X Close

Who really blew up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline?

February 15, 2023 - 5:30pm

On the 26th of September last year, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was sabotaged. Despite months of investigations from multiple countries involving deep-sea diving expeditions and sonar detection, no culprit has been found.

During this time, theories spread as to who was behind the attack. Was it Russia? Or, more sensationally, the US? Someone else?

Suspicions about the US were first raised when former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski tweeted a message of thanks to the USA following the attack, which he later deleted. Viral clips of Joe Biden two weeks before the invasion then circulated, in which the President said: “If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2.”

Although most mainstream publications kept their powder dry about who the guilty party was, other independent journalists decided to take the plunge. Last week, a Substack article by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, entitled ‘How America took out the Nord Stream Pipeline’ was published, in which Hersh alleged — based on a single, unnamed source — that it was US Navy divers who, using a NATO military exercise as a cover, planted mines along the Nord Stream 2 pipelines that were later detonated remotely. These allegations were strenuously denied by the White House.

This is the most detailed account yet of America’s supposed involvement, but Hersh is not the first to make such claims. Indeed, shortly after the explosion it was another public figure, Jeffrey Sachs, who was leading the charge, claiming that America was the guilty party. Sachs is a world-renowned economist, professor of Public Policy at Columbia University and former Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General. He joined Freddie Sayers to discuss why he believed that the big mystery as to who was behind the attack was no mystery at all:

This was not an easy operation to carry out. It’s the kind of operation that the CIA and other covert parts of the US government do carry out rather routinely, by the way[
] the United States was basically the only country with the motive, the means.
- Jeffrey Sachs

America’s history of interference abroad is well-documented, but did other countries not have a motive too? Other likely suspects could feasibly include Ukraine, but also Russia itself — chaotic, irrational behaviour is not an uncommon characteristic of Putin’s Russia. Besides, was it not a slight stretch of the imagination to claim that the US would order the destruction of a piece of public infrastructure that partly belongs to a NATO ally?

Sachs dismissed these questions as as “absurd” and declared that those who didn’t believe America would act against allies in pursuit of its own interests “don’t really know the US.” He believes that decades of antagonistic relations with Russia culminated in the Nord Stream attack, which American foreign policymakers have long viewed as a threat. 

According to Sachs, the America neoconservative view of Russia and the war has now become mainstream. Where Europe’s acquisition of cheap Russian gas was once viewed as ‘trade’, it is now seen as a dependency. That said, the small detail of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may have played a part in that.

Freddie Sayers challenges Sachs on a number of these points. What is indisputably clear, however, is that no argument has, as of yet, found a smoking gun. This robust interview raises important questions and leaves many wondering why there continues to be no official lead in this mystery.

The interview took place on Monday 13th February 2023.

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

60 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David D'Andrea
David D'Andrea
1 year ago

Great interview, the sceptical questioning allowed Sachs to answer objections and strengthen the overwhelming case that Nordstream was a covert US operation

J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  David D'Andrea

Agree, great interview. I think Freddie deliberately played Devil’s Advocate to force Sachs to make the strongest possible case for US involvement.
Some people are looking for definitive evidence that the US sabotaged the pipeline. I very much doubt we’ll find that type of evidence in the near future. Maybe several decades from now a FOIA request will turn up unequivocal proof. In the meantime, I feel the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Presumably by then they will have blown up Druzhba and Yamal, which Joe neglected to do this time.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

It is that US bot again

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

It is that US bot again

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Presumably by then they will have blown up Druzhba and Yamal, which Joe neglected to do this time.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  David D'Andrea

So why didn’t Joe blow up the Druzhba and Yamal pipelines to Europe?
Indeed, if it were the Ukrainians or Poles, why didn’t they do that?
Really bad bit of CIA work to forget about those.
But aren’t conspiracy theories fun, though!

Jeffrey Brodsky
Jeffrey Brodsky
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

This is likely why the US didn’t blow up the Druzhba and Yamal pipelines. If you can’t use Nord Stream 1 and 2, you have to use the Yamal and Brotherhood (Druzhba) pipelines, through Poland and Ukraine, so now there’s no way that anyone can circumvent Ukraine. Ukraine’s position as a vital conduit for European supplies has been strengthened because Nord Stream was all about circumventing Ukraine, making them irrelevant to Europe, so the US and Ukraine and likely happy NS 1 and 2 are now damaged.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeffrey Brodsky
Jeffrey Brodsky
Jeffrey Brodsky
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

This is likely why the US didn’t blow up the Druzhba and Yamal pipelines. If you can’t use Nord Stream 1 and 2, you have to use the Yamal and Brotherhood (Druzhba) pipelines, through Poland and Ukraine, so now there’s no way that anyone can circumvent Ukraine. Ukraine’s position as a vital conduit for European supplies has been strengthened because Nord Stream was all about circumventing Ukraine, making them irrelevant to Europe, so the US and Ukraine and likely happy NS 1 and 2 are now damaged.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeffrey Brodsky
J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  David D'Andrea

Agree, great interview. I think Freddie deliberately played Devil’s Advocate to force Sachs to make the strongest possible case for US involvement.
Some people are looking for definitive evidence that the US sabotaged the pipeline. I very much doubt we’ll find that type of evidence in the near future. Maybe several decades from now a FOIA request will turn up unequivocal proof. In the meantime, I feel the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  David D'Andrea

So why didn’t Joe blow up the Druzhba and Yamal pipelines to Europe?
Indeed, if it were the Ukrainians or Poles, why didn’t they do that?
Really bad bit of CIA work to forget about those.
But aren’t conspiracy theories fun, though!

