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.
“Only Russia had the motivation,” the Washington Post (9/27/22) claimed—even as it reported that the pipelines “deepened Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas,” which “many [presumably Western] officials now say was a grave strategic mistake.”
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.
The idea that only Russia had the means and motivation is clearly false on both counts. Washington has made it clear for years that it doesn’t want the pipeline, and has taken active measures to stop it from coming online. As for the means, it’s patently absurd to suggest that the US doesn’t have the capability to lay explosives in 200 feet of water.
Even Max Boot, who agreed in his Washington Post column (9/29/22) that only Russia had the means and motive, contradictorily acknowledged that “the means are easy.”
A long history of opposition
Any serious coverage of the Nord Stream attack should acknowledge that opposition to the pipeline has been a centerpiece of the US grand strategy in Europe. The long-term goal has been to keep Russia isolated and disjointed from Europe, and to keep the countries of Europe tied to US markets. Ever since German and Russian energy companies signed a deal to begin development on Nord Stream 2, the entire machinery of Washington has been working overtime to scuttle it.
The RAND report (2019) that recommended “Reduc[ing] [Russian] Natural Gas Exports and Hinder[ing] Pipeline Expansions” now comes with a warning saying it’s been “mischaracterized” by “Russian entities and individuals sympathetic to Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine.”
A 2019 Pentagon-funded study from the RAND Corporation on how best to exploit “Russia’s economic, political and military vulnerabilities and anxieties” included a recommendation to “Reduce [Russian] Natural Gas Exports and Hinder Pipeline Expansions.” The study noted that a “first step would involve stopping Nord Stream 2,” and that natural gas “from the United States and Australia could provide a substitute.”
This RAND study also prophetically recommended “providing more US military equipment and advice” to Ukraine in order to “lead Russia to increase its direct involvement in the conflict and the price it pays for it,” even though it acknowledged that “Russia might respond by mounting a new offensive and seizing more Ukrainian territory.”
The Obama administration opposed the pipeline. As part of the major sanctions package against Russia in 2017, the Trump administration began sanctioning any company doing work on the pipeline. The move generated outrage in Germany, where many saw it as an attempt to meddle with European markets. In 2019, the US implemented more sanctions on the project.
Upon coming into office, President Joe Biden made opposition to the pipeline one of his administration’s top priorities. During his confirmation hearings in 2021, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken told Congress he was “determined to do whatever I can to prevent” Nord Stream 2 from being completed. Months later, the State Department reiterated that “any entity involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline risks US sanctions and should immediately abandon work on the pipeline.”
In July 2021, the sanctions were relaxed only after contentious negotiations with the German government. The New York Times (7/21/21) reported that the administration and Germany still had “profound disagreements” about the project.
As Russia was gathering troops at Ukraine’s border at the beginning of this year, US administration officials issued threats against the pipeline’s operation in the event of a Russian invasion. In January, Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland — one of the main players during the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine and wife of Robert Kagan, the founder of the neoconservative Project for a New American Century — issued a stern warning against the pipeline. “If Russia invades, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 Will. Not. Move. Forward.”
In February, Joe Biden himself told reporters, “If Russia invades…then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” After a reporter asked how the US planned to end a project that was under German control, Biden responded, “I promise you, we will be able to do that.”
On February 22, after Russian troops were given orders to enter the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, Germany suspended the pipeline, in a move that was called “remarkable” at the time (New York Times, 2/22/22).
In sharp contrast to the US’s antagonism, Russia has taken the opposite approach to the pipeline it spent billions of dollars to complete. As recently as three weeks ago, Putin expressed willingness to supply more gas if the EU would lift the sanctions against the newer pipeline. He said: “If things are so bad, just go ahead and lift sanctions against Nord Stream 2, with its 55 billion cubic meters per year — all they have to do is press the button and they will get going.” Diplomatic sources told the Cradle (9/29/22) that Russia and Germany were in talks about both NS1 and NS2 on the day of the explosion.
The day after the attack, German government sources leaked to the German daily Der Spiegel (9/28/22) that weeks earlier, the CIA warned Germany of a potential attack on the pipeline. However, sources told CNN (9/29/22) that the warnings were “vague” and that “it was not clear from the warnings who might be responsible for any attacks on the pipelines, or when they might occur.” A high-level source in German intelligence told the Cradle (9/29/22) that they were “furious” because “they were not in the loop.”
After the attack, Blinken called the bombing a “tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy,” and said that this “offers tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come.” On the other hand, Russia has already announced plans to begin repairing the pipeline.
