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.

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.

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...