Less than a fortnight ago, the undersea gas pipes in the Baltic Sea which link Russia with Germany (Nordstream and Nordstream 2), were sabotaged via explosive ordnance. Three of the four pipes were put out of commission. That is the only part of the saga that all parties are able to agree on.(1) The rest, mostly to do with the who and the why, is fiercely contested although, in truth, while the evidence is so far inconclusive (and may remain so, by design), coming to a logical conclusion on these questions is not overly taxing.
The attacks occurred off the coast of the Danish island of Bornholm, in international waters. At this location, the pipelines are in 60-70 meters of sea which makes them reasonably accessible – presumably that's one of the reasons this route was chosen by those that constructed the pipelines. There is no doubt that there were explosions, either; sensors picked up sudden seismic activity that registered up to 2.3 on the Richter scale. Nordstream 2 was filled with gas, around €800 million worth, which escaped into the atmosphere over the period of about a week.(2)
The Russians and the Americans (NATO) are the principle protagonists, with accusatory fingers pointed fixedly at each other. The Good, Bad and Ugly stand-off is completed by the Ukrainians, in the estimation of some observers. Given the fog created by claim and counter-claim, how best to sort fact from fiction? As always, it's best to start with the evidence rather than play the reflexive blame game. And given that the sabotage can't have been accomplished by both sides acting in concert (I'm taking the liberty of lumping Ukraine and NATO in on the one side with Russia on the other), one side must be lying through their teeth.
As a general rule of thumb, the detail is the enemy of the offender and the friend of the innocent. One side will speak in generalities and avoid detail like the plague, while the other is keen to explore evidence as it knows that this approach will result in its exoneration. This rule will only work when applied to information not uncovered as a result of the upcoming 'investigation', which will be pitifully inadequate for reasons I will get to soon, which means that an examination of the untainted facts that are already in the public domain is the most useful approach. My chosen method is tried and tested – who had the means, the motive and the opportunity? First, however, some necessary background.
Russian gas to Europe
“There are four pipelines that could supply Russian natural gas to Europe:
Nord Stream 1, with a capacity of 55 billion cubic meters (bcm) per year (deliveries on this one were halted by Russia);
Nord Stream 2, with an identical capacity of 55 bcm (this one never became operational after the German government refused to approve it in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine).
Yamal Europe, the longest pipeline (4,107 kilometres) supplies gas from the Yamal Peninsula in Western Siberia, terminating in Germany, and has a capacity of 33 bcm. Deliveries were halted by Russia in May.
4. Turk Stream, delivering gas from Russia under the Black Sea and through the Balkans, has a capacity of 31.5 bcm and is the only pipeline still in operation. It terminates in Hungary, meaning that as of now, Hungary is the only EU member state still receiving Russian natural gas.”(3)
As can be seen, Germany's position is somewhat sub-optimal. Not just Germany's – other countries also stood to benefit from Nordstream and Nordstream 2. In fact, a number of EU countries to the west of Germany (Belgium, France and Holland plus Switzerland) will have found themselves seeking out alternative markets once the sanctions against Russia that they obediently agreed to began to have an effect on their cost of living. Nonetheless, that was when the pipes were still in pristine condition, albeit unutilised. Now, the situation is a little different.
In 2021, Russia supplied Germany with around 32% of its gas, along with 34% of its crude oil and 53% of its coal.(4) This was actually a year when the Germans were slightly less dependent than usual on their Eastern neighbor – the figure for gas has been as high as 50% in the recent past. The EU in its entirety is a huge net importer of energy, producing only 40-42% of its needs. The biggest third country supplier is, once again, Russia; almost 75% of imports and 41% of the total. The figures for coal and crude oil are 43.5% and 26.8% in 2019.(5) It can be seen that falling out with Putin should not be Plan A. It could also be said that the EU erred in putting itself in such a compromised position, although I am no expert and couldn't speak to the viability of the alternatives, if any.
What is certain is that their vulnerability doesn't end there. The EU is also compromised by their combined reliance upon NATO for their defense. As President Trump was fond of noting, European members of NATO have been content to depend on the US as their military protector and couldn't even be trusted to meet their financial obligations as member states. Therefore, when America once again took against the Russians, they felt obliged to fall in line and present a united front. This has left them as the meat in the sandwich – reliant upon one adversary for their defence and the other for their energy needs. Predictably, things don't seem to be going according to plan, although that rather depends on what the plan is, which I will also come to shortly. For now, it's enough to know that the Nordstream pipelines are crucial.