So contrary to what nearly the US entire media establishment has presented, the US has had ample motive to destroy the pipeline, and is actively celebrating its demise.
‘Thank you, USA’
One event that fueled speculation of US involvement was a tweet from a Polish member of the European Parliament, Radek Sikorski—a one-time Polish Defense minister as well as a former American Enterprise Institute fellow, who was named one of the “Top 100 Global Thinkers” in 2012 by Foreign Policy (11/26/12).
The Washington Post (9/28/22) suggested that by thanking the United States over a picture of the pipeline explosion, Radek Sikorksi may have been “crediting the United States with rendering the pipelines moot by pressuring Europe not to take Russian natural gas.”
Sikorski tweeted out a picture of the methane leak in the ocean, along with the caption, “As we say in Polish, a small thing, but so much joy.” He later tweeted, “Thank you, USA,” with the same picture.
He later tweeted against the pipeline, noting that “Nord Stream’s only logic was for Putin to be able to blackmail or wage war on Eastern Europe with impunity.” An hour later he elaborated:
Now $20 billion of scrap metal lies at the bottom of the sea, another cost to Russia of its criminal decision to invade Ukraine. Someone…did a special maintenance operation.
The last line was a joke about how Russia classifies its invasion of Ukraine as a “special military operation.”
After these tweets received attention from those who suspected US responsibility, Sikorski deleted them. Business Insider (9/30/22) dishonestly wrote that these latter tweets were actually an “attempt to clarify that the original tweet was a criticism of US support for the pipeline being built in the first place.” Any honest reading of the tweets demonstrates that the opposite is true; presumably this is why Insider didn’t link to any specific text.
The Washington Post (9/28/22) also offered a twisted interpretation of Sikorski’s tweets:
His meaning wasn’t entirely clear; it seems possible he was crediting the United States with rendering the pipelines moot by pressuring Europe not to take Russian natural gas. In later tweets, he seemed actually to point to Russian sabotage.
For the latter claim, the Post cited Sikorski’s joke about the “special maintenance operation,” but the full tweet shows that this is a preposterous interpretation.
While certainly not a smoking gun, such a high-profile accusation (or expression of gratitude, such as it was) raises eyebrows, especially given Poland’s strenuous opposition to the pipeline, and the recent completion of a Norway/Poland pipeline designed to “cut dependency on Russia.” The circumstances are even more suspicious, given that Sikorski is the husband of the fervently anti-Russian staff writer at The Atlantic Anne Applebaum, who has been a key media figure advancing the pro-NATO narrative in the West.
Applebaum even sits on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (a position she once shared with Victoria Nuland before Nuland moved into the Biden administration), a government-funded conduit for US regime change and destabilization projects that was an important driving force behind the 2014 coup that replaced Ukraine’s pro-Russian government with a Pro-Western one. Since then, the NED has funded English-language Ukrainian media like the Kyiv Independent, which, along with commentators like Applebaum herself, are now shaping coverage of the current war for Western audiences.
The fact that someone as connected as Sikorski would find it appropriate to publicly thank the US for the attack certainly deserves scrutiny. Some US media brought up the tweet, but dismissed it as unimportant (The Hill, 9/30/22).
‘A reminder from Moscow’
Business Insider (10/4/22): If Putin is willing to blow up his own pipelines, just think what he might do to yours!
US media have all but ignored the critical context above. If a case like that existed for the Russia-did-it theory, you can be sure that it would have been spelled out in detail by everyone. But instead, US media direct attention away from the obvious and are left to grasp at straws to find a potential Russian motive. In fact, many outlets readily acknowledged that there was no obvious motive for Russia to bomb its own pipeline. For example, the New York Times (9/28/22) wrote:
It is unclear why Moscow would seek to damage installations that cost Gazprom billions of dollars to build and maintain. The leaks are expected to delay any possibility of receiving revenue from fuel going through the pipes.
Vox (9/28/22) reported that “experts emphasized…it may be hard to fully know Moscow’s motivation.” NPR (9/28/22) also couldn’t readily answer “the question as to why Russia would attack its own pipelines.”
Having admitted that Russia has no readily apparent motive, establishment media are left to stretch. They presented a couple of theories for Putin’s potential motivation, but neither holds up to scrutiny. One, per the Times (9/28/22), is that the leaks “may help Russia by pushing energy prices higher,” since “the natural gas market is spooked.” But this logic makes little sense, as Russia has been pushing for Europe to open the Nord Stream 2 pipeline since it was completed. Higher natural gas prices do Russia little good if it’s unable to deliver its gas to market.
