But that doesn't say that America or anyone else was behind it either.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence after all.
Theres no conclusive proof that any particular party was behind it, but given that a single pipe was left (something America wouldn't do if it was looking to take out Germanys capacity to use Russian gas) the only obvious conclusion was that it was Russia.
Of course it doesn't say that explicitly-- are you unfamiliar with the purpose that the Washington Post serves?
You think because one pipeline survived that it was intentional? After all of the US disasters in the Middle East you somehow still believe in its omnipotence?
And one pipeline surviving means little when the new pipelines that were destroyed had much better economics for Russia (and Germany, for that matter).
We have no public evidence yet to know with absolute certainty who is responsible. But an honest assessment of the motives, benefits, costs, not to mention blatant declarations of Biden and State Department flunkies make it 99% clear who was responsible. Whether the British pulled the trigger or some other errand boy is of little consequence.
> We have no public evidence yet to know with absolute certainty who is responsible.
correct.
> But an honest assessment of the motives, benefits, costs, not to mention blatant declarations of Biden and State Department flunkies make it 99% clear who was responsible.
They were clearly not talking about physical attacks when they talked about that, but I guess Russian propaganda is going to hook onto whatever it can.
> Whether the British pulled the trigger or some other errand boy is of little consequence.
But it could easy be the Russians who pulled the trigger, they easily had the most to gain and the easiest way to pull it off too. Russia gains a lot by destroying the pipelines.
- they threaten a number of NATO countries energy infrastructure indirectly
- they attempt to force Germany into certifying the new pipeline which would be a big win for Russia
- they get out of any contractual clauses they had about non supply of gas.
LOL, now that you bring up these absurd arguments (again), I remember you.
"they attempt to force Germany into certifying the new pipeline which would be a big win for Russia"
So Russia blew up its own pipelines to force Germany into certifying those pipelines?
"they get out of any contractual clauses they had about non supply of gas"
No one at the Kremlin cares about contracts that are easily invalidated by acts of war and illegal sanctions.
"they threaten a number of NATO countries energy infrastructure indirectly"
-So Russia blew up its own energy infrastructure delivery to Europe (that it spent 10 billion to build and would have earned lots from) to threaten energy infrastructure indirectly?
There we go-- when presented with the illogical nature of your statements and inconvenient facts that are readily available with a Google search, you resort to the "Russian propaganda" trope. Even The Washington Post (PR firm for the US security state) is literally saying Russia didn't do it. Eventually, the "paper of record" will reveal which Western power did the deed in an "exclusive," when it's no longer relevant to decision-making, as they always do.
> There we go-- when presented with the illogical nature of your statements and inconvenient facts that are readily available with a Google search, you resort to the "Russian propaganda" trope. Even The Washington Post (PR firm for the US security state) is literally saying Russia didn't do it. Eventually, the "paper of record" will reveal which Western power did the deed in an "exclusive," when it's no longer relevant to decision-making, as they always do.
It's Russian propaganda that America did it, something you are very insistent on with literally zero evidence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/21/... (https://archive.vn/UpsuY)