[D66] US sabotage Nordstream (7) : US Media’s Intellectual No-Fly-Zone on US Culpability in Nord Stream Attack

[René Oudeweg]

fair.org
<https://fair.org/home/us-medias-intellectual-no-fly-zone-on-us-culpability-in-nord-stream-attack/>



  US Media’s Intellectual No-Fly-Zone on US Culpability in Nord Stream
  Attack

Bryce Greene
22-28 minutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multiple explosions
<https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/30/nord-stream-blasts-size-equal-to-large-amount-of-explosive-un-told>
last week off the coast of Poland damaged both the Nord Stream 1 and
Nord Stream 2 pipelines, shutting down one and preventing the other from
going online. The pipelines, intended to carry natural gas from Russia
to Germany, are critical infrastructure
<https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/09/29/nord-stream-leaks-highlight-difficulty-of-protecting-critical-infrastructure>
for Europe’s energy markets.

The explosions triggered a lopsided “whodunnit” in US media, with
commentators almost universally fingering Russia as the culprit
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/09/29/russian-sabotage-of-the-nord-stream-pipeline-mark-a-point-of-no-return/?sh=6151a5e05dba>,
despite the lack of a plausible motive. Official US opposition to the
pipeline has been well-established
<https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/biden-threatened-to-block-russias-nord-stream-2-amid-ukraine-tensions-but-what-is-it>
over the years, giving Washington ample motive to destroy the pipelines,
but most newsrooms uniformly suppressed this history, and attacked those
who raised it.

WaPo: European leaders blame Russian ‘sabotage’ after Nord Stream explosions

/“Only Russia had the motivation,” the *Washington Post* (9/27/22
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/27/nord-stream-gas-pipelines-damage-russia/>)
claimed—even as it reported that the pipelines “deepened Europe’s
dependence on Russian natural gas,” which “many [presumably Western]
officials now say was a grave strategic mistake.”/

After the explosions, much of the press dutifully parroted the Western
official line. The *Washington Post *(9/27/22
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/27/nord-stream-gas-pipelines-damage-russia/>)
quickly produced an account: “European Leaders Blame Russian ‘Sabotage’
After Nord Stream Explosions,” citing nothing but EU officials who
claimed that while they had no evidence of Russian involvement, “only
Russia had the motivation, the submersible equipment and the capability.”

Much of the media cast their suspicions towards Russia, including
*Bloomberg *(9/27/22
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/is-putin-fully-weaponizing-the-nord-stream-pipelines/2022/09/27/9be3c836-3e68-11ed-8c6e-9386bd7cd826_story.html>),
*Vox *(9/29/22
<https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/28/23376356/nord-stream-pipeline-russia-explosions-sabotage>),
*Associated Press *(9/30/22
<https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-nato-united-states-baltic-sea-b837ae25021807a3caef4aa3043a8013>)
and much of cable news
<https://tvnews.stanford.edu/?dataVersion=v1&data=eyJvcHRpb25zIjp7InN0YXJ0X2RhdGUiOiIyMDIyLTA5LTI2IiwiYWdncmVnYXRlIjoiZGF5In0sInF1ZXJpZXMiOlt7ImNvbG9yIjoiIzRFNzlBNyIsInRleHQiOiJ0ZXh0PVwicGlwZWxpbmVcIiJ9XX0>.
With few exceptions, speculation on US involvement has seemingly been
deemed an intellectual no-fly-zone.

The idea that only Russia had the means and motivation is clearly false
on both counts. Washington has made it clear for years that it doesn’t
want the pipeline, and has taken active measures to stop it from coming
online. As for the means, it’s patently absurd to suggest that the US
doesn’t have the capability to lay explosives in 200 feet of water.

Even Max Boot, who agreed in his *Washington* *Post *column (9/29/22
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/29/baltic-nordstream-pipeline-sabotage-putin-russia/>)
that only Russia had the means and motive, contradictorily acknowledged
that “the means are easy.”


