It turns out that the country behind the September 2022 bombing of the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline was almost certainly Ukraine—and US government officials have known it all along. The Washington Post reported this today based on intelligence leaks from the Discord Papers:
Details about the plan, which have not been previously reported, were collected by a European intelligence service and shared with the CIA in June 2022....The highly specific details, which include numbers of operatives and methods of attack, show that for nearly a year Western allies had a basis to suspect Kyiv in the sabotage.
....European officials in several countries have quietly suggested that Ukraine was behind the attack, but resisted publicly saying so over fears that blaming Kyiv could fracture the alliance against Russia. At gatherings of European and NATO policymakers, officials have settled into a rhythm as one senior European diplomat said recently, “Don’t talk about Nord Stream.”
The European intelligence made clear that the would-be attackers were not rogue operatives. All those involved reported directly to Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, the country’s highest-ranking military officer, who was put in charge so that Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, wouldn’t know about the operation, the intelligence report said.
Details of the Ukranian operation that were shared by the intelligence source are strikingly similar to evidence gathered by German law enforcement:
For instance, the Ukrainian individual that informed the European intelligence service in June said that six members of Ukraine’s special operations forces using false identities intended to rent a boat and, using a submersible vehicle, dive to the floor of the Baltic Sea then damage or destroy the pipeline and escape undetected. In addition to oxygen, the team planned to bring helium, which is recommended for especially deep dives.
German investigators now believe that six individuals using fake passports rented a sailing yacht in September, embarked from Germany and planted explosives that severed the pipelines, according to officials familiar with that investigation. They believe the operatives were skilled divers, given that the explosives were planted at a depth of about 240 feet, in the range that experts say helium would be helpful for maintaining mental focus.
Investigators...have linked Ukrainian individuals to the rental of the boat via an apparent front company in Poland. Investigators also suspect that at least one individual who serves in the Ukrainian military was involved in the sabotage operation.
Ukraine certainly makes more sense as a saboteur than either Russia, which had little reason to bomb its own pipeline, or the United States, which had already been mostly successful at persuading Germany to halt imports of Russian gas.
One interesting aspect of this is that it's yet another example of Ukraine's remarkable wartime proficiency. Just as Russia's performance in the war has been surprisingly poor, I don't think anyone expected Ukraine to be as capable and skilled on the battlefield as they have been. That the pipeline bombing, a complex and sophisticated undertaking, was conducted in secret and without a hitch, is further testimony to the Ukrainian military's fundamental competence.
Yikes. I wonder if there will be diplomatic blowback from the Baltic states over this (although I would've guessed it was them who did it, if it wasn't Ukraine).
"It turns out that the country behind the September 2022 bombing of the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline was almost certainly Ukraine"
Good for them. Ukraine's got a pretty free pass to wreck any Russian infrastructure they can get their hands on.
Good for them. Ukraine's got a pretty free pass to wreck any Russian infrastructure they can get their hands on.
While I have no problem with them or their Russian allies causing havoc to military targets on Russian soil (it's a war after all doncha know?) This was not a smart move by the Ukranians.
While the Ukrainians are accusing the Russians of "ecocide" with the destruction of the damn, releasing 200,000-gallons of methane gas into the Baltic Sea is not good for the environment either. And even though the same intelligence agencies conclude the Russians (in typical Russian fashion and panic) blew up the dam because only an internal explosion could have cause the kind of damage to create the breach of a Russian-occupied dam, the Nord Stream attacks gives the Russians the slightest bit of credibility to accuse Ukraine of blowing up the dam as well. Not good when fighting a war where propaganda is important tool i.e weapon to determine its outcome and where Ukrainian funding is depended on governments which can be influenced by said propaganda.
Bottom line is you can see why NATO has been reluctant to give weapons like long-range missiles, tanks or F-16s to the Ukrainians for this very reason, because they would use them to escalate the war in various ways. I don't blame them for that considering the destruction Russia has put upon the county. But they have to keep in mind the bigger picture as much as it sucks to do so.
Perhaps. But this looks like a cover-your-ass operation by the United States. Now that Zaluzhny is dead, they have someone to blame so that it can prevent European voters and governments from having a closer look at why they are so eager to take part in a conflict that never should have happened. If Ukraine had implemented the Minsk agreements, it would have let an independent Donbas as part of Ukraine, and neutrality would have been assured. NATO could not have Ukraine follow the same path as Austria, so a great PR campaign was orchestrated to justify a war that should never have happened.
