Well I doubt it. It will be clear enough very soon.

Point taken about definitive proof however the question is always "Who benefits?" Nord Stream was a Russian Ace in the game. You don't destroy your own advantages. Also there is the growing public pressure building up in the EU against the war in Ukraine and the desire to normalize relations wit Russia by the people. The trigger for this extreme action by those wishing the destruction of Russian state would be the result of the Italian election.

I too sincerely doubt it is the US.
The US invested trillions of modern day dollars to rebuild Germany after WW2 Germany is a key partner of the US.
If it was the US and the truth eventually come out, it will be the end of NATO…. Something the US desperately wants to retain.

The only parties to gain from the end NATO or the western alliance is the BRICS group.
If true, Russia lost too much through this unless there are large happenings we are not aware of. Such as a major pipeline built in secret to China and India.
Then Brazil, South Africa and the other lesser partners do not have the capability to do this.

That leaves China and India. It is against the very nature of India to invade or attack another country.

Which leaves China.
Of course no proof but only conjecture from my side. Just like everyone else at this point in time.

@Hanno @Arty Have you heard of the Rand Corp. leak that suggests it was the US to hurt the Germans?

@dmatic The Rand Corp speculated on a number of possible saboteurs, including the US, but did not conclude any of them.

When you ask yourself who would least like Germany to be harmed, the US should be high on the list, along with most of the EU, and NATO.

@Hanno Germany was saying "no" to further Ukraine support. That cannot be allowed, especially by the commie trash in charge of the US. Destroying NStream means they cannot unilaterally agree with Russia in order to survive the winter.
So, destroying Germany is in the interest of NATO and the US. Poland, being against Russia, and just now opened a pipeline to Norway; can now tie Germany to them and keep them away from Russia.

Cuba probably bombed the Maine, but I doubt there was ever proof. But, it did serve as the excuse for a war and conquest. Taking out a Russian asset and enslaving Germany could easily go the same way.
This was a stupid and cowardly move. Just the sort of thing BeijingBiden would go for.

@bobbo666 NATO Destroying Germany just because there are differences of policy about Ukraine makes no sense. Germany is already in enough trouble. All Ukraine would have to do to punish Germany is raise the price of gas going through the pipelines going through Ukriane.

And Germany remains a favored nation for trade with the US, so destroying Germany would do almost as much harm to the US as Germany. And why do that when there are a whole spectrum of nuanced responses?

There are a number of competent special forces in various countries capable of damaging Nord Stream, including France, Pakistan, the Mossad and China. And God knows how many capable mercenaries are out there.

@bobbo666, @dmatic,

Without Germany there is no European Union. It will simply collapse.

Ditto NATO. Germany is like the US essential for NATO.

NATO is much more important to the US than Ukraine or Russia.
Not even Biden would do that.

I do not know who did this. I do not believe it is Democrat controlled US.

@Hanno Even though Biden promised he would destroy Nordstream 2? Come on Man!

@Hanno, @TimTuolomne "On January 25, 2022, the Rand Corporation issued a 4-page report, detailing how Germany was becoming too competitive.

[disk.yandex.com];

Their solution was to provoke Russia into attacking Ukraine and then lure Germany into supporting that war on the side of Ukraine. Why? It was not really to help Ukraine but to destroy German industry in order to benefit the USA. The report was addressed to and sent to the Department of State, CIA, NSA, and the DNC (Democratic National Committee)."

@dmatic
You know that report is fake right?

@Hanno I agree. I have gone to their site and found nothing like the claims of Dmatic. Easy enough.

@TimTuolomne, @dmatic, @hanno The link supplied leads to a feasible report, at least a 4-page exec summary. Whether or not it went anywhere is not noted.
REgardless, any country will endlessly commission such reports -- if they interact with any other nations. That is essential. E.g., the US has reports on invading Canada. I participated in a report for the NSA on diversion of bomb making material in the then-recently-dead USSR. So, the mere existence of a report does not mean action will be taken, or even if it will be read.
What is meaningful to be is that the idiots in the WHouse and State Dept said that they would attack the NStream pipelines. Yeah, you can write that off to the babbling of idiots. But, these idiots are in charge.
Difficult to believe? So were FBI attacks on citizens supporting the opposition political party. And, the Pres knowingly (& proudly) executing EOrders that he admitted were unconstitutional (i.e., "We'll let the courts sort it out, but in the meantime......." ). This administration has wholeheartedly embraced the practice of "the ends justifies the means." There is no bottom to what it is willing to do. Openly.

