Biden lied to the American people and the World when he claimed the US did NOT destroy the Nord Stream Pipeline (UPDATED)
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland all but admitted to Senator Ted Cruz that the United States and its allies destroyed the pipeline.
UPDATE: According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, it is now confirmed that the United States destroyed Putin's Nord Stream pipeline. The White House has been lying to the American people and the world.
Immediately following the discovery of massive leaks in the Nord Stream pipelines, but before anyone mentioned the possibility of sabotage, Poland’s former Minister of National Defense and current Member of the European Parliament Radosław Sikorski publicly thanked the United States for the destruction of the Russian pipelines.1 Just days later, after it was reported that the pipelines were deliberately sabotaged by a state actor, United States Secretary of State Anthony Blinkin celebrated the attacks calling them “a tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come.”2 On the other hand, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared the sabotage of vital Russian assets an act of international terrorism and called for an investigation lead by the United Nations.3 Most international observers agreed with Sikorski and Blinkin that the United States was the most likely culprit as it had the motive, means, and opportunity. Surprisingly the American media (left and right) sees things differently - universally, they are convinced (or at least that is what they are saying publicly) that the Russians attacked their own pipelines.
For example, two days after the attack The Heritage Foundation published an article titled, “Russia’s Attack on Nord Stream Pipelines Means Putin Has Truly Weaponized Energy”4 in which Daniel Kochis5 pulls no punches claiming that the attack was a “striking example of how Russia continues to utilize every tool at its disposal to damage and pressure the West.” Kochis, a conservative policy analyst with Heritage, is gaslighting readers just as his liberal colleagues are at The Brookings Institution. Brookings goes further in their article titled, “U.S. podcasters spread Kremlin narratives on Nord Stream sabotage”6 where Jessica Brandt7 and Valerie Wirtschafter8 claim that anyone who even discusses the idea that the Biden administration was behind the attack is supporting Putin and his regime. But what is their evidence?
Presently, no one in the media has any evidence that supports or refutes involvement in the attack by either the US or Russia. Let that settle in - despite a complete lack of evidence so-called journalists are reporting with apparent certainty that Russia is responsible for the attack. They’re even writing fact-check articles ‘debunking’ claims of US involvement. At the end of the day, these journalists have ZERO evidence one way or another — they’re merely relying on their analysis of each suspect’s motives, means, and opportunity as well as their statements and action.
America’s motive to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines is obvious as Secretary Blinkin pointed out in his press conference “a tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come.” With the pipeline destroyed the United States does not have to worry about the EU providing concessions to Russia in exchange for the restoration of gas supplies to Europe. Nor does it have to worry about Europe entering into 25-year natural gas contracts at sky high prices - enriching Putin and impoverishing our NATO allies. At the end of the day, Germany’s decision to shut down its nuclear power plants and instead rely on natural gas from Russia was ALWAYS considered a huge mistake here in the United States. Having Europe rely less on Russia is a benefit to the United States militarily and economically. Even President Trump, who the left claimed was in Putin’s ‘pocket’, lambasted the Germans for allowing Nord Stream 2 to be constructed in the first place.
RUSSIA’S MOTIVES
In my opinion, there are ZERO compelling motives for Russia to have destroyed their own pipelines under the Baltic Sea. If you know of one please share it in the comments. To give you an example of what sort of motives are being promoted by the corporate media I’ve included a few below.
CLAIM: Russia’s motivation for destroying its own pipelines was to cause further disruption in European gas markets. Anders Puck Nielsen from the Royal Danish Defense College stated, “But I think if we look at who would actually benefit from disturbances, more chaos on the gas market in Europe, I think there’s basically only one actor right now that actually benefits from more uncertainty, and that is Russia.”9
COUNTERCLAIM: Prior to the attack Russia (with the help of the EU) had ALREADY disrupted the European gas market:
Nord Stream 1 (55 bcm/yr) was shut down by Russia in August
Nord Stream 2 (55 bcm/yr) was blocked by Germany in February
Yamal Europe (33 bcm/yr) was shut down by Russia in May
Turk Stream (31.5 bcm/yr) is still operational making Hungary the only EU state receiving Russian natural gas
Sabotaging pipelines that were already offline did nothing to disrupt the European gas markets. If Putin sought to throw a wrench into the market he could have simply shut down Turk Stream, the last pipeline supplying Russian gas to the EU removing 31.5 billion cubic meters of gas from Europe. Since Putin knew that the EU was in the process of turning on The Baltic Pipe (10 bcm/yr), in an effort to reduce Europe’s reliance on Russian gas, he could have easily attacked it instead as it crosses over Nord Stream just a few kilometers to the south of the attack area.10
Cutting against this theory, even more, Putin immediately proposed two solutions to Europe’s gas shortage. His first proposal was for Russia to shift the gas it normally sent through Nord Stream through its Black Sea pipelines to create a gas hub on the border of the European Union and Turkey.11 Alexei Miller, Gazprom’s CEO, noted that the Turk Stream pipelines were far deeper than Nord Stream making them far less susceptible to sabotage. Putin offered to begin rerouting gas immediately if the EU was interested. The EU has expressed no interest in this offer to date.
