An alternative explanation is that there is simply not enough evidence to tell one way or the other.
That specific reasoning is also bordering on conspiracy, but my point is that I don't think it's suspicious that countries aren't pointing fingers at Russia without solid evidence.
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Who has profited the most from the Nordstream pipelines destruction?
The USA.
That's not a conspiracy, its a fact. The profits are evident and very, very real.
> bullshit reasons
What isn't bullshit is that the western military junta propagating this conflict has absolutely no problems spreading fallacies about Russia without producing any evidence whatsoever - this is a standard operating procedure for war-profiteers who seek to profit from our hatred, which they foment..
And now, with these investigations closing down, there will be no further evidence presented, and people can continue to spread false claims about who their favourite badguy is, and what they did to the pipeline .. this is probably by design.
Meanwhile, Europe has suffered economic impacts as a result of this attack on its infrastructure. Perhaps the reason European politicians are closing these investigations down so hard, is that they just don't have courage to confront the fact of their betrayal by an ally - or even worse, provide evidence of this to their voting public ...*
That's very subjective. No one starts a war for bullshit reasons. They may sound bullshit for you but not for them.
PS: hopefully I don't have to point out that _reasons_ and "denazification" casus belli are different things.
In fact there is little to no point in discussing the casus belli part.
Because, in spite of your opinion, its not bullshit.
What would the USA do if Mexico or Canada were suddenly sprouting up clandestine bio-warfare laboratories, funded by Russia or China, within miles of its border? What would Israel do if Iran had funded similar biolabs on its borders with Egypt or Jordan?
The point is that the stated reasons are bullshit - in the sense that they are very different from the aggressor's real "reasons".
So they can't say who is at fault, yes. This is hardly a reason to end investigation, no?