Motive
There will need to be some limits to this analysis; Occam's Razor will be utilized more frequently than Machiavelli. Or, in other words, the more outlandish and unlikely scenarios will receive short shrift. Of our three main protagonists, one could just about conclude that all had motive, although the Americans and Ukrainians are of a different order to the Russians.
Historically, the US has always been against the pipelines and they haven't been shy about voicing their objections:
“If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nordstream 2 will not move forward.” Under secretary of State Victoria Nuland, Jan 27th 2022 (6)
Biden, while standing next to the German Chancellor, also made clear that he would put an end to it in some unspecified way.(7) Schulz raised no objections, although one might be forgiven for thinking that decisions about energy provision in the EU ought to be made by the EU themselves. This type of rhetoric was merely a continuation of a long-standing antipathy
On the face of it, Putin has no motivation to blow up his own pipeline. On top of being hugely out of pocket, he only had to turn off the taps to prevent supply reaching Germany. 51% of Nordstream 2 is owned by Gazprom, but the remaining 49% is owned by a combination of five European energy companies.(8)
“Financial losses will involve quite a few weighty players. The shareholders of Nord Stream AG are Gazprom (51%); Wintershall Dea AG (15.5%); PEG Infrastruktur AG, a subsidiary of E.ON Beteiligungen (15.5%); N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie (9%) and Engie (9%). So this is an attack not only against Russia and Germany but also against major European energy companies.”(9)
Additionally, any potential rapprochement with the German regime has been undermined as they now have a greatly reduced motivation in coming to terms, as Scholz and co have little to gain in material terms, although they could still receive 25% of the gas that was originally possible (and 50% of what they were receiving as N2 was never opened at the German end). Indeed, the Russians are still willing to turn the one remaining tap on if the EU felt able to lift sanctions.(10)
Means
This is all well and good, but the means and opportunity also need to be present. The location of the attack, in the Baltic Sea, is not inaccessible to Russia as the country possesses a Baltic coastline. However, their neighbors include NATO members Germany, Denmark, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Norway and soon-to-be members Finland and Sweden. If Russian naval vessels wish to exit the area, they are required to sail past all these countries. The Baltic is overwhelmingly a NATO playground.
It is reasonable to speculate that any Russian incursion in the recent past would not go unnoticed and in the diplomatic tumult that has erupted since the sabotage (which has been much less strident than it ought to have been), no-one in NATO has produced evidence of the physical presence of any Russian asset, which they certainly would have done had they proof. However, the same cannot be said of the British or the Americans. The UK has had an expedition vessel loitering in the area for at least a month and the Americans have also been present on numerous occasions in the very recent past.
In fact, US helicopters have been hovering over the exact site of the bombing for a good proportion of September, day and night. These helicopters have flown from Gdansk in Poland, a country which should properly be viewed as a beneficiary of the attack – in the short term, at least. Now the only pipeline to Germany runs through Poland (with the exception of the undamaged N2 pipe).(11)
Further, both the Americans and the British have a surfeit of underwater drones that could transport explosives and one assumes that it would not be favorite to leave explosives in sea water for extended periods of time. This would surely result in an elevated risk of discovery as well as exposing the devices to tides and the possibility of deterioration. As it stands, it seems curious that one pipeline was left undamaged. Perhaps the charges on that pipe failed to detonate? In any event, NATO and the Russians (if not the Ukrainians) certainly have the means.
Opportunity
It beggars belief that another hostile (such as Russia) would have been able to penetrate the area while the Americans were there. The Anglos and every other NATO country in the region had the means and opportunity. The Russians have the means, but it's highly unlikely that they had the opportunity. The location of the attack is one of the clearest indicators of NATO guilt – it wasn't sabotaged near the other end, in waters that would have been friendlier to Russian assets. The proposition that the sabotage was a false flag attack by Russia, who launched the attack and then attempted to blame the West for it, founders on this lack of opportunity.
Coincidentally, in June this year the US Navy's Sixth Fleet deployed to the coast just off Bornholm to experiment with 'underwater unmanned vehicle mine hunting technology' – I kid you not. All of the participating vessels were American.(12) They were there for ten days. Given the evidence available and without working backwards from an agreed conclusion, the obvious chief suspect is NATO.
