He meant what he had said and that is that the US will prevent the pipeline from working properly.
We have no information to reason about how it was meant to be achieved then or how far would one go in case of some contingency.
We can infer though that the circumstances had changed (Russian mobilization and referendums) and that the US ends up profiting the most now that the NS1/2 can't be turned back on.
We have no information to reason about how it was meant to be achieved then or how far would one go in case of some contingency.
We can infer though that the circumstances had changed (Russian mobilization and referendums) and that the US ends up profiting the most now that the NS1/2 can't be turned back on.