On 27.09.2022, a so-called “state actor” blew up the Nordstream 1 and Nordstream 2 gas pipelines simultaneously in three places. Gas can no longer flow through the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany for the foreseeable future. It is unknown if and when gas will be able to flow through the Baltic Sea again.
In normal times, a – any – government would declare immediate crisis mode if the country’s existence-critical energy infrastructure was destroyed with an act of terrorism. But one does not really have the impression that our “rulers” and media attach more importance to this unheard-of, history-making, war-ground-displaying, act of terrorism than to the short-term low level of the Rhine last August.
Imagine, for example, the hysteria that would dominate news coverage in the U.S. for weeks if two gas pipelines had blown up in the Gulf of Mexico. Followed by the wiping out of a country that had nothing to do with it but is on the list of bad guys.
In Germany, however, this event, which threatens the very existence of the country, only barely makes it onto the front pages. No rush to the toilet paper because gas really can’t come across the Baltic Sea now, no cry for clarification, no call for immediate action, no demand for retribution. The media devote less space to the – I repeat: state-threatening – terrorist attack than to an alleged hate speech incident at a rainbow parade in Hinterscheißleiten. The indispensable statements of various position holders in the EU and Germany seem suspiciously contrived, the indignation almost artificial and forced. There is no comparison to the obsessive, bipolar hammering of concern by Baerbock, Von der Leyen and their ilk over the Russian military operation in Ukraine.
If you don’t see panic and outrage, it’s because there is no panic and outrage. Which brings us to the heart of the matter: Our government, this government, does not feel panic and indignation because it expected and wanted the attack. Before I explain why the planning and execution of the blast itself must be formally the responsibility of NATO, it is necessary to explain why the government, this government, benefits from the terrorist attack. Personally, politically. To the detriment of Germany.
One descends, whether one likes it or not, into that stinking shithole in which sociopaths, narcissists, political amateurs and geopolitical non-entities like Scholz, Habeck & Co. (Scholzbek for short) thrive, and indulge themselves daily in their own personal perverted logic of maintaining power, while being presented to the outside world, with media support, as if they were “governing”.
Sooner or later, Scholzbek would have had to give in to domestic political pressure and open Nordstream 2. Gas prices are too high, German industry is already taking irreparable damage, and the mood among the people is foreseeably reaching boiling point. The voices became louder and louder for, and the arguments in the weaker against the opening of NS 2.
Scholzbek had a real problem: an opening would be a loss of face that would endanger his office, since large parts of the green base actually dream of being able to free Germany immediately and completely from fossil fuels. Moreover, Scholzbek would also have had to refuse a tough order from the U.S., because for our ally, one of his most important foreign policy goals is to prevent Nordstream 2 from going into operation forever.
This requires courage that no chancellor has had since Gerhard Schröder. Scholzbek likes to threaten Germans whose opinions he doesn’t like with the cudgel of “defensible democracy,” but he doesn’t have the guts to say no to the United States. And Scholzbek doesn’t need that ass anymore. With the terrorist act, he was freed from the predicament of not being able to please the Germans and the USA at the same time. Because he, Scholzbek, even if he wanted to, cannot open Nordstream 2 now.
The U.S. has now cemented an important foreign policy goal with an act of terrorism and at the same time freed Scholzbek from a predicament. As a third objective, the U.S., traditionally a sore loser, has taken revenge on Russia with an act of terrorism for the humiliation it suffers daily in the proxy war in Ukraine. Now to NATO.
I will spare you and myself a long treatise on why only one state actor can be considered responsible for the terrorist attack. Everyone knows it and I will leave it at a bullet point list. The terrorist attack on Nordstream 1 and Nordstream 2
- cannot be technically prepared and carried out by an underground combo without various secret services being aware of it in detail,
- requires military equipment that you can’t get in an outdoor store,
- requires massive quantities and quality of military explosives,
- requires military logistics to place explosives and equipment,
- requires the know-how to detonate the explosives simultaneously or to provide them with timed detonators, which you can’t order at Conrad Elektronik,
- requires precise knowledge of the pipeline route,
- requires the ability to hide and escape during preparation and execution (very difficult) or to carry out the crime undisturbed (very easy), because the whole thing is carried out from the base of a Corvette under, for example, a Polish, Swedish or American flag.
