Not in my experience. They’re certainly biased but they don’t tend to make up trivially falsifiable facts out of whole cloth. The bias is evident more in what news they choose to report and what spin they put on it.
Wartime is different.
Well, I’ll have to take that back:
He certainly seems like someone who could know and like someone who we can say is firmly on the West’s side.
Apparently, he’s added a follow-up tweet, so he seems to have not been hacked.
Hard to know if he’s stupid and let the beans out for no cognizable purpose or if he’s stupid and decided to post his pet theory, without considering his position.
The way Russia publicly reacts to this story over the next few days might be a “tell.”
“Russia intends to call a UN Security Council meeting over damage to two Nord Stream undersea gas pipelines, according to the Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova.”
Vanguard is the largest holder of just about everything by virtue of the enormous indexed positions of its funds’ shareholders. They have something like $8 Trillion in assets under management. So, for every dollar Vanguard has under management, their shareholders gained approximately 0.0001 cents from Cheniere Energy. On an annualized basis, that amounts to a 0.3% gain and to repeat that, Vanguard would need to blow up a pipeline a day with the same results. Hardly seems worth it to me. Also, Vanguard doesn’t really benefit - its funds’ shareholders do instead. And, because all they are doing is indexing (for the most part), all Vanguard would really accomplish is to generate outsize returns for the people with relatively concentrated positions in the company. This seems unlikely.
All the speculation and finger pointing reminds me of “The Monsters are Due on Mulberry Street.”
Huh. So where were you when these pipelines blew, @k9bfriender??? 
Just out walking my dogs…
And before you ask, yes, I always bring along an underwater ROV with me on my walks.
And yet, they do this stuff. They derail fuel shipping trains which can cause local environmental damage. An eco terrorist in Canada blew up oil wells, causing spills.
There have been a number of pipeline attacks in the past two decades. From an eco-terrorist point of view, it makes sense. It’s worth a one-time leak to scare people away from pipelines, and therefore away from fossil fuels. It’s a big enough issue that pipeline security is a huge field of research and development.
But I just threw that out there as a possibility to point out that given the shallow,depth of the pipeline the sabotage could have been from any number of groups. I have no idea who did it.
I said earlier that this probably wasn’t Russia because it was hard to see how they would benefit. But this is interesting:
So Russia blamed the Ukraine for a supposed terrorist attack on another pipeline six days ago. Today, Ukraine is blaming Russia for the new pipeline attacks. So if Russia was trying a false flag operation, this could be part of it - especially if the damage is relatively easy to repair.
Or, if you are inclined to believe Russia, the attempted attack by Ukraine on pipelines six days ago would be evidence that they did this attack as well, to remove the possibility of the EU negotiating with Russia at Ukraine’s expense, or to point out how fragile reliance on Russian gas can be.
Frankly, it makes more sense that Ukraine would have done these attacks. Putin being an evil bastard does not eliminate the possibility that occasionally Russia is telling the truth. And Ukraine has better motives for an attack. But again, no one really knows at this point.
Especially if they are dogfish.
Well, here is Joe Biden saying that we would put an end to Nord Stream 2 if Russia invades Ukraine. From Newsweek just this morning.
Video of Biden Saying He’d ‘End’ Nord Stream Resurfaces After Pipeline Leak (newsweek.com)
Oh, how soon they forget. How much money was (literally) flown into Iraq with absolutely no accountability?
Yep, but he also said it back in February and didn’t do so.
Assuming that the US pulled the trigger, it’s because there was some catalyst to choosing now as the time.
It’s pretty damn coincidental that the Baltic Pipe was launched just a few hours after the explosion.
The info we have that casts the spotlight on the US as the culprit comes from the Polish representative in the EU government.
Poland is one of the largest allies of Ukraine, they have a profit motive to killing Nord Stream, and they’re going to have oil washing up on shore for the next couple of months.
Given that there’s a variety of pros and cons involved and all of this affects the EU, in general, and the Baltic region in particular, it would make sense to coordinate it through the EU government and to get signoff from the representatives of those countries that will be most impacted. Sweden, The Netherlands, and Poland would have been directly contacted by the EU leadership, and asked to approve or veto the action.
This leads to the Polish PM in the EU to being aware of it, knowing who was going to do it, and also being complicit in it. The EU, in general, would also be complicit in it.
This isn’t too say that “complicit” means “bad”, just that it’s probably not an independent, unilateral choice of the USA. If the US did it, it’s probably just because we had the best equipment to get the job done and the least to fear, in terms of reprisals.
Why?
I thought this was a natural gas pipeline. Are you saying it was carrying oil as well?
Woops, ignore that part, I guess. 
Though: Nord Stream: Russian gas pipe leaks could have an 'unprecedented' environmental impact | Euronews
I don’t think we are talking about the same thing, but never mind.
No, he is one of 52 Polish members of the EU Parliament (705 seats in total), he is currently not a member of any government at all. This is the breakdown of the EU Parliament. We are talking about Radosław Tomasz “Radek” Sikorski, who was once defense minister in Donald Tusk’s cabinet 2007-2014. Not a member of the now ruling party in Poland. He is politically very close to the USA (see Wikipedia link above). I wonder why he said that.
No, it is gas, and it does not pollute coasts. It is bad for global warming, but that is completely different.
I wonder what you mean by that. There is the European Commission, the European Council, the EU Parliament and 27 governments in the Member States. But there is no EU government that I know of.
What!?!?!? Complicit in what?
So all the nations with coasts on the Baltic Sea must cooperate so the pipeline does not become a thousands of kilometeres long underwater garden hose (the kind with holes) bubbling out gobs of methane to the surface?
I am seeing @k9bfriender 's “The Monsters are Due on Mulberry Street.” reference as quite relevant.
This is Maple Street on a late Saturday afternoon. Maple Street in the last calm and reflective moment –before the monsters came.
No, I don’t think so. The pipeline was sealed at both ends when it exploded, it was pressurized to 105 bar, which for a 1,234-kilometre-long (767 mi) natural gas pipeline with a diameter of about 1 m (judging by the pictures) is plenty of gas, but not inconceivable much. A ship with liquefied gas carries much more. Most of it has probably bubbled out already, the problem now is for the pipeline itself: it is filling with dirty, sandy, debris saturated salty water. Not good for a 17 bn $ investment with pumps and moving valves some 100 or more feet under water. The Russians are not going to pump more gas into that in the forseeable future, concerning the leaking gas there is nothing to do and not much to worry about. The damage is done, but it is more of a political nature.
Likewise, the US government has the House, the Senate, the Executive Branch, the President, the Supreme Court, the DOJ, etc.
Breaking something down into its constituent parts doesn’t change what is is.
The EU passes laws and it executes those laws, it’s able to enforce those laws through sanctions and the ability to deny states certain rights.
It’s a Federalist system and lets the member states make most of their own laws and push back against the agenda of the EU government, but it’s still a government - just a weak one.
The UN, on the other hand, is missing any ability to enforce any of its proclamations and really is just a big club for everyone to perform diplomacy at. I wouldn’t, personally, view it as a government yet.
Sabotaging the lines.
That was my thought as well- basically it cuts off money to Russia and removes one of the big levers that the Russians could use to extract concessions from Western Europe.
Those things both benefit Ukraine more than anyone else.