Monday 25th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

a nasty dangerous stupid illegal detrimental demented thing to do.....

It’s been more than a year since one of the biggest pieces of energy infrastructure in Europe was destroyed in what can only be described as a terror attack. One would imagine that no stone would be left unturned to investigate a crime of such magnitude and attribute responsibility.

 

Nord Stream syndrome: One year on, EU states and the US collude to sweep the pipeline attacks under the rug It seemed easy to blame Russia at first, but now that the evidence doesn’t add up, the West doesn’t want to talk about the truth

 

By Chay Bowes

 

You would also think that the countries that stood to lose most from Nord Stream’s destruction would be at the forefront of these investigations. Well, welcome to the Europe of 2023 where, in a weird case of Stockholm syndrome, it seems neither the alleged perpetrator nor indeed one of the main victims wants any more “trouble”when it comes to Nord Stream. The consensus is to let sleeping dogs lie, and considering the evidence of US involvement in the attack, that’s entirely unsurprising.

On September 26, 2022, the world’s news feeds erupted with reports of the powerful explosions which tore the landmark Russian-German gas pipelines apart, dealing a devastating blow to Berlin's, and by extension the entire EU's, energy security. Within a couple of days, Western media had seemingly solved the mystery. Publications such as Politico eagerly proclaimed that “Everything is pointing to Russia,” embracing the utterly delusional anti-logic that would make it plausible that Russia would destroy a piece of its own energy infrastructure that had been bringing it steady income. This reality, widely accepted by objective, nonaligned observers, was however lost on a slew of NATO-, US-, and EU-aligned commentators and officials. A mere four days after the explosions, US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told the BBC that it “seems” Russia was behind the destruction of its own multibillion-dollar investment.

When we roll the clock forward to today, it is now patently clear that Western media have been tasked with memory-holing the entire Nord Stream affair, with Germany, Sweden, and Denmark quietly conducting separate “investigations” which conveniently exclude Russian officials while also remaining strangely low-key in Western newsfeeds. These obviously declawed investigations continue as it is increasingly accepted in the West that Russia had nothing to do with the sabotage, it now being obvious that the US and/or a proxy partner were actually behind this terror attack on European soil. More than a year after these attacks, it’s apparent that the manner in which this reality has been suppressed is possibly more sinister than the attack itself.

An often-overlooked element of the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines is the devastating environmental impact that resulted from the explosions. Over 100,000 tons of methane gas was released into the atmosphere as four huge blasts tore through the two pipelines. A far less well known, or publicized, fact is that these pipelines were laid near an area where tons of toxic chemical weapons waste from the First World War had previously been dumped. The scale of the resulting short- and long-term impact on the seabed and atmosphere is difficult to establish, but both this and the single-biggest release of methane into the atmosphere in recent history seem to have gone generally unnoticed by the Green lobby in the EU and US. Anyone doubting the influence of this bunch should recall that on Joe Biden’s first day in office, he canceled a huge pipeline project, Keystone XL, jeopardizing thousands of construction jobs in what was seen as payback to environmentalists, whose cash and influence had been critical in his narrow electoral success.

The silence of the Green lobby on the catastrophic impact of the Nord Stream attack thus seems all the more unusual. Environmental activists across the US have rallied around calls to prevent the construction of pipelines in various regions, citing their negative environmental impact, but those same people seem remarkably quiet when it comes to the biggest pipeline-related environmental catastrophe in decades. The lack of any significant challenge regarding this act of eco-terrorism speaks volumes about the West’s selective approach to the Ukraine conflict. Green moral outrage is instantly shelved once Russia or China is the target and not the perpetrator.

