>

Coming from a country that provides missiles for shooting down passenger planes. 🙄
Russia: US has questions to answer. 
U.S.: What are the questions?
Russia: We won't know until you give us answers. >

The answer is 42 >

So long! And thanks for all the fish! >

That's my wake up alarm. >

Wasn't it some time traveling Anglo Saxon? >

John Titor did it. >

I find that most people can't grasp the power and influence of John Titor. Now that he finally has the old computer hardware from 20 years ago, the world is merely a marionette dangling from his puppeteer's hands. >

It was lost debugging hardware, and he says his timeline is different from ours.
Do you think a time traveler would lie to us? >

US: Russia has questions to answer over Ukraine invasion >

I was going to say.  U.S. should reply that they will give all the information they know willingly, as soon as Russia answers questions regarding war crimes committed in Ukraine. >

US using old Russian whataboutism tactics 2023 😳😳😳 >

What came first the invasion of Ukraine or the attack on Nord Stream? >

Invasion of Ukraine, following Russia limiting the gas flow then cutting the gas flow completely, Finally blown up in September to put pressure on Europe and driving prices through the roof. >

And then Europe rushing changes to become less dependent on Russian gas. Then, finally... the West being completely independent on Russian gas.
The culmination of Russia blundering. Again... and again... and again. >

Well, threats and blackmail wasn't working so maybe shooting themselves in the foot will work.... If the entire thing wasn't so tragic it could be a comedy. Hopefully they learn their lesson quickly. They will never get Ukraine to surrender. They have to know this by now. The only way to end this is to withdraw from all of Ukraine (Including Crimea). Take their citizens with them if they want to be Russian. >

Just tell Putin the pipeline fell off a balcony. >

lol, take my upvote. >

I heard it fell out of a high window. >

"We didn't do it."
Q&A over. >

Just to add a bit of context to this - dude has also been characterized as a bit of a conspiracy theorist. He has one anonymous source claiming that the US blew up the Nord-Stream and idk, that's not really enough to base a claim on. Not saying it's not true and I do think it warrants a closer look but I'd be personally skeptical. >

Agreed. That's fair, it should not be blindly believed, nor blindly dismissed yet. >

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. >

Lotta Hitchens fans in these comments ha. Fair enough. He doesn't have hard evidence. But he lays out a fairly sensible case for it. >

Almost all fiction is written sensibly in a way that the reader can believe it to be true. 
The problem is, this guy is spouting this junk as if its fact, when he doesn't have any hard evidence to prove it.
And what he's doing (spouting unverified claims) is disruptive towards geopolitics, the stakes of which literally cannot be any higher. 
So, I don't care how sensible the guy sounds. He's play fast and loose with facts whilst pitting two nuclear superpowers against one another. >

"He's play fast and loose with facts whilst pitting two nuclear superpowers against one another."
Same could be said for most politicians in America advocating for more weapons for Ukraine and military aid for Taiwan >

What facts are those politicians playing fast and loose with? >

Russia needs to GTFO of the Ukraine. >

The far bigger question: who shot J.R.? >

Not sure you're gonna like the answer: it was Hunter Biden. >

Dang it! 
My money was on Andy Dick being the culprit this whole time. >

You ever see Andy Dick and Hunter Biden in the same place at the same time? Boom -- same guy. >

I wouldn't wanna be in that room, Andy dick makes me cringe. >

U.S.: "One Russian-made pipeline puncturer."
Putin: [to U.N.] "That's not mine."
U.S.: "One credit card receipt for a Russian-made pipeline puncturer, signed by Vladimir Putin."
Putin: "I'm telling ya baby, that's not mine."
U.S.: " One warranty card for Russian-made pipeline puncturer, filled out by Vladimir Putin."
Putin: "I don't even know what this is! This sort of thing ain't my bag, baby!"
U.S.: "One copy of 'Foundations of Geopolitics' by Alexander Dugan signed 'Good luck sabotaging the pipeline, Vladimir. That kind of thing is your bag, baby.'" >

I give you an upvote for the awesome reference >

"Why did you allow Russian ships to get so close?"...or "What are the names of the Russian agents that planted the explosives?"...tough questions for the U.S to answer for sure. >

The US has wanted Nordstream gone for many years, warning Europe that it’s a huge mistake as it gives Russia leverage in case of conflict. Russia gains nothing from Nordstream being gone, quite the opposite. An operational Nordstream could’ve been making Russia a ton of money to fund their war right now and lower the demand for US oil and gas. So the US really is the player with a strong incentive to have it gone. So it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the US blew it up (possibly in concert with European partners) so that Russia can’t use it for their “Europe, do what we say or we’ll turn off the gas”-gambit.
Edit: no I’m not some Russian stooge or bot. I even think it might been the smart thing to do from a US perspective. Mostly I think it’s naive to think that anyone is above suspicion in this. >


An operational Nordstream could’ve been making Russia a ton of money to fund their war right now and lower the demand for US oil and gas. So the US really is the player with a strong incentive to have it gone.

