. Whether the Germans would have been onboard or not isn’t particularly relevant.
I had been assuming that the working theory amongst the “America definitely blowed up the pipeline” crowd was that this would have been a scheme cooked up amongst the NATO allies. Because, the alternative, that America did that against the will of Germany is just utter insanity. The idea that they would risk turning the entirety of Europe against them with such an act of brazen hostility is just…I can’t even.
I think you’re underestimating the arrogance of American power. I did miss your point, because I couldn’t conceive that anyone would still be making the argument that Russia would blow up its own pipeline. Quibbling over how direct Biden’s threat was in terms of foreshadowing a kinetic attack— not even worth discussing at this point. Good day.
> I did miss your point, because I couldn’t conceive that anyone would still be making the argument that Russia would blow up its own pipeline.
It would certainly be an extreme, and strange escalation of their previous attempts to use gas supplies as a retaliatory device. But, IMO, it’s less far-fetched than what you’re suggesting.
Or you could take a breath and realize that Nordstream 2 was not yet complete. It was an ongoing, non-operational project. In that context, “bringing it to an end” could easily mean not completing it. In fact, that’s the far more reasonable interpretation—-the literal physical destruction interpretation is only made by someone who wants to believe that.