Prior to his offer to reroute gas to Europe through Turkey Putin contacted the Chancellor of Germany, Olaf Scholz offering to turn on the Nord Stream 2’s undamaged B Pipe. The offer was made just days after the attack on Nord Stream 1 (A&B Pipes) and Nord Stream 2’s A Pipe but was flatly refused by the German Chancellor. More recently, Christiane Hoffmann, a German government spokeswoman confirmed that Berlin was ruling out the use of gas from Nord Stream 2.12 If Europe was really concerned that Putin was attempting to disrupt Europe's gas markets why would they refuse to receive gas from Nord Stream 2 and Turk Stream?
CLAIM: Russia destroyed a $22 billion pipeline to help Gazprom save $10 billion in damages Gasprom may have owed to European customers if gas flows had not resumed in October. Gas delivered by pipelines like Nord Stream is typically sold using 25-year agreements that include significant damages in the event of a delivery failure. Germany’s largest newspaper claims that Gazprom’s gas contracts stipulate that damages are NOT owed in the event of an Act of God (force majeure).13
COUNTERCLAIM: This particular claim relies on the assumption that Russia wouldn’t allow Gazprom to resume gas shipments to Germany once the repairs were made to Nord Stream 1 turbine located in Russia (leaks were discovered prior to the undersea attack in the Baltic). There have been a number of issues getting parts for the turbines from Canada and Germany as a result of sanctions imposed against Russia. While there is no evidence one way or another whether Gazprom would have breached its agreements with European firms there is evidence, as discussed earlier, that Russia has offered to have Gazprom replace the gas by routing it through Turkey or through the Nord Stream 2 B pipe - solutions Europe have thus far rejected. There is, in fact, an argument to be made that Germany’s refusal to allow Gasprom to deliver gas contracts to EU companies might make Germany liable for the default payments.
CLAIM: Russia destroyed its own pipeline after the EU announced a price cap on Russian-origin fossil fuels in an act of revenge.14
COUNTERCLAIM: Moscow warned the G7/EU that it would halt sales to ANY country that imposed a price cap on fossil fuel originating from Russia. Why would Russia destroy its own +$20B pipeline in response to the G7’s action when it could simply stop selling oil and gas to the offending countries? In fact, shortly after Germany adopted the price cap Gazprom shut down Nord Stream 1 for ‘repairs’ presumably as a signal to the G7/EU that Russia wouldn’t be bullied by the west.
CLAIM: Putin believed Europe was moving away from Russian gas and decided to duplicate a traditional Native American potlatch ceremony destroying the dysfunctional Nord Stream pipelines in spectacular fashion knowing they would have little residual value.15
COUNTERCLAIMS: Drawing on his love of Agatha Christie novels, Sergey Vakulenko from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace promoted this particular motive. Like most other claims this one relies on the assumption that after the Ukraine conflict has ended Europe would refuse to purchase Russian gas. While he may be right I can’t imagine Putin conducting a potlatch ceremony without taking credit - that is the ENTIRE point of a potlatch ceremony - to show off your wealth.
THE MEANS & OPPORTUNITY
It is universally accepted that the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines were conducted by a state actor(s) allowing us to significantly narrow the suspect list. To create even more simplicity I’ve decided to lump the ‘west’ together with the US as I argue that it would be all but impossible for any member of NATO, the EU, or Ukraine to act without the knowledge and tacit approval of the United States.
The most compelling argument supporting Russian means and opportunity comes from 2006 after Georgia sought membership in NATO. Finland’s NPR-equivalent reported that Russia destroyed an important pipeline inside of the breakaway region of Georgia called South Ossetia with remotely controlled military explosives.16 The circumstances were somewhat different as the pipeline was owned and controlled by Georgia giving them leverage over South Ossetia. Russia's Gazprom was already building the Dzuarikau–Tskhinvali pipeline from Russia to South Ossetia giving the breakaway province de facto independence from Georgia upon its completion in 2009. The destruction of the Georgian pipeline made financial and strategic sense for Russia and South Ossetia. Georgia, of course, rightly protested against the launch of the Dzuarikau–Tskhinvali.17 Despite these differences corporate media continues to advance conspiracy theories from unreliable and particularly biased sources like the former CEO of Ukraine's national gas supplier.
