The war hawks answer would be so that we can economically separate russia-germany so that germany is more willing to go against russia. If Germany is dependent on gas from Russia they are less willing to risk their relationship.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub -3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Ukraine actually did it, but there's no chance they'd do that without the US giving the go-ahead.

[–] CascadeOfLight@hexbear.net 22 points 9 months ago (2 children)

No, it was definitely straight up the US. Ignore any bullshit about yachts and Ukrainian divers.

Here is the USS Kearsage - one of the only ships in the world with a moon pool that would allow divers to operate at the pipeline's depth - leaving after "NATO exercises" in the area of the pipeline five days before it exploded

Here is a USN Boeing P-8A Anti-Submarine plane - one of the only planes in the world that can generate a radio pulse capable of reaching to the depth of the pipeline - flying along the length of the pipeline almost exactly 24 hours before it exploded

Here is President of the United States Joseph Robinette Biden, stating that the Nord Stream 2 project - which competes with US LNG sales to Europe - will not be allowed to continue; just out of frame is Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz, who offers no form of contradiction or rebuttal

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 7 points 9 months ago

I mean, that US basically owns germany since WW2... has a basis with privileges like an embassy for near east espionage in g... has intelligence programs where g would like to be a closer partner...

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not disputing you but very interested in reading more and sources - I always was very skeptical the volunteer Ukrainian saboteurs angle

[–] Aria@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The author of this article has a very strong track-record, so I choose to trust it. Though it does rely on anonymous sources. https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for linking, but while there’s smoke and circumstance, it’s not a fire imo. Anonymous source, not sources.

And Hersh seems to have fallen from the tightrope of critical analysis and skepticism, into acceptance of conspiratorial narratives from shaky actors.

[–] Aria@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

His reporting has always relied on anonymous sources, and has always panned out in the long run. Nothing's changed, we're just not far enough removed from the war in Syria for the propaganda to lose control of the narrative in the west.

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

In seeking to decouple from state propaganda, it is important to critically examine alternative sources, lest you be duped into becoming a state mouthpiece.

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 8 points 9 months ago

From what I have heard it is actually really hard to do, and only a few countries have the capabilities and equipment.

[–] Maoo@hexbear.net 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

lol no. You've made the classic blunder of believing a propaganda narrative.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 5 points 9 months ago

The propaganda says the Russians did it (which is ridiculous, it's their own pipeline, and they could just shut it down on their end if they wanted to). Either way, there's no way the US didn't at least consent to it, and yeah, most likely was more directly involved in it.