The other elephant in the room is of course the fact that the US military represents the single-biggest source of carbon pollution on planet Earth. It's the largest consumer of energy in America itself and the world’s single-largest institutional consumer of petroleum. In this context it’s worth noting the endless stream of “celebrity” visitors to the court of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky in Kiev, amongst them the 'Queen of Green' Greta Thunberg, who decried the destruction of the Kakhovka hydroelectric dam and the environmental impacts of war, all the while posing for grinning pictures with Zelensky and his entourage. Strangely, and maybe conveniently, the Nord Stream attack was absent from the agenda which widely condemned Russia as the architect of all of Ukraine’s past, current, and future environmental woes. Innumerable other Western “stars” have landed in Kiev to wring as much PR out of the conflict as possible, but not on one single occasion has any of these “eco warriors” dared to raise the impact of the Nord Stream attack and its aftermath. It seems that the destruction of the dam, which had no strategic benefit for the Russian military, much like the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, is yet another convenient way to demonize Moscow, a practice now routinely engaged in without any requirement to provide any objective or independent evidence.

Remarkably, when evidence emerged that Ukrainian forces had previously targeted the Kakhovka dam to “test” whether they could indeed strike it, this was widely ignored by Western media, and yet again, the immediate rush to blame Russia, as happened with Nord Stream, began with only a few outlets publishing slightly dissenting views.

So as the line of Hollywood stars and politicians making the pilgrimage to Kiev diminishes, along with Kiev’s chances of victory, some of the realities of the selective blindness regarding Nord Stream become all the more apparent. Zelensky’s regime in Kiev is obviously finding it more and more difficult to carry the narrative plausibly to tiring Western audiences, with manic allegations of Russian missile attacks in Poland and Konstantinovka all being embarrassingly shown to be false. Compounding the downward spiral of Ukrainian credibility is Polish Prime Minister Andrzej Duda’s recent pushback against Kiev’s demands. Add to this the recent debacle with the Ukrainian Nazi lauded in the Canadian parliament, which turned Ottawa’s show of support for Kiev into a PR disaster, and you get a distinct sense that the wheels are coming off for Zelensky and his regime. One thing is absolutely undeniable, that when this is all over, and the truth about Nord Stream and the suppressive media coverage surrounding it comes to the surface, we will probably need a dam to hold back the flood of reality that hits a Western population that gleefully consumed a grossly implausible narrative around this whole affair. Given the fact that the truth has an inconvenient tendency to emerge, it’s quite possible that one of the EU’s most energetic Russophobes, Josep Borrell, may end up regretting saying the words he never intended to turn into action at the time:

“Any deliberate disruption of European energy infrastructure is utterly unacceptable and will be met with a robust and united response.”

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/584074-russia-nord-stream-pipeline-attacks/

 

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/47215

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

 

 

biden did it.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vf95JqCPsc

Putin's Big Message For Berlin After Sweden Shuts Nord Stream Inquiry, Transfers Case To Germany

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOWWWWWWWWWW....................

 

https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/49833

sabotage.....

 

The Nord Stream Pipelines and the perils of containment    By Seymour Hersh

 

The sabotage in the Baltic Sea was the result of a long-standing US policy of driving a wedge between Russia and Western Europe.

Thursday marks one year since I reported President Joe Biden’s decision in the fall of 2022 to send a signal of resolve to Vladimir Putin by destroying Nord Stream 1 and 2, the Russian natural gas pipelines. Nord Stream 1 had turned Germany into the most powerful economic force in Western Europe.

I won’t dwell on the failure of the mainstream media to follow up on that story—some reporters, as I learned decades ago, have inside sources and others do not. But I will relate a lesson I learned about presidential signaling of the sort that is going on now against the Houthis in Yemen; against the Iranians, who are believed to be behind much of the anti-Americanism in the Middle East; and, of course, against Moscow in the Ukraine war.

It’s a Cold War story I was told by someone who was steeped in the history of the early days of American intervention in Vietnam. After the Second World War, the United States backed the wrong side in China, and the communist forces led by Mao Zedong declared victory in 1949. This was seen as yet another setback for America’s effort to contain worldwide communism. Containment was the overriding US policy then, and there was worry about Mao’s support for Ho Chi Minh, the Vietnamese leader who defeated the French in 1954, in the battle at Diem Bien Phu, despite much off-the-books American help for France. A little-noted international peace conference that year in Geneva concluded, in a triumph for rational diplomacy, that Vietnam would be divided, with Ho dominating the North and a non-communist regime to be set up in the South.

