Tag: nordstream

US Media’s Intellectual No-Fly-Zone on US Culpability in Nord Stream Attack

Multiple explosions last week off the coast of Poland damaged both the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines, shutting down one and preventing the other from going online. The pipelines, intended to carry natural gas from Russia to Germany, are critical infrastructure for Europe’s energy markets.

The explosions triggered a lopsided “whodunnit” in US media, with commentators almost universally fingering Russia as the culprit, despite the lack of a plausible motive. Official US opposition to the pipeline has been well-established over the years, giving Washington ample motive to destroy the pipelines, but most newsrooms uniformly suppressed this history, and attacked those who raised it.

After the explosions, much of the press dutifully parroted the Western official line. The Washington Post (9/27/22) quickly produced an account: “European Leaders Blame Russian ‘Sabotage’ After Nord Stream Explosions,” citing nothing but EU officials who claimed that while they had no evidence of Russian involvement, “only Russia had the motivation, the submersible equipment and the capability.”

Much of the media cast their suspicions towards Russia, including Bloomberg (9/27/22), Vox (9/29/22), Associated Press (9/30/22) and much of cable news. With few exceptions, speculation on US involvement has seemingly been deemed an intellectual no-fly-zone.

Keep reading

News & Conspiracies

The Western political/media class has been dismissing as “conspiracy theories” all claims that the U.S. is likely responsible for last month’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, even while leveling the exact same accusations against Russia without ever using that term. Which probably says a lot about the way that label has been used over the years, if you think about it.

At a U.N. Security Council meeting on Friday, U.S. envoy Richard Mills repeatedly accused Russia of promoting “conspiracy theories” in its Nord Stream accusations against the United States, saying that “our Russian colleagues have decided to instrumentalize the Security Council meeting to spread conspiracy theories and disinformation.”

“It’s important that we use this meeting not to foster conspiracy theories, but to focus our attention on Russia’s blatant violation of the Charter and its crimes in Ukraine,” Mills argues, after saying that “the United States categorically denies any involvement in this incident” and that there is no justification for “the Russian delegation raising conspiracy theories and mass disinformation in this Council.”

Mills then spends the remainder of his remarks insinuating that it is actually Russia who perpetrated the attacks, mentioning the word “infrastructure” no less than nine times in his arguments to establish that in Ukraine, Russia has a history of attacking critical civilian infrastructure similar to the pipelines.

Keep reading

It’s Only A ‘Conspiracy Theory’ When It Accuses The US Government

The western political/media class has been dismissing as “conspiracy theories” all claims that the US is likely responsible for last month’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, even while leveling the exact same accusations against Russia without ever using that term. Which probably says a lot about the way that label has been used over the years, if you think about it.

At a UN Security Council meeting on Friday, US envoy Richard Mills repeatedly accused Russia of promoting “conspiracy theories” in its Nord Stream accusations against the United States, saying that “our Russian colleagues have decided to instrumentalize the Security Council meeting to spread conspiracy theories and disinformation.”

“It’s important that we use this meeting not to foster conspiracy theories, but to focus our attention on Russia’s blatant violation of the Charter and its crimes in Ukraine,” Mills argues, after saying that “the United States categorically denies any involvement in this incident” and that there is no justification for “the Russian delegation raising conspiracy theories and mass disinformation in this Council.”

Mills then hilariously spends the remainder of his remarks insinuating that it is actually Russia who perpetrated the attacks, mentioning the word “infrastructure” no less than nine times in his arguments to establish that in Ukraine, Russia has a history of attacking critical civilian infrastructure similar to the pipelines.

“Sabotage of critical infrastructure should be of concern to us all,” Mills says. “In the context of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, we have seen numerous Russian attacks damaging civilian infrastructure. We witnessed Russia recklessly seize control of Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, risking a nuclear disaster in Europe. We saw countless attacks destroying civilian electricity infrastructure.”

“Despite efforts that we heard today to distract us from the truth, to distribute more disinformation and slightly wacky theories, the facts on the ground in Ukraine speak for themselves,” Mills concludes.