      *A long history of opposition*

Any serious coverage of the Nord Stream attack should acknowledge that
opposition to the pipeline has been a centerpiece of the US grand
strategy in Europe. The long-term goal has been to keep Russia isolated
and disjointed from Europe, and to keep the countries of Europe tied to
US markets. Ever since German and Russian energy companies signed a deal
<https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-forum-nord-stream/update-2-gazprom-european-partners-sign-nord-stream-2-deal-idUSL5N11A0G420150904>
to begin development on Nord Stream 2, the entire machinery of
Washington has been working overtime to scuttle it.

RAND: Extending Russia

/The RAND report (2019
<https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html>) that
recommended “Reduc[ing] [Russian] Natural Gas Exports and Hinder[ing]
Pipeline Expansions” now comes with a warning saying it’s been
“mischaracterized” by “Russian entities and individuals sympathetic to
Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine.”/

A 2019 Pentagon-funded study
<https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html> from the RAND
Corporation on how best to exploit “Russia’s economic, political and
military vulnerabilities and anxieties” included a recommendation to
“Reduce [Russian] Natural Gas Exports and Hinder Pipeline Expansions.”
The study noted that a “first step would involve stopping Nord Stream
2,” and that natural gas “from the United States and Australia could
provide a substitute.”

This RAND study also prophetically recommended “providing more US
military equipment and advice” to Ukraine in order to “lead Russia to
increase its direct involvement in the conflict and the price it pays
for it,” even though it acknowledged that “Russia might respond by
mounting a new offensive and seizing more Ukrainian territory.”

The Obama administration opposed
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/14/world/europe/nord-stream-2-russia-germany.html>
the pipeline. As part of the major sanctions package
<https://www.dw.com/en/us-bill-on-russia-sanctions-prompts-german-austrian-outcry/a-39270624>
against Russia in 2017, the Trump administration began sanctioning any
company doing work on the pipeline. The move generated outrage
<https://www.dw.com/en/us-bill-on-russia-sanctions-prompts-german-austrian-outcry/a-39270624>
in Germany, where many saw it as an attempt to meddle with European
markets. In 2019, the US implemented more sanctions on the project.

Upon coming into office, President Joe Biden made opposition to the
pipeline one of his administration’s top priorities. During his
confirmation hearings in 2021, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken told
Congress
<https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-joe-biden-nord-stream-2/>
he was “determined to do whatever I can to prevent” Nord Stream 2 from
being completed. Months later, the State Department reiterated
<https://www.state.gov/nord-stream-2-and-potential-sanctionable-activity/>
that “any entity involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline risks US
sanctions and should immediately abandon work on the pipeline.”

In July 2021, the sanctions were relaxed only after contentious
negotiations
<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/us/politics/nord-stream-2.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article>
with the German government. The *New York Times* (7/21/21
<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/us/politics/nord-stream-2.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article>)
reported that the administration and Germany still had “profound
disagreements” about the project.

As Russia was gathering troops
<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/01/07/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html>
at Ukraine’s border at the beginning of this year, US administration
officials issued threats against the pipeline’s operation in the event
of a Russian invasion. In January, Undersecretary of State Victoria
Nuland — one of the main players
<https://www.mintpressnews.com/victoria-nuland-hand-in-every-us-intervention-past-30-years/275272/>
during the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine and wife of Robert Kagan, the
founder of the neoconservative Project for a New American Century
<https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/project_for_the_new_american_century/>
— issued a stern warning
<https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/1486818088016355336> against the
pipeline. “If Russia invades, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 Will.
Not. Move. Forward.”

In February, Joe Biden himself told reporters
<https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1490792461979078662%7Ctwgr%5E7adcab7cc657c62540218a5a84d4869f560c61d4%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthecradle.co%2FArticle%2FColumns%2F16307>,
“If Russia invades…then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will
bring an end to it.” After a reporter asked how the US planned to end a
project that was under German control, Biden responded
<https://www.dw.com/en/biden-promises-no-nord-stream-2-if-russia-invades-ukraine/a-60684640>,
“I promise you, we will be able to do that.”