David D'Andrea
David D'Andrea
1 year ago

Great interview, the sceptical questioning allowed Sachs to answer objections and strengthen the overwhelming case that Nordstream was a covert US operation

natriley3@gmail.com natriley3@gmail.com

Russia could turn a valve and stop the flow of gas. They had no need to bomb the pipeline to achieve that objective. The U.S. on the other hand would want to end Europe’s “dependency” on Russia’s exports. Isolating Putin is one U.S. hope from the Ukraine fight. The pipeline attack buttressed the sanctions. On the other hand, Germany, France and Sweden have no reason to publicize their findings until they want to break with the U.S. which is possible if Russia defeats Ukraine. At that point the pipeline attack turns into an American disgrace.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

Couldn’t threaten every other European gas pipeline though, could it?

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago

On the other hand, Germany, France and Sweden have no reason to publicize their findings until they want to break with the U.S. which is possible if Russia defeats Ukraine.

So you figure that if Russia wins the Ukraine war, those nations would feel safer to spurn the US as an ally? Perhaps so they could rebuild the pipelines and get Russian gas again, now knowing that that would entail. I would have thought the opposite.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

Couldn’t threaten every other European gas pipeline though, could it?

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago

On the other hand, Germany, France and Sweden have no reason to publicize their findings until they want to break with the U.S. which is possible if Russia defeats Ukraine.

So you figure that if Russia wins the Ukraine war, those nations would feel safer to spurn the US as an ally? Perhaps so they could rebuild the pipelines and get Russian gas again, now knowing that that would entail. I would have thought the opposite.

natriley3@gmail.com natriley3@gmail.com

Russia could turn a valve and stop the flow of gas. They had no need to bomb the pipeline to achieve that objective. The U.S. on the other hand would want to end Europe’s “dependency” on Russia’s exports. Isolating Putin is one U.S. hope from the Ukraine fight. The pipeline attack buttressed the sanctions. On the other hand, Germany, France and Sweden have no reason to publicize their findings until they want to break with the U.S. which is possible if Russia defeats Ukraine. At that point the pipeline attack turns into an American disgrace.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

I’m an American, and my first thought when this happened was that America did it, but no one will ever prove it. The only country with the expertise and political authority to collect the evidence is the same country with the obvious motive to commit the crime, and one can hardly expect a criminal to convict himself. Moreover, the German government seems to be fine with blaming this on Russia and moving on, so maybe it doesn’t even matter. Ask yourself this. What if someone proved the US was behind it. Then what? There would certainly be a public outcry, but would the governments of Europe really dissolve NATO, or would they simply bury their heads in the sand and deny the proof out of political expediency because they’re not prepared to be an antagonist to BOTH the US and Russia? One could argue that’s exactly what they’re already doing. If the US did it, the governments of Europe don’t really want anybody to find out, and if Russia did it, they don’t really care. There’s no upside to digging into this issue however it resolves, so let’s just blame the guy we already don’t like and move on. Europe might have gotten dependent on Russia for gas, but they’ve been dependent on the US for security for decades and that’s not something they can change quickly if they even want to. They can buy gas elsewhere. Guess who the largest supplier is?

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

You do know that Russian pipelines still exist that can send gas to Europe?
Guess Sleepy Joe never thought of that.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

Most of which run through several other European nations, such as Ukraine, which take advantage by collecting various fees to ultimately increase the price. The whole reason for building Nordstream 1 was to bypass that. It wasn’t enough so they needed Nordstream 2. Again, the Germans are sufficiently scared of a belligerent Russia that I don’t imagine they really care all that much who blew it up because they weren’t going to be doing any more business with Russia anyway. Whether the US did it for the obvious reasons stated or Putin did it for reasons understood only by himself, it really wouldn’t change Germany’s position, so let sleeping dogs lie. The reason this story will linger is because Americans are culturally attuned to distrust any and all governments. American audiences love stories about their government doing bad things, because there’s possibly nothing more American than distrusting of the government, and, to be fair, over the past six or seven decades, our government has done quite a few things to earn that distrust. Writers will keep looking for that smoking gun because if they found it, they’d be revered as national heroes like Woodward and Bernstein. Make no mistake, the people most likely to believe America blew up NS2 are the Americans themselves.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Indeed. Knowing the loopy theories about JFK’s assassination, 9/11, and the “stolen” election, all too many won’t believe in the most likely hypothesis, i.e. supported by the most evidence.
Things just can’t be that simple.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