Andriy Kobolyev, the former CEO of Naftogaz, believes that Russia either sent remotely controlled-explosive laden robots down the pipelines or inbuilt explosive charges when the pipelines were originally constructed. His belief is based on his conviction that NO ONE could get close to the pipelines without being detected by both Russian and NATO maritime forces. To support his theory he points out that the Soviets routinely included explosive charges in critical infrastructure during construction making it plausible that Russia would continue the practice. Kobolyev explains that the fact that only Russian vessels were involved in the final phases of construction (including the areas where the explosions occurred) gave the Russians both the means and the opportunity to preposition explosive charges.18
While the Russians have openly accused the United States of the attack it is interesting to see what other countries are saying:
Denmark: Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen refused to speculate on who was responsible for the attack but supports an international investigation. She made it VERY clear that she does not consider the attack on the pipelines as an attack against Denmark despite the fact that two of the explosions occurred inside the Danish Exclusive Economic Zone of the Baltic. She also noted that according to Danish military intelligence there is no increased threat to other pipelines in the Danish EEZ including the newly completed Baltic Pipe. I wonder why Denmark isn’t concerned about other gas pipelines in their EEZ?
Sweden: Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson also refused to speculate on who was responsible for the attack but supports an international investigation. She stressed that the attacks did NOT occur in Swedish ‘territorial’ waters negating the need for an official response or any sort of retaliation. Subsequently, Andersson’s administration clarified that two of the four explosions had, in fact, occurred in Sweden’s Exclusive Economic Zone.19 The spokesperson for the Swedish Coast Guard reiterated there was no heightened concern that other assets in their EEZ were under a heightened threat. I wonder why Sweden isn’t concerned about other gas pipelines in their EEZ?
Norway: Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre was clearly not in the loop as he immediately raised the nation’s security level upon hearing of the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines. Shortly after that Støre deployed Norway's military to guard the nation’s onshore oil and gas processing facilities including the Kollsnes and Nyhamna gas export terminals, the Kaarstoe gas plant, and the Mongstad refinery.20 Since then Norway has deployed undersea drones to monitor its Europipe II pipeline and its connection to the Baltic Pipe.21
United States: More interesting than what American officials like Blinken are saying is what they are doing. Despite having ZERO financial or territorial interest in the pipeline, the United States is intimately involved in the investigation providing much of the technical analysis including the review of underwater recordings of the explosions.22 The White House has insisted that the Russians be excluded from the investigation and as a result, Sweden has announced that not only are they excluding Russia they will not share their findings of them either.23
Various theories related to the means and opportunity have been floated though none prove or disprove anything. Here are a few of the more interesting ones:
Andriy Kobolyev, the former CEO of Naftogaz claimed that it would be impossible for Russia to bring the Podmoskovye near the pipeline without the knowledge of NATO.
The earliest reports from members of the EU parliament were that Navy Seals deployed from Poland set charges on the pipeline. These early reports have not been corroborated or debunked.24
Germany's version of NPR, Deutsche Welle (DW), declared the theory that U.S. helicopters flying out of Gdańsk may have been involved in the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines as "misleading".25 DW used the coordinates of the 'leaks/explosions' provided by the Danish Maritime Authority and Swedish Coast Guard and the flight route provided by FlightAware to debunk the theory. The problem is that the pipeline route map DW used was a 'planned route' map and not the actual 'as-built route'. The fact that DW used the wrong pipeline route doesn't prove that the U.S. sabotaged the pipelines, but it does prove that the basis for DW's 'misleading' fact check claim is itself 'misleading'.
It should be noted that anytime American military planes have their commercial aviation transponders on they are not likely engaged in kinetic warfare.
THE AFTERMATH
The Biden administration had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to make it the prime suspect in the Nord Stream attack. Despite this reality, the United States is deeply involved in every aspect of the investigation while insisting the primary victim be excluded from BOTH the investigation and its eventual findings.
On the other hand, Russia clearly had the means and opportunity to destroy its own pipeline but lacked any reasonable motive. Russia has offered to replace the gas supplies via the Nord Stream B pipe and through their Turkish pipelines - offers that have been rejected by the Europeans. Russia has called for a UN-led investigation into the attacks - calls that were rejected by the Europeans and Americans. Russia has even commenced emergency repairs on Nord Stream 1 calling on the Pipeline Repair and Subsea Intervention (PRSI) Pool for equipment and supplies.26
Russia has a history of targeting energy assets (pipelines and electrical transmission lines) as weapons - but they’ve exclusively targeted assets owned by their enemies in the past.
So what do you think? Is it reasonable to suggest Russia is any more likely to have destroyed their own pipelines than the Europeans or Americans? I’d love your thoughts in the comments. [DEVELOPING]
