Ukraine responsible for Nord Stream 2 attack? You heard it here first
The New York Times has now floated the theory
Exactly one month ago today, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh published a detailed report in which he claimed that America was behind the Nord Stream 2 pipeline explosions. Until then, rumours swirled as to who the guilty party was.
Speaking to UnHerd‘s Freddie Sayers after that article’s publication, professor of Public Policy at Columbia University Jeffrey Sachs concurred that America was the only country with the motive and means to pull it off. He dismissed Sayers’s suggestion that it could have been Russian or Ukrainian-affiliated groups:
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
Freddie Sayers: Okay, scenario number two, what about some organisation connected to the Ukrainian government that wanted to fast-forward Western opposition to Russia, essentially frame the Russians for having blown up the pipeline and get increased Western support? It’s been talked about as a theory, is it plausible?
Jeffrey Sachs: It’s absurd. Ukraine doesn’t have the capacity to do it. Ukraine would never do it without the US approval. So there’s absolutely no way that some rogue Ukrainian operation is responsible for this. It’s absurd.
One week later, respected security adviser Fiona Hill spoke to UnHerd and advanced the same theory, sending shockwaves across the UK and US security establishments:
Fiona Hill: I don’t believe it was the United States. If the United States had done that, by now, somebody would have laid claim to this. The United States can be a leaky sieve in terms of information. Some of my colleagues who have been looking at this think Ukraine could have done it. And this isn’t implausible, because they already managed to launch a pretty significant strike on the Kerch (Crimean) Bridge, but I haven’t seen any evidence.
Two weeks on, and reporting by the New York Times suggests that this theory is now becoming mainstream. According to fresh intelligence reports, US officials now believe that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack: “The review of newly collected intelligence suggests they were opponents of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia,” the NYT reports. “But does not specify the members of the group, or who directed or paid for the operation.”
The story notes that there is no evidence of President Zelenskyy’s involvement or the Ukrainian government. Nor has it made any of the new intelligence public.
Excuse my cynicism, but the word ‘smokescreen’ comes to mind.
We were expected to believe that the Russians had done this – entirely against their own interests – until Hersch came out with detailed claims that it was actually the US: a notion that makes a lot more sense given their interests and past statements.
Now, just one month later, we have the familiar picture of ‘intelligence’ being passed by the US government to a friendly corporate media outlet which attempts to muddy the waters. A ‘breakaway faction’ of Ukrainians is now conveniently responsible – though as ever no evidence at all is produced to back this up.
So now we are asked to believe that some splinter group in a country riven by war, which is constantly begging for weapons and funding, has somehow managed to pull off a sophisticated and secret underwater operation, without any governments in the region even noticing. Because the CIA says so.
If you believe that, I have a safe and effective covid vaccine to sell you 😉
It’s even less in the interests of the US, since Russia can still sell gas through Druzhba and Yamal.
Moreover, exposure would break the alliance and stop LNG in its tracks.
It’s in the interests of the US because the end of the pipeline makes it much harder for Europe, and especially Germany, to rely on Russia for energy, which in turn means that Europe can be prised away from Russia and returned to being a full client of the US. Which is what has happened. Presumably this is why Biden openly stated that the US would end the pipeline months before it happened. Whether this is what he meant or not, the intention was clear.
Putin could still do that with Druzhba and Yamal.
Sorry, zero US or Ukrainian motive.
I’m sorry you are unable to see their motives.
I’m sorry you are unable to articulate them.
“Russia can still sell gas through Druzhba and Yamal”
Why di you think they built Nordstream in the first place?
Hint: Guess which country straddles the Druzhba pipeline route?
And Putin’s bet was that German demand for gas would set them against both of their eastern neighbours. Thus splitting the Alliance.
Good bet–save for the weather.
Which was produced by Russian fossil fuels, ironically.
Funny how Karma works, isn’t it?
To be fair to the NYT (not something I’m often heard saying), I don’t think anyone can deny that it’s fair to describe the US government as ‘a pro-Ukrainian group.’
Still leaves the Druzhba/Yamal problem.
No motive if it doesn’t cut off Russian gas.
And glad to see that a plain fact is so unwelcome.
Fiona Hill was the warm up act to get the story rolling before the NYT picks up the ball. Not even slightly credible. Note the NYT did not even DISCUSS S. Hersh article. Because they were told not to. Journalism is dying.
Presumably, the Conspiracy is everywhere.
The White House has just released a statement strait from Biden’s Desk telling us Exactly who did it:
White Supremacists exploded the Nordstream Pipelines!!
FBI is rounding up Proud Boys…….