On February 22, after Russian troops were given orders
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/21/europe/russia-ukraine-tensions-monday-intl/index.html>
to enter the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, Germany suspended the
pipeline, in a move that was called “remarkable” at the time (*New York
Times*, 2/22/22
<https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/business/nord-stream-russia-putin-germany.html>).

In sharp contrast to the US’s antagonism, Russia has taken the opposite
approach
<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/business/energy-environment/putin-nord-stream-germany.html?searchResultPosition=8>
to the pipeline it spent billions of dollars to complete. As recently as
three weeks ago, Putin expressed willingness to supply more gas if the
EU would lift the sanctions against the newer pipeline. He said
<http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69366>: “If things are so
bad, just go ahead and lift sanctions against Nord Stream 2, with its 55
billion cubic meters per year — all they have to do is press the button
and they will get going.” Diplomatic sources told the*Cradle* (9/29/22
<https://thecradle.co/Article/Columns/16307>) that Russia and Germany
were in talks about both NS1 and NS2 on the day of the explosion.

The day after the attack, German government sources leaked to the German
daily *Der Spiegel* (9/28/22
<https://www.spiegel.de/politik/nord-stream-gasleitungen-cia-warnte-bundesregierung-vor-anschlag-auf-ostsee-pipelines-a-3ab0a183-8af6-4fb2-bae4-d134de0b3d57>)
that weeks earlier, the CIA warned
<https://www.reuters.com/world/cia-warned-berlin-about-possible-attacks-gas-pipelines-summer-spiegel-2022-09-27/>
Germany of a potential attack on the pipeline. However, sources told
*CNN* (9/29/22
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-leak-russian-navy-ships/index.html>)
that the warnings were “vague” and that “it was not clear from the
warnings who might be responsible for any attacks on the pipelines, or
when they might occur.” A high-level source in German intelligence told
the *Cradle* (9/29/22 <https://thecradle.co/Article/Columns/16307>) that
they were “furious” because “they were not in the loop.”

After the attack, Blinken called
<https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-canadian-foreign-minister-melanie-joly-at-a-joint-press-availability/#:~:text=It's%20a%20tremendous%20opportunity%20to,of%20advancing%20his%20imperial%20designs.>
the bombing a “tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the
dependence on Russian energy,” and said that this “offers tremendous
strategic opportunity for years to come.” On the other hand, Russia has
already announced plans
<https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-deputy-pm-says-its-possible-restore-nord-stream-pipelines-tass-2022-10-02/>
to begin repairing the pipeline.

So contrary to what nearly the US entire media establishment has
presented, the US has had ample motive to destroy the pipeline, and is
actively celebrating its demise.


      *‘Thank you, USA’*

One event that fueled speculation of US involvement was a tweet from a
Polish member of the European Parliament, Radek Sikorski
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rados%C5%82aw_Sikorski>—a one-time Polish
Defense minister as well as a former American Enterprise Institute
fellow, who was named one of the “Top 100 Global Thinkers” in 2012 by
*Foreign Policy* (11/26/12
<https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/11/26/the-fp-top-100-global-thinkers-2/>).

Radosław Sikorski on Twitter: Thank You, USA

/The *Washington Post* (9/28/22
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/28/tucker-carlson-nord-stream/>)
suggested that by thanking the United States over a picture of the
pipeline explosion, Radek Sikorksi may have been “crediting the United
States with rendering the pipelines moot by pressuring Europe not to
take Russian natural gas.”/

Sikorski tweeted
<https://web.archive.org/web/20220927182826/https://twitter.com/sikorskiradek/status/1574777986737655810?cxt=HHwWhMDSuYiP3torAAAA>
out a picture of the methane leak in the ocean, along with the caption,
“As we say in Polish, a small thing, but so much joy.” He later tweeted
<https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/polish-eu-parliament-member-on-nord-stream-explosion:-thank>,
“Thank you, USA,” with the same picture.

