What the hell are you talking about again? Empty, unsubstantiated false accusations. The direct beneficiaries of the terrorist attack on Nord Stream are the United States and Ukraine. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence for the involvement of the United States in this terrorist attack. For example,
here is a US Air Force helicopter Sikorsky MH-60R Strike Hawk for nine hours - from 19:30 Moscow time on Sunday, September 25, to 04:30 Moscow time on Monday, September 26 - circled over the Baltic Sea about 250 kilometers from the Danish island Bornholm, near which gas leaks were recorded.
There is no doubt regarding the beneficiaries. If the transport of Russian pipeline gas is disrupted, it will directly benefit the United States. It is not just the direct competition for the market, but the increase in prices due to lack of supply will also benefit the American LNG exporters. And any financial penalty on Russia for not keeping contract obligation would be much lower than the cost resulting from the damage to the pipelines (approx. $25 billion). And if infact Russia was responsible, then all the European countries would have given the proof by now.
I don't know if it was the US that caused the Nord Stream 1 pipeline explosion, but currently the US is the most profitable country in this respect, Russia and the EU have no interest here. The US is being accused by EU countries of selling LNG at exorbitant prices to them and the EU has no better choice at the moment. The explosion of the Nord Stream pipeline is considered an end to Europe's gas dependence on Russia especially Germany and now they no longer have to make concessions to Russia and will launch the most severe sanctions. It is clear that there is a person pulling the strings behind everything, the person who benefits the most is none other than the American guy. One arrow hits 2 targets.
Let's compare the benefits. For example, the benefit of the United States, and the benefit of Russia, from the explosion of Nord Stream?
I will write my arguments, and you can add
1. USA - in a market with a falling gas price, well, probably to get some additional benefit. Although the US gas has been sold and is being sold, this will not bring SIGNIFICANT high profits.
Can you add something else?
2.Russia:
- tried to "softly" terrorize the EU by cutting off gas. Already many times. Inventing all sorts of crazy explanations. To which the EU finally said: we will not buy gas from you in the future, you are terrorists. And for violation of the terms of the contract - you, the country of a terrorist, will pay us huge penalties.
For Russia, 2 real huge benefits:
- Officially, citing force majeure, stop gas supplies to the EU, continuing its economic terror against the "recalcitrant EU"
- Officially get a reason not to pay penalties, due to the same force majeure.
Now the question is - which of the set of benefits is more profitable?