If it significantly harms the people helping them or curries disfavour towards Ukraine then it could be strategically misguided.

(Not saying that's the case here, all considered)

▲

estimator7292 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

On the other hand: there's a global superpower doing horrific war crimes to Ukraine. I think they're justified in doing whatever it takes even if you don't like it.

	▲	AlecSchueler 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's not about liking it disliking, it's about generating difficult material costs for the same people who are paying to arm you.

▲

Sammi 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Those are smaller second order effects. Gutting the income to the Russian war machine is the first order effect and a clear win for Ukraine.

▲

SiempreViernes 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe a plausible argument if Ukraine had stopped Russian gas flowing through it's territory at the start of the war and there where flows through NS at the time.

But actually, by the time of the bombing the Russian gas was only flowing through Ukrainian pipelines. So Ukraine was ensuring "income to the Russian war machine", while Nord Stream was just costing them money; at most it could have been used as collateral in a loan.

▲

bgwalter 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Nord Stream 1 started operations in 2011. For 11 years money was flowing and the Russian army was in terrible shape in 2022. Now, without the Nord Stream money, it is in better shape.

When the pipeline was sabotaged, no gas and no money were flowing anyway, which makes it even more absurd. There is a very high likelihood that the front lines would be in the exact same place if Nord Stream had not been sabotaged.

Except of course, the EU would have had more leverage in negotiating LNG deals with the US and Qatar rather than making emergency deals.

EDIT: Downvoted while the Ukrainian transit pipelines were open from 2014-2025 and yielded Russian transit fees. And while Nord Stream was built partly because Ukraine stole Russian transit gas in 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...

▲

Sammi 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Are you trying to argue the difference between keeping something offline vs taking it offline? Cause it's a weak argument.

It's like you're bending over backwards to make arguments in the direction you already decided you want it to go. Like you're trying to force a square peg into a round hole. If you already decided what you want to think then why do you need arguments?

▲

bgwalter a day ago | parent [-]

Do you seriously accuse me for providing arguments for not blowing up a pipeline that is 50% owned by Germany, France and The Netherlands?

If it had been done to a US pipeline, it would have been called terrorism.

	▲	Sammi a day ago \| parent [-]
		??

▲

idkfasayer 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]