comment: >
  
  Disclaimer: I 100% support Ukraine pushing Russia out of their territory. Wouldn’t be disappointed if they took some new territory out of it either. 
  That said: 
  Gonna get downvoted to hell for this but it’s extremely questionable  that Russia bombed the pipeline. There’s really no motivation for doing so. The only thing that makes me think they might have is how nonchalant they were about the whole thing, but even that doesn’t fit their usual MO (I.e. you would expect that even if they had bombed it, they would blame the US and publicly rage about it quite loudly).
  Cue bono? In this case it seems like the US most benefits from bombing the pipeline and making it impossible to resume regular service to Germany. This weakens Russia, reduces the likelihood Germany will try to negotiate with them, and makes LNG terminals look more viable (and Germany has since been building those at a remarkable pace).
context: Geopolitics is so weird to me. They're at war but still let them transport their oil through their country. >
  
  There are multiple reasons:
  1) they use this oil too 
  2) some of the oil is heading to Europe and if you shut it down they aren’t that happy 
  3) they get some money for letting it flew through their country (transit tariff) >
  
  Who is paying for the transit though? Russia or the buying country? >
  
  Russia in theory, however, regulary the transit tax is included on the bill of the buying country. >
  
  Yes but then Russia needs to adjust the price of the oil so that the oil plus transit cost is still competitive compared to oil and gas from other countries. This is why they wanted direct gas pipeline to Germany. >
  
  They didn’t want it enough not to bomb it