“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

I find it extremely jarring how many reputable western media outlets immediately jumped to the conclusion that Russia did it even though that made zero sense - but absolutely refused to even consider the possibility that the US or another western state could have done it.

But at this point, the article is basically "cool story, bro". The only independently verifyable bits are the public statements of Biden, Nuland, etc, which are already well-known. But those only show that the US really really really didn't like the pipelines - and that was never a secret. They do not give any evidence for a planned operation to destroy them.

The rest of the article is amazingly detailed but only based on an anonymous source. Even if we trust that the source existed, there is no way to know if that source itself is trustworthy.

So as of now, I don't the information in the article would convince anyone of the "US did it" hypothesis who wasn't already convinced.

I think the only thing that the article is useful for is as a future reference. It could be useful to remember the details and keep an eye if they match with any future developments.

> I find it extremely jarring how many reputable western media outlets immediately jumped to the conclusion that Russia did it even though that made zero sense - but absolutely refused to even consider the possibility that the US or another western state could have done it.

One simple hypothesis would be that it is only an illusion that western media outlets are independent from their governments.

>I find it extremely jarring how many reputable western media outlets immediately jumped to the conclusion that Russia did it

Do you have proof to back up this claim? A more correct observation is that Western media didn't blame any single entity but has the attention span of a goldfish and forgot about this incident after a week or two.

I live in Germany and my proof is that a few days after the explosions, I could read/watch Spiegel, Tagesschau and other outlets quoting speculations about Russia as "expert opinions", while discussing speculations about the US only in context of "russian accusations".

A Spiegel article from september 28, two days after the incident: https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nord-stream-spekulationen-ueb...

It links to a Times article allegedly saying the same (but behind a paywall unfortunately, so I can't check): https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-probably-bombed-no...

> that Russia did it even though that made zero sense

Can you explain then please how much sense did Russia had to start a war in Ukraine?

>I find it extremely jarring how many reputable western media outlets immediately jumped to the conclusion that Russia did it even though that made zero sense

Your ignorance is astounding

This is detail pretty well in an article I think I found here first.

If Russia ever wanted to take Ukraine “back”, it had to do it now. It would only get harder and less likely as time goes on. Now, as to why of take Ukraine back at all, IDK, beautiful women, I assume.

I’m not sure anyone can answer the why, really, but the why now seems to have reason.

It make sense. russia's agenda is to destabilize Europe. And they were the only ones who had anything directly to gain from it with certainty as they wanted to create an energy crisis in Europe. They knew that after the EU sanctions, Nord stream would be a dead project after their illegal invasion. By blowing up what now had no real long term economic value, they created uncertainty and it helped to get the energy prices to skyrocket in Europe and they succeeded in their goal of destabilizing Europe's energy market. All the Russians want is to create as much havoc for the West they can and create conflicts and make west weak, just of that reason it make totally sense to blow it up.

This is not a good faith question. If you wanted to know the arguments that Russia made regarding the invasion of Ukraine, you would have googled them sometime within the past year. What you want is for somebody to type those reasons here so you can respond to them with invective.

Putin thought he could roll into Kyiv like the USSR did in Hungary and Czech, and like he did in Crimea. Bloodless coup. Massive show of strength no rational person would try to fight.

The entire world thought Ukraine was going to collapse.

Diplomats from big countries were telling Zelensky to his face that he had '24 hours' before Russia took Kyiv.

The pipeline thing is a bit of a mystery.

There's been many instances of western media outlets being hugely critical of the US gov't.

All mainstream media in Denmark has been reporting "No proof of Russian sabotage on Nordstream" this week.

They're simply going for views and readers. The exciting story back in September was that Russia had sabotaged the pipeline. It was then more or less established that they probably did, so now the exciting story is that they might not have!

> jumped to the conclusion that Russia did it even though that made zero sense

It makes a lot of sense. The pipeline was rendered useless anyway, they get to blame the US and sowing division by planting stories such as these, and they also send a message that they can blow up stuff underwater anywhere; in particular, undersea cables, whose destruction would cause major economic problems.

A german book by Precht/Welzer argues it's the other way.

The media became a power by itsself and it's the media which influences the government.

And they analyze how the media synchronized itself on certain topics (especially Ukraine war).

https://www.fischerverlage.de/buch/richard-david-precht-hara...

Spiegel is now reporting about Hersh's article as well. They seem more interested in dismantling Hersh however than commenting on any of his claims in detail: https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/russland-duma-sprecher-wjatsc...

Other outlets seem to be commenting a bit more neutral: https://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/nord-stream-2--usa-soll...

That would match my impression in Germany on issues about involvement in the war. Usually, the government is divided, with FDP and Greens taking a hawkish position, arguing for strong support of Ukraine including weapons and not making any concessions to Russia; while SPD and the chancellor are cautious to the point of dragging their feet.

Meanwhile the press is not similarly divided but usually follows the hawkish position. So whatever opinion they are promoting, it's evidently not the government's.