On March 7, it was reported that the traces of the Nord Stream blast "lead to Ukraine." It is interesting that different media, citing different sources, reported this at the same time, which indicates a controlled media campaign.
I have already translated the New York Times article reporting that a group of Ukrainians blew up the Nord Streams . While I was still translating, German media also reported that the traces of the Nord Stream blast “lead to Ukraine”. This was the result of joint research by the ARD capital studio , the ARD political magazine Kontraste, the SWR and the “Zeit” . In the Tagesschau that was – in contrast to the Hersh research a few weeks ago – even the lead in the 20.15 program of the Tagesschau.
In its article, the New York Times refers to unnamed sources in the US secret services, while the German media refers to their own research and findings by German investigators. The American New York Times and the German media are clearly referring to different sources, but published their essentially identical “revelations” at almost exactly the same time.
Since we are talking about allegedly top-secret findings by the US secret services and equally top-secret findings by the German investigators – after all, the federal government has refused to answer small inquiries on the subject with reference to “interests in secrecy” – one has to assume that a media campaign coordinated by government agencies in the USA and Germany was launched here, in my opinion there is no other explanation.
Therefore, we will now look at what could be behind it. I’ll say it right away: I’m doing something here that I don’t like to do, because I’m going to speculate a bit in the second half of this article. But this story invites you to speculate about it and the nice thing is that in this case we will know in a few days or weeks whether these speculations are confirmed.
The history
It is not speculation that the pipelines were blown, nor is it speculation, it is a fact that the blowing up of the pipelines was quickly swept under the rug by the Western media, but the issue of media and politicians has been plaguing outside the Western media bubble has, as I have repeatedly reported . States that do not belong to the US-dominated West asked uncomfortable questions, because it was obvious to everyone that only Western states could be the perpetrators. Even the New York Times has now admitted this when it wrote in its current article:
“Some initial speculation in the US and Europe focused on possible Russian guilt, particularly given its capabilities in underwater operations, although it is unclear what the Kremlin’s motivation would be in sabotaging the pipelines, as this is an important source of revenue and a means for Moscow are to exert influence on Europe.”
That’s exactly what evil “Russian propagandists” like me have been writing since the pipelines blew up, which is why it’s surprising that the New York Times of all places is now confirming it. But if Russia didn’t blow up the pipelines, as the German media has always suggested, then the only possible perpetrators would be the western states that had previously railed loudest against Nord Stream: These were primarily Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States States, Great Britain and above all the leading power in the West, without whose approval nothing decisive happens in the West, the USA.
As I said, that was clear to everyone, which is why the pressure on the USA, as the leading power in the West, to contribute to the clarification was great internationally. When Seymour Hersh then also published his revelations that the USA had blown up the pipelines, the pressure became even greater, because on the international stage the USA was embarrassed and in fact exposed as the country that an act of war, among other things, against its NATO allies, especially Germany.
On top of that, the Hersh report, even if Western media have triedto discredit him was very detailed and convincing. The US government has effectively refused to answer, instead simply calling the Hersh report “absurd” rather than refuting it. And disproving him wouldn’t have been very difficult, you could have started by summoning those responsible – i.e. the US President’s National Security Advisor, the CIA chief and maybe the Vice Admiral of the US 6th Fleet – before Congress and they to question there under oath. If Hersh’s story were nonsense, they could have refuted everything in detail under oath and, most importantly, clearly stated that the US had nothing to do with it. But that was not done, and U.S. government press officials did not even explicitly contradict the report, declining comment on it, saying
The US government was then under great international pressure and pressure to act because of the Nord Stream blast, after all it wants to win other countries over to its anti-Russian and anti-Chinese course. But what country would side with the US when they are taking action against their own allies?
Complete the Ukraine adventure
In January, the RAND corporation, which is very influential in the US , published a paper that very strongly recommended that the US government withdraw from the Ukraine adventure, even quite bluntly recognizing Russia’s territorial gains and lifting sanctions on Russia brought into play. Reading papers from the RAND Corporation is worthwhile, because RAND actually writes US foreign policy and when RAND recommends something, the US government very often implements it shortly afterwards, as I have shown here using an example from 2019 .
In its January 2023 paper, RAND soberly analyzed that the US’s goals in Ukraine had failed. The US provoked the Ukraine war to weaken Russia. The expected goal was to crush the Russian economy through the unprecedented sanctions and isolate Russia internationally. Both obviously didn’t work.