Escalation
Until very recently, the war in Ukraine has been a limited one. NATO are not officially involved – apart from spending billions propping up the Zelensky regime and sending copious amounts of war materiel. The economic reality of life has been reflected in ways unacknowledged by our lords and masters:
“When it comes to the persistence of commerce in war.... every day, Russian gas flows to the homes and factories of Ukraine on its way into Western Europe. Ukraine transfers money to Russia every day, even as Putin attacks his faithful customer.”(13)
So, the US gives Ukraine billions of dollars to run the country – which would be impossible to do otherwise – and the regime then pays part of that money to Gazprom for energy. You can readily see why Biden and co. don't want facts like that widely known. However, matters have been escalating from the very early days of the conflict. There was the support afforded the Ukrainians effort to sink the flagship of Russia's Black Sea fleet, the Moskva, which was ultimately successful.(14) That was five months ago. In June, the US agreed to supply longer range missiles, ones that were capable of being used on targets in Russia.(15) Then the Nordstreams' bombing. Shortly thereafter, the attack on the Russian's Kerch Bridge linking mainland Russia with the Crimea. The truck bomb that did the damage originated in Ukraine. Indeed, the Ukrainians, while officially not claiming responsibility – tweeted this;
“The guided missile cruiser Moskva and the Kerch Bridge – two notorious symbols of russian power in Ukrainian Crimea – have gone down. What’s next in line, russkies?”(16)
which might easily be interpreted as unofficially claiming credit. In addition, two days later, Ukraine launched a new stamp celebrating the event.(17) This is a remarkable effort – minting a new stamp over the weekend. One might conclude that the stamp had been rather longer in the making. There are also large numbers of English speakers currently serving in Ukraine.(18) The impression that is therefore being created is that the US and NATO are essentially running the war. Without the resources provided by the West, Ukraine would have had to sue for peace months ago. But NATO is desperate for this war to continue.
The constant provocations are now coming thick and fast. The nuclear threat should be taken seriously. Putin himself has been guilty of loose talk in this regard, as has Biden (which is a near-constant state of being for the pretender-in-chief). But the Ukrainians are almost certainly shelling their own nuclear power station, which is currently in Russian hands. After all, it's a little difficult to imagine that the Russians are continually firing upon their own soldiers.
“Our media says they don’t know who is shelling the plant. And they can’t put one and one together to say that if Russia is in control of the plant, maybe they’re not shelling their own plant. Maybe it’s Ukraine who is shelling the plant.” Professor Andrew Sachs (19)
On top of that, NATO plans to go through with its scheduled nuclear exercises next week. Apparently, according to the puppet who runs the show, it's better to keep on escalating rather than exercise a scintilla of common sense and postpone them.(20) Zelensky has also now stopped paying the Russian energy bills on the Yamal pipeline, with the result that Putin is threatening to turn the tap off. Of course, as previously noted, as the Ukrainian government is run by the Americans, it's them that are refusing to pay the bill. Just one more provocation.
Theories
But if it's NATO who are the culprits, what's the motivation? And surely it's hugely problematic if a notional ally sabotages another ally? In fact, it's an act of war, isn't it? Well, yes and no. It seems that there are two main possibilities. Either the US (and/or other NATO entities) took it upon themselves to commit the bombing without the consent – and possibly without the prior knowledge – of Germany, or the Germans asked for it to be done instead. This latter proposal isn't as harebrained as it may seem at first flush; it would just be yet another perverted outcome of the Build Back Better agenda.
Why would the Germans want the Nordstreams destroyed? Well, the German people wouldn't, but their rulers don't reflect the views of the German people and haven't since the beginning of the pandemic. As previously stated, Chancellor Scholz was standing beside Biden when he asserted that Nordstream 2 wouldn't come online if the Russians attacked Ukraine and he didn't say a word.
I can see how the sabotage might have helped the regime out of a tight spot politically. Of all the EU cabals, the German government could be seen to be the most stubborn. Not only have they continued with the planned closure of their remaining nuclear power stations in the face of a burgeoning energy crisis, they had also refused to come to terms with Russia and use the gas pipelines. Public pressure was growing and the coming winter would only have intensified it. They were the weak link in the EU (and in NATO). Now, of course, the pressure will ease and the controlled demolition of the German economy can continue unimpeded. If the gas isn't available any more, the regime can't be accused of intransigence.