Simple like it was the US that did it.
Your position is, if you think about it, the equivalent of claiming that the US was behind 9/11, or don’t you see the parallel?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

Simple like it was the US that did it.
Your position is, if you think about it, the equivalent of claiming that the US was behind 9/11, or don’t you see the parallel?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Woodward and Bernstein are national heroes because the establishment made them heroes for bringing down the enemy of the establishment, Nixon.
Edward Snowdon on the other hand is a widely reviled and wanted man for whistleblowing on the criminal activities of the US security apparatus

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Indeed. Knowing the loopy theories about JFK’s assassination, 9/11, and the “stolen” election, all too many won’t believe in the most likely hypothesis, i.e. supported by the most evidence.
Things just can’t be that simple.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Woodward and Bernstein are national heroes because the establishment made them heroes for bringing down the enemy of the establishment, Nixon.
Edward Snowdon on the other hand is a widely reviled and wanted man for whistleblowing on the criminal activities of the US security apparatus

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

Most of which run through several other European nations, such as Ukraine, which take advantage by collecting various fees to ultimately increase the price. The whole reason for building Nordstream 1 was to bypass that. It wasn’t enough so they needed Nordstream 2. Again, the Germans are sufficiently scared of a belligerent Russia that I don’t imagine they really care all that much who blew it up because they weren’t going to be doing any more business with Russia anyway. Whether the US did it for the obvious reasons stated or Putin did it for reasons understood only by himself, it really wouldn’t change Germany’s position, so let sleeping dogs lie. The reason this story will linger is because Americans are culturally attuned to distrust any and all governments. American audiences love stories about their government doing bad things, because there’s possibly nothing more American than distrusting of the government, and, to be fair, over the past six or seven decades, our government has done quite a few things to earn that distrust. Writers will keep looking for that smoking gun because if they found it, they’d be revered as national heroes like Woodward and Bernstein. Make no mistake, the people most likely to believe America blew up NS2 are the Americans themselves.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

You do know that Russian pipelines still exist that can send gas to Europe?
Guess Sleepy Joe never thought of that.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

I’m an American, and my first thought when this happened was that America did it, but no one will ever prove it. The only country with the expertise and political authority to collect the evidence is the same country with the obvious motive to commit the crime, and one can hardly expect a criminal to convict himself. Moreover, the German government seems to be fine with blaming this on Russia and moving on, so maybe it doesn’t even matter. Ask yourself this. What if someone proved the US was behind it. Then what? There would certainly be a public outcry, but would the governments of Europe really dissolve NATO, or would they simply bury their heads in the sand and deny the proof out of political expediency because they’re not prepared to be an antagonist to BOTH the US and Russia? One could argue that’s exactly what they’re already doing. If the US did it, the governments of Europe don’t really want anybody to find out, and if Russia did it, they don’t really care. There’s no upside to digging into this issue however it resolves, so let’s just blame the guy we already don’t like and move on. Europe might have gotten dependent on Russia for gas, but they’ve been dependent on the US for security for decades and that’s not something they can change quickly if they even want to. They can buy gas elsewhere. Guess who the largest supplier is?

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s the Americans. The US was the only country with motive to carry out the bombing. Russia is not destroying its own infrastructure, no matter how crazy you think Putin is. Any European country capable of pulling off the operation is too dependent on Russian gas. Or maybe it was the Canadians. LOL. Trudeau is really committed to reducing the world’s carbon footprint.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jim Veenbaas
Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Russia is very likely to destroy its own infrastructure if it will never be used again.
Moreover, if US involvement were discovered, it would blow up the alliance against Putin.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

Ya. This makes total sense.

stephen archer
stephen archer
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

I don’t think that would have been the case. Russia has created enough carnage otherwise for the west not to care who did it. Apart from the Germans and Schröder in particular, most in W. Europe would have been happy to see the foaming ocean.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

Of course it would have been used again.
Faced with economic hardship Europe, and in particular Germany, would sooner rather then later have found a reason to to negotiate with Russia to get the taps turned on again.
America, anxious to stop any backsliding, had every incentive to attack Nordstream 2. It was after all wholly hostile to the entire project from the outset, not I might add on the grounds of high minded principle but because it was a threat to American hegemony.
I bet you believe there are still weapons of mass destruction buried in Iraq and that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not a US false flag operation

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

Ya. This makes total sense.

stephen archer
stephen archer
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

I don’t think that would have been the case. Russia has created enough carnage otherwise for the west not to care who did it. Apart from the Germans and Schröder in particular, most in W. Europe would have been happy to see the foaming ocean.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