I think that Hersh got it right. The US was behind it all. But it should not matter because the German government should not support Ukraine after Zelensky's government directly attacked it.
Pumping 200,000 tons of methane into the atmosphere is not fundamental competence in my eyes, nor is pissing off the Germans when you need them, nor is sowing distrust in oneself. This is a black eye for Ukraine.
Scientific American:
"The event, although huge, accounts for around 0.14% of the global annual methane emissions from the oil and gas industry...."
When a large oil-producing country invades its neighbor and inflicts crimes bordering on genocide, and the otherwise peaceful neighbor takes drastic action in its defense, I think we know where the black eye belongs.
On the flip side, taking out Nord Stream demonstrates the vulnerability of fossil-fuel infrastructure, which should help accelerate the move to renewable energy. Kudos to Ukraine!
The far bigger problem is the 99.86% of annual methane emissions from the fossil-fuel industry, not the onetime 0.14% event done by a desperate country trying to defend itself.
+1, thank you.
A huge dam over the Dnieper just blew up and the Ukrainians are swearing up and down that the Russians did it. Should we believe them?
Also, this is exactly why they shouldn't be part of NATO. They've done stuff like this repeatedly then claimed the Russians did it as a false flag. They do that as a member of the alliance, they could start WWIII.
It's breaking news. Investigations will be done.
But hell yes, we should believe them. Till more is known, it's the most likely explanation of what happened.
I'm flabbergasted by what you're implying. Because Ukraine (probably) did a covert action in its strategic defense (Nord Stream), you're implying it may have taken out its own dam, risking thousands of lives of Ukkrainians and the Ukraine agricultural economy, so it can blame Russia. Do I have that right?
That's nuts.
Can't see how blowing up the pipeline helped Ukraine, except potentially making the German's quite unhappy (though are the Germans ever really happy?), so this was a really stupid move on their part. If blowing up the dam tactically helps the Russians, then I would believe they did it.
I don't see this thing ending without either an iron clad security guaranty from NATO, or Ukraine joining NATO.
"Can't see how blowing up the pipeline helped Ukraine..."
Short answer:
1. It hurts Russia by cutting off a potential big revenue stream to fund its war machine
2. Since Ukraine relies on strong, unified support from NATO, it avoids a potential fracture from wavering support in Germany if its economy is relying on Russian oil
"If blowing up the dam tactically helps the Russians, then I would believe they did it."
1. It certainly inflicts damage and weakens Ukraine. That certainly fits the way Putin has waged this war.
2. Claims that Ukraine blew up its own dam are baffling. Why? What do they have to gain?
3. Maybe more evidence will come out shortly.
The European intelligence services was the source of this information, so it is highly likely the Germans and the rest of the NATO allies knew. It is one thing for Germany to agree not to buy gas from the Russians, but its another to use a covert operation to sabotage the pipeline.
Clearly it was intentional for NATO not to disclose that publicly so as to fracture the domestic support for Ukraine.
Russia has been selling fossil fuels to China, India, and others, though at a discount apparently.
"this is exactly why they shouldn't be part of NATO"
I think it is the exact opposite. This is why they should be part of NATO.
Had they been a part of NATO they wouldn't need to do stuff like this. They are defending themselves through skill and cunning because they face an enemy with far more resources and who invaded them without motive.
Had they been part of NATO they would not have been invaded, and they wouldn't need to do any type of subterfuge strike. When you know you have a jackhammer available to you, you don't need to look for small cracks on the grounds to chip away with a chisel.
The dam was (is) in Russian controlled territory. Large dams like that are, by virtue of sheer size, tough. It takes a lot of explosives to blow a dam. So if the Ukrainians did it they managed to run a covert operation in Russian territory involving at least one heavy truck load of explosives they they either drove out to the middle of the dam and dumped off or loaded into boats so they could approach the middle of the dam and drop their bombs in the water right up close to the dam.
Tactically, blowing the dam insures that there will be no offensive river crossings down stream any time in the next few weeks. Given that the Ukrainians are expected to take the offensive any day now, blowing the dam would be a dumb thing for them to do and a short-term tactically smart thing for the Russians to do. Of course, the fact that blowing the dam will also cause a water shortage in Crimea makes it a long-term dumb thing for the Russians to do, but battlefield exigencies often take precedence over long term civilian welfare.
