“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

There is one thing that is really bothering me in this story.

I don't really care who is behind the sabotage, they would certainly not admit it for obvious reasons, and it could be more complex than it seems.

But the press, here in the UK, in France and in the US, has been suspiciously "clueless", avoiding with great care to imply that anyone in the west could be behind it, even if it really seems obvious that it could very well be the case.

Why? Why are they so careful? They usually are not afraid to speculate, especially on such a scale.

I find it disturbing to think that they could either have received instructions from their respective governments or are simply afraid push any inquiries on this subject.

Such an action would be an act of war and uncovering it - in the US - likely seen as unpatriotic or worse.

Any US journalistic outlet would KILL to be first to report on this.

The US loves its military, but American news sources have no want to keep a secret like this on behalf of the government. The US media loves to report on US war crimes, and other stupid government shit

It wouldn't surprise me to know that the US government had knowledge of this. It would surprise me if they were directly involved though.

The Western press seems to more or less parrot the government talking points or are even more hawkish themselves. Criticism is offered on minor topics or is feeble and drowned in a torrent of other articles.

One could recognize this also with the Coronavirus fiasco when for example the press was parroting the governments saying that the virus is not going to come to Europe and urging people not to be racist against the Chinese (extra funny given the current mainstream position against China). Then the press was parroting that masks don’t work. Then they were parroting that people should really wear masks. Not all the press, not all of the time, but the trend and direction were obvious. And the tireless downplaying of AstraZeneca and mRNA side-effects, goodness.

All of these narratives were also mainstream on HN, just as most opinions on the war are unsophisticated and thoroughly mainstream.

It’s so bizarre, imagine having freedom of the press and then doing what’s expected of you anyway.

Or as an individual being able to think, gather facts and information and draw your own conclusions. And having the freedom to present those conclusions go to waste while just repeating some simplistic talking point.

HN is worse than usual at discussing the war. Many non-mainstream commenters have given up or were censored and it’s mostly pockets of conformity now.

Why would you be surprised?

I've also noticed that and found it worrying.

I don't thinks this is a conspiracy of any kind (or at least I hope so) but I wonder if this apparent docile conformity of the press at large is a side effect of the changes that occurred in this field during the past 20 years.

Have they lost that much power?

Can you please elaborate how exactly it was obvious (that anyone in the West could be behind the attack)? What is a motivation for the West?

The most straightforward reasons would be:

1. Russia would get income from the pipeline, empowering their economy. 2. This sort of infrastructure would represent increased German dependence on Russia for their energy needs. 3. This would also tend to increase economic and diplomatic ties between Germany and Russia.

Destroying the pipeline (even if it's not being used) could theoretically send the message that these infrastructure projects are not safe and that relying on Russia for energy is strategically unwise.

Invading Ukraine sent the message that relying on Russia for energy is unwise as well as unethical.

No country in the EU thinks it's a good idea to buy gas from Russia and it's going to end broken pipes or not.

There's really nothing to gain for the US from blowing up the pipe that couldn't easily be accomplished via conversations.

North Stream 2 was never started, no gas was transported through it, and by several political announcements - never would.

North Stream 1 was a blackmail tool since June 2022, Russia manipulated EU gas prices by changing the volume, using supposed turbine failure as an excuse. Blowing up the pipe could be just a next move.

At the moment nobody has no illusion of economical feasibility of Russia already.

Germany was hesitant/not fully committed on Ukraine support because of ongoing discussions with Russia about NordStream.

USA has been pissed off by this project from the start.

This is also a way to send a strong message to Putin.

Anonymous message is never strong. Non-anonymous message is a casus belli.

Well, this is not really anonymous.

I am pretty sure that all secret services and governments around the world are perfectly aware of the situation.

Only the press is playing the hypocrisy game, for some reason.

Like in case of aliens in Hangar 18? Don't be ridiculous. Any US news outlet will give arm and leg to break the story like this. Self-publishing on mail list platform means there are so little evidence here, that not a single tabloid was interested.

Why? For the sake of the discussion let's say that this story is pure fabulation.

Alright, the internet is full of it, and many newspaper are not afraid of publishing clickbait bullshit, as long as it sells.

What's the risk? Since when is fake news illegal?

This is why I am surprised, why is it such a big deal?

Because the destruction of the pipeline serves american interests, but being directly involved in the destruction of russian state infrastructure that serves a bunch of NATO allies is something the US would not want to be involved in.

In other words, The US very much likes that the pipeline is gone, but it would been politically insane to be involved.