Of course it would have been used again.
Faced with economic hardship Europe, and in particular Germany, would sooner rather then later have found a reason to to negotiate with Russia to get the taps turned on again.
America, anxious to stop any backsliding, had every incentive to attack Nordstream 2. It was after all wholly hostile to the entire project from the outset, not I might add on the grounds of high minded principle but because it was a threat to American hegemony.
I bet you believe there are still weapons of mass destruction buried in Iraq and that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not a US false flag operation

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Russia is very likely to destroy its own infrastructure if it will never be used again.
Moreover, if US involvement were discovered, it would blow up the alliance against Putin.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s the Americans. The US was the only country with motive to carry out the bombing. Russia is not destroying its own infrastructure, no matter how crazy you think Putin is. Any European country capable of pulling off the operation is too dependent on Russian gas. Or maybe it was the Canadians. LOL. Trudeau is really committed to reducing the world’s carbon footprint.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jim Veenbaas
Jeff Watkins
Jeff Watkins
1 year ago

Good interview, but Freddie is a bit late on this one. He should look at the impact of blowing up the pipeline will have on the economy and politics in Germany.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Watkins

They could still get gas from Russia through Druzhba, Yamal, et al.

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

Some, but not enough.

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

Some, but not enough.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Watkins

They could still get gas from Russia through Druzhba, Yamal, et al.

Jeff Watkins
Jeff Watkins
1 year ago

Good interview, but Freddie is a bit late on this one. He should look at the impact of blowing up the pipeline will have on the economy and politics in Germany.

Stephan Quentin
Stephan Quentin
1 year ago

The multiple investigations into this act of sabotage all agree that the pipelines were blown up from the outside. If the Russians were the culprits they could’ve simply send a pipeline robot in, laden with explosives, instead of launching an extremely complicated covert operation that, for reasons which are hard to understand in an area like the Baltic, which Is under such detailed military surveillance, remained completely undetected.

Stephan Quentin
Stephan Quentin
1 year ago

The multiple investigations into this act of sabotage all agree that the pipelines were blown up from the outside. If the Russians were the culprits they could’ve simply send a pipeline robot in, laden with explosives, instead of launching an extremely complicated covert operation that, for reasons which are hard to understand in an area like the Baltic, which Is under such detailed military surveillance, remained completely undetected.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago

The United States was basically the only country with the motive, the means

It’s plausible the US was responsible, but I’m not buying they were the only country with a motive or the means.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Indeed. There have been many underwater incursions into Swedish territorial waters by Russian vessels over the years. And that’s just the ones that were detected.

JĂŒrg Gassmann
JĂŒrg Gassmann
1 year ago

Actually, no – to the extent there were “incursions”, they were done by NATO, with full connivance of the Swedish Navy, but unbeknownst to Swedish politicians. This is documented. Then, there were “incursions” that were natural artefacts.
On one of the “incursions,” the Russian ambassador to Sweden was challenged, and he said “go ahead, sink it.” Nothing was found.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

“Incursions” like the poisoning of LItvinenko, the Skripals and Navalny (twice)?

stephen archer
stephen archer
1 year ago

With the exception of the Russian sub which grounded just outside Karlskrona harbour, Sweden’s main naval base.

Last edited 1 year ago by stephen archer
Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

“Incursions” like the poisoning of LItvinenko, the Skripals and Navalny (twice)?

stephen archer
stephen archer
1 year ago

With the exception of the Russian sub which grounded just outside Karlskrona harbour, Sweden’s main naval base.

Last edited 1 year ago by stephen archer
JĂŒrg Gassmann
JĂŒrg Gassmann
1 year ago

Actually, no – to the extent there were “incursions”, they were done by NATO, with full connivance of the Swedish Navy, but unbeknownst to Swedish politicians. This is documented. Then, there were “incursions” that were natural artefacts.
On one of the “incursions,” the Russian ambassador to Sweden was challenged, and he said “go ahead, sink it.” Nothing was found.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Indeed. There have been many underwater incursions into Swedish territorial waters by Russian vessels over the years. And that’s just the ones that were detected.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago

The United States was basically the only country with the motive, the means

It’s plausible the US was responsible, but I’m not buying they were the only country with a motive or the means.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

It can only have been Extinction Rebellion.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

It can only have been Extinction Rebellion.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

I certainly don’t believe Russia itself blew up the pipeline. The claim that Putin can be “irrational” just doesn’t cut it here I’m afraid – he’s paranoid, for sure, but he’s not stupid and he’s not prone to making basic geostrategic mistakes as obvious as that.

The USA does have a motive obviously, but if it has really acted alone in destroying a valuable NATO asset, then it implies that the USA has already written NATO off. While this is plausible, what with China and the emerging multipolar world order, it also carries colossal implications for Europe generally, so we can’t afford to remain incurious about what is really going on.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

I certainly don’t believe Russia itself blew up the pipeline. The claim that Putin can be “irrational” just doesn’t cut it here I’m afraid – he’s paranoid, for sure, but he’s not stupid and he’s not prone to making basic geostrategic mistakes as obvious as that.

