Story at-a-glance
- September 26, 2022, Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 — Russian pipelines that deliver natural gas from Russia to Europe underneath the Baltic Sea — were blown up
- Months before the sabotage, President Biden publicly announced that “if Russia invades Ukraine, there will be no Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” Undersecretary Victoria Nuland also delivered a near-identical message, saying, “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward”
- February 8, 2023, legendary investigative journalist Seymore Hersh published a shocking article based on whistleblower testimony claiming the sabotage was carried out by U.S. Navy divers during BALTOPS 22, a NATO exercise that took place in the Baltic Sea in June 2022. Three months later, the planted explosives were remotely detonated, destroying the two pipelines
- According to the whistleblower, Norway was in on the plan, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz OK’d the operation
- According to Hersh, the “why” behind Biden’s decision to blow up the pipelines was threefold. First, it would massively impact Russia’s economy. Second, eliminating Germany’s and Western Europe’s ability to buy low-cost gas from Russia would force them to buy U.S. gas. And third, he feared Europe would be reluctant to supply Ukraine with money and weapons if they were reliant on Russian gas
September 26, 2022, massive leaks were detected in two Russian pipelines — Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 — that deliver natural gas from Russia to Europe underneath the Baltic Sea. Within a couple of days, several countries, including Russia, agreed the leaks were the result of intentional sabotage.
The sabotage came right on the heels of Moscow’s decision to cut off Nord Stream 1’s supply to Germany at the end of August 2022. Prior to that, in February 2022, Germany had suspended its certification process of Nord Stream 2, so it was never entered into service.
From the start, Russia accused the United States of destroying the pipelines. It was a rather obvious choice, considering President Biden had publicly announced that “if Russia invades Ukraine, there will be no Nord Stream 2.
We will bring an end to it.”1 When asked by an incredulous reporter how Biden could ensure that, considering the pipeline was under German control, he replied, “I promise you, we’ll be able to do it.”
During a January 27, 2022, State Department briefing, undersecretary Victoria Nuland also delivered a near-identical message, saying “I want to be very clear to you today. If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.”
According to Hersh:
“Biden’s decision to sabotage the pipelines came after more than nine months of highly secret back and forth debate inside Washington’s national security community about how to best achieve that goal.
For much of that time, the issue was not whether to do the mission, but how to get it done with no overt clue as to who was responsible. There was a vital bureaucratic reason for relying on the graduates of the [U.S. Navy’s Diving and Salvage] center’s hardcore diving school in Panama City.
The divers were Navy only, and not members of America’s Special Operations Command, whose covert operations must be reported to Congress and briefed in advance to the Senate and House leadership—the so-called Gang of Eight. The Biden Administration was doing everything possible to avoid leaks as the planning took place late in 2021 and into the first months of 2022
The direct route, which bypassed any need to transit Ukraine, had been a boon for the German economy, which enjoyed an abundance of cheap Russian natural gas — enough to run its factories and heat its homes while enabling German distributors to sell excess gas, at a profit, throughout Western Europe. Action that could be traced to the administration would violate US promises to minimize direct conflict with Russia. Secrecy was essential.”
According to Hersh’s investigative report,7 the “why” behind Biden’s decision to blow up the pipelines was threefold. First, it would massively impact Russia’s economy, as its oil and gas revenues are estimated to account for as much as 45% of its annual budget. Once Nord Stream 2 got underway, that income stream would increase even further.
Second, eliminating Germany’s and Western Europe’s ability to buy low-cost gas from Russia would force them to buy U.S. gas. As noted by Hersh, Nord Stream 1 was bad enough from the perspective of Washington, but were Nord Stream 2 to open up, Germany would be able to buy more than half of its annual consumption straight from Russia.
And third, he feared Europe would be reluctant to supply Ukraine with money and weapons if they were reliant on Russian gas....with Europe being so reliant on low-cost gas from Russia,8,9 “Washington was afraid that countries like Germany would be reluctant to supply Ukraine with the money and weapons it needed to defeat Russia,” Hersh writes.
