Obviously, it is hard for Joe Public to 'spot the saboteur' in a secret operation for which no-one takes responsibility.
However, the proposition this act is intended to remove a Russian a tool for blackmailing or pressuring Europe seems logical enough.
Suddenly, the uncertainty is removed and 'no gas from Russia' becomes a given. No further discussion, no further internal division regarding whether or what compromises to accept in order to keep gas flowing.
Instead, get on with planning to live without it. A potential impediment to unfettered arms-supply is deftly removed. It has a psychological effect, even if Germany can still buy some Russian gas from Poland.
That seems an outcome more strategically favourable to the West, in terms of simplification and cohesion and, as others have noted, Russia only needed to stop pumping the gas into the pipeline, not blow a hole in it.
Following a similar line of reasoning, having been done, it also becomes almost immaterial who did it, since everyone must now proceed from the new 'facts on the ground'.
No-one in the West seems troubled by the possibility the US, or others in the West did it, let alone expressing any outrage.
If it was our side, it seems a pretty reasonable bit of sabotage, in the circumstances, achieving two goals.
The first, as described above, and the second is a message to Putin (and anyone else paying attention) that things are getting serious and Nato and the US really are getting loaded for bear, having reached the limit of their tolerance.
If it actually turns out to have been Russia, as some media suggest, that would be a surprise to me, since, for one thing, presumably they now have to get out there and fix it. It doesn't seem advantageous for them to have done it, but maybe someone else can posit how that would make any sense.
I suspect some posters may be a bit uncertain what position to take, with pro-Ukraine posters reflexively unwilling to 'blame' the US, or some other Western government, since it was presumably contrary to law and Agreements, etc, but I don't have a problem with it - it's often the way with sabotage
They didn't kill anyone and after all, there's a large war underway in Europe, about to get much bigger and bloodier, with us supporting one side, so, if it was the US doing it for a strategic reason, more power to them, I say - no pun intended.
On the subject of mobilisation, the increase in combatants by however many 100,000's of conscripts actually reach the front, increases the risk of 'spillover' as the theatre of war grows significantly.
There was a time when it was expected that great battalions of Russian tanks and support could sweep through a fair bit of Europe before eventually being overcome, but now that looks like a fever-dream, since we have seen the Russians in action against a highly-motivated opponent supplied with 21st century armaments.