American fear of communism determined what happened next in the South, as the Eisenhower administration, buttressed by support from the Catholic Church and many in the US Congress, including newly elected Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, as well as his powerful father, businessman Joseph Kennedy, installed the French-speaking devout Catholic southerner Ngo Dinh Diem as president. Diem had little in common with the Buddhists and Catholics in the South who hated the French, but his installation as president was a signal to Ho Chi Minh and the Chinese that America was in the South to contain the spread of communism throughout the peninsula, to Laos and Cambodia.

We think we understand what happened in the next nineteen years as America fought its war of containment, but mostly we do not. After the deaths of millions of Vietnamese and more than 58,000 Americans, Saigon fell to the North on April 30, 1975. The brutal scene of desperate Vietnamese clinging to the landing gear of the last American helicopter fleeing the rooftop of the embassy in Saigon is an image my generation will never forget. Cambodia, whose various regimes had been supported by thousands of American bombs, fell to the communist Khmer Rouge in the last days of April, with a new government in place by the end of May. And in August the communist Pathet Lao consolidated a victory won months earlier in the battlefields by formally taking over the government.

And what happened next?

We lost a war, shrugged it off, and moved on.

Cambodia was taken over by the fanatical Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, that initiated a wave of murders and atrocities that horrified the world. The communist winners in South Vietnam began a purge of thousands who were deemed, fairly or not, to be Western sympathizers, many of them southerners who had been drafted or dragooned into the South Vietnamese army. They were flung into re-education camps that combined physical labor with mental torture. The jailed included many members of North’s loyal allies known to Americans as the Viet Cong who were not communists but nationalists.

Today consolidated Vietnam is non-communist and America is its largest trading partner, and it is a major tourist stop for Americans and Europeans. The same can be said for Cambodia’s Ankor Wat, with its array of thousand-year-old temples. I played golf at a resort there a few years ago and went sightseeing with my family. Communist Laos remains relatively remote, but is modernising rapidly and is a major trading partner of China.

All that America fought, died, and killed for was gone within a few months. So much for containment. And so much for signalling. It was a lesson not known, or not interesting, to the Biden administration in early 2022, when it seemed clear that Vladimir Putin was going to lead Russia to war with Ukraine. Biden had long been a strong opponent of Russia, and before that Soviet communism, throughout his political career, and he especially reviled Putin.

It is now widely accepted that Putin would have delayed or canceled the invasion if Secretary of State Antony Blinken had assured him that Ukraine would not be permitted to join NATO. That promise was not made. Instead, Biden publicly warned Putin two weeks before the Russians attacked that America would destroy the newly constructed pipeline, Nord Stream 2, that was prepared to funnel Russian gas to Germany. Putin had already slowed down and then cut off the earlier pipeline, Nord Stream 1, that began delivering gas to Germany a decade earlier.

The cheap gas helped propel Germany into becoming the dominant manufacturing entity in Western Europe. Since the late 1950s, the United States and its Western European allies had worried about the political impact of Russian energy.

The idea of blowing up Nord Stream 1 and 2 had come from the American intelligence community, spearheaded at the time by the CIA. The community had been asked in late 2021 for options—American actions—that could convince Putin to back off. It was with this understanding that a most secret CIA unit was organised to find a way to do what President Biden wanted: to present Putin with a threat that could stop the Russian president from going to war. Bolstered by the CIA’s confidence, Biden stunned the intelligence community by threatening to blow up Nord Stream at a White House news conference on February 7, 2022, with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz standing at his side.

The CIA team, ensconced in secrecy in Norway, continued to work on its assignment, and found a way to get the complicated job done by early spring. The understanding then, in the view of some of the planners, was for Biden to pull the trigger and publicly tell Putin that he had done what he threatened to do and he, Putin, had to understand that he was dealing with an American president whose words were to be taken seriously. But Biden changed his mind at the last minute—a time had been set for the underwater detonation of bombs that had been planted earlier—and the operation was put on hold. The CIA team was given no explanation, and the American bombs were left in place, to be triggered whenever Biden chose to do so.

