Rule out the Russians. They need the money.
Rule out the Germans, they need the gas for industry and other domestic needs.
Rule out the Chinese, they follow Putin.
So who dun-it, the US or Ukraine?
Rule out Ukraine since they need German support for “their” war.
So it looks suspiciously like a US job.
Maybe that’s suspicious in itself. So who wants the job to look like a US act of sabotage?

I think there is the answer.

Caught in a trap of their own making. Could have opted for cheap as chips, nuclear power, i.e., MSR thorium and ended all reliance on fossil fuels, but no.

Had to privatize and look after the paper shuffling, profit demanding middleman and fuel excise. Couldn't see how vulnerable that made them. Stupidity reigned supreme!

Could have opted for a swarm of small plants doing double duty and eliminating most of the poles and wires as a bonus as well. Along with vastly reduced transmission and distribution losses! A win, win all round except for the, greed is good, middleman and the stupid as a phuck wit, jerk water, taxman.
Alan B.

Gas, biogas, i.e., methane, can be made for almost nothing from most wasted organic waste, in industrial sized digestors.

If misplaced trust had been eliminated along with the greed is good middlemen, that's what should have happened. And given it didn't happen, hoisted on their own petard!

Trust a commie even a allegedly reformed one? NEVER EVER!

Trust yes, but look!
Alan B.

D.D. I wouldn't rule out the highly duplicitous Russians, i.e., Putin. Who would do it then scapegoat the US. As you have! And without anything more than your well known, pro-Russian, speculation!

I mean where did that brand new, nuclear powered, Russian sub go and for what covert purpose! It was in the area at the time and had the necessary on-board ordinance. It could have dropped a timed package then headed under the artic ice to hide from satellite surveillance for months. Might be still there?
Alan B.

Biden emphatically stated he would do it long before it happened.
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh wouldn't rely on second-hand testimony of just one person.
- He'd have numerous sources and would've verified the info.

Also there were mass protests in Germany for several days prior to the explosions demanding that Germany open Nordsteam 2, and Norway opened it's own pipeline to Europe the day after the explosions.

Finally the west has opposed Russian involvement in an investigation, and tried to stop Russia's bid for an independent UN investigation, which even China has come out in support of, instead preferring a 'private investigation' conducted by NATO allies Sweden, Denmark and Germany.
Germany itself stated that it's unlikely Russia wasn't involved prior to the release of Sy Hersh's article.

I think the journalism is quite detailed and extremely credible.

Seymour Hersh - Nordstream attack article and interviews below:

How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline
http://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

Reporter Seymour Hersh on "How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline": Exclusive TV Interview - Democracy Now
http://youtu.be/d4BuMaGlKp0

Seymour Hersh - How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline
http://youtu.be/FQMdQLjI-Tk

"Germany itself stated that it's unlikely Russia wasn't involved prior to the release of Sy Hersh's article."

CORRECTION - I meant to say:
Germany itself stated that it's unlikely Russia WAS involved prior to the release of Sy Hersh's article.

Australia and the Indo-Pacific face a clear and present danger from the USA and global NATO who are pushing us into a war with China. They are manipulating our society with pre-bunking brain washing techniques. A big concern is the Quad and AUKUS which have been imposed on Australian democracy without any national or parliamentary debate or consent from the people of Australia. We need to stay away from the state terrorists.

Armchair Critic

It’s admirable to pick off the Democrats as a huge threat to world peace.

Recognising Hersh is a stooge with diminishing credibility on many fronts, including his proneness to sensationalism in his reporting, is wise in doing so though.

Using him as credible evidence for anything at all, in view of his sketchy reporting, is counterproductive to truth.

I think at this stage, sit back and wait for that truth to emerge is good advice.

Clutching at straws!

Still, should the Russians be innocent, then that will be their first time in exactly 12 months.

Correct?