Therefore, RAND has analyzed what the US gains from continuing to support Ukraine if it cannot achieve its ultimate goal of weakening Russia. RAND concluded that continued support for Ukraine is incredibly expensive, but brings no commensurate benefit or gain to the US. And RAND has openly said that it doesn’t matter to the US whether Kiev loses control of (ex-)Ukrainian lands to Russia, and that preserving Ukraine’s borders isn’t such a big priority for the US that it’s worth the cost .
Therefore, RAND has recommended that the US government end the Ukraine adventure at the negotiating table as soon as possible, even if that means Russia taking control of parts of Ukraine and if it means the US having to ease sanctions on Russia again. RAND is also willing to sacrifice Ukraine’s NATO membership and more if only the US government can end the Ukraine adventure quickly.
There is only one catch: the US government has so thoroughly turned against Russia both its allies and the public in the West, including the US, that the US government has difficulty in conveying such a change of course to them. RAND wrote:
“A dramatic overnight change in US policy is politically impossible – both domestically and towards allies – and in any case would be unwise. But if these tools are developed now and popularized in Ukraine and among US allies, it could serve as a catalyst to begin a process that could end this war through negotiations in a timeframe consistent with US interests. The alternative would be a long war that poses major challenges for the US, Ukraine and the rest of the world.”
Explain the “dramatic change in US policy”.
The core question was therefore how the USA can get the public and politicians in the West to participate in the “dramatic change in US policy” .
Those were all facts, from now on I’m speculating: If the US government decided to implement the RAND recommendation, then they could explain to the West that it was Ukraine that blew up the Nord Streams. One could continue to condemn Russia for its “aggressive war,” but state that Kiev has been unfriendly, to put it politely, towards its patrons, which is why it can no longer expect Western support on the same scale as before.
One could force Kiev to negotiate with Russia and demand from Kiev the concessions that RAND proposed in its paper, which in fact include almost everything Russia is asking for: recognition of the new Russian territories including Crimea, a neutral Ukraine, the abolition of ( or at least strong weakening) of Russia sanctions and so on.
It would be relatively easy to sell this to the Western public, although no expert will of course believe the story that Kiev blew up the Nord Streams single-handedly and without the knowledge of the US and NATO. But the power of the Western media can work wonders for Western public opinion, as the silencing and discrediting of the Hersh report just demonstrated once again. For the US, as RAND has learned, it is only important to explain the “dramatic change in US policy (…) both domestically and towards its allies” . And that’s what Western media can do by keeping the topic “Ukraine has blown up Nord Stream” in the headlines for some time.
So we can see the early signs in the next few days that this might be the US government’s plan if the western media jumps on the subject. Should they immediately bury the topic again, my speculation should not have hit the mark.
But let’s pretend my speculation is correct.
The implementation
Chancellor Scholz’s strange visit to Washington, during which Scholz flew to the United States alone without advisors and journalists, only to have a two-hour private conversation with US President Biden and then give CNN a quick and completely meaningless interview , has aroused much speculation.
It cannot be ruled out that Scholz was confronted with a fait accompli in Washington and committed to the prepared media campaign about “Ukraine has blown up Nord Stream”. After all, it is a very strange coincidence that these reports were published by American and German media just four days after Scholz’s mysterious visit to the White House.
That it is a media campaign is shown by the above-mentioned fact that the German and American media on the same day referred to different sources that gave them top secret information that basically says the same thing: A group of Ukrainian citizens is with a small sailing yacht sailed from Germany to the pipelines, where special divers (unnoticed by the complete NATO surveillance of the Baltic Sea off Denmark and Sweden) attached the explosives to the pipelines.
The story is absurd and completely unrealistic, but the western media has even been able to convince the public that the passports of the 9/11 attackers were found intact in the rubble immediately after the collapse of the Twin Towers, which is why wars against Afghanistan are urgently needed and had to lead Iraq. In comparison, the story of the sailing yacht that was able to plant the explosive devices unnoticed in the closely monitored Baltic Sea is downright believable.
Sit back and wait
Now all we have to do is sit back and see if the Western media prominently broadcast the Ukraine blew up Nord Stream story. And should that happen, we can await with great curiosity how the first Western politicians will question aid to Ukraine and demand an ultimatum from Kiev to negotiate with Russia.
But maybe I’m wrong with my little speculation and the apparently coordinated publications by German and American media about the alleged Ukrainian trace of the Nord Stream blast are pursuing a different goal.
It is well known that forecasts are always difficult, especially when they relate to the future. Let’s wait…
