The $11 billion Nord Stream 2 pipeline was built to reduce soaring energy prices for those living in the EU, but the project was controversial from the start. Fears around the EU relying so heavily on Russia’s cheap natural gas supply only increased since Russia invaded Ukraine. Straight Arrow News contributor Larry Lindsey explains that while some argue the U.S. benefits from the leaks, the damage was most likely due to Russian sabotage.

Recently, there’s a huge tragedy. The Nord Stream pipeline that takes natural gas from Russia to Germany developed a number of leaks. And it was not just the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which was recently completed. it was also the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, and they occurred in different spots. Well, it was pretty obvious this wouldn’t happen spontaneously in four or five places. And so the world agrees that it was likely sabotage.

And what we’ve been seeing is mutual blame. NATO blames Russia. General Jens Stoltenberg, who’s the Secretary General of NATO, called this an attack by Russia on critical infrastructure, which he tried to make as a pretext for a military response.

On the other hand, Russia points out that it’s a Russian asset. Gazprom owns 51% of it and Gazprom is an arm of the Russian government. So the question would arise, why would Russia damage something that cost it $11 billion to build and continues to be an asset that might possibly in the future, again, carry gas from Russia to Europe?

Well, this is a bit of a problem for the claim that Russia did it. Now, let me be clear, Russia is the most likely person to have done it. Putin is a bad guy and bad guys do things like that. On the other hand, why would you blow up your own stuff?

So a number of commentators who are clearly not pro-Russia, have begun pointing it out. A longtime friend of mine, Radek Sikorski, who used to be both the foreign minister and also the defense minister of Poland, and believe me, he is no fan of Russia or Putin, said the other day, “Thank you, USA. Now 20 billion of scrap metal lies at the bottom of the sea — another cost to Russia.”