toomuchtime_
Gold Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 20,007
- 4,934
Actually, the US hasn't made much money selling Lng to Europe despite US offers to largely because most European countries didn't have the facilities to accept and process it. Long before the explosions, which damaged both pipelines, most European countries had already made the decision to wean themselves from Russian gas and oil because of Putin's threats to freeze them etc.Well....you aren't exactly on the wrong page there.
Russia desperately needs to sell nat gas and petroleum to fund its government. Nordstream 1 was about 40% of Moscow's budget. Nordstream 2 would have doubled its revenues.
(There's a reason why the US destroyed 2)
The USA has been making lots of profits over selling nat gas to Europe by ship....especially without another pipeline going across Ukraine from Russia. (The existing pipeline was destroyed in the early days of the war)
Large improvements have recently been made in the gulf coast area in Texas/Louisiana border area to assist in loading ships with liquefied nat gas without any interference from Biden's administration....except to raise fees for their land leases and use. (Duh)
In addition....the vice minister of defense is an oligarch recently dismissed from his post for corruption as well as the CEO of Burisma....the oil company that once employed Hunter Biden.
As we saw, Russia was able to very quickly repair Nord stream 2 and the US must have been aware it could, so what would have been the advantage to the US of blowing it up? It makes more sense to ask if Russia gained anything from the damage to the pipelines. Certainly, it provided Russian propogandists with lots of new material, and the explosions conveyed an implied threat that Russia could end all gas deliveries to Europe with winter coming, but most important, Russia could try to use it to drive a wedge between the US and EU.
So was the US or Russia behind the explosions?