Will Europe View the Attack as an Act of War?
Unfortunately, that’s where we find ourselves today. If the attacks can be definitively traced to the U.S., the Biden administration has not only committed an act of war against Russia, but also against NATO allies! To say the world is now in a conundrum would be an understatement.
Will Germany and Western Europe accept industrial terrorism against them by a supposed ally? Well, perhaps. Because according to Hersh’s “deep throat” source, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz met with Biden at the White House and personally OK’d the operation.
The source also claims Norway, another NATO member, was in on the plan and helped solve several hurdles encountered along the way. Norway also had financial incentive to keep the secret, as the destruction of Nord Stream would allow them to sell more natural gas to Europe too.
But here’s the deeper question: If a small group of NATO allies conspired to commit what some have called “one of the worst terrorist attacks in history”10 against allied member nations, in addition to causing one of the worst ecological disasters in history, what will be the result? Will affected NATO members, whose economies and industries have been demolished, accept a sheepish apology?
Time will tell, but clearly, the Biden administration’s actions have brought us to the very brink of world war.
Russia is now calling on the United Nations to establish an independent international investigation to identify “perpetrators, sponsors, organizers and accomplices,” as Russia and “other interested parties” have been barred from the German investigation.15
February 21, 2023, Russia convened a Security Council meeting to vote on the resolution.16 According to UN News, the Council discussion got rather heated as U.S. ambassador John Kelley insisted Russia was “abusing its position as Council member” by airing unfounded “internet conspiracy theories”:17
“‘We are not here to set up a trial in the Security Council,’ Russian ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said during discussions. He said Moscow was presenting a request for an independent investigation in light of doubts about the integrity and transparency of Denmark, Germany and Sweden in their ongoing inquiries.
An Undeclared War
As suggested by UnHerd columnist Thomas Fazi, “We are already at war with Russia,” and this “never-ending escalation will result in catastrophe.” He writes:20
“Almost a year into the conflict, the narrative of Western intervention in Ukraine — that ‘NATO is not at war with Russia’ and that ‘the equipment we’re providing is purely defensive’ — is being revealed for what it always was: a fiction.
Yet in the coming months, the US is planning to deliver 31 Abrams tanks, and even Germany, after weeks of reluctance, has caved in to the immense pressure coming from Washington and other allies …
This is simply the latest in a long list of red lines that the US and NATO have crossed since the start of the conflict … [We] need to acknowledge that we are already at war with Russia … The fact that there has been no formal declaration of war is beside the point …
By providing increasingly powerful military equipment as well as financial, technical, logistical and training support to one of the warring factions, including for offensive operations (even within Russian territory), the West is engaged in a de facto military confrontation with Russia, regardless of what our leaders may claim.”
As noted by Fazi, the current military strategy of the West is based on a highly dubious assumption, namely that Russia will accept military defeat and loss of territory without resorting to nuclear weapons. Being wrong would be disastrous for the whole world, and if we’re making assumptions, there’s every reason to assume Russia will NOT accept defeat before every available option has been used up.
After all, Russia’s perspective is that it’s fighting an existential threat in Ukraine. Meanwhile, evidence suggests the basis for the United States’ interest in, and defense of, Ukraine is related to it being a valuable money laundering hub and, potentially, a secret biological weapons manufacturing ally.
As Americans, we cannot be naïve about this, seeing how it’s our lives that will be destroyed were Russia to send nuclear missiles our way. Europeans also need to search their souls to determine whether protecting Deep State interests is really worth the price.
We Are on the WRONG Side of History With Ukraine
1 comment:
Win or leave, short and sweet or retreat, too much life lost, money spent, crooked deals going on, and for what? Believe whatever one chooses, and still nothing makes sense, IMO!
Post a Comment