Keep reading

Former Pentagon Advisor Says US Likely Attacked Nord Stream Pipelines to Isolate Germany

A former Pentagon advisor says the most likely culprits behind the Nord Stream pipeline blasts are the United States and Britain, and that the attack was carried out to prevent Germany from bailing on the war in Ukraine.

Retired US Army colonel Douglas Macgregor made the comments during an appearance on the Judging Freedom podcast.

Macgregor said a process of elimination rules out Germany, because they are dependent on Nord Stream for their energy security, while it also served no benefit for Russia to have sabotaged its own infrastructure.

“Would the Russians destroy their own pipeline? 40 percent of Russian gross national product or gross domestic product consists of foreign currency that comes into the country to purchase natural gas, oil, coal and so forth. So the Russians did not do this. The notion that they did I think is absurd,” Macgregor said.

Referring to Polish MEP Radoslaw Sikorski’s infamous deleted tweet in which he wrote, “Thank you, USA,” Macgregor noted, “Who else might be involved? Well the Poles apparently seem to be very enthusiastic about it.”

Keep reading

Blinken Says Nord Stream Sabotage Is a ‘Tremendous Opportunity’

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Friday that the attacks on the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines that connect Russia to Germany offer a “tremendous opportunity” to end Europe’s dependency on Russian energy.

“It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs,” Blinken said at a joint press conference with Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly.

“That’s very significant and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come,” Blinken added.

Blinken made the comments when asked what the US and Canada are doing to ease Europe’s energy crisis in the wake of the Nord Stream sabotage. Blinken said that Washington had been working for some time to provide Europe with more energy, and as a result, the US is now Europe’s biggest supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

“And we’re now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe to help compensate for any gas or oil that it’s losing as a result of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine,” Blinken said.

Over the years, the US worked hard to oppose Nord Stream 2 by imposing sanctions but failed to stop its construction. The project was paused by Berlin after Russia invaded Ukraine.

There was always a chance Nord Stream 2 could be brought online if relations between Europe and Russia thawed, but now the damage could be irreparable. Russia recently stopped delivering gas through Nord Stream 1 as a result of Western sanctions.

At this point, it’s not clear who was behind the attacks on Nord Stream, but the US certainly has a motive. On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin blamed the “Anglo-Saxons” for the incident, appearing to point the finger at the US and its allies.

Keep reading

Nordstream Sabotage – Deeper Dive

In the most recent edition of New World Next Week, James Corbett cites my recent article on the Nordstream sabotage, but politely disagrees about the irrelevance of attribution.

He argues that this kind of event will have definite geopolitical ramifications, and as such the identity of the culprit becomes important information.

I respect James’ work immensely and in the alternate media world there’s probably no one I am more likely to agree with as a general rule, but here I must return that polite disagreement in kind.

Now, I do not doubt there will be “geopolitical ramifications”, but in a post-Covid world we need to ask what that means in real terms.

Yes, this will likely mean “tougher sanctions”, or Russia being declared a “terrorist state”. Maybe the war will “intensify”. Maybe Russia’s allies in China or India or Iran will face sanctions too.

But have we not already established that the sanctions are not really designed to hurt Russia, but the West’s own economies?

That the war is being used to excuse and exacerbate the economic downturn already deliberately created by the “pandemic”?

And does that not, in turn, mean that any geopolitical ramifications will be translated ultimately into further excuses to wear down the economic foundations of our society?

I would argue any such reaction could be more accurately described as a shadowplay of conflict, a puppet show for our consumption.

This is not a nihilistic or sweeping dismissal, borne of childish contrarianism.

I’m not saying “both sides of the conflict are the same so what does it matter who wins or which crimes are committed by which side”.

I’m saying, aside from whatever personal or petty gripes, ambitions, power plays may run through the hierarchy, and no matter how much blood is spilled, ultimately there is no conflict between them, and through cooperative complicity, both “sides” are equally responsible for every act within the Great Reset narrative.

To paraphrase Iain Davis in a recent comment, global governance has a management structure akin to any major corporation, and though individual managers or vice-presidents may seek personal advancement or pursue private rivalries, they are all ultimately answerable to the owner of the company, and all working toward the same overarching goal.

Keep reading