Russia invades Ukraine
- Thread starter Perun
- Start date
____no5
Free Man
I wonder.. All those arms and military equipment is given as a donation, they are sold to Ukraine or as a loan? I know Turkey is selling them the drones but what about those Leopards, Patriots and now F16 the other countries give?
EDIT: I found the answer to my own question. It's mostly donated.
www.politico.eu
EDIT: I found the answer to my own question. It's mostly donated.
EU allies query Estonia’s bumper refund from weapons to Ukraine
Several EU diplomats and officials accuse Tallinn of gaming an EU fund meant to provide repayments for arms sent to Kyiv.
www.politico.eu
Last edited:
____no5
Free Man
I found this very well written and interesting article in Kim Dotcom's feed.
It's about Nordstream. Which was essentially an enemy act against vital German state infrastructure, if Germans didn't know. But according to Victoria Nuland (see video in the last thread of the feed) they did know.
According to Seymour Hersh (1st additional article), planning started at least 2 months before Russian invasion.
2nd article presents all narratives and angles.
Dotcom is German, owner of MEGA, Seymour Hersh is one of the most renowned investigative journalists of our era.
Additional articles:
seymourhersh.substack.com
www.rferl.org
It's about Nordstream. Which was essentially an enemy act against vital German state infrastructure, if Germans didn't know. But according to Victoria Nuland (see video in the last thread of the feed) they did know.
According to Seymour Hersh (1st additional article), planning started at least 2 months before Russian invasion.
2nd article presents all narratives and angles.
Dotcom is German, owner of MEGA, Seymour Hersh is one of the most renowned investigative journalists of our era.
Additional articles:
How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline
The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now
seymourhersh.substack.com
The Nord Stream Mystery: What We Know About The Baltic Sea Pipeline Blasts
A drifting Greek tanker. A chartered German sailboat. Intercepted Russian communications. The mystery over the blasts that destroyed part of the Baltic Sea pipeline bringing Russian gas to Europe deepens with revelations about German investigations and Danish marine traffic. Here's what we know.
www.rferl.org
Kim Dotcom isn't exactly a credible source of any sort. And there's no evidence, just speculation.
____no5
Free Man
No so fast, LC.
First, the article is not Kim's.
Second, it's very convincing and yes there is evidence. We have the helicopter hoovering for 3 hours which disappears after the second navy plane appears. Which took off with no Call Sign before the first explosion, stays around the site of first explosion, refills in the air and heads towards the site of the second explosion to (supposedly) plant the sonobuoy before radar looses it due to flying super low. All the above with time stamps and radar data. If this is not evidence it's at the very least super strong indication. Now add the other pieces of the puzzle, Biden & Nuland statements all the other stuff that video and Hersh article describe.
Third, ASDS Engineer cites the article of Seymour Hersh who also states that US did it. And Hersh is a hell of a credible source.
Last edited:
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
FTFY. When I posted a link to his article on this back in February, I noted at the time that his story was broadly disputed.
Hersh has also had a series of very questionable, poorly sourced, and reason-defying pieces published over the past 10-15 years, including blaming people other than Assad for chemical weapons attacks in Syria, claiming the Osama Bin Laden raid was faked, etc. His Pulitzer-winning journalism days are long since behind him.
That said, we should always look at people's claims with an open mind and see if they stand up to scrutiny, which is why I shared the link in the first place.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Here's what I see.
- The random YouTuber claims that a U.S. military exercise that concluded in mid-June 2022 was the cover used to plant explosives for explosions that happened over 3 months later in late September 2022.
- The random YouTuber claims that a "loitering" U.S. helicopter which is out over the Baltic Sea, ~100mi away from the blast sites, is responsible for setting off the explosives. Let's ignore the fact that the blast sites are only ~50mi away from land, and it sure seems like it would be easier to detonate the explosives from the comfort of land in either Poland or Sweden, or slightly further away (but still closer than the helicopter) in Denmark or Germany.
- A U.S. torpedo plane flies near the first explosion site after the explosion happens. It launched before the explosion, but there's nothing else tying its flight plan to the explosion itself. It's entirely plausible that after the explosion was detected, the plane was sent to investigate. It then refuels and heads back toward the Baltic Sea, but it's not actually seen going near the second explosion site.