@bobbo666 I agree that US destroying NordStream makes no sense, and I also agree that it still might be possible.

@Hanno I know that is what they claim...but, I don't believe their denial.

@Hanno, @bobbo666 well said, bobbo!

@bobbo666 , @TimTuolomne, @dmatic,

How did I know the Rand report is fake the moment I read it?

1.From a conspiracy point of view, the report is too good to be true. It raises all the points you really want to see, does it not? From the DNC collapse and impeachment of Biden, to blaming the US from destroying the pipeline. It reads like a right wing wet dream.
When things are too good to be true, they generally are not.

It would be like a Pfizer report who in 2018 describes how it is going to create a false pandemic and then the “cure” vaccine to make billions and kill millions.
If you see such a report in 2022, you would immediately question its authenticity.

2. Compare this report to other Rand reports. Not the same is it?

3. This report only appeared now. It contains lots of information that would have been very hard to predict in January. It only contains information useful to push a specific narrative. In a real report dating back to January you would see other analyses that is not applicable.It is the nature of analyses and recommendations. Rand Corp would never write such a report with such limited and aimed analyses and recommendations.. it simply not how it is done.

4. Rand Corp claims they never wrote it. If they lied about this, it will have significant long term repercussions for them. Whenever a consultancy writes a report, even confidential ones, they are very careful what they say to ensure that if the report is leaked, it does not reflect on them. Rand Corp would never have written a report like this.

This report was hastily written in September and released as part of a larger disinformation campaign.

The larger question is who would do this and for what reason?

@Hanno Good question, maybe. When you get the answer please let me know.

[needtoknow.news]

A Swedish news agency revealed a document signed RAND Corporation, a think tank linked to the US Department of Defense, outlines a strategy for “Weakening Germany, strengthening the U.S.” It says there is an “urgent need” for an influx of resources from outside to maintain the American economy, “especially the banking system”. A key objective is to destroy the cooperation between Germany and Russia which is seen as the greatest economic and political threat to the United States.

@Hanno Which "REport" did you read? The report I'm talking about was published on January 25th, 2022. The report you're talking about written hastily in Sept? Was that the supposed denial from the Rand Corp? Written hastily, to be sure and it, itself is unbelievable.

@dmatic I think you have to accept the point that at least a few contributors to this issue are firmly in denial as to any interpretation contrary to what they've already assumed to be in accord with their truth.

@bobbo666

Disagreement does not prove denial. For example, I have listed several possibilities of equal possibility, until more evidence appears. So have others.

And some have singled out their best guess. As good as any at this point.

Judging a point of view at this stage is unnecessary, and is no different than choosing one of the possibilities randomly.

@dmatic
The first time the report dated 25 January appeared anywhere was in September.
If you can find a link or evidence this report existed by end January 2022, then you have a case and I will immediately withdraw my criticism of it.
However the first time this report appeared was only in September.

Anyone can write a report today and put an 2021 date on it. It does not mean the report magically goes back in time. I just put the wrong date on it.

@dmatic, @bobbo666

I am an agnostic. I do not “believe” anything.

I do not who blew up the pipelines.

Based on the limited information and knowledge I have I do not think that either the US or Russia did this.
It looks to me it was a third party.

And of course I can be completely wrong.

What I am trying to do is removing the disinformation (such as the Rand report) and focus on what we actually know.

If the Rand report turns out to be true, I will retract and apologise for criticising it.

@Hanno, @bobbo666, @TimTuolomne Thank you. If anyone thinks they know anything, they know nothing yet as they ought to know. (1 Cor. 8:2 ) It is hard today to know what to "believe" and what "not to believe". None of us wants to believe a lie, a falsity. (I hope). Personally, I do not want to believe that the US would do things like destroy other countries' economies or people for their own supposedly selfish gains.....but....I "know" better. Demonizing boogiemen in order to whip up support from the masses to fund their proxy wars is very low-class, in my opinion. Biden's arrogant "I promise you we can take it out" or whatever his exact words were, in threatening the Nordstream pipeline and the fact there were US helicopters over the area near when it happened...plus Victoria Nuland's presence, plus Blinken's nod to the Great opportunity for America first....leads me to "know" this was done by us or paid for by us with no plausible deniability.