> I agree with you, it generally makes absolutely no sense for Russia to be behind this
Like it makes no sense for them to invade with the state of their army, shell a nuclear power plant, dig trenches in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, waste rockets on civilian targets? Why are you assuming Russia to be a rational actor?
Why are you assuming an explanation that depends on an irrational actor when permanently end European dependence on Russian fuel is a more direct, rational motive that benefits many other actors?
1) Russia has proven itself to be a highly disruptive and irrational actor
2) European dependence on Russian fuel is already ending. By the time anybody is ready to trust Russia with energy we would have moved past the current reliance on gas. Completely destroying NS1 and NS2 don't change much there.
2) is a nice theory. There are no alternatives for the foreseeable future. There simply isn't any spare capacity anywhere in the world. And Russia will be just burning gas that was originally targeted for EU as they need to keep the sources open.
