So the US government is now claiming that, no, it wasn’t them plus the Norwegians, it was actually the Ukrainians? And they’re really doubling down on this?<p>This would mean the US has sent nearly $100 billion to aid a country which attacked a NATO ally.
I don’t understand what the US gains by pushing this theory. It’s implausible (or maybe straight up impossible?) that a tiny sailing yacht could hold enough explosives for scuba divers to individually plant on the pipeline near Bornholm.<p>Why are US Intelligence services promoting this theory? It would mean they’ve been backing a country that violated the NATO joint aggression treaty.
I'm just not buying it.<p>I believe the US did it, because they're the only ones to gain anything from that.<p>No, I don't have evidence, but neither does this article. Plus the substack article is more plausible than this lame attempt of disinformation.
This place reeks of anti-americanism these days.<p>I hope the US did bomb the nordstream, because clearly Europe is too weak to stand up to Russia.<p>As a European, this is deeply embarrassing. It's embarrassing that Europe doesn't take its security seriously, and it's doubly embarrassing that it shits on the Americans.