The Silence of the Lambs: Nord Stream Blasting – Act of War by the USA – the West Remains Silent

The events surrounding the U.S.-Russia conflict are spiraling out of control, and the reactions to them leave one speechless. After the Americans called the blowing up of Nord Stream pipelines 1 and 2 an act of war, US journalist Seymour Hersh claims that it was actually US-armed forces that blew up the pipelines. Germany suffered the greatest damage and – together with almost all media in the West – remained silent like lambs. The voice from Russia does not remain silent, but debates.

Peter Hanseler

Media cover up – politicians keep silent

When the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up, it would not have been a really difficult task to find out that it was the NATO countries that carried out this act of war. This was also confirmed by the author of the article Seymour Hersh during his first interview after the publication of his article. 

“The subterranean level of this discussion can only be countered with humor, lest it descend into stunned bewilderment.”

That the Western media seriously pondered whether the Russians had destroyed their own pipeline is merely an indication that truth is no longer prized as a rare commodity by journalists. 

I could only counter the subterranean level of this discussion with humor, so as not to descend into bewilderment. For this reason, in September, as Inspector Columbo, I conducted two fictitious short interviews with President Putin and President Biden, based on the regularly most effective investigative principle: “Cui bono?” – or in the language of Inspector Columbo – “motive”. Both articles were published in Weltwoche. 

The outright cover-up of this act of war by the media in the West is unprecedented in recent history. I consider the legions of well-educated media professionals in the West to be conscienceless, spineless preachers of hate, who are happy to mislead their readership through polemics or omission and poison their souls; unfortunately, they do this very successfully. 

That this portrayal is by no means an emotional exaggeration is something I have already made an issue of in my article “Resist the beginnings“; there I used a legal approach to prove that the flagship of the Swiss media landscape – the Neue Zürcher Zeitung – has degenerated into an unconscionable propaganda paper.

The Western media are practicing collective silence in the wake of Seymour Hersh’s revelations. This is consistent in the face of their strategy, but testifies to a devastating professional ethic and cowardice on the part of individual journalists to face the truth. 

“In Switzerland, only the weekly Weltwoche still has the sense, professionalism, ethics and courage to base its publications on facts.”

The Western media go comfortably with the pack. Forming one’s own opinion based on facts is not convenient for the ladies and gentlemen and is too strenuous. To hold a contrary opinion – that is, one that does not correspond to the mainstream – is indeed more demanding.

In Switzerland, only the weekly Weltwoche still has the sense, professionalism, ethics and courage to base its publications on facts.

In the U.S., only Fox News reported extensively on this hot topic – as the only mass medium, this arch-conservative TV station refuses to be intimidated. 

“His country has had its pipelines blown out from under its butt by the Americans, and he is silent as a lamb”

In Europe, Chancellor Scholz once again shows the most pitoyable attitude. The Americans have blown the pipelines out from under his country and he is silent like a lamb, at the expense of his people, who built up one of the greatest industrial nations in the world after the 2nd World War and now have no chance whatsoever to survive on the world markets, because they have been deprived of cheap energy by the Americans through the attack. Whoever claims otherwise should once talk to a manager from the big industry in Germany.

The accusations against the USA could not be more serious: Legally, the demolition is not only an act of war against Russia; rather, the demolition is an act of war against the USA’s closest ally in Europe: Germany. 

In this essay I try to discuss the outrageous accusation of this act of war on a journey through time, using mainly documents and statements of the accused – the USA. Further, the credibility of the author Seymour Hersh is discussed.

I use quotations and prove them – where possible – with YouTube short clips. The time travel begins 50 years ago and proves the strategy of the USA to fight natural gas sales of the Soviet Union or Russia to Europe with all means. 

1970-ies

In my essay “War without Peace“, I attributed that already in the 1970-ies the Americans did not like it at all when Germany started to buy cheap natural gas from the Soviet Union on a large scale, which had a positive double effect for Germany: First, this led to more independence from the Middle East and thus indirectly from the USA and, second, the cheap gas paved the way for Germany to become the world export champion.

At that time, however, Germany still had leaders worthy of the name: Helmut Schmidt resisted U.S. pressure to thwart the Soviet Union’s natural gas supplies to Germany. This pressure was built up primarily by Presidents Carter and Reagan. 

Ronald Reagan then backed down in 1980. This was attributed by the American think tank, Rand Corporation, in its 2019 report titled “Extending Russia” – (on Rand Corporation, see below):

«In the early 1980s, President Reagan had to retreat when he sought to constrain energy technology exports in an effort to encourage Europe not to become too dependent on Russian gas; any similar effort today might meet the same fate.»

Extending Russia, S. 69

Today – 50 years later – Germany is no longer in a position to represent its own interests. This was already evident in Chancellor Scholz’s communication in 2022. This is sometimes arrogant, then again uncertain and unsteady. 

The U.S. cleverly exploits the insecurities of the weak chancellor and regularly leads him to make decisions that correspond to the interests of the U.S. but run counter to those of Germany.

2019 – Clear declaration of intent by the Americans to prevent Nord Stream.

In 2019, the Rand Corporation published a report of over 300 pages entitled “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground.”

The Rand Corporation is an American think tank that was founded in 1948 and has over 1,800 employees from 50 countries. RAND stands for Research and Development – a meaningless name that sounds very scientific and wants to convey reliability. 

“With surprising candor, the report reveals the means by which Russia is to be weakened – it reads almost like an owner’s manual.”

The gigantic budget of about USD 350 million per year comes from the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. military and the military-industrial complex. The Rand Corporation presents an independent image, which is already implausible because of the financiers of this think tank: It is a pure propaganda arm of the groups financing it. 