The USA does have a motive obviously, but if it has really acted alone in destroying a valuable NATO asset, then it implies that the USA has already written NATO off. While this is plausible, what with China and the emerging multipolar world order, it also carries colossal implications for Europe generally, so we can’t afford to remain incurious about what is really going on.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago
Jennie C
Jennie C
1 year ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

Calm down. Your comments is visible to all and it’s got a tally of minus 16 when I looked.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago
Reply to  Jennie C

Well, I don’t doubt Sachs has a whole office set up in Shanghai with fifty people, dedicated to red flagging and downvoting any negative comments about him on this article!
It’s the only sane explanation!

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago
Reply to  Jennie C

Well, I don’t doubt Sachs has a whole office set up in Shanghai with fifty people, dedicated to red flagging and downvoting any negative comments about him on this article!
It’s the only sane explanation!

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

There’s sometimes a delay on comments appearing. They have to run it through some program that checks for curse words and if there’s a lot of traffic it can back things up and delay the comments appearing. It’s a technical issue, not censorship.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

Unfortunate for Dr. Sachs.
Being sceptical of all govts is logical and appropriate. But not whitewashing suppression of a whole people.
The Chinese govt is almost as bad as the Russian.

Last edited 1 year ago by Martin Logan
Jennie C
Jennie C
1 year ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

Calm down. Your comments is visible to all and it’s got a tally of minus 16 when I looked.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

There’s sometimes a delay on comments appearing. They have to run it through some program that checks for curse words and if there’s a lot of traffic it can back things up and delay the comments appearing. It’s a technical issue, not censorship.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

Unfortunate for Dr. Sachs.
Being sceptical of all govts is logical and appropriate. But not whitewashing suppression of a whole people.
The Chinese govt is almost as bad as the Russian.

Last edited 1 year ago by Martin Logan
Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago
stephen archer
stephen archer
1 year ago

Bearing in mind the manner in which Germany and the rest of Europe were backpedalling at the time concerning weaning themselves off Russian gas,my first thought at the time was the US although it could just as well have been Russia. To my mind it didn’ t matter who, it just forced Germany into line.

Last edited 1 year ago by stephen archer
Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  stephen archer

Sounds like a motive to me. Germany were after all trying to leave all options open and would have no doubt been very happy with a short war and resumption of the gas supply. Regardless of the ‘winner’.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

The gas would still have been available through Yamal and Druzhba.
When Putin panicked and blew up the Nordstreams during the Ukrainian offensive, he still knew that he could sell gas to Europe anytime he wanted.
And can still do so.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

The gas would still have been available through Yamal and Druzhba.
When Putin panicked and blew up the Nordstreams during the Ukrainian offensive, he still knew that he could sell gas to Europe anytime he wanted.
And can still do so.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  stephen archer

Sounds like a motive to me. Germany were after all trying to leave all options open and would have no doubt been very happy with a short war and resumption of the gas supply. Regardless of the ‘winner’.

stephen archer
stephen archer
1 year ago

Bearing in mind the manner in which Germany and the rest of Europe were backpedalling at the time concerning weaning themselves off Russian gas,my first thought at the time was the US although it could just as well have been Russia. To my mind it didn’ t matter who, it just forced Germany into line.

Last edited 1 year ago by stephen archer
Arild Brock
Arild Brock
1 year ago

THE PUBLIC SQUAERE
It is not so much about who blew up North Stream 2. For that there is, of course, only one serious candidate, and this agent is even proud of what it has done.
I will suggest it is about how the rest of us can deal with that.
We cannot deal with it like we used to. We used to find a sort of agreement in the public square – one in each society. Now each society is half dissolved in the broader world. Do we then have a common public square, say in the Western military alliance? No, the US government is held responsible in its own weak public square only.
In the interview Sayers bravely tries to keep the question open. As always, he concludes pointing to the “right” of everybody to have the opinion of their choice.
 A liberal attitude, in particular regarding facts, can also be a threat to a functioning society. 

Arild Brock
Arild Brock
1 year ago

THE PUBLIC SQUAERE
It is not so much about who blew up North Stream 2. For that there is, of course, only one serious candidate, and this agent is even proud of what it has done.
I will suggest it is about how the rest of us can deal with that.
We cannot deal with it like we used to. We used to find a sort of agreement in the public square – one in each society. Now each society is half dissolved in the broader world. Do we then have a common public square, say in the Western military alliance? No, the US government is held responsible in its own weak public square only.
In the interview Sayers bravely tries to keep the question open. As always, he concludes pointing to the “right” of everybody to have the opinion of their choice.
 A liberal attitude, in particular regarding facts, can also be a threat to a functioning society. 

