[stackola]

We aren't even talking about arming anyone, we were talking about sabotage.

[JumpCrisscross]

> we were talking about sabotage

This is a message, a fuckup or an accident. What it is not is a successful covert operation by a competent intelligence agency.

[stackola]

... is what the intelligence agency would say.

[JumpCrisscross]

> is what the intelligence agency would say

Intelligence agencies will say anything. Everyone crafting pet conspiracy theories today belies either underlying motive or incompetence. (I tend to assume the latter.) It’s in the same category as same-day armchair crash investigation. Fact-driven analysis not yet possible, the discussion gets dominated by those fitting data to their worldviews.

[stackola]

And yet you make the assertion "What it is not is a successful covert operation by a competent intelligence agency."

"Coicidence theories" (for lack of a better word) are just as difficult to prove on day 1.

[JumpCrisscross]

> you make the assertion "What it is not is a successful covert operation by a competent intelligence agency."

Yup. Because obvious, minor disablement not in anyone’s interest. Russia, U.S. or Europe. It might be latent capabilities firing early (fuckup), rogue elements (fuckup), et cetera. But anyone arguing this news benefits America or Moscow is already outside reality.

[aa-jv]

Biden openly stated that he would destroy these pipelines.

Why would a "competent" intelligence agency need to get involved in making it covert, after the US President, himself, admitted that it would happen?

This straw man argument you're making does serve to deflect attention from the one party that is obviously going to benefit from this event, however.

[ngetchell]

I've seen Russian media and Tucker Carlson try to make the claim that the US did this but no reputable outlet.