Since the terrorist attack constitutes a cause of war, only a supranational organization can formally assume responsibility. There remains a residual risk that details will become public. If convicted, a single country would become the permanent pariah of the international community, would be diplomatically ostracized, and would face reparation claims as a sponsor of terror. An attack by NATO could, if necessary, be portrayed as an internal “conspiracy”. An unauthorized action by individual actors, so-called “rogue actors”. No loss of face for the USA, because it would be innocent.
Moreover, did Germany want to declare war on NATO? So to itself? Or to withdraw beforehand and then declare war on the rest? Absurd. In this sense, a NATO country blew up the pipelines of a NATO ally, an important action among friends, so to speak, “just business, nothing personal,” as they say on the other side of the Atlantic.
That NATO has practice in explosive attacks, shooting down aircraft and bombing civilian infrastructure has been known at least since the attack on Serbia. The organization can draw on in-house expertise that the “defense alliance” has accumulated in many successfully destabilized crisis areas.
No. This only proves that someone says that Scholzbek was allegedly warned by the USA. A well-planned terrorist attack is always flanked by equally well-planned propaganda measures. Whether this warning was given, by whom to whom in what form – is completely irrelevant to the facts of the case. Since the CIA does not disclose its sources and the press agency also quotes only anonymous sources, the reference to the warning is irrelevant.
Whoever wants to destroy Nordstream 2 must also destroy Nordstream 1. A selective attack on Nordstream 2 would look like an attack on Germany. Destroying both pipelines can be portrayed as an attack on Russian infrastructure. Apart from that, the U.S. has no disadvantage from destroying both pipelines.
The further course of the Nordstream terror saga is clear. An international investigation commission under the leadership of Denmark and/or Sweden with defined participation of other “affected parties”, for example certain Baltic Sea riparian states (of course under exclusion of Russia) – will present a result after months of industrious investigations and evidence gathering, which will be something like: “We do not know exactly, but according to the information available to us, it can only have been Russia”.
The investigation will be conducted in camera (to “protect” the investigation team or to allow the team to “work undisturbed”). Even the “pieces of evidence” – except perhaps wooden models of fragments of the blown-up pipeline – will be withheld from the public (“protection from inspection of our special investigation methods”, “national security” and the like). The result report will first, in order to live up to the claim of the most brutally thorough reappraisal, state that even the most idiotic hypotheses were investigated (with the sole purpose of rejecting them over many pages – see the widely discussed possibility of a meteorite impact (!) in the investigation of the causes of the crash of MH-17) – in order to then come to the politically predetermined conclusion.
As with all reports, the Western press will “frame” the arbitrary, alogical political conclusion of the report as proof of Russia’s guilt, missing (or suppressed) evidence or beam-bending dialectics in reasoning or not. All other explanations are relegated to the realm of conspiracy theories.
Entertaining but “in the big picture” immaterial are details on who exactly ordered the terrorist attack, who planned it, and who pressed the button (or set the timer) to detonate it: The explosive charges may have been set by a Ukrainian version of Navy Seals, then detonated by a Finnish, Polish, Estonian cruiser/fishing boat, the planning may have been done in Bristol by a special operation called “Nogas4EU” headed by a U.S. NATO general flown in from Hawaii especially for the purpose in June. All just freely made up by me, but not really disprovable or provable.
Expect an avalanche of such factoids, theories, hypotheses, explanations and conspiracy stories (also scattered by Western intelligence agencies) in the coming weeks and months. This expected avalanche of news has only one purpose: to wear you down and distract you from the essential under a constant fire of lies.
And the essential is: NATO did it. The USA ordered it. The German government wanted it. And you know it now, too.