Stevebva B.
Stevebva B.
1 year ago

Finally watched this interesting interview. Freddie asked one interesting question about Russia doing the damage. Prof Sachs blew that off as nonsense. However, I could see Russians against Putin pulling it off with International help. I notice Sachs’ confidence in the “source” of the Hirsch analysis. We’ve had a lot of reliable sources in the US the last several years that were not so reliable.

Last edited 1 year ago by Stevebva B.
Stevebva B.
Stevebva B.
1 year ago

Finally watched this interesting interview. Freddie asked one interesting question about Russia doing the damage. Prof Sachs blew that off as nonsense. However, I could see Russians against Putin pulling it off with International help. I notice Sachs’ confidence in the “source” of the Hirsch analysis. We’ve had a lot of reliable sources in the US the last several years that were not so reliable.

Last edited 1 year ago by Stevebva B.
Noel Chiappa
Noel Chiappa
1 year ago

It is impossible to say, simply from considering quality of motives, who did it. If X has a good motive, then Y has a good motive to actually do it, and blame X. And in a situation this complex, one can construct a motive for just about anyone.
My personal favourite tongue-in-cheek ‘motive’ theory: the Israelis did it! Why? To help convince the European market that Russian gas isn’t reliable, so they will turn to Israeli gas that is about to come online. See, wasn’t that easy?

Noel Chiappa
Noel Chiappa
1 year ago

It is impossible to say, simply from considering quality of motives, who did it. If X has a good motive, then Y has a good motive to actually do it, and blame X. And in a situation this complex, one can construct a motive for just about anyone.
My personal favourite tongue-in-cheek ‘motive’ theory: the Israelis did it! Why? To help convince the European market that Russian gas isn’t reliable, so they will turn to Israeli gas that is about to come online. See, wasn’t that easy?

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago

I could not listen to it all – this WHO WEF Lancet, ,Lizard says a lot I believe as it is coincidental with the truth: anti War in Ukraine part – total distrust of CIA, USA Blew up pipeline, I agree….But then he is Columbia University, or what we could call – Frankfurt School. And the guy is totally deep in all that is against USA. Hates Trump, Likes Biden (but for the war). If you could wear out a word he would have worn out ‘Neo-Con’ – even though it is all the Left which is for this War, he still calls it Neo-Con. A Bernie Sanders man…

Covid origins? As Jeffrey Sachs is a WEF man, and a CCP apologist, his theory it came from an American Lab…. not sure. His total complicity in the covid response – keeping the Lancet from covering anti-vax truths, and preventing VERY effective early treatments..He is got an agenda a mile wide, and it is not one which is good for us listening.
Also a Global Warming Alarmist Political pusher…

I think he is a Lizard, but do not know him that well……

But yes – on this one point I think he is right and likely truth – although he does not make a habit of doing that on the rest of the things he is deep into, he is in with the Lizards…… Of course, being a very anti-American truth, this guy would love to expose it – he does Not like America.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

But do you like the guy?

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

But do you like the guy?

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago

I could not listen to it all – this WHO WEF Lancet, ,Lizard says a lot I believe as it is coincidental with the truth: anti War in Ukraine part – total distrust of CIA, USA Blew up pipeline, I agree….But then he is Columbia University, or what we could call – Frankfurt School. And the guy is totally deep in all that is against USA. Hates Trump, Likes Biden (but for the war). If you could wear out a word he would have worn out ‘Neo-Con’ – even though it is all the Left which is for this War, he still calls it Neo-Con. A Bernie Sanders man…

Covid origins? As Jeffrey Sachs is a WEF man, and a CCP apologist, his theory it came from an American Lab…. not sure. His total complicity in the covid response – keeping the Lancet from covering anti-vax truths, and preventing VERY effective early treatments..He is got an agenda a mile wide, and it is not one which is good for us listening.
Also a Global Warming Alarmist Political pusher…

I think he is a Lizard, but do not know him that well……

But yes – on this one point I think he is right and likely truth – although he does not make a habit of doing that on the rest of the things he is deep into, he is in with the Lizards…… Of course, being a very anti-American truth, this guy would love to expose it – he does Not like America.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

Sorry to burst anyone’s balloon, though.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

Sorry to burst anyone’s balloon, though.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

Oh ho!
And looking back, this was near the end of the Ukrainian offensive that was collapsing the Russian front around Kharkiv, and just before Putin panicked and started mobilization. (6-21 Sept).
IOW, the US risked ruining its entire alliance, while Putin certainly was panicking about the Ukrainian offensive, and had every reason to try and change the narrative.
So who was more likely to be desperate?

And it was AGAINST US interests, as Sachs concedes??
“Hitler’s victims hypnotized him to kill them…”
Rudolf Hess

Last edited 1 year ago by Martin Logan
Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

Oh ho!
And looking back, this was near the end of the Ukrainian offensive that was collapsing the Russian front around Kharkiv, and just before Putin panicked and started mobilization. (6-21 Sept).
IOW, the US risked ruining its entire alliance, while Putin certainly was panicking about the Ukrainian offensive, and had every reason to try and change the narrative.
So who was more likely to be desperate?