- The random YouTuber claims that the U.S. torpedo plane was dropping the sonobuoys used to set off the second explosion, but he also seemed to claim that the "loitering" helicopter was equipped with sonobuoys and was setting things off (even though it never went near the explosion sites), so which is it?
This leaves me with several additional thoughts.
- Your linked RadioFreeEurope article makes a big deal out of a Greek tanker ship loitering in the same area, then going on to Moscow later, and the owner of the shipping company has ties to Putin.
- Carlson and Trump, who have repeatedly demonstrated sympathy for Putin, underline the idea that the U.S. blew up NordStream 2.
- Russia gleefully endorsed Hersh's article blaming the U.S. for the explosions.
- Hersh told Chinese state television that U.S. officials are so "consumed by hatred of Putin" that they make dumb foreign policy decisions.
- Convincing NATO members that the U.S. took military action against their own infrastructure would sow discord that would benefit Putin.
____no5
Free Man
I agree with the helicopter argument, that could be just to observe, but the plane’s movement was too suspicious. To claim that this operation was done from a merchant ship or a yacht is laughable, I won’t even get into it. I just put Radio Free Europe here to give a different more Western narrative source, only that. To contrast.
False flag theory is also laughable. All indications show that European nations try to cover up, Russia even protested that it wasn’t invited to the investigations what false flag, really?
You selectively choose to ignore what Biden, Nuland and some other officials have hinted or shall I say foretold about what will happen. Or that was a false flag too? Too many coincidences, I’d say. Truth is in front of everyone’s eyes.
False flag theory is also laughable. All indications show that European nations try to cover up, Russia even protested that it wasn’t invited to the investigations what false flag, really?
You selectively choose to ignore what Biden, Nuland and some other officials have hinted or shall I say foretold about what will happen. Or that was a false flag too? Too many coincidences, I’d say. Truth is in front of everyone’s eyes.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
If the plane was headed to Poland in the first place, then diverted to fly near the explosion site after the explosion was detected, then refueled to head back out and do more recon in case anything else was going on in the area, you would see that as being suspicious...?
And the random YouTuber's argument is also laughable, but I did get into it, and pointed out why.
Why? This is a tactic Putin regularly uses. If he decided NordStream 2 was going to be stopped diplomatically anyway, he may have seen greater short-term advantage in blowing it up and pushing the story that the U.S. did it, rather than preserving the infrastructure so it would cost less to get it going again in the future after relations renormalized. But I agree, there's only circumstantial evidence to support that theory, just as there's only circumstantial evidence to support your preferred theory.
How so?
No, I just treat it as the circumstantial evidence that it is. Insinuation and innuendo don't prove anything. There are plenty of ways to apply leverage that don't involve direct military action, and assuming that they were referring to direct military action requires confirmation bias on your part.
This is the language of a conspiracy theorist. Actual objective truth will stand up to any and all scrutiny. So far the random YouTuber hasn't come even remotely close to that.
Is it possible that the U.S. did it? Yes. Is it possible that Russia did it as a false flag? Yes. Is it possible that a pro-Ukrainian faction did it? Yes. Do we know what really happened yet? No.
____no5
Free Man
If it was a Russian false flag there would be hard evidence just as what I showed you and the West would have gone all their way to expose it. On the contrary what we see? West to halt the investigations not sharing information between them for “security” reasons.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council on Monday declined a Russian request to investigate the blasts on the pipelines that move natural gas from Russia to Europe under the Baltic Sea.
apnews.com
False flag article by NYT
www.nytimes.com
I don’t think so. He was clearly hinted to something more radical. And there’s Nuland’s quote and the other official’s quote. Check the video on the Twitter thread that I posted. Also check Swedish official’s opinion about the blast in the end of NYT article above.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council on Monday declined a Russian request to investigate the blasts on the pipelines that move natural gas from Russia to Europe under the Baltic Sea.
UN Security Council won't probe Nord Stream blasts
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council on Monday declined a Russian request to investigate the blasts on the pipelines that move natural gas from Russia to Europe under the Baltic Sea.
apnews.com
False flag article by NYT
Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say (Published 2023)
New intelligence reporting amounts to the first significant known lead about who was responsible for the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines that carried natural gas from Russia to Europe.