The Times (9/28/22) put forth another theory: that Putin is just teaching the West some kind of lesson:
The ruptures could also be a reminder from Moscow that if European countries keep up their support for Ukraine, they risk sabotage to vital energy infrastructure.
The Washington Post (9/27/22), speaking to “security officials,” cited similar theories:
One official said it might have been a message to NATO: “We are close.” Another said that it could be a threat to other, non-Russian energy infrastructure.
Business Insider (10/4/22) published a piece hysterically titled: “The Sabotage of Gas Pipelines Were a ‘Warning Shot’ From Putin to the West, and Should Brace for More Subterfuge, Russia Experts Warn.”
CNN (9/29/22) also found a US official to tell them that “Moscow would likely view [attacking the pipeline] as worth the price if it helped raise the costs of supporting Ukraine for Europe,” and that “sabotaging the pipelines could ‘show what Russia is capable of.’” Vox (9/28/22) found some “experts” to tell them the same story.
But the reality is that Russia has done its utmost to discourage NATO from further involvement in the war. A Russian attack on the pipeline would all but guarantee greater NATO involvement in Ukraine. Antagonizing Germany to teach the rest of Europe a lesson—which would only work if Russia was understood to be behind the sabotage—would be the opposite of Russia’s interests. This argument amounts to little more than “Putin is evil and hates Europe.”
As FAIR (3/30/22) has previously written, this cartoon narrative of Putin as Hitler allows for all logic and reasoning to fall by the wayside. The US behavior with regards to the pipeline is objectively more compelling than the case against Russia, yet the media have dismissed it out of hand.
A crack in the facade
One of the cracks in the uniform coverage was a segment on Bloomberg TV (10/3/22). Host Tom Keene brought on Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs, who was recently the head of the Lancet’s investigation (9/14/22) into the origin of Covid-19. During the interview, Sachs stated that he “would bet [the attack] was a US action, perhaps US and Poland.”
Bloomberg TV host Tom Keene (10/3/22) takes Jeffrey Sachs to task for questioning the official Nord Stream narrative.
Keene immediately stopped him and demanded that he lay out evidence for the claim. Sachs cited radar evidence that US helicopters, normally based in Gdansk, had been hovering within the area of the explosion shortly before the attack. This is certainly not a smoking gun, given Western intelligence claims that Russian ships were observed in the area during this same timeframe, though it does add to the case for US responsibility. He also cited the threatening statements from Biden and Blinken as reasons for his suspicion.
Sachs acknowledged the propaganda system in which he was operating:
I know it runs counter to our narrative, you‘re not allowed to say these things in the West, but the fact of the matter is, all over the world when I talk to people, they think the US did it…. Even reporters on our papers that are involved tell me, “Of course [the US is responsible],” but it doesn’t show up in our media.
This was the only time FAIR saw an anchor push back and ask for evidence for guests’ speculation of responsibility—speculation that was usually pointed toward Russia.
The broken clock
As illustration of the weirdness that is the US elite’s opportunistic relationship with Russia, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson (9/27/22), the white nationalist who hosts the most popular evening talk show in America, was one of the only media figures to go against the dominant narrative. Carlson certainly overstated the case for US involvement in the pipeline attack, but he asked questions no one else in corporate media would touch.
The Washington Post (9/29/22) printed Tucker Carlson’s name in Cyrillic—implying that only a Russian agent would express doubts about the US’s innocence.
But rather than dissect Carlson’s case factually, most other media relied purely on redbaiting. The Washington Post (9/29/22) wrote Carlson’s name in Cyrillic —”Russian TV Is Very Excited About Такер Карлсон’s Nord Stream Theory”—to play into the McCarthyite fearmongering of the New Cold War.
The Post brought up the threatening statements from Nuland and Biden, and even the tweet from Sikorski, but only to dismiss them, because they weren’t a “smoking gun.” Of course, the Post refused to acknowledge that the quotes from administration officials demonstrated a clear opposition to the pipeline, and thus an obvious motive for the attack.
Despite the fact that Carlson repeatedly claimed that “we don’t know what happened,” the Post declared that “he delivered his speculation as if it were fact and invited his viewers to do the same.” While this is a fair assessment of the tone if not the text of the segment, the Post had nothing to say about the certainty with which others in the media accused Russia.
