Comment: One could call the explosives used on Russo-German infrastructure “dirty bombs” in the sense of “dirty wars” i.e. operations outside the legal framework of nation-states. I think we have to agree the NordStream sabotage cannot have been conducted by a state actor by definition. States play by the rules states play by. Insofar as states encourage terrorism, they’re not really states. By the same reasoning, Nine-Eleven could not have been an “inside job” as there’s no such “inside” i.e. state actors are legal to the core; they have to be as they only exist on paper at the end of the day, as legal entities.
Comment: States cannot engage in illegal terrorism by construction, by tautology. When covert operators hide behind a state and carry out clandestine acts, they’re undermining state legitimacy, which is why their operations must be disavowed by the state and, if brought to light, investigated. Remember how the Reagan DOJ prosecuted the Iran-Contra perps who were funding the Contras behind the backs of the US Congress. Minus any effort by a state to distance itself from lawless action, the state dissolves in its own juices.
Comment: I say the USA could not have done it by definition. The USA cannot violate international law to that level, as a state. That doesn’t mean imposter pretender types can’t hide behind the flag. Remember Ollie North and Iran-Contra. The Reagan DOJ…