He later tweeted
<https://web.archive.org/web/20220928143155/https://twitter.com/radeksikorski/status/1574849994062020609>
against the pipeline, noting that “Nord Stream’s only logic was for
Putin to be able to blackmail or wage war on Eastern Europe with
impunity.” An hour later he elaborated:

    Now $20 billion of scrap metal lies at the bottom of the sea,
    another cost to Russia of its criminal decision to invade Ukraine.
    Someone…did a special maintenance operation.

The last line was a joke about how Russia classifies
<https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-authorises-military-operations-donbass-domestic-media-2022-02-24/>
its invasion of Ukraine as a “special military operation.”

After these tweets received attention from those who suspected US
responsibility, Sikorski deleted them. *Business Insider *(9/30/22
<https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-echoes-us-far-right-blaming-biden-nord-stream-2022-9>)
dishonestly wrote that these latter tweets were actually an “attempt to
clarify that the original tweet was a criticism of US support for the
pipeline being built in the first place.” Any honest reading of the
tweets demonstrates that the opposite is true; presumably this is why
*Insider* didn’t link to any specific text.

The *Washington Post *(9/28/22
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/28/tucker-carlson-nord-stream/>)
also offered a twisted interpretation of Sikorski’s tweets:

    His meaning wasn’t entirely clear; it seems possible he was
    crediting the United States with rendering the pipelines moot by
    pressuring Europe not to take Russian natural gas. In later tweets,
    he seemed actually to point to Russian sabotage.

For the latter claim, the *Post *cited Sikorski’s joke about the
“special maintenance operation,” but the full tweet shows that this is a
preposterous interpretation.

While certainly not a smoking gun, such a high-profile accusation (or
expression of gratitude, such as it was) raises eyebrows, especially
given Poland’s strenuous opposition
<https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-revives-putins-pipeline-dream/>
to the pipeline, and the recent completion
<https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/27/baltic-pipe-norway-poland-gas-pipeline-opens-in-key-move-to-cut-dependency-on-russia>
of a Norway/Poland pipeline designed to “cut dependency on Russia.” The
circumstances are even more suspicious, given that Sikorski is the
husband of the fervently anti-Russian
<https://www.anneapplebaum.com/2021/11/15/the-bad-guys-are-winning/>
staff writer at *The Atlantic* Anne Applebaum
<https://fair.org/home/media-undermine-democracy-by-speculating-wildly-about-undermining-democracy/>,
who has been a key media figure
<https://unherd.com/thepost/anne-applebaum-swaps-foreign-policy-for-fan-fiction/>
advancing the pro-NATO narrative in the West.

Applebaum even sits on the board
<https://www.ned.org/about/board-of-directors/> of the National
Endowment for Democracy (a position she once shared with Victoria Nuland
<https://www.mintpressnews.com/victoria-nuland-hand-in-every-us-intervention-past-30-years/275272/>
before Nuland moved into the Biden administration), a government-funded
conduit for US regime change and destabilization projects
<https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/NED-Is-a-Tool-of-US-Foreign-Policy-for-Subversion-Cuban-Expert-20220513-0008.html>
that was an important driving force behind the 2014 coup
<https://consortiumnews.com/2022/06/02/us-state-affiliated-newsguard-targets-consortium-news/>
that replaced Ukraine’s pro-Russian government with a Pro-Western one.
Since then, the NED has funded
<https://www.mintpressnews.com/280167-2/280167/> English-language
Ukrainian media like the *Kyiv Independent*, which, along with
commentators like Applebaum herself, are now shaping coverage of the
current war for Western audiences.

The fact that someone as connected as Sikorski would find it appropriate
to publicly thank the US for the attack certainly deserves scrutiny.
Some US media brought up the tweet, but dismissed it as unimportant
(*The Hill*, 9/30/22
<https://thehill.com/policy/international/3668946-pipeline-sabotage-is-mystery-but-putin-russia-are-prime-suspects/>).


