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 >
  
  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). >
  
  That URL only describes one reason for Russia to do it themselves: Signaling value, which is quite limited. It also says:
  “The explosions have removed some optionality and thus changed the state of the board for some players. Russia has lost the opportunity to offer an easy restoration of gas supplies to Europe in exchange for concessions from the West. For the Europeans, there is no longer the risk that binding contracts to buy more expensive gas will become loss-making if Russia suddenly floods the market with cheap gas following some sort of de-escalation.”
  It says destroying the pipeline prevents Russia from needing “excuses” to not send gas via the pipeline, but that seems silly on its face - why would Russia need any excuse besides “you are sanctioning us”? And as you said yourself, it doesn’t really matter what excuse Russia uses, their population will by and large accept it regardless of truth value. It doesn’t make sense. 
  You also said:
  
  For me I can see many actors that might want to do this but would be significantly risky with little to gain and one actor that has near zero risk and possibly some gain.
  
  The US has very little risk (the countries most capable of investigating the incident are NATO members) and very significant gain (they are now the major new supplier of natural gas to much of Europe and a major rival has lost significant influence over Europe and a large source of economic input). >
  
  The US has a huge risk of Europe found out. And it would be difficult for the US to keep this kind of operation under raps. Too many people to talk. Also very little to gain as the sanctions were already going into place. Why have all that backlash for near zero benefit. Hell if they got caught doing this, it would be a massive victory for Russia. For those reasons I believe they have less reason than Russia and this is not a US operation. It might not be Russia but less likely to be the US. >
  
  
  From January 1, 2023, Ukraine will increase the tariff on the transportation of Russian oil through its territory by 18.3%, or EUR 2.1 per ton to EUR 13.6 per ton.
  The tariff applies to the Druzhba oil pipeline system, which transports oil towards Slovakia and Hungary.
  The last time Ukraine raised the price of transportation by Druzhba was in April - from EUR 8.6 to 11.5 per ton. >
  
  So total increase since April is roughly 60% (5/8.6=58%), from 8.6EUR to 13.6EUR. >
  
  Doesn't seem like enough >
  
  Ikr! At least 20% maybe even 30% >
  
  Make it 118% >
  
  That would not be a great idea.
  
  
  Russia's not the one paying for the tariff - they would only be impacted by the lower quantity demanded from the artificially higher price - but that leads to 2)
  
  
  Energy/Oil to my understanding has pretty inelastic demand right now given the general shortage (talked to some of my colleagues in the EU and they've told me energy bills have more than 2x'd or worse in some areas). This means that there probably wouldn't be too much of a decrease in quantity demanded from the price hike - Ukraine would get a good amount of revenue from this, but it would probably piss off their EU allies (where I assume most of this oil is going), which is probably not the best geopolitical move atm >
  
  
  2x'd or worse in some areas
  
  For me it have over 10x some days :( >
  
  Well, seeing as how traditional reparations probably won't be an option, that's one way to make Russia pay for what they've broken. Those parts of it that one can put a price-tag on, anyway. >
  
  So it’s just a way to punish Orban? >
  
  The pipeline seeing an increase supplies Hungary and Slovakia. >
  
  But I thought there was a European ban on importing Russian oil. So who is buying this? >
  
  Yeah, make those Russia lovers in the EU pay through the nose. >
  
  Just proves this isn't a "war" but a cash grab. Everyone seems to be getting a piece, except the good people of Ukraine. >
  
  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