I don’t think so. He was clearly hinted to something more radical. And there’s Nuland’s quote and the other official’s quote. Check the video on the Twitter thread that I posted. Also check Swedish official’s opinion about the blast in the end of NYT article above.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
What hard evidence, the torpedo plane? The loitering helicopter? The U.S. operating in the Baltic Sea over 3 months earlier like plenty of other countries?
There’s just as much “hard evidence” of the Greek tanker with Russian ties theory. Again, you sidestep and cherry-pick information based on your own confirmation bias.
Who’s halting the investigations? They just didn’t support kicking off yet another one when there are already 3 parallel ones in progress. And who were the only countries who wanted another investigation? Russia, China, and Brazil.
Paywalled so I can’t read it. This second-hand story on Al Jazeera describes the broad strokes and said a false flag attack couldn’t be ruled out yet.False flag article by NYT
Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say (Published 2023)
New intelligence reporting amounts to the first significant known lead about who was responsible for the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines that carried natural gas from Russia to Europe.
Again — innuendo, assumption, confirmation bias.
Yes, we did, and you’re still dancing around its obvious weaknesses.
____no5
Free Man
Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say
New intelligence reporting amounts to the first significant known lead about who was responsible for the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines that carried natural gas from Russia to Europe.
By Adam Entous, Julian E. Barnes and Adam Goldman
March 7, 2023
WASHINGTON — New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the Atlantic for months.
U.S. officials said that they had no evidence President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top lieutenants were involved in the operation, or that the perpetrators were acting at the direction of any Ukrainian government officials.
The brazen attack on the natural gas pipelines, which link Russia to Western Europe, fueled public speculation about who was to blame, from Moscow to Kyiv and London to Washington, and it has remained one of the most consequential unsolved mysteries of Russia’s year-old war in Ukraine.
Ukraine and its allies have been seen by some officials as having the most logical potential motive to attack the pipelines. They have opposed the project for years, calling it a national security threat because it would allow Russia to sell gas more easily to Europe.
Ukrainian government and military intelligence officials say they had no role in the attack and do not know who carried it out. After this article was published, Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior adviser to Mr. Zelensky, posted on Twitter that Ukraine “has nothing to do with the Baltic Sea mishap.” He added that he had no information about pro-Ukrainian “sabotage groups.”
U.S. officials said there was much they did not know about the perpetrators and their affiliations. The review of newly collected intelligence suggests they were opponents of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, but does not specify the members of the group, or who directed or paid for the operation.
U.S. officials declined to disclose the nature of the intelligence, how it was obtained or any details of the strength of the evidence it contains. They have said that there are no firm conclusions about it, leaving open the possibility that the operation might have been conducted off the books by a proxy force with connections to the Ukrainian government or its security services.
Some initial U.S. and European speculation centered on possible Russian culpability, especially given its prowess in undersea operations, though it is unclear what motivation the Kremlin would have in sabotaging the pipelines given that they have been an important source of revenue and a means for Moscow to exert influence over Europe. One estimate put the cost of repairing the pipelines starting at about $500 million. U.S. officials say they have not found any evidence of involvement by the Russian government in the attack.
Officials who have reviewed the intelligence said they believed the saboteurs were most likely Ukrainian or Russian nationals, or some combination of the two. U.S. officials said no American or British nationals were involved.
The pipelines were ripped apart by deep sea explosions in September, in what U.S. officials described at the time as an act of sabotage. European officials have publicly said they believe the operation that targeted Nord Stream was probably state sponsored, possibly because of the sophistication with which the perpetrators planted and detonated the explosives on the floor of the Baltic Sea without being detected. U.S. officials have not stated publicly that they believe the operation was sponsored by a state.
The explosives were most likely planted with the help of experienced divers who did not appear to be working for military or intelligence services, U.S. officials who have reviewed the new intelligence said. But it is possible that the perpetrators received specialized government training in the past.
Officials said there were still enormous gaps in what U.S. spy agencies and their European partners knew about what transpired. But officials said it might constitute the first significant lead to emerge from several closely guarded investigations, the conclusions of which could have profound implications for the coalition supporting Ukraine.
Any suggestion of Ukrainian involvement, whether direct or indirect, could upset the delicate relationship between Ukraine and Germany, souring support among a German public that has swallowed high energy prices in the name of solidarity.
