by Ralph T. Niemeyer
The day before yesterday, a so-called “state actor” blew up the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines in three places at the same time. Gas can no longer flow from Russia to Germany through the Baltic Sea for the foreseeable future. It is unknown if and when gas will be able to flow through the Baltic Sea again.
In normal times, any – any – government would declare immediate crisis mode if the country’s vital energy infrastructure was destroyed in an act of terrorism. However, one does not really get the impression that our “rulers” and the media attach more importance to this outrageous, history-making, war-reasoning act of terrorism than to the short-term low level in the Rhine last August.
The indignation seems artificial
Imagine the hysteria that would dominate media coverage in the US for weeks if two gas pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico had been blown up. Followed by the annihilation of a country that had nothing to do with it but is on the bad guys list.
In Germany, however, this existence-threatening event only makes it to the front page with difficulty. No rush for toilet paper because gas really can’t come across the Baltic Sea anymore, no cry for clarification, no call for immediate action, no demand for retaliation. The media devotes 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 artificial, the indignation almost artificial and forced. No comparison to that obsessive, bipolar dismay from Baerbock, Von-der-Leyen and their ilk about the Russian military operation in Ukraine.
Where there is no problem, there is no panic
If you don’t see panic and indignation, it’s because there is no panic and indignation. Which brings us to the heart of the matter: Our government, this government, does not feel any panic or indignation because it expected and wanted the attack. Before I explain why NATO must be formally responsible for planning and carrying out the demolition itself, I need to explain why the government, this government, is profiting from the terrorist attack. Personal, political. To the detriment of Germany.
Whether you want to or not, you descend into that stinking shithole where sociopaths, narcissus, political amateurs and geopolitical non-entities like Scholz thrive, and daily indulge in their very personal, perverse logic of maintaining power, outwardly at the same time supported by the media as if they were “governing”.
The USA kill three birds with one stone and help Scholz out of a tight spot
Sooner or later, Scholz would have had to give in to domestic pressure and open Nord Stream 2. Gas prices are too high, German industry is already suffering irreparable damage, and public sentiment is about to reach boiling point. The voices were getting louder and the arguments weakening against the opening of NS 2.
Scholz 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. In addition, Scholzbek would have had to refuse a tough order from the USA, because for our ally, one of our most important foreign policy goals is to prevent Nord Stream 2 from starting operations forever.
It takes courage that no chancellor has had since Gerhard Schröder. Because Scholz likes to threaten those Germans whose opinion he doesn’t like with the club of “fortified democracy”, but Scholz doesn’t have his ass in his pants to throw a no at the USA. Scholz no longer needs the ass. With the act of terrorism, he was freed from the predicament of not being able to please the Germans and the USA at the same time. Because he, Scholz, even if he wanted to, can no longer open Nord Stream 2.
A state actor
I’m giving you and me a long treatise on why only one state actor can be responsible for the terrorist attack. Everyone knows it and I’ll leave it at a bullet point list. The terrorist attack on Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2
- cannot be technically prepared and carried out by an underground combo without various secret services being able to take detailed knowledge of it,
- requires military gear that you can’t get in an outdoor shop,
- requires massive amounts and quality of military explosives,
- requires military logistics to place explosives and equipment,
- requires the know-how to detonate the explosives at the same time or to provide them with timers that cannot be ordered from ordinary electronic supply stores,
- requires precise knowledge of the course of the pipeline,
- requires the ability to hide and run away 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, the Polish, Swedish or American flag
Since the terrorist attack constitutes a reason for war, only a supranational organization can formally assume responsibility. There remains a residual risk that details will become public. A single country would, if convicted, become the pariah of the international community in the long term, would be diplomatically ostracized and exposed to demands for reparations as a sponsor of terror. If necessary, an attack by NATO could be portrayed as an internal “conspiracy”. An unauthorized action by individual actors, so-called “rogue actors”. No loss of face for the USA, because they would be innocent.
Also: Did Germany want to declare war on NATO? So yourself? Or leave first and then declare war on the rest? Absurd. In this sense, a NATO country has blown up the pipelines of a NATO ally, an important measure among friends, so to speak, “just business, nothing personal”, as they say across the Atlantic.
Since the attack on Serbia at the latest, it has been known that NATO has practice in bombing attacks, shooting down planes and bombing civilian infrastructure. The organization can draw on in-house expertise that the “defense alliance” has collected in many successfully destabilized crisis areas.
But the CIA allegedly warned Germany. Doesn’t that prove it wasn’t the US?
No that just proves that someone is saying that Scholz was allegedly warned by the US. A well-planned terrorist attack is always flanked by well-planned propaganda measures. Whether this warning was given, by whom and in what form is completely irrelevant to the facts of the case. Since the CIA does not disclose its sources and the press agency only quotes anonymous sources, the reference to the warning is irrelevant.
Why did NATO (aka USA) blow up both pipelines?
If you want to destroy Nord Stream 2, you must also destroy Nord Stream 1. A selective attack on Nord Stream 2 would look like an attack on Germany. A destruction of both pipelines can be presented as an attack on Russian infrastructure. Apart from that, the US has no disadvantage from the destruction of both pipelines.
Bullshit alert or the inevitable commission and its expected result
The further course of the Nord Stream terror saga is clear. An international investigative commission headed by Denmark and/or Sweden with a defined participation of other “affected parties”, such as certain Baltic Sea countries (of course, excluding Russia) – will, after months of diligent investigations and the collection of evidence, present a result that will read something like this: ” We don’t know for sure, but according to the information we have, it can only have been Russia.”
The investigation will be conducted in camera (to “protect” the investigative team, or to allow the team to “work undisturbed”). The “evidence” – except perhaps wooden models of fragments of the blown pipeline – is 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 do justice to the claim of the most brutally thorough processing, that even the most idiotic hypotheses were examined (with the sole purpose of rejecting them over many pages – see the widely discussed possibility of a meteorite impact (!) in the investigation the causes of the crash of MH-17) – to then come to the politically prescribed conclusion.
As with all reports, the Western press will frame the report’s arbitrary, illogical political conclusion as proof of Russia’s guilt, back and forth with missing (or suppressed) evidence or beam-bending dialectics in the justification. All other explanations are – proven practice – relegated to the realm of conspiracy theories.
The expected avalanche of the inessential
Details about who exactly ordered the terrorist attack, who planned it and who pressed the button (or set the timer) for the detonation are entertaining but irrelevant “in the larger context”: The explosive charges could have been planted by a Ukrainian version of the Navy SEALs , then detonated by a Finnish, Polish, Estonian cruiser/trawler, the planning may have been done in Bristol by a special operation called “Nogas4EU” led by a US NATO general sent from Hawaii in June was flown in. Everything just made up by me, but not really refutable or provable.
Expect an avalanche of such factoids, theories, hypotheses, explanatory approaches and conspiracy stories (also spread by western secret services) in the coming weeks and months. This expected avalanche of news has only one purpose: to wear you down and distract you from the essentials under a constant barrage of lies.
And the bottom line is: it was NATO. The US ordered it. The German government wanted it.
And now you know it too.