The Post’s reporting was picked up by MSNBC Katie Phang (10/1/22), who, also eschewing actual investigation, asked her guest, “How dangerous is it for an American media personality with the kind of reach that Tucker Calrson has to be out there spouting a talking point that ends up on Russian state TV?”
‘Baseless conspiracy theory’
AP (via ABC, 9/30/22) accused “Kremlin and Russian state media” of “aggressively pushing a baseless conspiracy theory” in “another effort to split the U.S. and its European allies.”
The Associated Press (9/30/22) wrote a widely republished story, headlined “Russians Push Baseless Theory Blaming US for Burst Pipeline,” that called the idea the US was responsible for the attacks a “baseless conspiracy theory.”
Like the other coverage, the AP didn’t evaluate any of the evidence, but called the theory “disinformation” designed to “undermine Ukraine’s allies” and, importantly, painted such speculation as beyond legitimate discussion:
The suggestion that the US caused the damage was circulating on online forums popular with American conservatives and followers of QAnon, a conspiracy theory movement which asserts that Trump is fighting a battle against a Satanic child-trafficking sect that controls world events.
Bloomberg (reprinted in the Washington Post, 9/27/22) acknowledged Biden’s threats against the pipeline, but writer Javier Blas dismissed them without actually explaining why:
Conspiracy theorists always see the hand of the CIA in everything. But that’s nonsense. The clear beneficiary of shutting down the Nord Stream pipelines for good is Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Yes, the “clear beneficiary” of the destruction of the main method Russia could sell billions of dollars worth of natural gas to Europe was…the Russian president. It doesn’t make more sense if you read the whole article.
The US press produced an overwhelming chorus of articles (e.g., Business Insider, 9/30/22; Vox, 2/28/22; Newsweek, 10/3/22) that deployed the term “conspiracy theory” to discredit the idea of US culpability. Not one of these pieces adequately explored the credible reasons for the suspicion, simply ignoring the body of evidence presented above.
The Brookings Institution (where Robert Kagan works) published a long article (10/3/22), complete with graphs and charts, that warned of the dangers of podcasters spreading the idea that the US was culpable in the attacks. It dismissed this possibility on the strength of a link to the New York Times (9/28/22), used to substantiate a claim that “experts broadly agree that Russia is the key suspect.” It did not do any investigation of its own.
When is a theory a ‘conspiracy theory’?
Caitlin Johnstone (10/4/22): “If you think the United States could have any responsibility for this attack at all, you’re a crazy conspiracy theorist and no different from QAnoners who think pedophile Satan worshipers rule the world.”
This use of the term “conspiracy theory” or “conspiracy theorist,” along with the mention of QAnon, has the effect of associating speculation of US involvement in the attack with a class of people that have largely been discredited (with good reason) in the public mind. Once this link has been made, evaluating the evidence is no longer required. It’s a lazy rhetorical trick to marginalize dissent.
In his book Conspiracy Theory in America, scholar Lance Dehaven Smith examined the way the term is deployed in establishment media:
What they actually have in mind are suspicions that simply deviate from conventional opinion about the norms and integrity of US officials. In practice, it is not the form or the object of conspiracy theories, or even the absence of official confirmation, that differentiates them from other (acceptable) beliefs; it is their nonconformity with prevailing opinion.
Writer Caitlin Johnstone (10/4/22) put it succinctly in a piece on the hysteria surrounding the pipeline attacks: “It’s Only a ‘Conspiracy Theory’ When It Accuses the US Government.” She wrote:
Over and over again we see the pejorative “conspiracy theory” applied to accusations against one nation but not the other, despite the fact that it’s the exact same accusation. They are both conspiracy theories per definition: They’re theories about an alleged conspiracy to sabotage Russian pipelines. But the Western political/media class consistently applies that label to one and never the other.
At a meeting of the UN Security Council—hastily called by Russia in the wake of the attacks—US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield called the Russian accusations “conspiracy theories,” then went on to accuse Russia of attacking its own pipeline. Reporting on the Security Council meeting, CNN (11/29/22) showed its own conspiratorial thinking, citing US officials who called the meeting itself “suspicious,” because “typically, the official said, Russia isn’t organized enough to move so quickly, suggesting that the maneuver was pre-planned.”
Of course there are irresponsible, popular conspiracy theories that fail to hold up to scrutiny, and are in fact quite dangerous. The QAnon theory that the world’s elite are harvesting a substance called adrenochrome from trafficked children to gain special abilities and extend their life is absurd. The 2020 election spawned many disproven theories about a stolen Trump victory that ended up leading to the deadly riot at the Capitol on January 6. But just as the existence of websites that fabricate pseudo-news reports for profit gave Donald Trump a label to dismiss any journalism he didn’t like as “fake news,” so to are such fanciful theories based on leaps of logic used to disparage well-documented efforts to peer behind the scenes of US official policy.