      *‘A reminder from Moscow’**
      *

Business Insider: The sabotage of gas pipelines were a 'warning shot'
from Putin to the West, and should brace for more subterfuge, Russia
experts warn

/*Business Insider* (10/4/22
<https://www.businessinsider.com/sabotage-of-pipelines-were-a-warning-shot-from-putin-experts-2022-10>):
If Putin is willing to blow up his own pipelines, just think what he
might do to yours!/

US media have all but ignored the critical context above. If a case like
that existed for the Russia-did-it theory, you can be sure that it would
have been spelled out in detail by everyone. But instead, US media
direct attention away from the obvious and are left to grasp at straws
to find a potential Russian motive. In fact, many outlets readily
acknowledged that there was no obvious motive for Russia to bomb its own
pipeline. For example, the *New York Times* (9/28/22
<https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/world/europe/why-experts-and-officials-say-the-leaks-were-no-accident-and-why-many-of-them-are-blaming-russia.html>)
wrote:

    It is unclear why Moscow would seek to damage installations that
    cost Gazprom billions of dollars to build and maintain. The leaks
    are expected to delay any possibility of receiving revenue from fuel
    going through the pipes.

*Vox *(9/28/22
<https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/28/23376356/nord-stream-pipeline-russia-explosions-sabotage>)
reported that*“*experts emphasized…it may be hard to fully know Moscow’s
motivation.” *NPR *(9/28/22
<https://www.npr.org/2022/09/28/1125525798/what-caused-2-key-natural-gas-pipelines-under-the-baltic-sea-to-rupture>)
also couldn’t readily answer “the question as to why Russia would attack
its own pipelines.”*
**
*Having admitted that Russia has no readily apparent motive,
establishment media are left to stretch. They presented a couple of
theories for Putin’s potential motivation, but neither holds up to
scrutiny. One, per the *Times *(9/28/22
<https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/world/europe/nordstream-pipeline-gas-leak-explosions.html>)*,
*is that the leaks “may help Russia by pushing energy prices higher,”
since “the natural gas market is spooked.” But this logic makes little
sense, as Russia has been pushing
<https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-putin-says-moscow-not-blame-eu-energy-crisis-2022-09-16/>
for Europe to open the Nord Stream 2 pipeline since it was completed.
Higher natural gas prices do Russia little good if it’s unable to
deliver its gas to market.

The *Times *(9/28/22
<https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/world/europe/pipeline-sabotage-mystery-russia.html?searchResultPosition=1>)
put forth another theory: that Putin is just teaching the West some kind
of lesson:

    The ruptures could also be a reminder from Moscow that if European
    countries keep up their support for Ukraine, they risk sabotage to
    vital energy infrastructure.

The *Washington* *Post *(9/27/22
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/27/nord-stream-gas-pipelines-damage-russia/>)*,
*speaking to “security officials,” cited similar theories:

    One official said it might have been a message to NATO: “We are
    close.” Another said that it could be a threat to other, non-Russian
    energy infrastructure.

*Business Insider *(10/4/22
<https://www.businessinsider.com/sabotage-of-pipelines-were-a-warning-shot-from-putin-experts-2022-10>)
published a piece hysterically titled: “The Sabotage of Gas Pipelines
Were a ‘Warning Shot’ From Putin to the West, and Should Brace for More
Subterfuge, Russia Experts Warn.”

*CNN *(9/29/22
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-leak-russian-navy-ships/index.html>)
also found a US official to tell them that “Moscow would likely view
[attacking the pipeline] as worth the price if it helped raise the costs
of supporting Ukraine for Europe,” and that “sabotaging the pipelines
could ‘show what Russia is capable of.’” *Vox *(9/28/22
<https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/28/23376356/nord-stream-pipeline-russia-explosions-sabotage>)
found some “experts” to tell them the same story.