It was Ukraine. If Russia wanted to flood the river, all it had to do was open the floodgates. Russia built the dam, and it was in Russian-controlled territory. It supplies water to Crimea, so its destruction reduces the Crimean grain production. Last year, there was a record harvest. The gains from blowing up the dams go to Ukraine, not Russia. And we know that last year, Ukraine's generals were firing at the gates to see if they could destroy the dam. WaPo had a story on it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221229064018/https:/www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-kharkiv-kherson-donetsk/
We need to stop tolerating lies.
But, but... Seymore Hersch talked to some drunks in a bar who said it was the United States!
(Even though it really would make zero sense for the US to have done it.)
No no no no … it was the Chinese, to get cheap Russian gas. …
No no no no ... It was Grand Fenwick wot did it.
I'll admit I don't follow Seymore Hersch specifically and only hear of him when he pops into general news, so maybe you can educate me on his track record of "scoops" that turn out to be wrong (doesn't need to be laughably wrong though it sounds like you know of some). But in the meantime I have to note that this ridicule is all remarkably similar to the attacks against him I heard after his Abu Ghraib revelations which did pan out.
It is hard to know where to start with your comment "it really would make zero sense for the US to have done it". While it is arguable if it is wise or "correct" for the US to destroy that infrastructure, there are many obvious reasons it is in their interests and they have been very explicit and consistent in their dislike of this pipeline since its inception.
We should all be careful as well about ascribing a single monolithic motive or actor when things like this happen. US, Ukraine, Russia, they all have factions and agencies that operate with various levels of autonomy and unofficial interactions.
My guess is it was US (most likely CIA) and Ukraine factions working together through unofficial/clandestine channels.
Hersh still looks to have the correct story. This is a diversion that blames a dead Ukrainian general and protects Biden.
Hats off and three cheers for Jack Teixeira, who is making it harder for Ukraine to do stealthy operations going forward. What a great guy!
Scoop Uber Alles.
We already had suggestive evidence from the German investigation in OSINT.
The dam may have been an accident.
There's a report that in the days before the Russians had let the mass of water behind the dam increase dramatically. Why? Presumably so if Ukraine tried to cross the river they could unleash it all at once, but then the structure failed and the result was that a huge amount of Russian equipment was wiped out on the southern bank,
https://news.yahoo.com/western-journalists-speculate-might-not-102918907.html
On the other hand, there was the sound of a loud explosion.
Isn't there always a loud sound before a dam collapse?
For example when the St Francis dam upstream of LA collapsed in 1928, there were reports of a sound like landslide.
Nonsense. There is no benefit to Russia blowing up the dam or putting it in danger. The Ukrainians signalled their intent last year.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221229064018/https:/www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-kharkiv-kherson-donetsk/
To impede the Ukrainian offensive is all the benefit they'd need.
Blowing it up gives them plausible deniability that someone else may have done it.
Rationalize them opening up all the other dams on the river.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Pingback: Does Anyone Believe American Propaganda Anymore? – Attack the System
Pingback: Taibbi: Does Anyone Believe American Propaganda Anymore? – iftttwall
Pingback: Taibbi: Does Anyone Believe American Propaganda Anymore? – Patriosity.com
Pingback: Taibbi: Does Anyone Believe American Propaganda Anymore? – 67x.info
Pingback: Taibbi: Does Anyone Believe American Propaganda Anymore? - Barbershop Talk
Pingback: Taibbi: Does Anyone Believe American Propaganda Anymore? – TAKIN' IT BACK
Pingback: Taibbi: Does Anyone Believe American Propaganda Anymore? : by Tyler Durden – Dawson County Journal
Pingback: Does Anyone Believe American Propaganda Anymore?: Taibbi - Energy Partner Network
Pingback: Taibbi: Does Anyone Believe American Propaganda Anymore? | Entrepreneur Canada
Pingback: Taibbi: Does Anyone Believe American Propaganda Anymore? – The Altar of Deceit
Pingback: Taibbi: Does Anyone Believe American Propaganda Anymore? – Infinite Unknown
Pingback: Does Anyone Believe American Propaganda Anymore? - Gold Coinist