I am shocked…SHOCKED…
Let me try to understand this. The NYT dismisses the Hersh article because he uses unnamed sources. And now we get a totally implausible scenario based on unnamed sources. Hmm
‘The destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines required a very high degree of planning, expertise and technological capacity, he continued, adding that only a handful of State-level actors have both the technical capacity and access to the Baltic Sea to have carried out this action. These include the Russian Federation, the United States, the United Kingdom, Poland, Norway, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, either individually or in some combination.’
Jeffrey sachs at the UN a few weeks ago, ‘ONLY A HANDFUL’ capable…
Ukraine has a tiny navy, no knowledge in this area, that they had the capacity to carry this out I find very difficult to believe.
Is anyone else getting Murder on the Orient Express vibes from this?
The CIA has never done any attacks using third parties. No sir.
German media published the boat used was hired in Poland and by allegedly 2 Ukrainians. but German Defence Ministry warned against jumping to conclusions and the potential for deliberate false flag op remains as strong.
So whilst Freddie asked a question the evidence on what exactly happened remains v limited and inconclusive. A number of parties had a potential motive. We knew that a few weeks ago and not much changed.
Apart from Seymour hersh, backed by jeffrey sachs and Ray mcgovern. That is not no evidence. Hersh has sources. There is no reason to believe he has no evidence and his sources are not legitimate.
See my YouTube link below.
I see you are on good form today Mr logan. Yes. Fair enough. Secret sources. He has a very good track record though. It has also been concluded that there is NO EVIDENCE it was russia. Would you like a source?
And you inadvertently parallel a very Soviet phrase: “as is known.”
Naturally, the Soviet politicians that said it never got back to us as to who originally knew this, or how they came by it.
Russia’s empire is eternal.
Ok. I thought they said at the UN they had no evidence it was russia. Anyway. I really do not want any eternal empires. Are we not past that sh*t now. Can’t we just for once, in the whole history of the world. Play nicely?
Fiona Hill rather blithely mentions the “pretty significant strike” on the Kerch Bridge considering the open questions about how that “strike” was carried out.
Did the Ukrainians employ a suicide bomber to drive the truck? Or else the Azerbaijani driver, clueless that he was driving a bomb presumably timed to detonate as the train was passing by, was murdered.
If the “strike” was something else, where is the evidence?
Sort of like all the people in Bucha.
It seems odd for UnHerd to be proud of being used by warmongers as a Useful Idiot.
Can someone explain how a handful of civilians with no state connection or knowledge came to possess over half a ton of C4 or equivalent without anyone knowing about it? And that is only one of several holes in this story.
If the attack was done from a surface vessel it would have been visible from surveillance satellites. Then the Russians and the US know how it was done.
If the attack was done by demolition divers leaving and re-entering a submarine there are very few nations who could do that. A breakaway unofficial Ukrainian group just couldn’t do it.
Still no answer.
Just the assumption that only “the evil empire” could do this sort of thing.
The logic stands at the pinnacle of all western modes of thought.
Copernicus would be proud!
And Groucho Marx…
I fail to see why it would be a problem if Ukraine did do it. They are at war with Russia. Russia’s industrial infrastructure is fair game. It’s no different than the Russians targeting power plants.
That’s the point. If America did do it and they scape goat ukraine they will get away with it. And everyone will go on like it never happened.
It must be really tough for poor Putin now. He gets the blame for everything.
I’ve had enough of all of them. Putin, xi, biden, our leaders, Europes leaders, all of them. They are more interested in having a big hegemonic d*ck fight rather than looking after their countries.
Tell that to Putin.
I’m sure he will listen!
None of them will listen.
I’m certainly willing to consider any possibility.
HOWEVER, the problem is: the attack wasn’t against Russia’s interests, at least WRT selling gas to Europe. Putin and most Russians assumed it would freeze this winter without it.
They also have no need for the Nordstreams to sell gas to Europe. They did it long before either pipeline.
Indeed, even now Russia still has ways of getting gas to Europe: the old Yamal and Druzhba pipelines. The pipelines transported Russian gas here for decades.
1) Why would Ukrainians–or any other western group–do this, when they knew it couldn’t choke off Russian gas?
2) Why would either Ukrainians (or the US) take this risk? Any exposure would go against their interests, and split the alliance.
Unless you subscribe to the hoary old Marxist trope that “The Capitalists will destroy their own system” it makes no sense.
But I will keep an open mind…
Still no answer as to why Ukraine (or the US) would destroy the Nordstreams, when gas still flows through both Poland and Ukraine.
Indeed, if either of the latter then refused to allow gas through, it would have split the alliance.
But dreams are funny things..as are delusions…
Join the discussion
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