But the reality is that Russia has done
<https://news.antiwar.com/2022/04/14/russia-formally-warns-us-to-stop-arming-ukraine/>
its utmost to discourage
<https://original.antiwar.com/ted_galen_carpenter/2022/05/02/this-time-nato-better-take-putins-ukraine-warnings-seriously/>
NATO from further involvement in the war. A Russian attack on the
pipeline would all but guarantee greater NATO involvement in Ukraine.
Antagonizing Germany to teach the rest of Europe a lesson—which would
only work if Russia was understood to be behind the sabotage—would be
the opposite of Russia’s interests. This argument amounts to little more
than “Putin is evil and hates Europe.”

As FAIR (3/30/22
<https://fair.org/home/depicting-putin-as-madman-eliminates-need-for-diplomacy/>)
has previously written, this cartoon narrative of Putin as Hitler allows
for all logic and reasoning to fall by the wayside. The US behavior with
regards to the pipeline is objectively more compelling than the case
against Russia, yet the media have dismissed it out of hand.


      *A crack in the facade**
      *

One of the cracks in the uniform coverage was a segment
<https://nypost.com/2022/10/04/jeffrey-sachs-yanked-off-air-after-accusing-us-of-sabotaging-nord-stream/>
on*Bloomberg TV* (10/3/22
<https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1576995183052214273?>). Host
Tom Keene brought on Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs, who
was recently the head of the *Lancet*’s investigation (9/14/22
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01585-9/fulltext>)
into the origin of Covid-19. During the interview, Sachs stated that he
“would bet [the attack] was a US action, perhaps US and Poland.”

Bloomberg host Tom Keene interviewing Jeffrey Sachs

/*Bloomberg TV* host Tom Keene (10/3/22
<https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1576995183052214273?>) takes
Jeffrey Sachs to task for questioning the official Nord Stream narrative./

Keene immediately stopped him and demanded that he lay out evidence for
the claim. Sachs cited radar evidence
<https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/us-military-aircraft-circled-nord-stream-incident-site-in-se>
that US helicopters, normally based in Gdansk, had been hovering within
the area of the explosion shortly before the attack. This is certainly
not a smoking gun, given Western intelligence claims
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-leak-russian-navy-ships/index.html>
that Russian ships were observed in the area during this same timeframe,
though it does add to the case for US responsibility. He also cited the
threatening statements from Biden and Blinken as reasons for his suspicion.

Sachs acknowledged the propaganda system in which he was operating:

    I know it runs counter to our narrative, you‘re not allowed to say
    these things in the West, but the fact of the matter is, all over
    the world when I talk to people, they think the US did it…. Even
    reporters on our papers that are involved tell me, “Of course [the
    US is responsible],” but it doesn’t show up in our media.

This was the only time FAIR saw an anchor push back and ask for evidence
for guests’ speculation of responsibility—speculation that was usually
pointed toward Russia.


      *The broken clock*

As illustration of the weirdness that is the US elite’s opportunistic
relationship with Russia, *Fox News*’ Tucker Carlson (9/27/22
<https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-what-happened-nord-stream-pipeline>),
the white nationalist
<https://fair.org/home/cable-news-no-1-host-flirts-with-fascism/> who
hosts the most popular evening talk show in America, was one of the only
media figures to go against the dominant narrative. Carlson certainly
overstated the case for US involvement in the pipeline attack, but he
asked questions no one else in corporate media would touch.

WaPo: Russian TV is very excited about Такер Карлсон’s Nord Stream theory

/The *Washington Post* (9/29/22
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/29/russia-nord-stream-tucker-carlson-fox-news/>)
printed Tucker Carlson’s name in Cyrillic—implying that only a Russian
agent would express doubts about the US’s innocence./

But rather than dissect Carlson’s case factually, most other media
relied purely on redbaiting. The*Washington Post *(9/29/22
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/29/russia-nord-stream-tucker-carlson-fox-news/>)
wrote Carlson’s name in Cyrillic —”Russian TV Is Very Excited About
Такер Карлсон’s Nord Stream Theory”—to play into the McCarthyite
fearmongering of the New Cold War.