U.S. officials who have been briefed on the intelligence are divided about how much weight to put on the new information. All of them spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss classified intelligence and matters of sensitive diplomacy.
U.S. officials said the new intelligence reporting has increased their optimism that American spy agencies and their partners in Europe can find more information, which could allow them to reach a firm conclusion about the perpetrators. It is unclear how long that process will take. American officials recently discussed the intelligence with their European counterparts, who have taken the lead in investigating the attack.
A spokeswoman for the C.I.A. declined to comment. A spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council referred questions about the pipelines to the European authorities, who have been conducting their own investigations.
After this report was published, Russia attacked the credibility of the intelligence, complaining that it had been prevented from taking part in the investigations. “This is obviously a coordinated spread of disinformation in the media,” Dmitry S. Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, told the state-backed Sputnik news agency.
Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, as the two pipelines are known, stretch 760 miles from the northwest coast of Russia to Lubmin in northeast Germany. The first cost more than $12 billion to build and was completed in 2011.
Nord Stream 2 cost slightly less than the first pipeline and was completed in 2021, over objections from officials in the United States, Britain, Poland and Ukraine, among others, who warned that it would increase German reliance on Russian gas. During a future diplomatic crisis between the West and Russia, these officials argued, Moscow could blackmail Berlin by threatening to curtail gas supplies, on which the Germans had depended heavily, especially during the winter months. (Germany has weaned itself off reliance on Russian gas over the past year.)
Early last year, President Biden, after meeting with Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany at the White House, said Mr. Putin’s decision about whether to attack Ukraine would determine the fate of Nord Stream 2. “If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2,” Mr. Biden said. “We will bring an end to it.”
When asked exactly how that would be accomplished, Mr. Biden cryptically said, “I promise you we’ll be able to do it.”
A couple weeks later, Mr. Scholz announced that his government would block the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from becoming operational. Two days after that, Russia launched the much-anticipated invasion.
Since the explosions along the pipelines in September, there has been rampant speculation about what transpired on the sea floor near the Danish island of Bornholm.
Poland and Ukraine immediately accused Russia of planting the explosives, but they offered no evidence.
Russia, in turn, accused Britain of carrying out the operation — also without evidence. Russia and Britain have denied any involvement in the explosions.
Last month, the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published an article on the newsletter platform Substack concluding that the United States carried out the operation at the direction of Mr. Biden. In making his case, Mr. Hersh cited the president’s preinvasion threat to “bring an end” to Nord Stream 2, and similar statements by other senior U.S. officials.
U.S. officials say Mr. Biden and his top aides did not authorize a mission to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines, and they say there was no U.S. involvement.
Any findings that put blame on Kyiv or Ukrainian proxies could prompt a backlash in Europe and make it harder for the West to maintain a united front in support of Ukraine.
U.S. officials and intelligence agencies acknowledge that they have limited visibility into Ukrainian decision-making.
Despite Ukraine’s deep dependence on the United States for military, intelligence and diplomatic support, Ukrainian officials are not always transparent with their American counterparts about their military operations, especially those against Russian targets behind enemy lines. Those operations have frustrated U.S. officials, who believe that they have not measurably improved Ukraine’s position on the battlefield, but have risked alienating European allies and widening the war.
The operations that have unnerved the United States included a strike in early August on Russia’s Saki Air Base on the western coast of Crimea, a truck bombing in October that destroyed part of the Kerch Strait Bridge, which links Russia to Crimea, and drone strikes in December aimed at Russian military bases in Ryazan and Engels, about 300 miles beyond the Ukrainian border.
But there have been other acts of sabotage and violence of more ambiguous provenance that U.S. intelligence agencies have had a harder time attributing to Ukrainian security services.
One of those was a car bomb near Moscow in August that killed Daria Dugina, the daughter of a prominent Russian nationalist.
Kyiv denied any involvement but U.S. intelligence agencies eventually came to believe that the killing was authorized by what officials called “elements” of the Ukrainian government. In response to the finding, the Biden administration privately rebuked the Ukrainians and warned them against taking similar actions.
