RANT: THAR SHE BLOWS!

 

THANK GOODNESS, they’ve figured it out! The other day a report, from the New York Times* no less, cited “anonymous US intelligence officials” (code name: “Trust Us”) who point the finger at a “pro-Ukrainian” group they say is responsible for blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline last September. Old news you say? Haven’t we moved on from all that?  Au contraire, mes amis! It’s very important that we in the collective West, the EU, NATO members, everybody on the right side of history,  know for sure who is responsible for the Nord Stream bombing, so we can better understand who our friends are and who our friends are not. 

 

FOR THOSE READERS who might have spent the last while inside a bathysphere halfway down the Marianas Trench, I should point out that the Nord Stream-2 natural gas pipeline, an $11B project running underwater via the Baltic Sea connecting Russia and Germany, was meant to supply Germany and other European nations with cheap Russian hydrocarbons. It was to go into operation last summer but American objections to the project forced Germany to postpone the opening.

UNTIL, that is, Sept 26/22 when an explosion blew apart over 50 metres of the heavily reinforced pipeline, releasing an estimated 300,000 tons of methane gas into the atmosphere, and ensuring there would be no gas flowing from Russia to Europe.

EARLY REPORTS concluded the pipeline was destroyed by several detonations of high explosives, and initially Russia was accused of “weaponizing” its natural gas exports to gain political leverage over Europe. This meme did not have much of a shelf life, however, when commentators pointed out that if Russia wanted to do so, it could simply turn off the taps, and, of course, use turning on the gas again as leverage in any future negotiations. Why would Russia throw away such an important bargaining chip? Last fall, Russia (and China) called for an impartial international inquiry into the explosion but their appeal was ignored at the United Nations. 

 

Meanwhile, Sweden, Denmark and Germany all made their own investigations over the course of the next several weeks. But no reports were released. No explanations were given. Who were the perps? No one would say. INTEREST in the event waned and the media moved on to other things.

Until Feb 8/23. That was when veteran investigative reporter, Sy Hersh, set off an explosion of his own when he published his findings about who was behind the Nord Stream sabotage. In Hersh’s exposé, he names the four chief conspirators in the plot to “end” the Nord Stream pipeline, just as American president Joe Biden in early February, 2022 warned would happen, should Russia invade Ukraine. I have discussed Hersh’s article here.  

 

THIS WEEK, THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS PUBLISHED ITS OWN (so-called) exposé citing “new intelligence reporting” that conclude pro-Ukrainian “opponents of President Vladimir V Putin of Russia” were responsible for the sabotage. No names or modus operandi were suggested. Interestingly, the article goes on to list several covert military operations performed in the past by Ukraine, some alleged and some acknowledged by Ukrainian officials. These were actions, the New York Times' article suggests, that the United States did not sanction and that it deemed were unwise, such as the truck bombing of the Kerch Bridge or the high-profile assassination of Daria Dugina in Moscow, drone attacks on an airbase in Russia, etc.

THE ARTICLE is light on details, yet suggestive of a growing rift between Kiev and Washington. Why does the New York Times now publish an article that includes criticisms of Zelensky’s government, saying, in effect, there are elements in it that are too rogue to be partnered with any longer? ACCORDING to Alexander Mercouris, political elites and members of the Military-Industrial Complex in Washington are growing impatient with the war’s progress and want an ‘off-ramp’, some way of ending the war, so they can turn their attention to China. On the other hand, there are different deep state operatives who want the conflict to continue and to finish what they’ve started, namely to weaken Russia and bring about regime change there. As Mercouris says, the recent New York Times' story hints at a growing conflict between the neo-cons and more pragmatic elements within the American deep state.

THERE WAS A SECOND ARTICLE that came out on Tuesday, March 7, the same day as the New York Times’ story⁺. It was published in the German publication, Die Zeit, and the scenario they came up with for the bombing of the Nord Stream is like something plucked straight from the theatre of the absurd! Dig this as the curtain rises: A group of six individuals of unknown nationality rent a yacht in Poland. They load it up with explosive and cruise around the Baltic Sea. They locate the pipeline in over eighty metres of water, then two of them deep-dive (which requires a decompression chamber to enable a diver to return safely to the surface.)  Once they reach the seabed, these aquamen then set explosives along the heavily reinforced pipeline. They later detonate them, somehow or other. Then they vanish into thin air. GMAB! I could write a better script.¹ 

TO BE CLEAR: Sy Hersh’s February exposé has rattled the cages in Washington, Brussels and Berlin. If further evidence is found proving the President of the United States, his National Security Advisor, the Sec and Under-Sec of State were involved in a conspiracy to blow up a billion dollar pipeline that was part-owned by allies of the United States, well citizens, when that amount of shit hits the fan, governments will fall, alliances break, and publics will awaken. Some commentators have suggested such a revelation could mean the breakup of NATO and possibly the fracturing of the EU. It would throw one heck of a spanner into the relationship between Europe and North America.² You can almost smell the panic. Stay tuned!