The *Post *brought up the threatening statements from Nuland and Biden,
and even the tweet from Sikorski, but only to dismiss them, because they
weren’t a “smoking gun.” Of course, the *Post *refused to acknowledge
that the quotes from administration officials demonstrated a clear
opposition to the pipeline, and thus an obvious motive for the attack.

Despite the fact that Carlson repeatedly claimed that “we don’t know
what happened,” the *Post* declared that “he delivered his speculation
as if it were fact and invited his viewers to do the same.” While this
is a fair assessment of the tone if not the text of the segment, the
*Post *had nothing to say about the certainty with which others in the
media accused Russia.

The *Post*’s reporting was picked up by *MSNBC* Katie Phang (10/1/22
<https://archive.org/details/MSNBCW_20221001_110000_The_Katie_Phang_Show/start/3246/end/3426>),
who, also eschewing actual investigation, asked her guest, “How
dangerous is it for an American media personality with the kind of reach
that Tucker Calrson has to be out there spouting a talking point that
ends up on Russian state TV?”


      ‘Baseless conspiracy theory’

ABC: Russians push baseless theory blaming US for burst pipeline

/*AP* (via *ABC*, 9/30/22
<https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/russians-push-baseless-theory-blaming-us-burst-pipeline-90780807>)
accused “Kremlin and Russian state media” of “aggressively pushing a
baseless conspiracy theory” in “another effort to split the U.S. and its
European allies.”/

The *Associated Press *(9/30/22
<https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/russians-push-baseless-theory-blaming-us-burst-pipeline-90780807>)
wrote a widely republished
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Russians+push+baseless+theory+blaming+US+for+burst+pipeline%2C&t=brave&ia=web>
story, headlined “Russians Push Baseless Theory Blaming US for Burst
Pipeline,” that called the idea the US was responsible for the attacks a
“baseless conspiracy theory.”

Like the other coverage, the *AP *didn’t evaluate any of the evidence,
but called the theory “disinformation” designed to “undermine Ukraine’s
allies” and, importantly, painted such speculation as beyond legitimate
discussion:

    The suggestion that the US caused the damage was circulating on
    online forums popular with American conservatives and followers of
    QAnon, a conspiracy theory movement which asserts that Trump is
    fighting a battle against a Satanic child-trafficking sect that
    controls world events.

*Bloomberg* (reprinted in the *Washington Post*, 9/27/22
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/is-putin-fully-weaponizing-the-nord-stream-pipelines/2022/09/27/9be3c836-3e68-11ed-8c6e-9386bd7cd826_story.html>)
acknowledged Biden’s threats against the pipeline, but writer Javier
Blas dismissed them without actually explaining why:

    Conspiracy theorists always see the hand of the CIA in everything.
    But that’s nonsense. The clear beneficiary of shutting down the Nord
    Stream pipelines for good is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Yes, the “clear beneficiary” of the destruction of the main method
Russia could sell billions of dollars worth of natural gas to Europe
was…the Russian president. It doesn’t make more sense if you read the
whole article.

The US press produced an overwhelming chorus of articles (e.g.,
*Business Insider, *9/30/22
<https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-echoes-us-far-right-blaming-biden-nord-stream-2022-9>;
*Vox, *2/28/22
<https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/28/23376356/nord-stream-pipeline-russia-explosions-sabotage>;
*Newsweek*, 10/3/22
<https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-green-nord-stream-putin-1748318>)
that deployed the term “conspiracy theory” to discredit the idea of US
culpability. Not one of these pieces adequately explored the credible
reasons for the suspicion, simply ignoring the body of evidence
presented above.

The Brookings Institution (where Robert Kagan works) published a long
article (10/3/22
<https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/u-s-podcasters-spread-kremlin-narratives-on-nord-stream-sabotage/>),
complete with graphs and charts, that warned of the dangers of
podcasters spreading the idea that the US was culpable in the attacks.
It dismissed this possibility on the strength of a link to the *New York
Times* (9/28/22
<https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/world/europe/pipeline-sabotage-mystery-russia.html>),
used to substantiate a claim that “experts broadly agree that Russia is
the key suspect.” It did not do any investigation of its own.