This is so out of touch it hurts. The pipeline HAD ALREADY BEEN SHUT DOWN. There was no need to blow it up to begin with. Secondly, the person with the strongest incentive to blow the pipe was Russia, and that's because their pipes were now full of natural gas with nowhere to go. The pipe isnt a 2 way street. Blowing the pipe allowed the gas to vent away from Russia and not burst on their land. There just isnt any evidence the US would want to do this. There's tons of motive for Russia. >

Why wouldn't Russia just switch the pipeline off? >

Cuz the pressure would build and explode on their land. >

I have a hard time believing there wouldn't be some way to turn the pipeline off without risking an explosion. >

The gas is coming out of the ground and into the pipeline whether they are selling gas or not, it's not a situation where they can just set aside the gas for later. >

Yeah... that's not even remotely close to how pipelines work. >

I think the US should release a statement that makes it sound like some group of senators is going to subpoena Russia and ask hard questions. “Why has the Ukrainian invasion gone so poorly for Russia? How do you explain these war crimes? Was any preliminary work done to ensure a successful annexation? What percentage of high-level military personnel were budgeted from the beginning for elimination? Does Putin have cancer, and when will it kill him?” >

So.....You want to make those Senators do something for the benefit of the USA? How novel. >

Nothing about those Russian warships right next to where the explosions took place days earlier, nope, ignore that.... >

Or the US navy conducting under water explosive excersizes the day before. Read the article by hersch. Why would Russia blow up their own pipeline, which was the main source of leverage it had on most of Europe, and Germany in particular. >

Simple: internal Russian politics. On the 12th of Sept. several municipal leaders sent a petition to Vladimir Putin telling him to stop the war. This pipeline is a major source of their income, and it will not operate until the war ends. Unfortunately for them, their political power (read: money) is tied to the theoretical profits of getting the pipeline back up and running. So on the 26th of Sept (just 2 weeks later), Putin blows up the pipeline, their power dries up, and Putin is free to imprison them without fear of the next person making the same argument. >

No one needs to answer Russian questions for the foreseeable future. Your pathetic inbred president destroyed any semblance of respect the world had for your country. So you can go right ahead and fuck yourselves. >

That which is asserted without edvidence can be dismissed without evidence. AKA, Russia, put up or shut up (also, just shut the fuck up in general). >

The story comes from Seymour Hersh, the guy who exposed the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. Russia in the headline is specifically to get dummies who only read headlines to say things exactly like this. >

Russian gaslighting a little to literal >

I think we all remember the Russian shenanigans when their submarine was bobbing about in the waters of the Nordic states a few years back. Planting explosives for the future? Possibly >

Nobody who wasn't a complete moron ever thought the Russians attacked their own pipeline. The prime suspect was always the US, followed by the UK and other Nato allies. And today Seymour Hersh, the guy who exposed the My Lai massacre, Abu Graib and the secret war against Cambodia, came out with an article where he laid out in detail how the US planned and executed the bombing. Information he got from people who were directly involved in the project. >

Yeah, what possible gain would the ruzzians get from blowing up a pipeline that they can easily repair, while simultaneously using it as a propaganda tool to proclaim the world is against the ruzzians? It isn't like ruzzia isn't prone to false flag attacks or anything. It certainly isn't the case that the current leader of ruzzia cemented his power by starting a war after ordering the bombing of an apartment complex as a pretext for war. Nope. Certainly just not the ruzzian way >

As I said, you have to be a complete moron to believe it. The mental gymnastics required to come to that conclusion are really something. >

Hardly, the Russians were hawking NS 2 at the same time. It makes perfect sense. 
Add this to the fact that multiple Russian ships were in the vicinity before the explosion.  C'mon man.
Who are the idiots here? >

Russia has questions to answer over the downing of flight MH17 >

How dare the US not blow up the pipeline that Russia blew up.  Russian ships were documented near the site ahead of the explosion. >

i have questions why kalliningrad STILL EXISTS?
and did they come from THERE??? >

Bc everyone living there is Russian, and neither Poland, Lithuania or any other interested party wants to deal with governing an all Russian province, nor do they want to do ethnic cleansing. Russia keeps it as a warm water port. >

at this point for the whole world Russia has lost any credibility for blaming other countries. >

Russia to US: “How could let us sabotage NordStream?” >

i thought that in December it was the UK who blew them up... now they think it is the US? maybe next they will accuse the swiss navy of blowing it up... >

It was Santa Claus for all anyone knows for FACT, hell it could have been a Columbian Cartel Submarine taking out the pipeline for all we know. 
Russia deserves all the shit they get, keep piling it on!
​
And everyone knows the swiss only have knives, not explosives..... >

The Russian bots are hard at it today. >

Yes they are for sure. Isn’t it strange how they show up all at once? >

They are about to start their large scale invasion into Ukraine. This is typical Russia. >

How about Russia can suck eggs >

Guilty dog always barks first. >

This article literally contains no evidence. It’s just “credible sources” according to the author. 
Remember kids not everything on the internet is true >

A Credible source told me it was you ??? >

I'm the sauce >

That’s putin speak for u.s. has no questions to answer over nord stream explosions. >

Russia has questions to answer about the Ukraine explosions... 
Honestly, even if it was the US somehow trying to sabotage Russia - GOOD. Fuck Russia.