The American team was disbanded, with some of them angered by the president’s refusal to do what they were told was the purpose of their mission was: to show Putin that his actions would have immediate consequences. The mines were detonated remotely at Biden’s request on September 26, six months into the Ukraine war, for reasons never made clear—because the Biden White House insisted then, and to this day, that it had nothing to do with the detonations.

After the explosions, which became an international sensation, it took four days for a White House correspondent to bring up the Nord Stream issue. Biden called the bombings “a deliberate act of sabotage” and claimed that the Russians were “pumping out [dis]information and lies about it.” A reporter subsequently asked National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan at a news conference whether he and others in the press corps should take the president’s statements to mean that “the US now believes that Russia was likely responsible for this act of sabotage?”

Sullivan—who, as I reported last February, was the major player in generating a secret potential pre-war threat to Russia—provided an answer that was breathtaking in its obfuscation. “First,” he responded, “Russia has done what it frequently does when it is responsible for something . . . which is to make accusations that it was really someone else who did it. We’ve seen that repeatedly over time.” He said that the president was also clear—which he was not –that “there is more work to do on the investigation before the United States government is prepared to make an attribution in this case.” The White House, he said, would not make a “definitive determination” until its allies in the region concluded their work.

Sullivan said that Russia’s suggestion that the US was involved in the bombing was “flat out false. Russian know they’re false. But, of course, that is part of their playbook.”

Sweden and Denmark, whose governments had every reason to know what had taken place, announced within days of the explosions that they would work together to investigate the explosions. On October 2, Germany said it would work with Sweden and Denmark on the inquiry. Twelve days later the Russian foreign ministry expressed its “bewilderment” at being excluded from the inquiry. On that day, too, Sweden said it would not join in the inquiries because it would involve the transfer of information related to Sweden’s national security.

Nothing more about the cause of the underwater bombings has been heard since from either Sweden or Denmark, although both nations knew, as I have written, that the US was practicing underwater diving in the Baltic Sea for months before the explosions. The failure of the two nations to complete their inquiry may have stemmed from the fact, as I was told, that some senior officials in both countries understood precisely what was going on.

The United States has since vetoed at least one attempt by Russia to get an independent United Nations investigation into the explosions. And the US intelligence community has provided support, along with German officials, to journalists writing alternative accounts of the pipeline bombing. Such stories invariably cite a 49-foot yacht said to be the vessel for the high-risk technical diving involved.

There is no evidence that President Biden, in the sixteen months since the pipelines were destroyed, has “tasked”—a word of art in the American intelligence community—its experts to conduct an all-source investigation into the explosions. And no senior German leader, including Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who is known to be close to President Biden, has made any significant push to determine who did what. A subsequent investigation sought by some members of the Bundestag, Germany’s parliament, was undertaken but its conclusion has been withheld from the public for what are said to be security reasons.

The last word on all of this belongs to Emmanuel Todd, a French demographer and political scientist who became widely known in Europe in 1976, when he was twenty-five years old, for his prediction, based in part on increasing rates of infant mortality, that the Soviet Union was doomed to fail. He has become more and more critical of American foreign policy, especially its continuing support for Ukraine, which he has caustically described as “a defeat for the West without being a victory for Russia.”

He argued in a recent interview that “one of the great goals of American politics, and therefore of NATO, was to stop the inevitable reconciliation of Russia and Germany” as Russia, despite American sanctions, was winning the war in Ukraine and once again “evincing economic stability.”

“This was a great source of fear,” Todd said, “and that is why the Americans”—he cited my Nord Stream exposé—“blew up the Nord Stream pipeline.”

At the time Biden ordered the destruction of the pipelines, the American fear was that Chancellor Scholz, who at the request of Washington had shut off 750 miles of Russian gas in the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline that was ready in the fall of 2021 to be delivered to a port in Germany, might change his mind and let the gas flow, easing German economic worries and reinstating an important energy force for German industry. That would not be allowed to happen, and Germany has been in economic and political turmoil since.

 

Republished from seymourhersh.substack.com February 7, 2024

 

https://johnmenadue.com/the-nord-stream-pipelines-and-the-perils-of-containment/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOWWWWWWWWWW....................

 

https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/49833