And it was AGAINST US interests, as Sachs concedes??
“Hitler’s victims hypnotized him to kill them…”
Rudolf Hess

Last edited 1 year ago by Martin Logan
Ralph Wade
Ralph Wade
1 year ago

In the same breath when complaining about the credibility of the MSM and specifically the Washington Post, Sachs pleaded with listeners to go to a Washington Post article that supported one of his assertions. This guy is credible? If this was a US operation, there is zero chance Biden would do it without the agreement of the major NATO partners. The Russia scenario makes more sense – Putin needs to split the alliance.

Noel Chiappa
Noel Chiappa
1 year ago
Reply to  Ralph Wade

Someone gave you a down-vote, without explaining what in your comment they found problematic. Definitely an issue with the UnHerd software, that one can do that.

Noel Chiappa
Noel Chiappa
1 year ago
Reply to  Ralph Wade

Someone gave you a down-vote, without explaining what in your comment they found problematic. Definitely an issue with the UnHerd software, that one can do that.

Ralph Wade
Ralph Wade
1 year ago

In the same breath when complaining about the credibility of the MSM and specifically the Washington Post, Sachs pleaded with listeners to go to a Washington Post article that supported one of his assertions. This guy is credible? If this was a US operation, there is zero chance Biden would do it without the agreement of the major NATO partners. The Russia scenario makes more sense – Putin needs to split the alliance.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

US? No don’t buy it at all. Too much risk if discovered to crucial alliances even if they felt strategic advantage to the action. Furthermore who can imagine cautious Biden giving the order?
Russia looking to blame US and sow division? More likely IMO. Poland to ensure Germany had to develop a less cosy relationship with Russia? More likely IMO
Sachs is compromised by other views where it becomes almost inevitable that he’d pedal this theory.

Last edited 1 year ago by j watson
j watson
j watson
1 year ago

US? No don’t buy it at all. Too much risk if discovered to crucial alliances even if they felt strategic advantage to the action. Furthermore who can imagine cautious Biden giving the order?
Russia looking to blame US and sow division? More likely IMO. Poland to ensure Germany had to develop a less cosy relationship with Russia? More likely IMO
Sachs is compromised by other views where it becomes almost inevitable that he’d pedal this theory.

Last edited 1 year ago by j watson
Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

Rather amusing that people don’t simply look at a map of the Russian gas pipelines to Europe–all of which served Europe quite well even before Nordstream One.
The rather obvious calculation that Putin made was that destroying the Nordstreams would so enrage/frighten Europeans that they would abandon both Ukraine and the US.
Then Putin could simply start shipping gas through his still-existing Yamal, Druzhba, and Soyuz pipelines.
Indeed, once they abandoned Ukraine, he would gain still more control.
That the flow might be reduced was an extra bonus. He would have a now-isolated and weakened Europe under his thumb more than ever.
But no…Sleepy Joe planned it all.
And a KGB agent would never think of blowing up anything!
Except apartment buildings, presumably

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

Always good to give a downvote when you can’t think of any reply.

Noel Chiappa
Noel Chiappa
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

And ironically, someone down-voted this!

Noel Chiappa
Noel Chiappa
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

And ironically, someone down-voted this!

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

Always good to give a downvote when you can’t think of any reply.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

Rather amusing that people don’t simply look at a map of the Russian gas pipelines to Europe–all of which served Europe quite well even before Nordstream One.
The rather obvious calculation that Putin made was that destroying the Nordstreams would so enrage/frighten Europeans that they would abandon both Ukraine and the US.
Then Putin could simply start shipping gas through his still-existing Yamal, Druzhba, and Soyuz pipelines.
Indeed, once they abandoned Ukraine, he would gain still more control.
That the flow might be reduced was an extra bonus. He would have a now-isolated and weakened Europe under his thumb more than ever.
But no…Sleepy Joe planned it all.
And a KGB agent would never think of blowing up anything!
Except apartment buildings, presumably

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

Naive in the extreme.
Anyone who thinks that the US did this hasn’t the slightest understanding of either Russia, or the Russian character.
This was a clear threat to every country dependent on gas pipelines.
“Keep this up, and I’ll blow up ALL your pipelines.”
Putin is the kind of Russian who sees “winning” as simply the other side losing.
That’s why they murdered people in Bucha. That’s why they try to freeze old ladies in their apartments. That’s why they steal children to raise as Russians.
It doesn’t help any Russian. It only hurts people they hate.
Get real…

Last edited 1 year ago by Martin Logan
Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

Thanks for no reply.
It is eye-opening.
Must be horrible when your balloon bursts so easily.

