Russia wants NATO to stop giving Ukraine weapons, but they also really want to sell their gas to Europe. And they already controlled the spigot of the Nord Stream pipeline, so they wouldn't have to blow up anything to stop deliveries. Yes, the great powers have done some really stupid things, especially Russia, so it's dangerous to assume rationality, but they all like keeping their options open to a fault. "We're committing to belligerence, we won't even keep the option of letting you give up and bribe us" - does that sound like Putin's Russia?

The NATO as a whole likewise wouldn't blow up these pipelines, for pretty much the same reason. They love options too. But there's a lot of internal dissent in NATO, and it's quite possible that one member (read: the US) wanted to take away an option from another member (read: Germany), namely that option to cave in during the winter and give concessions to Russia in exchange for critically needed gas.

If they did, I'm quite sure Sweden was in on it. Even as a non-NATO member, they have been more deferential to US covert interests than most actual member states, including on torture rendition flights and the persecution of Assange. And it's sadly a bipartisan thing there.

Ukraine themselves would be another option. They certainly have an incentive to want to close off Western Europe's option to give concessions to Putin in exchange for gas, far more than any NATO member. But I don't think they have the capability to take out pipelines in the Baltic, especially not without US consent. But no, you can't blow up pipelines with like that cyberwarfare, and it's not going to fail three places at once.

I want to wait see who Russia places blame on, who the US places blame on, and most of all the actual evidence they can present. Maybe Russia will present non-laughable evidence for once, since I believe - again, for once! that they're actually not responsible this time.

But I wouldn't count on it. Actually I would be shocked.