Would the Americans have acted unilaterally? Possibly. There were rumors that the Germans were secretly negotiating with Putin to resume the operation of the pipelines. This would clearly have been problematic for NATO and the sanctions regime would have been severely compromised. US efforts to blame the entirety of their economic woes on 'Putin's war' might also have been undermined, especially if Germany demonstrated that it wasn't Putin that was the problem but rather the self imposed sanctions themselves. People might start to realize that, just as it isn't 'the pandemic' that is responsible for the recession that is overwhelming the Western world but rather the politicians' response to it, so it is with the energy crisis.
It's also certainly possible that the whole endeavor was America's baby all along and that Germany had little option but to consent. In normal times, this logical construct would be laughable, but these are not normal times. And it's not difficult to see what else the US gets out of it. They are now the primary supplier of LNG to the European continent and they can turn the tap off whenever they want to.
There is further evidence of US and NATO involvement. The Americans have always been vehemently opposed to Nordstream 2. In June 2017, two months after five European energy companies reached agreement with Gazprom, the US slapped sanctions on Russia. Two years later, they threatened several German companies with sanctions, also. Then, in 2021, they reached a deal with the Germans; the project was to be completed unless Russia “attempts to use energy as a weapon or commit further aggressive acts against Ukraine.”(21)This is a rather peculiar stipulation in the context of 2021, when the only aggressive act was the Ukrainian shelling of their own citizens in the Donbass. And yet, it has come to pass.
There's more. The CIA claims to have sabotaged a Russian pipeline before. In 1982, the agency attacked a Soviet pipeline in Siberia with dodgy software; it subsequently exploded. This pipeline was also supplying Russian gas to western Europe and these countries had refused to boycott it.(22) And in 2019, the Rand Corporation conducted a study which concluded that if attempts were to be made to unbalance Russia, stopping Nordstream 2 should be Plan A.(23) Lastly, the successful launch of Nordstream 2 would have deprived Ukraine of around $2 billion a year in transit fees (24) and the US political elites, long entrenched in the country and benefiting financially, might not have wanted the golden goose to lay her eggs elsewhere.
It didn't take long for the US to see the silver lining, either. Blinken, the Secretary of State, was quick out of the blocks. He was looking forward to working with Europe to “decrease demand” and “speed up the transmission to renewables”.(25) There are other theories, equally viable and non contradictory;
“In a world where Germany and Russia are friends and trading partners, there is no need for US military bases, no need for expensive US-made weapons and missile systems, and no need for NATO. There’s also no need to transact energy deals in US Dollars or to stockpile US Treasuries to balance accounts. Transactions between business partners can be conducted in their own currencies which is bound to precipitate a sharp decline in the value of the dollar and a dramatic shift in economic power.”(26)
Investigation
One of the biggest tells in the whole imbroglio is the relative lack of outrage from the German state. There is no stated desire for vengeance, no real heat. It feels like another open secret already. Sure, the Germans have launched an 'investigation' into the sabotage, but it took them a fortnight to make that decision. The Swedes and the Danes are also supposed to be looking into the matter. However, given the fact that it's a racing certainty that an ally is the culprit, I wouldn't expect anything vaguely truthful to emerge from any of the findings. Any report will either be inconclusive or it will blame Russia, because that is what the narrative requires. How could it be otherwise? Germany and the European members of NATO are almost wholly reliant on the US now, both militarily and economically.
In the wake of this sudden game changer – which almost completely removes one of the two options for energy supply at one fell swoop – are they likely to then castigate the other option and put themselves in an even worse position? Ordinarily not, although the EU is currently enjoying a reputation for pursuing policies that do deliberate harm to its own people, so perhaps I'm wrong. But I don't think so. The CIA is also trying to muddy the waters. They warned of attacks months ago (implicating Russia)(27) and are now trying to throw their Ukrainian ally under the bus, but the proposition is unconvincing
So how about this for a scenario? And remember, before I set it out, it doesn't matter what the truth is. Nor does it matter whether the proffered narrative is implausible in the extreme. All that matters is that the regimes can pretend it's true and that nobody with sufficient clout questions it effectively.
What if these investigations conclude that it is indeed Russia behind the attack? That is, after all, what we are being told already. What effect would that conclusion lead to? Well, even if the physical infrastructure is not owned by the German state and the gas in the pipes was not yet in the possession of Germany either, it could still be argued that Russia had attacked Germany and wouldn't that trigger Article 5 of the NATO charter – all for one and one for all?
