Doesn’t it depend on what evidence is to hand? Compared to say a missile that radar/satellite/debris could comparatively quickly identify the source this seems a lot harder to track because access to the site of the explosion is pretty difficult.
Personally If I was confident that an accusation could be supported by data I’d take a different approach than if the data was unavailable/ambiguous.
The US does have the track record of throwing the blame first then either later on providing the proof or using the 'intelligence sources' angle without furnishing any proof to substantiate though.
Just on this it feels very low key very much carefully choosing words (comparing to previous briefings)
I mean, thats pretty much exactly it. Yeah, you could make the baseless claim(not saying it couldnt possibly be true, but also highly unlikely) that they arent strongly condemning it because they did it. But also, what kind of idiot would loudly and confidently condemn something they know nothing about and have no details about? If you knew it was Russia, sure, but at this point if you didnt do it, you also wouldnt know if it was an accident, or if one of your allies did it, and then imagine the disaster of having to backtrack your super strong response when you find out an ally did it.
Under the same poor reasoning that "They werent super angry so it must have been them" then it must be Russia, because they did the same. Theres a 0% chance that if Russia thought the USA had actually done it they wouldnt have already been angrily blasting that across the world. Seems Russia disagrees with Bluesteven, even they arent willing to go to the same extremes.
Both of these could indeed be true. Russia tends to vary moreso on its reactions, they either take a very diplomatic cautious, until proof is there approach OR more usually go full in with wild claims instantly, they don't seem to have any middle ground on that approach - which in small part is why they are massively losing the information war.
In this particular instance, it does look clearly like it's been a deliberate action which has damaged/destroyed the Nord pipes. The question then is who benefits from the action.
I don't see how on earth this benefits Russia, a huge leverage they had was in terms of controlling the valve to Europe, that's now gone, the energy blackmail which they've been accused off now no longer a tool they have, and for what gain? Given winter is coming the ability to sow disharmony in Europe via Gas flows if anything would be set to grow significantly, again, that's now no longer an option.
Blinken just a few weeks ago made a speech on the subject of Russian energy blackmail - which itself suggests 'why would they do it' if even the SoS is referencing them using the gas flow to pressure the EU.
Europe News: Antony Blinken made the comments after a surprise visit to Ukraine while en route to Brussels where he said he would be discussing energy security at
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Do I think the US government have directly ordered it, I honestly don't know, it would seem a absolutely massive risk - should it be discovered they did so. but on this I don't see any way it benefits Russia, short term and even moreso long term to destroy the Nordstreams.