The explosions that ruptured the Nord Stream pipelines took place five weeks after Ms. Dugina’s killing. After the Nord Stream operation, there was hushed speculation — and worry — in Washington that parts of the Ukrainian government might have been involved in that operation as well.
The new intelligence provided no evidence so far of the Ukrainian government’s complicity in the attack on the pipelines, and U.S. officials say the Biden administration’s level of trust in Mr. Zelensky and his senior national security team has been steadily increasing.
Days after the explosion, Denmark, Sweden and Germany began their own separate investigations into the Nord Stream operation.
Intelligence and law enforcement agencies on both sides of the Atlantic have had difficulty obtaining concrete evidence about what happened on the sea floor in the hours, days and weeks before the explosions.
The pipelines themselves were not closely monitored, by either commercial or government sensors. Moreover, finding the vessel or vessels involved has been complicated by the fact that the explosions took place in a heavily trafficked area.
That said, investigators have many leads to pursue.
According to a European lawmaker briefed late last year by his country’s main foreign intelligence service, investigators have been gathering information about an estimated 45 “ghost ships” whose location transponders were not on or were not working when they passed through the area, possibly to cloak their movements.
The lawmaker was also told that more than 1,000 pounds of “military grade” explosives were used by the perpetrators.
Spokespeople for the Danish government had no immediate comment. Spokespeople for the German government declined to comment.
By Adam Entous, Julian E. Barnes and Adam Goldman
March 7, 2023
WASHINGTON — New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the Atlantic for months.
U.S. officials said that they had no evidence President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top lieutenants were involved in the operation, or that the perpetrators were acting at the direction of any Ukrainian government officials.
The brazen attack on the natural gas pipelines, which link Russia to Western Europe, fueled public speculation about who was to blame, from Moscow to Kyiv and London to Washington, and it has remained one of the most consequential unsolved mysteries of Russia’s year-old war in Ukraine.
Ukraine and its allies have been seen by some officials as having the most logical potential motive to attack the pipelines. They have opposed the project for years, calling it a national security threat because it would allow Russia to sell gas more easily to Europe.
Ukrainian government and military intelligence officials say they had no role in the attack and do not know who carried it out. After this article was published, Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior adviser to Mr. Zelensky, posted on Twitter that Ukraine “has nothing to do with the Baltic Sea mishap.” He added that he had no information about pro-Ukrainian “sabotage groups.”
U.S. officials said there was much they did not know about the perpetrators and their affiliations. The review of newly collected intelligence suggests they were opponents of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, but does not specify the members of the group, or who directed or paid for the operation.
U.S. officials declined to disclose the nature of the intelligence, how it was obtained or any details of the strength of the evidence it contains. They have said that there are no firm conclusions about it, leaving open the possibility that the operation might have been conducted off the books by a proxy force with connections to the Ukrainian government or its security services.
Some initial U.S. and European speculation centered on possible Russian culpability, especially given its prowess in undersea operations, though it is unclear what motivation the Kremlin would have in sabotaging the pipelines given that they have been an important source of revenue and a means for Moscow to exert influence over Europe. One estimate put the cost of repairing the pipelines starting at about $500 million. U.S. officials say they have not found any evidence of involvement by the Russian government in the attack.
Officials who have reviewed the intelligence said they believed the saboteurs were most likely Ukrainian or Russian nationals, or some combination of the two. U.S. officials said no American or British nationals were involved.
The pipelines were ripped apart by deep sea explosions in September, in what U.S. officials described at the time as an act of sabotage. European officials have publicly said they believe the operation that targeted Nord Stream was probably state sponsored, possibly because of the sophistication with which the perpetrators planted and detonated the explosives on the floor of the Baltic Sea without being detected. U.S. officials have not stated publicly that they believe the operation was sponsored by a state.
The explosives were most likely planted with the help of experienced divers who did not appear to be working for military or intelligence services, U.S. officials who have reviewed the new intelligence said. But it is possible that the perpetrators received specialized government training in the past.
Officials said there were still enormous gaps in what U.S. spy agencies and their European partners knew about what transpired. But officials said it might constitute the first significant lead to emerge from several closely guarded investigations, the conclusions of which could have profound implications for the coalition supporting Ukraine.
Any suggestion of Ukrainian involvement, whether direct or indirect, could upset the delicate relationship between Ukraine and Germany, souring support among a German public that has swallowed high energy prices in the name of solidarity.
