by Ian R Thorpe, 8 October 2022
On September 26, engineers and seismologists in Germany, Sweden and Denmark were alerted by a dramatic drop in pressure in Nord Streams 1 & 2, pipelines through which Russian gas flows to Germany. Later that day, the same problem was reported on its older sister pipeline, Nord Stream 1, which runs nearby.
A Danish air force jet overflew the area where the events took place and found three huge gas leaks agitating the surface of the Baltic Sea, creating vast, bubbling cauldrons as if underwater volcanic eruptions were were in progress. Over the next few days, an estimated 350,000 tonnes of pure methane was released into the atmosphere. Residents of Bornholm, a Danish island nearby could smell it from and were warned to stay clear of the area.
Were it simply an industrial accident, the event would have been a catastrophe. but it quickly became clear the damage to the pipelines had been caused by deliberate acts of sabotage. The pipeline was rendered inoperable for the foreseeable future, a blow to Europe, which due to politicians having been sucked in by the climate change scam and committed their countries to intermittent and unreliable 'renewable energy sources and 'nat zero' energy policies were facing a grim winter of power blackouts. The 'net zero folly had made Europe, and especially Germany, which has by far the largest and most poweful economy in the EU, dependent on Russian gas.
Danish geologists noted two large spikes in the area that day on their seismographs, suggesting the pipelines had been hit by massive undersea explosions. A joint probe by Denmark and Sweden concluded that the blasts involved up to half a tonne of TNT planted 300 feet beneath the seabed – acts that only a nation-state could carry out. And since then, the accusations have flown.
Detectives look for strong and simple motives, and on this count it is not hard to see why so many internet sleuths are pointing their fingers at the United States. Washington has long opposed Nord Stream, fearing it leaves Europe far too dependent on Russian gas. Moreover, now that Russian gas no longer flows through the pipeline (and probably never will, after the explosions) the US is shipping hundreds of millions of tons of its own gas to Europe and making a lot of money in the process.
In February, Joe Biden told a news conference he “would bring an end” to Nord Stream 2 if Russia invaded Ukraine. Asked how he would do so, he stated cryptically: “We will – I promise you – be able to do it.”
This may have just been a polite way of saying Washington would bring behind-the-scenes diplomatic pressure on Germany to shut the pipeline. But, in the wake of the Nord Stream blasts, it has been interpreted by some as a coded warning that America would sabotage the pipeline. Since America is a major gas supplier itself, the argument goes, it has economic as well as political interests in the pipeline’s demise.
While casually dismissed by most Russophobic trolls in mainstream media,, this theory has been seized on by Tucker Carlson, whose Fox News talk show has one of America’s largest audiences. “If you are Vladimir Putin, you would have to be a suicidal moron to blow up your own energy pipeline,” he said recently.
Carlson then pointed the finger directly at Biden for the Nord Stream sabotage, quoting him as saying in February 2022: “We will take it out. We will blow it up.” In fact, President Biden did not say "We will blow it up," but "We will take it down, we have the means."
Apologists for American warmongering claim the President meant the USA would use sanctions to stop gas flowing through the pipelines but by September it ought to have been clear to the handlers of America's geriatric, demenia stricken leader that sanctions do not work so the remark must be considered open to interpretation.
Other, more sombre commentators have shown an interest in the theory too – including Boris Johnson's former aide, Dominic Cummings, who posted the clip of Biden’s cryptic warning to his 300,000 Twitter followers. He also tweeted a link to an objective and balanced article which suggested America could benefit economically from the Nord Stream blasts, and which described Biden’s denials of US involvement as “tepid”.
Polish politician Radek Sikorski, a former foreign minister and no fan of Vladimir Putin posted a photo of the Nord Stream methane bubbling to the Baltic’s surface, with the brief message: “Thank you, USA,” followed up by a direct accusation that the USA had planned, if not actually carried out the sabotage. Added to that, former White House Adviser Jeffrey Sachs, now a politics professor at Columbia University also unequivocally stated that based on available evidence he believes the USA was behind the sabotage.
To Western leaders and most serious analysts, the only possible culprit is Vladimir Putin although it is difficult to see how Russia could benefit from blowing up its own assets and damaging the interests of Germany, the European nation most sympathetic to Russia's position.
Right now there is a state of near panic in the EU, while the world was wondering exactly who was responsible for blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines, the warmongers in washington and the neo - Nazi nutters in Kiev have continues on their path of provoking Russia into launching an attack on a NATO member state, thus kicking off World War 3. Yesterday an attack on The Crimean Bridge - also called Kerch Strait Bridge or Kerch Bridge - a structure 19 kilometers (12 miles) in length that passes across the Kerch Strait and links southern Russia to the Crimean Peninsula. If there was a lot of nervousness about what the Russians might do next before this attack, which Ukraine has indirectly claimed responsibility for, it is certainly squeaky bottom time on the capital of Europe now. Everyone with an oil rig will be checking the legs for bombs, everyone with a bridge will be upping security, but nobody knows how things will play out. Some say Russia will use nuclear weapons, some say the Russian deep state may bring down the internet (which could be done by hitting a few undersea cables,) thus bringing global financial systems, air and sea transport and virtually all trade to a standstill.
The Kremlin alleges that Nord Stream is Russian-owned and financed, cost £15 billion ($17 billion) to build. It supplies Europe with 35 per cent of its natural gas needs, earning Russia tens of billions of pounds a year. Why would Putin want to destroy it, just as Europe is heading into what is predicted to be a hard winter. Any winter would potentially make Europe and Germany especially, more vulnerable to energy blackmail? Why not simply shut off the valves instead, thus Moscow would retain bargaining power at no cost?
Those commentators who refuse to acknowledge there are any suspects other than Putin appeal to the investigative techniques of TV detectives, citing means, opportunity and motive, in relation to Russia after having condescendingly brushed aside far stronger and more convincing means, opportunity and motive on the part of the USA. Right… Do our political leaders and media editors really think the US,which at the moment has itself a vast surplus of Liquid Natural Gas to sell would consider 'out of bounds' a pipeline majority owned by Gazprom, that represents a key strategic threat to use as leverage should countries like Germany backslide under political pressure due to energy shortages?
The CIA and US military are fully aware that if there is no evidence, there is no foul. With the ever loyal members of the Big Media carte lending such uncritical support to the "It was Putin wot dunnit" narrative we see the perfect example of what that means. There is plenty of evidence, from Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan,Libya and Syria that they have operated in knowledge of how easy it is to misdirect the media narrative in the past. If you think they wouldn’t do it because the pipeline is supplying allies, I have a lovely historic bridge here to sell you.
I’m not saying I know the truth. Clearly few do. But it’s completely clear that mainstream media journalists and editors are incapable of objective analysis and try to cover their inadequacies as reporters and investigators by adopting a patronising and condescending attitude to anyone who is prepared to ask the difficult questions.