Reading this report, one quickly realizes that it was and is the policy of the USA to weaken Russia with all available means. This is surprisingly openly communicated in the report. 

The means discussed in this report are manifold and one will see the events that have occurred since February 24, 2022 and the blasting of the Nord Stream pipelines with different eyes if one knows the content of this writing.

The prevention of Nord Stream II takes a prominent place in the report. Although Rand attributes that the Germans would not be happy at all if the U.S. interfered in European energy affairs, this did not seem to have been a reason to refrain from this strategy already in 2019 – Helmut Schmidt is no more, after all. 

Then it is pointed out that in peacetime it is difficult to prevent Nord Stream II. 

Events since 2022 in telegram style

The statements made by U.S. government officials in 2022 are so eye-opening that I think it is worth listing them chronologically in telegram style.

January 2022 – Victoria Nuland announces destruction

In January 2022, Victoria Nuland stated the following: 

“I wanna be clear with you today. If Russia invades Ukraine, Nord Stream II will not move forward.”

February 2022 – President Biden announces destruction

At a press conference in February – before the Russian military operation began – President Biden made the following comments: 

“Biden: If Russia invades [] there will be no longer Nord Stream II – we will bring an end to it.

Journalist: But, how will you do that – exactly – since the project and control of the project is within Germany’s control

Biden: We will, I promise you, we will be able to do it.”

September 2022 – President Biden insinuates that the Russians did it

«It was a deliberate act of sabotage and now the Russians are pumping out disinformation and lies.»

September 30, 2022 – Antony Blinken is delighted with the blast

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly said the following during a joint press release:

“It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs”

January 26, 2023 – Nuland is delighted with the destruction

At a January 23, 2023 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Victoria Nuland said: 

«The Administration is very gratified to know that as you like to say a hunk of metal on the bottom of the sea.»

 

Early February 2023 – Welt am Sonntag and New York Times doubt Russia’s culpability

Results of this “investigation” were never communicated, as the results probably did not point to the intended perpetration. In recent weeks, however, the truth seemed to emerge drop by drop. In the Welt am Sonntag of February 5, German Attorney General Peter Frank commented that it was currently impossible to prove that Russia was behind the explosions. Weltwoche on February 3 refers to a New York Times article which suspects the Western states as the authors. 

February 8, 2022 – Seymour Hersh drops the bombshell

In his article “How America shut down the Nord Stream pipeline”, the American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published a meticulous article showing that the Americans – with the help of Norway – blew up the pipeline in September 2022. 

Key sentence of the article: 

“Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.”

I believe that this article is one of the most historically significant publications of the year and therefore required reading for those who have a real interest in this conflict. 

February 8, 2023 – White House rejects the allegations

Reuters reported on February 8, 2023: 

“The White House on Wednesday dismissed a blog post by a U.S. investigative journalist alleging the United States was behind explosions of the Nord Stream gas pipelines as “utterly false and complete fiction.”

First exclusive interview of Seymour Hersh after the publication of his article.

The YouTube channel “Democracy Now!” published yesterday – February 15, 2023 – the first big interview of the author after he published his article on February 8. We do not want to deprive our readers of this interesting background interview in full length.

Credibility of Seymour Hersh’s article

The article is comprehensive and expresses in detail meetings with the National Security Advisor at the White House, what troops were used, what explosives were used, how they were detonated, what plane was used to drop the buoy that detonated the explosive device, on what dates each detail took place. The accumulation of details shown in it make it seem unlikely that this story could be untrue. 

According to it, the planning of the attack began in December 2021 – two months before the start of Russia’s military operation. During that time, Russia handed over draft treaties to the U.S. in order to find a solution concerning NATO in Ukraine and a neutrality of Ukraine. The USA only refused to discuss it already. 

What is further surprising and may be overlooked is Hersh’s statement that the ultimate responsibility lies with the White House; the CIA, for its part, gets off scot-free. Thus, the president and his administration no longer have a buffer with which to claim they knew nothing. Watergate sends its regards.

Furthermore, Seymour Hersh identifies Norway as aiding and abetting the USA in the demolition. One was already surprised in September that only a few days after the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up, the Norwegians put their new pipeline, which connects Norway with Poland, into operation.

Credibility of Seymour Hersh

Seymour Hersh is a legend in the United States. Born in 1937, the investigative journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner worked as a Pentagon correspondent for the Associated Press, the New York Times, and the New Yorker during his career. 

He exposed countless U.S. war crimes during his long career; the most famous were the 1968 My Lai massacre when American troops killed 65 civilians in Vietnam, the secret bombing of Cambodia, and the torture scandal at the U.S. wartime Abhu-Graib prison. 

All these monstrosities, committed by the U.S., were regularly denied at first and always turned out to be true afterwards. 

Hersh’s modus operandi is legendary. How he uses anonymous sources and how he accesses – and protects – his extensive list of contacts: Trust works both ways. His track record is absolutely unrivaled.

Conclusion

Anyone who thinks Seymour Hersh’s article is indeed “completely false and fictitious,” as the White House fervently claims, should read the report first and then ask themselves how credible the White House has operated over the past 60 years when unsavory things have come out. 

“How do you react when your “best friend” takes away something you depend on?”

I think it would be pure speculation to ponder how Russia will react to this revelation; however, I assume that a reaction will follow, in a way that no one expects. 

Germany is clearly the big victim in this scandal: how do you react when your “best friend” takes away something you depend on?

It remains to be seen how American politics will react if it turns out that its own executive branch is waging wars that remain without any legal basis even in the USA.