zlacker

>>hungle+(OP)
Can someone more in tune with global politics explain to me why it hasn't just been assumed that the us did it?

We had the motive. We had the means. oh yea, and our president said we would do it in advance of it happening:

"If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." (reporter: "How will you do that, exactly, since the project is within germany's control?") "I promise you we'll be able to do it. (smirks, silence)"

https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=81

With that context why wouldn't the default be to assume it was destroyed by the US unless there was compelling evidence otherwise?

>>nullc+5m3
The best argument against "The US blew it up" is the political risk for the US when the truth comes out.

As CIA guy I would not trust Biden to keep the mouth shut.

>>hackan+i84
The political risk for the US is zero. Just look at any other similar situation, for instance where the US has killed civilians by drone as collateral damage: there's a bit of outcry, a bit of finger wagging and after a couple of weeks there's some other big news and it's all forgotten.