U.S. officials who have been briefed on the intelligence are divided about how much weight to put on the new information. All of them spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss classified intelligence and matters of sensitive diplomacy.
U.S. officials said the new intelligence reporting has increased their optimism that American spy agencies and their partners in Europe can find more information, which could allow them to reach a firm conclusion about the perpetrators. It is unclear how long that process will take. American officials recently discussed the intelligence with their European counterparts, who have taken the lead in investigating the attack.
A spokeswoman for the C.I.A. declined to comment. A spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council referred questions about the pipelines to the European authorities, who have been conducting their own investigations.
After this report was published, Russia attacked the credibility of the intelligence, complaining that it had been prevented from taking part in the investigations. “This is obviously a coordinated spread of disinformation in the media,” Dmitry S. Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, told the state-backed Sputnik news agency.
Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, as the two pipelines are known, stretch 760 miles from the northwest coast of Russia to Lubmin in northeast Germany. The first cost more than $12 billion to build and was completed in 2011.
Nord Stream 2 cost slightly less than the first pipeline and was completed in 2021, over objections from officials in the United States, Britain, Poland and Ukraine, among others, who warned that it would increase German reliance on Russian gas. During a future diplomatic crisis between the West and Russia, these officials argued, Moscow could blackmail Berlin by threatening to curtail gas supplies, on which the Germans had depended heavily, especially during the winter months. (Germany has weaned itself off reliance on Russian gas over the past year.)
Early last year, President Biden, after meeting with Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany at the White House, said Mr. Putin’s decision about whether to attack Ukraine would determine the fate of Nord Stream 2. “If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2,” Mr. Biden said. “We will bring an end to it.”
When asked exactly how that would be accomplished, Mr. Biden cryptically said, “I promise you we’ll be able to do it.”
A couple weeks later, Mr. Scholz announced that his government would block the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from becoming operational. Two days after that, Russia launched the much-anticipated invasion.
Since the explosions along the pipelines in September, there has been rampant speculation about what transpired on the sea floor near the Danish island of Bornholm.
Poland and Ukraine immediately accused Russia of planting the explosives, but they offered no evidence.
Russia, in turn, accused Britain of carrying out the operation — also without evidence. Russia and Britain have denied any involvement in the explosions.
Last month, the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published an article on the newsletter platform Substack concluding that the United States carried out the operation at the direction of Mr. Biden. In making his case, Mr. Hersh cited the president’s preinvasion threat to “bring an end” to Nord Stream 2, and similar statements by other senior U.S. officials.
U.S. officials say Mr. Biden and his top aides did not authorize a mission to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines, and they say there was no U.S. involvement.
Any findings that put blame on Kyiv or Ukrainian proxies could prompt a backlash in Europe and make it harder for the West to maintain a united front in support of Ukraine.
U.S. officials and intelligence agencies acknowledge that they have limited visibility into Ukrainian decision-making.
Despite Ukraine’s deep dependence on the United States for military, intelligence and diplomatic support, Ukrainian officials are not always transparent with their American counterparts about their military operations, especially those against Russian targets behind enemy lines. Those operations have frustrated U.S. officials, who believe that they have not measurably improved Ukraine’s position on the battlefield, but have risked alienating European allies and widening the war.
The operations that have unnerved the United States included a strike in early August on Russia’s Saki Air Base on the western coast of Crimea, a truck bombing in October that destroyed part of the Kerch Strait Bridge, which links Russia to Crimea, and drone strikes in December aimed at Russian military bases in Ryazan and Engels, about 300 miles beyond the Ukrainian border.
But there have been other acts of sabotage and violence of more ambiguous provenance that U.S. intelligence agencies have had a harder time attributing to Ukrainian security services.
One of those was a car bomb near Moscow in August that killed Daria Dugina, the daughter of a prominent Russian nationalist.
Kyiv denied any involvement but U.S. intelligence agencies eventually came to believe that the killing was authorized by what officials called “elements” of the Ukrainian government. In response to the finding, the Biden administration privately rebuked the Ukrainians and warned them against taking similar actions.