 

“Government ought to be all outside and no inside…. Everybody knows that corruption thrives in secret places, and avoids public places, and we believe it a fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety.” —Woodrow Wilson.

 

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." —I. F. Stone.  

 

Cheers, Jake.

______________________________________

 

* I READ THE MARCH 7 New York Times’ fairy tale story which mentions, in passing, Sy Hersh’s article of February 8/23 and his findings around the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. Spokespeople for the State Department and White House have denied any involvement by the President and his top aides, but there have been no formal, on-the-record denials from any of the individuals that Hersh’s article implicates, as far as I know, which begs the question: Why?

The recent New York Times' article was filled with vague speculations and innuendo and did not suggest possible culprits.  It reads like a hastily concocted fiction designed to distract and confuse readers around the events of September 26, last year, and to focus attention away from Hersh’s reporting. It seems elements of the American deep state are worried because Sy’s article is gaining traction globally.

IT WILL BE A COLD DAY in hell before I cough up dough to go behind the pay-walled skirts of the “Gray Lady”! The “paper-of-record”, which had at one time published work by journalists and writers who spoke truth to power, today is sadly a ghost of its former self. 

 

+ And, if you think it’s a coincidence that two news articles came out at the same time, both presenting counter narratives that challenge Hersh's reporting, and both hinting at Ukrainian nationals or else persons of "unknown nationalities" as the culprits in the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline—if you think that's a coincidence, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you!

 

1. How’s this for a scenario: “Alien beings from a dying planet. Their destination: The earth. Their purpose: To make it their world blow up the Nord Stream pipeline. It began with a closed, deserted diner, and a man too long without sleep to continue his journey. It began with the landing of a craft from another galaxy…. Now, David Vincent knows that the invaders are here. That they have taken human form. Somehow, he must convince a disbelieving world that the nightmare has already begun….”

Um, okay, I might have borrowed a bit, here. Sorry about that.

 

2. On Friday, March 3, Olaf Scholtz, the German chancellor flew to Washington for a one hour meeting with the American president. No staff or aides were present, and no press releases were available. Why the visit? Why the secrecy? One suggestion is that they negotiated some quid pro quo between Germany and the U.S. It might run something like this: If Germany ups its military support for Ukraine then the Germans get something. (Cheaper LNG? A carton of Marlboros?) But, on the whole, I find it unlikely that such a major negotiation would been done at so informal a meeting, without advisors, etc. Another suggestion is that Scholtz flew to Washington to beg Biden to provide him with a cover story to counter Hersh's report, which continues to stir things up. For example, German parliamentarians are calling for an investigation in light of the reporter's February 8 news article.

Scholtz  may be compromised. He may have known about the plot for some time, perhaps even before the September explosion. IF his government is seen to be complicit in an action that is  causing the German people undue physical and economic hardships, then he is not likely to survive as chancellor. He really needs to grow a pair and stand up for his country's interests and stop kowtowing to the U.S. The word putz comes to mind....

IS IT NOT PASSING STRANGE that no credible explanation for the sabotage came forward from any investigation (there were three last fall, by Germany, Sweden and Denmark), until Sy Hersh's story last month? Is it a coincidence that four days after the chancellor's secretive visit to the Washington, two new theories about the sabotage come to light from U.S. "intelligence service sources" and "researchers" from a group of German media outlets, who both point the finger in the general direction of Ukraine and/or parties "unknown"? And you can bet your pony they're pointing nowhere near the Potomac.  So, again, if you believe its just a coincidence these articles were published following on the heels of the German chancellor's mad dash to Washington, then I have a jar of pixie dust to sell you. 

 

[Scott Ritter and George Galloway lampoon the ridiculous story lines put out by the New York Times and Die Zeit, here. Seymour Hersh discusses the two clown articles in an interview on “Breaking Points”, here.

In a Global Times interview, American historian Aaron Good argues that it might be safer to go with the new cock-and-bull narratives rather than Hersh's "more plausible" story. He suggests accepting a narrative that 'Ukraine did it' instead of 'it was the U.S.', might be a bitter pill we need to swallow in order for the conflict to be resolved without dangerous escalation (i.e., it gives America a reason, an off ramp, to end its support of Ukraine, if Zelensky  and his crew are hung out to dry as the perps who wrecked Germany's critical infrastructure). Read his thoughtful analysis about the reason for the new Nord Stream scenarios and why they point to Ukraine as the culprit, here. But, for the record, I'm going with Sy Hersh on this one. Ed.]

 

  

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE! FREE JULIAN ASSANGE! FREE JULIAN ASSANGE!