According to US intelligence sources, the blasting of the two Nord Stream pipelines was not the work of the Americans. Rather, “pro-Ukrainian, possibly government-trained Ukrainians or Russians” would be the perpetrators of this sabotage. Another disinformation campaign?
First of all, when secret service sources claim something – especially under the guise of anonymity – it always makes sense to be skeptical. Because one of the main tasks of the secret services is to practice disinformation. This also applies to the information and allegations surrounding the sabotage of the two Nord Stream pipelines last December.
Now, four weeks after Seymour Hersh’s report, anonymous New York Times intelligence sources come up with a new theory, that basic rule applies too. The saboteurs are likely “pro-Ukrainian, possibly government-trained Ukrainian or Russian nationals, or a combination of both,” according to the intelligence source, but “not American or British nationals.” The newspaper writes:
US officials said they didn’t know much about the perpetrators and their connections. Review of the newly gathered intelligence suggests they were opponents of Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, but no details are given of the group’s members, or who directed or paid for the operation. US officials declined to disclose the nature of the intelligence, how it was obtained, or details of the strength of the evidence it contained. They stated that there were no clear conclusions and raised the possibility that the operation was carried out unofficially by a proxy force with ties to the Ukrainian government or its security services.
But as the newspaper notes, there are only allegations and no indices or evidence presented to support them. Instead, it seems to be based on speculation. The perpetrators were probably “experienced divers who did not appear to be working for the military or the secret service,” the intelligence officials told the newspaper. They added that “it is possible that the perpetrators received special government training in the past”. But that doesn’t explain how they got their hands on at least half a ton of military explosives needed to do such damage to the heavily fortified pipelines.
Pres. Biden: “If Russia invades…then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”
Reporter: “But how will you do that, exactly, since…the project is in Germany’s control?”
Biden: “I promise you, we will be able to do that.” https://t.co/uruQ4F4zM9 pic.twitter.com/4ksDaaU0YC
— ABC News (@ABC) February 7, 2022
It should be remembered that in advance of the blasting, US President Joe Biden made relevant comments that Nord Stream 2 would come to an end. At the same time, Kiev is trying to deny involvement, as such allegations could severely damage relations between Ukraine and Germany. Mikhail Podoliak, adviser to the head of President Zelenskyy’s office, said: “Ukraine has nothing to do with the Baltic Sea incident and has no information about “pro-Ukrainian subversive groups”.
New: Ukraine “has nothing to do with the Baltic Sea mishap and has no information about ‘pro-[Ukraine] sabotage groups,'” says Zelensky adviser Mykhailo Podolyak on the report of a pro-Ukraine group being behind Nord Stream sabotage https://t.co/8auIGYzOCW
— Shannon Vavra (@shanvav) March 7, 2023
But if the British and Americans had nothing to do with the blasting of the pipelines, as the newspaper’s ominous intelligence sources told the newspaper, then why did then British Prime Minister Liz Truss apparently give US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken one right after the blast? Message sent saying “It is done”?
How do the Russians know that the UK blew up the North Stream pipelines in partnership with the US?
Because @trussliz used her iPhone to send a message to @SecBlinken saying “It’s done” a minute after the pipeline blew up and before anybody else knew?
iCloud admin access rocks!
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) October 30, 2022
It is also worth remembering that the US secret services (particularly the CIA) also use the media in a targeted manner to spread disinformation, as a detailed report shows. Why not use the New York Times for such a campaign to distract attention from the British-American actions?