Except now they’ve told everyone they’re coming, which would be stupid. If they were considering blowing up pipelines they wouldn’t tell anyone and ruin the element of surprise.
The threat is more valuable than the the actual action. Russia's nuclear threats can only accomplish so much. They have so far kept NATO from getting directly involved but clearly have not worked to keep NATO weapons out of Ukraine or moderated sanctions.
And with the EU getting closer to removing its dependence on Russian gas, the energy angle is quickly vanishing. This could be Russias way of subtly signaling that it can still play that card. An explicit verbal threat might not be taken seriously. But a demonstration of how easy it is to sabotage a pipeline has certainly gotten folks attention.
The entire invasion of Ukraine looks childish from where I sit. That hasn't stopped them.
> Maybe you think the symbolism is important
It is important in that verbal threats do not carry much weight when so many other threats have already been wagered. For example Putin has already threatened to attack Finland if the join NATO. Sometimes you need a little more than words to get your message across.
> So you think they had to demonstrate they know how to blow up a pipe? Like Western intelligence officials didn't know that?
The intelligence knows for sure. But imagine the effect such action has if it happened that the pictures of gas bubbling up the Baltic sea were shown on TV in every news program for a week.
There is no element of surprise. A real threat is demonstrating your capability and willingness to take action, no use of words no surprise (if surprise then no threat).
