Silence around new Nord Stream explosion reporting is disconcerting
By: Rachel Marsden
PARIS — Pulitzer Prize and five-time Polk Award winning American journalist
Seymour Hersh, who has spent a career destroying government narratives on
everything from the cover-up of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the secret
bombing of Cambodia to misbehavior of U.S. guards at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison
during the US-led Iraq War, now paints the picture of a terrorist act — not
against an enemy of Washington, but against one of its closest allies: the
European Union.
On Sept. 26, 2022, a series of explosions ripped through Europe’s economic
lifelines: the Nord Stream 1 and 2 natural gas pipelines running from Russia to
Germany. At that point, Europe had sanctioned its own gas supply from Russia in
a misguided effort to curtail Russia’s revenues, but there was always a chance
that Europe could drop their sanctions and resume the supply flow. That thought
clearly rubbed the Biden administration the wrong way.
On Feb. 7, 2022, even before the conflict in Ukraine went red hot, Biden said
that the U.S. would “bring an end” to Nord Stream 2 if Russia engaged militarily
in Ukraine.
He confidently spoke the words while standing right next to German Chancellor
Olaf Scholz, whose country was most heavily dependent on gas from Russia as
Europe’s primary economic engine. Now Hersh, citing backroom sources, suggests
that Scholz didn’t object. Biden’s remarks echoed those of Victoria Nuland,
State Department Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (and previously
for European and Eurasian Affairs): “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or
another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” Nuland said.
Hersh describes a U.S.-led plan, concocted by the Biden administration, CIA, and
Pentagon officials, around December 2021 and early 2022, for Navy divers to
plant explosives near the pipelines while using last summer’s NATO exercise,
BALTOPS 22, as cover. The blowup would later be triggered remotely, adding that
there was dissent within the CIA and State Department, with some cautioning
against a “political nightmare” if the clandestine plan ever came to light.
Norwegian secret services and military were also implicated in the plan, he
says, notably in site selection and placement of the explosives. Oslo was also
allegedly used by Washington to run interference with neighboring Sweden and
Denmark to ensure that eyebrows wouldn’t be raised in the event that divers were
spotted where they normally shouldn’t be off the coast of these countries.
But why would Norway even care to get involved? Oslo had already proven itself
to a reliable anti-Russian ally. It had recently allowed Washington to place a
radar station in Norway. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko
expressed concern last April “over the continuing construction of the radar
station in the immediate vicinity of the Russian border.”
Hersh says that Norway, like Washington, also had designs on selling their own
gas to the rest of Europe, which cheap Russian gas had previously prevented them
from doing. And how exactly has that turned out for both countries?
Norway’s gas revenues last year were estimated to have jumped from $27 billion
in 2021 to $109 billion as a result of increased sales to Europe, to the point
where Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has even accused Norway of war
profiteering over that windfall.
Last October, French President Emmanuel Macron also chastised the U.S. and
Norway for making “superprofits” from gas sales to Europe.
Macron also pointed out that “American gas is 3-4 times cheaper on the domestic
market than the price [of LNG] at which they offer it to Europeans,” echoing
Germany’s economy minister, Robert Habeck, who has pointed out that “some
countries, including friendly ones, sometimes achieve astronomical prices [for
their gas],” in reference to the problem.
Europe has replaced its reliance on Russian gas with a new dependence on U.S.
LNG. Meanwhile, European industry continues to struggle with energy costs.
Failure by Europe to subsidize them could mean the deindustrialization of Europe
as they jump ship to the U.S., where energy is still plentiful and reasonable.
The Belgian government recently sounded the alarm on aggressive seduction
efforts by U.S. officials.
So the two biggest beneficiaries of Nord Stream’s destruction just happen to be
the two top-billed players in the alleged plan — which both the CIA and White
House officially deny.
What’s disturbing, however, is the lack of discussion and debate around the
reporting, whether it’s for fear of harming Western unity or of playing into
Russia’s hands by evoking a narrative other than, “Russia/Putin bad.” There’s a
troubling lack of interest amid the Ukraine conflict in questioning U.S. and
allied government actions — which hasn’t been the case in previous conflicts.
How convenient that avoiding questions of accountability also lets the most
powerful off the hook.
COPYRIGHT 2023 RACHEL MARSDEN