Because "put an end to it" can easily (and more plausibly) encompass approaches like "sanction Nord Stream AG into the ground".

"There will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

There is no longer an Enron, either. No one blew up their headquarters to do it.

Enron's accounting department kind of did, not physically but still.

> not physically but still

That's precisely the point, isn't it?

"We will put an end to X" does not mean "we will physically blow up X". Pretending Biden had an "oops, we're gonna do a terrorist attack against Russian and German infrastructure and I said it out loud at a press conference!" moment and that there's no other legitimate explanation for the statement is just goofy.

It wasn't an oops moment, it was scripted. Watch the video carefully. He consulted his notes before saying it. This public announcement removed the requirement to notify Congress. Genius imo.

The original enron pipelines are still moving product. They still 'be'. Biden wasn't talking about Gazprom. His words are very clear and direct. They are congruent with his body language and tone. He looked down at his notes before speaking.

Don't be disingenous. "We will put an end to x" does not mean "we will blow x up", and is common political rhetoric.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=5567609899962902 "We will put an end to Abbott's attacks on educators, raise teacher pay, improve their retirement benefits, and fully fund our classrooms."

https://larson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/larson-... "we will put an end to the decades of price gouging"

Again, "we'll bankrupt them with sanctions" easily falls under "we will put an end to them".

Nobody uses that rhetorical construct in regard to physical entities. Your anologies are disingenuous.

Governor Abbott is not a physical entity? I suspect this is news to him.

You quoted "governor Abbott's attacks". Are you seriously trying to suggest a group threatened the governor himself? You're working too hard on this angle.

And NS 2 ended, it was never certified. No need to blow it up...

>"There will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

Conveniently for Russia, Nord Stream 2 still exists. Only one of its two pipes had exploded. Everyone forgets about it.

I disagree that we shouldn't question such big claims.

It's safe to assume the reason his sources are unnamed is to protect their safety. Don't know how plausible this is, but I it's possible that the lack of presentable evidence is for the same reason. Maybe the relevant documents could've been somehow fingerprinted, which would identify the leaker/source; the film/tv industry has done this when distributing pilots for private viewings. Heck, even printers did it lol.

However, it's not secret American politicians vehemently disliked the existence of Nordstream, and this outcome is undeniably convenient for them. Maybe too convenient, so they wouldn't dare attempt it? Or maybe they just assumed they'd have a great scapegoat. Maybe it wasn't even them, and it's Russian government playing 5D chess by blowing up their own investment to frame Americans.

Who knows? Maybe time will tell; it usually does.

This angle made me doubt the story Hersh is pushing.

When you're just speculating or building a conspiracy theory then those "ominous" comments are worth quoting.

If you are claiming to be in contact with someone with deep knowledge of the actual operation, why even mention those? Worse still, add some extra twist where the spies have a meta comment on their cover being blown by those comments.