The explosions that ruptured the Nord Stream pipelines took place five weeks after Ms. Dugina’s killing. After the Nord Stream operation, there was hushed speculation — and worry — in Washington that parts of the Ukrainian government might have been involved in that operation as well.
The new intelligence provided no evidence so far of the Ukrainian government’s complicity in the attack on the pipelines, and U.S. officials say the Biden administration’s level of trust in Mr. Zelensky and his senior national security team has been steadily increasing.
Days after the explosion, Denmark, Sweden and Germany began their own separate investigations into the Nord Stream operation.
Intelligence and law enforcement agencies on both sides of the Atlantic have had difficulty obtaining concrete evidence about what happened on the sea floor in the hours, days and weeks before the explosions.
The pipelines themselves were not closely monitored, by either commercial or government sensors. Moreover, finding the vessel or vessels involved has been complicated by the fact that the explosions took place in a heavily trafficked area.
That said, investigators have many leads to pursue.
According to a European lawmaker briefed late last year by his country’s main foreign intelligence service, investigators have been gathering information about an estimated 45 “ghost ships” whose location transponders were not on or were not working when they passed through the area, possibly to cloak their movements.
The lawmaker was also told that more than 1,000 pounds of “military grade” explosives were used by the perpetrators.
Spokespeople for the Danish government had no immediate comment. Spokespeople for the German government declined to comment.
Mats Ljungqvist, a senior prosecutor leading Sweden’s investigation, told The New York Times late last month that his country’s hunt for the perpetrators was continuing.
“It’s my job to find those who blew up Nord Stream. To help me, I have our country’s Security Service,” Mr. Ljungqvist said. “Do I think it was Russia that blew up Nord Stream? I never thought so. It’s not logical. But as in the case of a murder, you have to be open to all possibilities.”
-end of article-
By the way, this article would never be written if Seymour Hersh's wasn't published a month earlier. Or McCarthy bluntly turned down Zelensky around that time. Nobody seems to seriously believe that Russians did it. Can we rule it out without a shadow of doubt? No. But all indications lead that Americans were heavily involved. Even more than above article implies.
A false flag attack can't be rule out yet, is the best collective West can offer.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Thanks.
Sure. But the article only cites the vague comments made by Biden and others, and a possible motive. It then talks about other operations carried out by what were believed to be Ukraine-associated groups at the direction of “elements” of the Ukrainian government, which apparently earned scoldings from the U.S., and how Ukraine would also have motive. And it noted Germany’s halting of the NordStream 2 after Biden’s supposedly suspicious comments, and long before the pipeline was sabotaged.
How do you twist this into “all indications lead that Americans were heavily involved”?
And the inconclusive, inconsistent rantings of a random YouTuber and the barely-sourced wishful thinking of a disgraced reporter are apparently the best the collective East can offer.
Perhaps you could just acknowledge that we don’t yet know what happened here.
____no5
Free Man
The article is deeper than that. Its goal is to protect the military industrial complex and same time to jab on the administration for working with people (Ukrainian extremists) they can't control, like below:
And then goes on citing seemingly unrelated incidents that highlight the lack of US control to Ukraine extremists actions.
Of course I don't buy this version, but I see in the article another indication that US military industrial complex try to cover it up smearing Ukrainian extremists as if they would ever be able to do it without their help.
Strictly speaking I have to agree.
We don't know what happened exactly. But anyone with open eyes can sense who was behind.
For example, I also don't know what exactly happened with JFK's assassination, but no matter Warren Commission's hundreds of pages reporting, I know that it was not (just) Oswald. Yes, once in a trillion you could have a magic bullet trajectory. Do I buy it? No.
To conclude, my level of certainty for Nordstream is not on par with that for Oswald, which means I am not beyond any shadow of doubt that Americans did it, but pretty close.
Yax
Ancient Mariner
That is purely confirmation bias. What do we know? Biden said that he'll shut it down and soon after, Germany suspended the pipeline. The idea that he'd be walking around hinting at military operations right in the middle of a war; that's now how he has ever done things. You don't do that. It is more likely that it was a rogue Ukraine operation than a US; Biden had already shut it down. There are motives all around for a whole bunch of actors, including Russia.
Edit: I remember when I saw that clip, the same day that he said he'd shut it down. I thought "the Russian propaganda machine is going to have a field day with this. And yup.
Last edited: