So the US government is now claiming that, no, it wasn’t them plus the Norwegians, it was actually the Ukrainians? And they’re really doubling down on this?
This would mean the US has sent nearly $100 billion to aid a country which attacked a NATO ally.
No, this article is not based on claims by the US government. It’s based on claims by people who do not represent the government about the US government.
> And they’re really doubling down on this?
Well, no, they aren’t making the claim at all, so claiming they are doubling down are doubly wrong.
I don’t understand what the US gains by pushing this theory. It’s implausible (or maybe straight up impossible?) that a tiny sailing yacht could hold enough explosives for scuba divers to individually plant on the pipeline near Bornholm.
Why are US Intelligence services promoting this theory? It would mean they’ve been backing a country that violated the NATO joint aggression treaty.
> I don’t understand what the US gains by pushing this theory.
The US isn’t pushing this theory.
> Why are US Intelligence services promoting this theory?
They aren’t. Unidentified sources of unknown affiliation cited in German media are claiming that US learned about a Ukrainian plot from Dutch intelligence and told Ukraine not to do it.
You are confusing the subject of the story with its source.
> It’s implausible (or maybe straight up impossible?) that a tiny sailing yacht could hold enough explosives for scuba divers to individually plant on the pipeline near Bornholm.
Huh? It's totally plausible. I don't believe it, but it's certainly plausible. Just how much explosives do you think it would have required? Even small personal boats can easily carry several tons of cargo, and that is more than enough to trash some pipes. I'm really struggling to think why and how you could think this implausible.
Well I believe the Russians did it with equally no evidence.
I doubt any European actor did it because of the environmental impact. Ukraine, Russia or the US. If the Ukrainians did it then that was politically stupid but you'd understand where they're coming from. The US would benefit, but if they did it I'd expect them to leave strong evidence Russia did it.
I'm thinking Russia because they're angry that investigations are pointing the finger at Ukraine. You'd think that'd make them happy. But they seem to want to keep it vague with suspicion falling on the US.
Whoever was responsible would have been very capable of hiring a boat of Ukrainians to be present so I'm not expecting any good answers.
That is a question, that can be answered with other questions, but then some questions have more questions that end up with other questions. It is a scenario made out of lots of questions.
edit: Forgot to mention that it also works nicely on mobile. I've added it on my desktop as "Archive this" into the bookmarks, and on mobile (chrome or firefox) I just type "archive this" into the location to activate it.
I hope the US did bomb the nordstream, because clearly Europe is too weak to stand up to Russia.
As a European, this is deeply embarrassing. It's embarrassing that Europe doesn't take its security seriously, and it's doubly embarrassing that it shits on the Americans.
This would mean the US has sent nearly $100 billion to aid a country which attacked a NATO ally.