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them … will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”(28)
This analysis wouldn't even be a stretch. And how would we ever know what the evidence for Russian involvement comprised? And would it make one iota of difference if we did? Answers; we wouldn't and no.
Conclusion
The attack is the logical extension of existing US policy. The war in Ukraine has been used to cripple the energy supplies of all the countries in the EU, with the exception of Hungary who opted out of the sanctions. The American people have also suffered. But this sabotage is not an intercontinental disaster. The US has enough gas if it wishes and has become the de facto supplier of natural gas to Europe in the event of any sanctions regime that they themselves will insist upon. Nice work if you can get it.
It may be that it's not about who controls Europe, at least at the primary level, although power has been ripped from Russia and sequestered by the US. But the Nordstreams aren't the only pipelines – Russian leverage is not entirely neutered. And sitting above it all is the Build Back Better agenda, the synergistic effort by both European regimes and the US (plus the remainder of the Anglosphere) to crater their own economies in pursuit of energy policies that they maintain are there to tackle 'climate change' but are, in fact, an attempt to reduce 99% of us to the status of vassals.
These regimes have all been marching in lock-step for the past three years. There hasn't been any reluctance displayed – the US has mostly led the way in creating the conditions necessary for our impoverishment and subjugation and Europe has willingly followed. And, as with food, the chosen method is to first restrict the availability of resources, so that they become less affordable, and then to ensure that they simply aren't available. The energy 'crisis' is the result of the application of exactly the same play-book and there is still no suggestion that the EU is unhappy with the direction of travel. It's all kabuki theater – they all mean to ruin us and if we are distracted by some fictional continental conflict between the US and Europe while they do so, so much the better.
It beggars belief, but some EU countries have accused Putin of using gas as an economic weapon. These are the same people who seized Russia's foreign reserves (when they could have simply frozen them), grabbed every Russian yacht they could find and sanctioned Russian every which way from Sunday. What did they think would happen in return? The hypocrisy would be stunning were it not for the fact that it is now commonplace.
The law of unintended (or, more likely, intended) consequences now includes Chinese energy companies who had signed long term deals with US LNG suppliers and who are now re-routing the tankers to Europe in the light of their own economic slowdown and Europe's sudden need. Naturally, they are making money hand over fist. Only 19 LNG vessels had made their way to China by the end of August; in 2021, there were 133 such journeys by year end.(29) It's also worth noting that, the day after the Nordstream attacks, the Baltic Pipe opened. This is a gas pipeline from Norway to Poland.(30) So, Poland are suddenly strategically vital. The Yamal and the Baltic Pipe are under their control.
There is no indication that there will be any de-escalation by the US (NATO). In fact, the opposite reaction is almost certain. Just as the US/Ukraine axis made every effort to provoke the conflict at the turn of the year, so they are now playing chicken with another nuclear power. The destruction of the pipelines will also accelerate the decomposition of the EU economies and, if the Russians take the bait, may come to be known as a modern day Archduke Ferdinand moment.
Biden is desperate for a distraction from domestic woes with the mid-terms in three weeks. These elections are shaping up to be a disaster, wholly self-inflicted. All bets would be off if the brown sticky stuff hit the rotating arm and we find ourselves in a shooting match by the end of the month. I hope I'm wrong, but that may very well be the American plan.
Citations
(1) https://expose-news.com/2022/09/29/most-likely-saboteur-of-the-nord-stream-pipeline/
(2) Ditto
(3) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/hungary-now-only-eu-state-still-receiving-russian-gas
(4) https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/how-dependent-is-germany-russian-gas-2022-03-08/
(5) https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1493890/Europe-energy-crisis-natural-gas-Russia-supplier-EVG
(9) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/escobar-whole-chessboard-about-be-radically-changed
(13) https://unherd.com/2022/09/russias-gentlemanly-war/
(14) https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/05/us-intelligence-ukraine-moskva-sinking/
(15)https://www.axios.com/2022/06/01/biden-longer-range-missiles-ukraine-defense-aid
(16)
(18)
(20) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nato-proceed-planned-nuclear-exercises-next-week
(21) https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/26/did-the-u-s-provoke-russia-to-sabotage-nord-stream-2/
(22) https://digitalpicturesimg.blogspot.com/2020/03/soviet-gas-pipeline-explosion-1982.html
(24)
(26) https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-crisis-in-ukraine-is-not-about-ukraine-its-about-germany/
(27)
(28) https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
(29) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/gas-hungry-germany-approves-arms-deal-saudi-arabia