      When is a theory a ‘conspiracy theory’?

Caitlin Johnstone: It’s Only A ‘Conspiracy Theory’ When It Accuses The
US Government

/Caitlin Johnstone (10/4/22)
<https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/10/04/its-only-a-conspiracy-theory-when-it-accuses-the-us-government/>:
“If you think the United States could have any responsibility for this
attack at all, you’re a crazy conspiracy theorist and no different from
QAnoners who think pedophile Satan worshipers rule the world.”/

This use of the term “conspiracy theory” or “conspiracy theorist,” along
with the mention of QAnon, has the effect of associating speculation of
US involvement in the attack with a class of people that have largely
been discredited (with good reason
<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/21/the-storm-is-upon-us-review-qanon-history-updated-trump-january-6>)
in the public mind. Once this link has been made, evaluating the
evidence is no longer required. It’s a lazy rhetorical trick to
marginalize dissent.

In his book /Conspiracy Theory in America/
<https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/18699376-conspiracy-theory-in-america>,
scholar Lance Dehaven Smith examined the way the term is deployed in
establishment media:

    What they actually have in mind are suspicions that simply deviate
    from conventional opinion about the norms and integrity of US
    officials. In practice, it is not the form or the object of
    conspiracy theories, or even the absence of official confirmation,
    that differentiates them from other (acceptable) beliefs; it is
    their nonconformity with prevailing opinion.

Writer Caitlin Johnstone (10/4/22)
<https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/10/04/its-only-a-conspiracy-theory-when-it-accuses-the-us-government/>
put it succinctly in a piece on the hysteria surrounding the pipeline
attacks: “It’s Only a ‘Conspiracy Theory’ When It Accuses the US
Government.” She wrote:

    Over and over again we see the pejorative “conspiracy theory”
    applied to accusations against one nation but not the other, despite
    the fact that it’s the exact same accusation. They are both
    conspiracy theories per definition: They’re theories about an
    alleged conspiracy to sabotage Russian pipelines. But the Western
    political/media class consistently applies that label to one and
    never the other.

At a meeting of the UN Security Council—hastily called by Russia in the
wake of the attacks—US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield called the
Russian accusations “conspiracy theories,” then went on to accuse Russia
of attacking its own pipeline. Reporting on the Security Council
meeting, *CNN *(11/29/22
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-leak-russian-navy-ships/index.html>)
showed its own conspiratorial thinking*, *citing US officials who called
the meeting itself “suspicious,” because “typically, the official said,
Russia isn’t organized enough to move so quickly, suggesting that the
maneuver was pre-planned.”

Of course there are irresponsible, popular conspiracy theories that fail
to hold up to scrutiny, and are in fact quite dangerous. The QAnon
theory that the world’s elite are harvesting a substance called
adrenochrome
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/02/03/fact-check-qanons-adrenochrome-conspiracy-theory-baseless/9268681002/>
from trafficked children to gain special abilities and extend their life
is absurd. The 2020 election spawned many disproven theories about a
stolen Trump victory that ended up leading to the deadly riot at the
Capitol on January 6. But just as the existence of websites that
fabricate pseudo-news reports
<https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/> for profit
gave Donald Trump a label to dismiss any journalism he didn’t like as
“fake news,” so to are such fanciful theories based on leaps of logic
used to disparage well-documented efforts to peer behind the scenes of
US official policy.

To be sure, we still don’t know for certain who was behind the pipeline
bombing, but there is a solid prima facie case for US culpability. The
explosion is a watershed moment in the escalation toward a direct
confrontation between nuclear powers. Media malfeasance on this topic
doesn’t just threaten the credibility of the press, but literally
imperils the whole of human civilization.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*/FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to
remain independent. Donate <https://www.cambeywest.com/EXT/?f=donate>
today to be a part of this important mission./*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.tuxtown.net/pipermail/d66/attachments/20221009/ec1e47fc/attachment-0001.html>