To be sure, we still don’t know for certain who was behind the pipeline bombing, but there is a solid prima facie case for US culpability. The explosion is a watershed moment in the escalation toward a direct confrontation between nuclear powers. Media malfeasance on this topic doesn’t just threaten the credibility of the press, but literally imperils the whole of human civilization.
I usually enjoy Bryce’s well written articles – except this time. Starting off his article, below is but one of his strange quotes and suppositions.
“with commentators almost universally fingering Russia as the culprit, despite the lack of a plausible motive”
Seriously now. Does the lunatic Putin, who once again just yesterday, threatened to use nuclear weapons really need to have a motive ??
With any accusation, I think a solid motive is the bare minimum anyone should require.
In any case, the piece mainly focuses on how there is a far better case for US involvement than Russian.
Hey Bryce, generally enjoy your writings and thanks for touching back. Nevertheless as alluded to you don’t even allow for a misdirection play which all these major countries do. Frankly I believe you could have done better as there is an abundance of motives and/or one can’t account necessarily for the actions of a crazed leader who is currently boxed in. Again, the guy threatens a nuclear apocalypse.
I think if one theory requires you to search long and hard for a motive, consider disinformation plays, madman theory etc. while the other theory has a clear motive that you can find in the public record, then the latter theory should obviously be considered the more likely of the two.
You seem to be arguing that absence of evidence of a motive is not evidence of absence of a motive. While this is true, I’m sure you understand why I endorse a theory with abundant evidence.
Bryce Green is way too polite to you. In any murder trial, prosecutors have to prove both motive and the ability to kill someone. Russia and the U.S. both certainly has the ability but only the U.S. had the motive. Russia can just shut the gas off and they lose their leverage when they can’t turn it back on. I need incontrovertible evidence before I believe that Russia had anything to do with this sabotage. The U.S. doesn’t even really have an alibi.
Too polite ? What a stupid thing to state and implies his response should has been vile, nasty and for what reason ? Exactly what’s wrong in today’s society simply for stating just a different opinion.
While the US may have a motive and could indeed benefit with gas exports, the fact of the matter was the natural gas had already been halted on NordStream 1 and was not flowing on NordStream 2. Hence it’s a dubious exercise as to why they would blow up either. I don’t necessarily see Russian motivation either (and they have plenty on their plates) except as stated above as a misdirection play.
Now then and with Western technical assistance, I do see big Ukrainian motives and opportunity for the obvious reasons. The Ukraine government and people have been underestimated since the beginning of this invasion. I am curious as to why Bryce didn’t further explore that possibility.
Warmongers who spread empire propaganda do not deserve respect. They deserve to be ostracized. Those unthinking arguments make it even harder to negotiate peace, which is the best thing for both Ukrainians and the rest of the world. Russia would not want to blow up its own pipeline because it would lose its leverage of being able to turn the tap back on. If Russia were blowing up pipelines it would be far more in its interest to blow up the one that connects Norway to Poland. If there is no logic for them to do such a thing I want to see incontrovertible evidence that they did it before I come to that conclusion. There isn’t such a thing. In fact, the “investigation” seems to be shrouded in secrecy rather than being transparent like it should be.
Hey Karen (or Ken, or Ezra, or Them, or They, or what ever) Whats up with that anger problem. Take a deep breath as we all know its difficult to know everything like you do.
usa, hiding behind Otan et alia, is the biggest threat to peace.
DE and RU in diplomatique talks does not draw a “responsible” conclusion.
Your non-argument lacks any logic. And it amounts to the same old trope about Putin being a madman or lunatic rather than a calculating leader. Would a lunatic have anything to gain by blowing up a pipeline owned by his own country? How about a calculating leader? The answer is “No” to both, but only the second one involves any logic. The first is just glorified name calling.
What about the “wink, wink” from Joe Biden at the start of the year saying that if Russia invaded that pipeline would never go into operation? When asked how that might be accomplished Biden indicated, trust me, we have ways. It will never work.
Hmmm.. ‘lunatic Putin’? He’s a reactionary nationalist who hearkens back to the days of the Tsars and regards the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 as a disaster (as did the USA and UK – they promptly invaded Russia). But nothing he has said or done indicates mental health problems. Perhaps you have forgotten that it was a US President who dropped nuclear weapons on undefended cities without warnings.
Ask yourself ‘cui bono’? The US is loving this war and wants it to last much longer. Its energy corporations are coining it, and Europe’s new-found need for their LNG to be tankered over the Atlantic, expensively and needing new terminals, instead of cheaper Russian natural gas is reason enough for the US military to once again cause havoc to others for US energy corporations’ profits.
Which Университет (university) did you attend ? Which division and location of the Glavnoye Razvedyvatelnoye Upravlenie (GRU) did you do your field work ? I believe we have crossed paths in mother Russia.
Why didn’t you address my arguments? Instead, you engaged in an attack on my good faith. If you have no counterarguments, your comment is a good demonstration.
You have no sensible arguments and would dismiss any reasonable rebuttal by stating you disagree and/or anyone’s sources are invalid but your own. We have seen your MO far too often in prior rants.
Putin is not a rational actor who has miscalculated significantly. No, he is a vile, evil lunatic leader who threatens to use nuclear weapons on a regular basis, targets and then sends, cruse missiles to apartment buildings, playgrounds and many other civilian targets. Your clear anti Western bias – at all costs – reveals a level of dumbass, foolish behavior which is truly staggering in my perspective.
So, Do YOU have any evidence the US was behind the sabotage? Or maybe you are engaging in what you accuse others of doing: bias, in this case, anti-American bias. While the US may have been opposed to the pipeline, that does not mean the US did it, While Russia has the REAL incentive as part of her campaign to intimidate Europe into stopping support for Ukraine.
Of course the U.S. did it. This is about as close to a smoking gun as one can get.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfpw9I01J0o&t=629s
https://www.monkeywerxus.com/blog/the-nord-stream-2-pipeline-sabotage
Russia did not need to destroy the pipe; it was not transmitting gas. What good has it done for Russia that was not already achieved? Russia is happily selling gas elsewhere and making plenty of money by doing so.
For the USA, as has been repeatedly pointed out, it ensures that Europe is locked into paying for LNG tankers from American energy corporations, and the attack prevents it from reneging on its self-destructive sanctions against Russia. The losers are, as ever, the working class which has to pay the increasing costs of energy with declining incomes.
Only the US stood to gain from the destroyed pipelines. The abundant motives plus the fact that US military choppers were hovering about in the area directly above the burst pipelines weeks before, in what were clearly military rehearsal exercises, is adequate circumstantial evidence to prove US culpability. Not sure how Russia destroying it themselves would intimidate Europe or why a covert sabotage would even be necessary when they could just switch it off with a button at their end. Also not sure how destroying that leverage would aid Russia in the war.
My understanding is that Putin was the last person to threaten using nuclear weapons if at all. In fact, it has been the US and its Nato cohorts who have threatened using nuclear weapons. Zelensky himself has threatened using nuclear weapons twice before, once immediately before the SMO and secondly just recently in an Australian think-tank live video feed, where he enjoined the world to bomb Russia with nukes preemptively.
Can I also remind you ,only the US has ever used nuclear weapons on an enemy , and on both times civilian targets.
My understanding is that the comments Western sources are referring to as “nuclear threats” were more or less just rearticulating the basic geopolitical reality of mutually assured destruction, that warfare in the nuclear age is necessarily constrained by the fact that a nuclear-equipped world power on the brink of abject military defeat would launch its nukes rather than risk total state collapse and foreign-orchestrated regime change.
The problem is that today’s Western policy elites are so fixated on their own domestic political incentives to grandstand about getting tough on Russia, they seem to have convinced themselves that the logic of MAD somehow ceased to apply after 1991, so they interpret it as some kind of unhinged bellicose threat for their Russian counterparts to politely but firmly remind them why their Cold-War-era predecessors were far more cautious about letting the confrontation with Moscow escalate to an open shooting war.
When American and just about other nation declares that RUSSIA did it—-I think not.
After all, Biden, I suppose that without Russia’s gas, many will freeze to death—and then YOU , Biden can blame Russia twice—plus freezing to death all those people.
The US media in so many ways—is full of itself. And sadly with the often poor reporting
it makes me sad. It’s becoming difficult to believe much of this nation’s own media.
Thanks for this analysis — a fine example of why I subscribe to FAIR. I wish more people would.
Wow, these “journalists” sure are connected to some Imperial think tanks like NED PNAC whatnot. Thanks for educating us. It normally goes unknown.
The bigger picture here (i.e. how Western media have marched in such lockstep with the constant parade of pro-war propaganda) is much more scary than funny, but in isolation, it’s still pretty funny to see so many Very Serious People floating the theory that Putin blew up Russia’s pipelines as some kind of warning to the West that he could theoretically also blow up the West’s pipelines if he wanted to.
“Sure, it may seem weird how I deliberately shot myself in the foot, but it’s all part of my nefarious evil genius plot to make you afraid that the next person I decide to shoot in the foot could be YOU!”
The only problem is he did allready shoot himself in the foot by turning of the gas delivery through the Nord Stream 1 before this happen.
Yes it was maybe as an reaction on the sanction but by that he ensured that Germany would search for new places to get gas from.
It’s encouraging that the author of this careful and fact based article would continue to offer analysis and rational thought even when groupthink commenters try to dismiss clear evidence. We’ve seen this before: When we notice that actions that make no sense are actually a fraud, the “he’s crazy and that’s why” argument is deployed by those who support the fraud. WLGR nails it with satire, “evil genius plot to make you afraid that the next person I decide to shoot in the foot could be YOU!”
This war in Ukraine has shown me a side of America I used to read about in the history books … HUAC and McCarthyism, and the massive war propaganda and lies to get us into war. I thought that was mainly over and our media was getting more free and objective.
Not so. We have a big problem since all the media is owned by a small number of massive and Right-Wing corporations that clearly exercise control over what we are allowed to hear and think.
From the arguments based on facts that I have heard, the only entity that has the motive, means and opportunity to blow up that pipeline is very likely the USA. It’s a bit like burning the ships to prevent the end of the war in the battle of Troy. The dishonesty of the US in prosecuting this war goes right along with the dishonesty in not reporting on the last 20 years history of the US intervention in Ukraine, and arming them to the teeth, and employing violent extremist Nationalists to take the war to the ethnic Russians, and then not reporting on that, or Putin’s attempts to end that.
I keep an open mind on these issues, but in 50 years when it is too late and they release the government records on this, I suspect it will turn out to be a CIA or Marine demolition op.
So, Do YOU have any evidence the US was behind the sabotage? Or maybe you are engaging in what you accuse others of doing: bias, in this case, anti-American bias. While the US may have been opposed to the pipeline, that does not mean the US did it, While Russia has the REAL incentive as part of her campaign to intimidate Europe into stopping support for Ukraine.
You have already posted this comment. It is no more convincing the second time.
So now it is pro-American to participate in your own propagandizing? America is the innocent party here, as it always is, from Havana Harbor to Vietnam to the invasion of Iraq? Merely pointing out a lot of Americans have lost their marbles over another country behaving badly in the exact same way we do is anti-American?
Jingoistic patriotism is like a drug one willingly becomes addicted to, and feels its their moral duty to do so.
But the natural gas had already been halted on Nord Stream 1 and was not flowing on Nord Stream 2. So why risk being caught blowing up either? I don’t see US motivation to do this either.
At the time i believe there were demonstrations in Germany pushing to resume gas purchases from Russia.
It was not Germany that stopped the gas through Nord Stream 1 but rather Russia. That is the biggest reason why Germany has been getting Gas from other places. So the demonstration would not have changed anything.
As long as the Nord Stream pipelines were physically intact, Russia could still let the gas flow with the flip of a few quick switches, which would’ve been a difficult option for European governments to resist once the coming winter energy crisis hits in full force, and would’ve provided Putin with powerful leverage to pry Western Europe away from NATO’s economic and military war effort against Russia.
It’s extremely obvious (or at least it should be, absent the brain-muddling effects of wartime propaganda) that Russia had an immense strategic interest in retaining this leverage and the US had an equally immense strategic interest in taking it off the table.
Thank you very much for this. Our mainstream media in the US, and the larger West, are absolutely hopeless today. The degree of disinformation and censorship is frightening, and it is being cheered on by people who call themselves “liberals” and “progressives.” Please keep up the fight.
To Anaisha: I think that “Cui Bono” is a better approach than the “mad man Putin” narrative. Generally, as in most secrets service operations, the public will never know. If the facts come out later – its too late. The manufactured version of the mainstream media is established als “reality”,
Thanks to the author for his collection of sources!
Also interesting in this context: Jeffrey Sachs’ conjectures of an American sabotage operation.
Lol… nice try. Keep peddling those baseless conspiracy theories.
Next thing you’re going to say is that the vaccine caused myocarditis, strokes and heart attacks, or that the risk for boys and young men outweighed the benefits, or interfered with women’s periods, or that it doesn’t prevent Covid or even prevent transmission. Then you’ll tell me that the CDC suppressed the V-Safe data because it showed 33% complication rate, or that 7% required medical intervention. Or maybe you’ll tell me that Hunter’s laptop was real, or that the FBI orchestrated the suppression of the story on social media, or that the CDC funded gain of function research or….
I’d put the links in, but Google… er Brave Search is your friend.
Like they say on TV, the truth is out there.
“Next you’re going to tell me that the Cuban Missile Crisis wasn’t an unprovoked act of Soviet aggression, or that the US had deployed its own nuclear missiles in Turkey to which the Soviet deployment in Cuba was a reasonable and proportional response, or that the Cubans were well within their rights to want Soviet military protection after the US orchestrated an invasion by CIA-trained proxy fighters. Then you’ll tell me that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked, or that Iraqi soldiers didn’t storm Kuwaiti hospitals and toss Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, or that Saddam wasn’t supplying weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda, or…”
(As an aside, it’s pretty funny that even when trying to baselessly associate the theory advanced in this article with silly and ridiculous conspiracy theories, you can’t help yourself but include the Hunter Biden laptop, which even mainstream outlets that initially doubted and suppressed the story later admitted was authentic.)
kejadian nordstream merupakan bencana utk lingkungan sekitar, semoga cepat pulih
This is a motive. Russia was being sued for billions of dollars for not delivering gas according to their contract. Think the court cannot make people pay? The USA had to pay a billion dollars per day for labeling meat sold in the USA by country of origin. If Gazprom did not pay the court can pay anybody who owes them money to pay the winner of the lawsuit.
Thank you for writing this! We have the same situation in Norway, and the bullshit is just too obvious
To add:
Evidence for the probable culprit for the Nordstream attacks in 2022 have existed for seven years because in 2015 Sweden discovered an explosive laden underwater drone near Nordstream 2.
The story was reported in the same year:
https://www.pipeline-journal.net/comment/2443#comment-2443
Therefore it is apparent that a long term plan to sabotage the pipeline has been in place at least since 2015. What is also interesting is that the Swedish military did an investigation and a report on the incident must exist, but it has never been made public.
There is something very telling about the origin of the 2015 drone: The Swedish military ruled out sabotage according to the article. How could an underwater drone carrying explosives not be classed as attempted sabotage?
That can only be the case if the drone was placed there by a political ally of Sweden and was done so through mutual understanding.
All that is needed to solve this mystery is already public domain.
Dear Bryce, thank you for an excellently article. The evidence you put together is very damning of mainstream media reporting on the pipeline sabotage. Looking forward to more insightful articles.
Enough mincing words, the author’s last paragraph says it all. Siding with one country over the other won’t resolve the fact both countries that would willingly threaten our existence and that of the planet, in the quest for profit. In the end, you are either in support of them or against them (and for the people of the world). Because it’s the same blame game over and over again that starts war. This isn’t new, but if we keep waiting it out, trying to figure out who is responsible, we will perish. Both governments have the capability to cause terrorism and kill and cover it up. And with the push of a button can undo all the hard work that do many of us do to make the world better. Question, Rise up and Resist because that’s our only salvation. Thank you for all your hard work FAIR.
Excellent points, Karla! I would add this: this is inter-imperialist rivalry, much as Lenin described a century ago and that led to World War I. Capitalism is the underlying problem. We have to get rid of it before it leads – inevitably, I far – to another world war.
And thanks to FAIR for documenting how the US mass media has repeated and elaborated US government propaganda.
Why does no one mention the presence of a 4000 strong US Navy presence in the Baltic since May 2022, including specialist underwater engineering/mine experts attached to USS Kearsarge. Which left the scene of the crime off Bornholm island and sailed away on 22 September. 4 days before the explosions. Periodically with radar off, with agreement of Denmark.
All info online from US Naval sources.
It’s been… five months since the pipelines blew
Media shrugged and said “we don’t know who”
Four months since this piece on FAIR
Motives were clear but NATO dupes don’t care
One day since Sy Hersh’s bomb
Showing it was the US all along
Today, I got up and checked:
Media silence… what did I expect?
Excellent analysis Bryce!! So relevant in light of the of blog from Seymour Hersh and the fact so few MSM picked it up https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-bombed-nord-stream-gas-pipelines-claims-investigative-journalist-seymour-hersh-s730dnnfz