Last edited 1 year ago by Martin Logan
Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

You are so blinkered as to be completely delusional. Sacks is 100% right on this one I’m afraid. And if the Russians had done this, they would have done it in a far less risky way since they had access to the Russian end of the pipeline and could therefore have destroyed the pipeline from within under robotic control rather than a risky operation from without.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Appreciate your evidence-based argument.
But either:
1) Biden risks blowing up the coalition in Europe, knowing Putin can still sell gas anytime he wants;
2) Or does Putin do it, knowing full well he can sell gas when they panic?
Which is more likely?
BTW, have war casualties reached the15,000 level you predicted?

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

US foreign policy over the last 60 years has consistently been foolhardy and badly thought out., leading to one disaster after another.
As for Putin blowing up the pipeline, why do it from without rather than from within, and why not just simply turn the faucet off. It makes absolutely no sense for the Russians to have blown the pipeline up, unless they were worried of an invasion carried out by people swimming towards Russia in an oil-filled pipe!!!!

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

US foreign policy over the last 60 years has consistently been foolhardy and badly thought out., leading to one disaster after another.
As for Putin blowing up the pipeline, why do it from without rather than from within, and why not just simply turn the faucet off. It makes absolutely no sense for the Russians to have blown the pipeline up, unless they were worried of an invasion carried out by people swimming towards Russia in an oil-filled pipe!!!!

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

So (right or wrong), Martin’s hypothesis is apparently that Putin wanted to secretly do it so as to cast suspicion on the US, in order to break up the coalition against him.
And you think the best way for Russia to implicate the US would be to destroy it in a way that would immediately and conclusively point the finger at themselves? (Or at the Germans sending a robot from their end, still not pointing at the US and not damaging the anti-Russia coalition).
I don’t think you have followed the logic out fully.
(I actually suspect the US, but cannot make a conclusion based on the evidence to date; in this post I’m just examining the logic of Martin’s post and yours, not arguing that Russia did it).

Last edited 1 year ago by Zeph Smith
Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Appreciate your evidence-based argument.
But either:
1) Biden risks blowing up the coalition in Europe, knowing Putin can still sell gas anytime he wants;
2) Or does Putin do it, knowing full well he can sell gas when they panic?
Which is more likely?
BTW, have war casualties reached the15,000 level you predicted?

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

So (right or wrong), Martin’s hypothesis is apparently that Putin wanted to secretly do it so as to cast suspicion on the US, in order to break up the coalition against him.
And you think the best way for Russia to implicate the US would be to destroy it in a way that would immediately and conclusively point the finger at themselves? (Or at the Germans sending a robot from their end, still not pointing at the US and not damaging the anti-Russia coalition).
I don’t think you have followed the logic out fully.
(I actually suspect the US, but cannot make a conclusion based on the evidence to date; in this post I’m just examining the logic of Martin’s post and yours, not arguing that Russia did it).

Last edited 1 year ago by Zeph Smith
Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

You are so blinkered as to be completely delusional. Sacks is 100% right on this one I’m afraid. And if the Russians had done this, they would have done it in a far less risky way since they had access to the Russian end of the pipeline and could therefore have destroyed the pipeline from within under robotic control rather than a risky operation from without.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

Thanks for no reply.
It is eye-opening.
Must be horrible when your balloon bursts so easily.

Last edited 1 year ago by Martin Logan
Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

Naive in the extreme.
Anyone who thinks that the US did this hasn’t the slightest understanding of either Russia, or the Russian character.
This was a clear threat to every country dependent on gas pipelines.
“Keep this up, and I’ll blow up ALL your pipelines.”
Putin is the kind of Russian who sees “winning” as simply the other side losing.
That’s why they murdered people in Bucha. That’s why they try to freeze old ladies in their apartments. That’s why they steal children to raise as Russians.
It doesn’t help any Russian. It only hurts people they hate.
Get real…

Last edited 1 year ago by Martin Logan
Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

So Sleepy Joe is actually James Bond?
So Sleepy Joe is in bed with the oil companies–while they hate his guts for trying to decarbonize?
So the US would risk destroying the entire alliance against Putin on a high risk convert operation (which have often failed in the past) to help a few gas companies?
Or did these gas companies–who were going to make THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY selling LNG that they would have made whether the pipeline were there or not–hypnotize poor Sleepy Joe into doing it?
And the CIA as well?
But if one senile old journalist can be taken in by a single anonymous source, I guess it must be true.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

So Sleepy Joe is actually James Bond?
So Sleepy Joe is in bed with the oil companies–while they hate his guts for trying to decarbonize?
So the US would risk destroying the entire alliance against Putin on a high risk convert operation (which have often failed in the past) to help a few gas companies?
Or did these gas companies–who were going to make THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY selling LNG that they would have made whether the pipeline were there or not–hypnotize poor Sleepy Joe into doing it?
And the CIA as well?
But if one senile old journalist can be taken in by a single anonymous source, I guess it must be true.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago

It’s fine, this guy is CCP payroll. If you view everything he says through that prism, then it all makes sense.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago

It’s fine, this guy is CCP payroll. If you view everything he says through that prism, then it all makes sense.