> Given the recent reporting of a real collision of a ship with an undersea pipeline from Finland to Estonia... Your use of the word "collision" makes it sound

> Given the recent reporting of a real collision of a ship with an undersea pipeline from Finland to Estonia... Your use of the word "collision" makes it sound so... Accidental. That was, IIRC, a Chinese ship, which: 1) Dragged its anchor[1] along the bottom of the sea for God knows how many miles, out in the middle of the Gulf of Finland, before they "just happened" to snag it on that telecommunications cable (IIRC; not a pipeline). 2) Then legged it across the Baltic and out through Öresund without responding to attempts at communication, and then home to China where authorities are denying Western investigators any access to the ship's crew. Doesn't feel very accidental at all to me. Buut... I don't see how it supports the hypothesis that it was the Russians who blew up NordStream 2. What's the logical connection? ___ [1]: Or some specialised implement designed to do the maximal amount of damage, but make it look like it was by an anchor?