it'd be nice for them to make the final determination but there's little doubt it was Russia. The pipelines were already empty and economically useless, they were blown out in non-NATO waters, there was lots of Russian naval activity in the area prior to the explosions, and Putin hoped to drive a wedge in NATO by increasing gas prices with a supply capacity reduction.
No one else had anything to gain by attacking the pipelines as they were not carrying any gas and were not padding Russias coffers.
I cannot parse this. Especially since the rest of your comment sounds as though you think it was Russia. Which would be ”little doubt that it was Russia”, rather than the negation.
The USA is not benefiting in any appreciable way from the loss of NS2. While LNG shipments are certainly higher, it's a drop in the bucket compared to overall production volumes. To verify this, just look at how far the US spot market price has fallen over the past year and how uncorrelated NG pricing movements are to Russian aggression. Exports have done nothing to hold up the price.
I agree here: USA is somewhat benefiting but it would not be the main reason for blowing up the pipelines.
Russia is not benefiting at all and I find it hard to see a reason for Russia to blow up their pipelines. (but who knows, maybe Putin's mind is just different)
If the pipeline is no longer an economic tool, it becomes a political tool. NS2 had never carried a burp of gas, and NS1 had been empty for months before it blew. Both were pressurized with inert gas to keep from collapsing.
So if Russia is paying maintenance and upkeep on two pipelines that aren't actually making them a penny, they're an economic drag. Blowing them up and blaming the UK and then the USA was a bald attempt to drive a wedge into the western alliance while simulateously cutting operational losses.
I don't know why people keep thinking it's the major superpowers, and not the smaller country actively being invaded by said owner of the pipeline. While obviously this would hurt relations and assistance if found out, the fact we are still guessing six months later signals that by the time everyone does figure out the war is decided.
I think the jury is still out, but is it not plausible that a NATO-based state actor did this to force decoupling from Russian LNG? Capitalism isn’t always the most moral, so maybe a decision was made to force everyone’s hand?
Just as an edit - I’m bringing this up, because from a Russian perspective, they’re still making money as long as LNG is flowing. It was also a large bargaining chip in their favor.
