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.
One simple hypothesis would be that it is only an illusion that western media outlets are independent from their governments.
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.
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...
Can you explain then please how much sense did Russia had to start a war in Ukraine?
Your ignorance is astounding
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.
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.
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!
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.
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...
Other outlets seem to be commenting a bit more neutral: https://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/nord-stream-2--usa-soll...
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.