As far as I'm concerned Russia has been completely vindicated.
The West made promises not to move NATO eastwards but went back on their word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO
In 2008 they continued moving eastwards and indicated a desire for Ukraine and Georigia to join, which Putin strongly objected to.
- He stated that if Ukraine moved to join NATO he would take Crimea.
Then the US overthrew Ukraine in 2014, and the resulting US puppet government started a hate campaign against ethnic Russians who started protesting and wanted nothing to do with the US installed regime in Kiev.
Putin then launched an military operation to occupy Crimea and the people there voted overwhelmingly to join Russia.
The US war hawks have been hysterical about it ever since, as they wanted to take Russia's Naval facilities in Sevastopol and deprive them of their naval base on the Black Sea.
The protestors became known as the 'separatists' and the government in Kiev waged a war against them for 8 years.
Later Putin intervened in Syria which infuriated the West even more.
Members of the DPR and LPR completed surrounded Ukrainian armed forces and to avoid their capture Merkel instigated Minsk 1 agreements which was accepted.
Putin tried for peace with both the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements, and the reason why he is completely vindicated is because of Merkel, Poroshenko and Hollande have all stated the Minsk agreements which were not done in good faith, they never intended to make peace, but were buying time to build up Ukraine militarily.
The Ukrainian government kept shelling the people of Donetsk and intended to attack Crimea.
Unlike the West defending foreign people, Putin had no choice but to defend his own people, both the Russian speaking people in Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as the Russians in Crimea who had been deprived of piped water, but also his own citizens in Russia itself against the West which has slowly been surrounding Russia and had plans to oust Putin, and install a government more suitable to western based global order.

More evidence of Red (Green) Brown alliances in promoting the same pro Putin agitprop, who is manipulating whom?

Apart from the fact that the official investigation is ongoing and commenters guessing on behalf and advantage of Putin, by 'Red Browns' in the Anglosphere following Fox News & Koch Network talking points?

Wiki: 'The term red–green–brown alliance, originating in France in the 2000s, refers to the alliance of leftists (red), Islamists (green), and the far right (brown). The term has also been used to describe alleged alliances of industrial union-focused leftists (red), ecologically-minded agrarians (green), and the far right (brown).'

Armchair,
The promise not to expand NATO eastwards was made to a country that no longer exists.
Expanding NATO does not give Russia any right whatsoever to invade its neighbours, except in the deluded minds of warmongers such as Putin and yourself.
The US did not overthrow Ukraine in 2014. Their PM did a bunk but their democratically parliament (not the US) chose a replacement and continued on as before with the same people as before (except the one who'd chosen to flee). Since then they've had multiple democratic elections.
The "US installed regime in Kiev" was non existent. I suspect the same is true of the hate campaign.
Russia ILLEGALLY STARTED A WAR, and ILLEGALLY ANNEXED CRIMEA. Holding a sham referendum doesn't make Russia's occupation of Crimea legal.

The Separatists that Ukraine waged war against for 8 years weren't the protestors; they were armed militia that Ukraine had every right to crush. Unfortunately many civilians were killed, by all sides. The Separatists only survived with Russian backing, and Russia gradually took them over.

Serious question: do you think Hitler "had no choice but to defend his own people" when he invaded Czechoslovakia?

diver,
Don't be so quick to rule out the Russians. They still have gas export capability, and may have calculated that, in the short term at least, manipulating gas prices would be more lucrative. They could have done it much more easily than anyone else. And they could have been attempting to frame someone.

'Tis unlikely to be the Germans, but I wouldn't rule them out completely. They need the gas, but they do have other sources of it.

Rule out the Chinese, it's way outside their area of operation and they'd have far more to lose than to gain.

>So who dun-it, the US or Ukraine?
Why would you regard those countries as the prime suspects?
It clearly wasn't Ukraine; they don't have the capability. But even with your hasty ruleouts, why did yo not consider Britain or Sweden?
Putin blames Britain.
Sweden had submarines active in the area. If they didn't do it, they almost certainly know who did.

I still think Russia's the prime suspect, but it's far from certain.