<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#f9f9fa">
<p> </p>
<div id="toolbar" class="toolbar-container"> </div>
<div class="container" style="--line-height: 1.6em;" dir="ltr"
lang="en-US">
<div class="header reader-header reader-show-element"> <a
class="domain reader-domain"
href="https://fair.org/home/us-medias-intellectual-no-fly-zone-on-us-culpability-in-nord-stream-attack/">fair.org</a>
<h1 class="reader-title">US Media’s Intellectual No-Fly-Zone on
US Culpability in Nord Stream Attack</h1>
<div class="credits reader-credits">Bryce Greene</div>
<div class="meta-data">
<div class="reader-estimated-time" dir="ltr">22-28 minutes</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="content">
<div class="moz-reader-content reader-show-element">
<div id="readability-page-1" class="page">
<div>
<p><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/30/nord-stream-blasts-size-equal-to-large-amount-of-explosive-un-told">Multiple
explosions</a> 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 <a
href="https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/09/29/nord-stream-leaks-highlight-difficulty-of-protecting-critical-infrastructure">critical
infrastructure</a> for Europe’s energy markets.</p>
<p>The explosions triggered a lopsided “whodunnit” in US
media, with commentators almost universally <a
href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/09/29/russian-sabotage-of-the-nord-stream-pipeline-mark-a-point-of-no-return/?sh=6151a5e05dba">fingering
Russia as the culprit</a>, despite the lack of a
plausible motive. Official US opposition to the pipeline
has been <a
href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/biden-threatened-to-block-russias-nord-stream-2-amid-ukraine-tensions-but-what-is-it">well-established</a>
over the years, giving Washington ample motive to
destroy the pipelines, but most newsrooms uniformly
suppressed this history, and attacked those who raised
it.</p>
<div id="attachment_9030587" class="wp-caption">
<p><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-9030587"
src="https://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/WaPo-Nord-Stream-350x315.png"
alt="WaPo: European leaders blame Russian ‘sabotage’
after Nord Stream explosions"
class="moz-reader-block-img" width="350"
height="315"></p>
<p id="caption-attachment-9030587"
class="wp-caption-text"><em>“Only Russia had the
motivation,” the <strong>Washington Post</strong> (<a
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/27/nord-stream-gas-pipelines-damage-russia/">9/27/22</a>)
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.”</em></p>
</div>
<p>After the explosions, much of the press dutifully
parroted the Western official line. The <b>Washington
Post </b>(<a
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/27/nord-stream-gas-pipelines-damage-russia/">9/27/22</a>)
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.”</p>
<p>Much of the media cast their suspicions towards Russia,
including <b>Bloomberg </b>(<a
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/is-putin-fully-weaponizing-the-nord-stream-pipelines/2022/09/27/9be3c836-3e68-11ed-8c6e-9386bd7cd826_story.html">9/27/22</a>),
<b>Vox </b>(<a
href="https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/28/23376356/nord-stream-pipeline-russia-explosions-sabotage">9/29/22</a>),
<b>Associated Press </b>(<a
href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-nato-united-states-baltic-sea-b837ae25021807a3caef4aa3043a8013">9/30/22</a>)
and much of <a
href="https://tvnews.stanford.edu/?dataVersion=v1&data=eyJvcHRpb25zIjp7InN0YXJ0X2RhdGUiOiIyMDIyLTA5LTI2IiwiYWdncmVnYXRlIjoiZGF5In0sInF1ZXJpZXMiOlt7ImNvbG9yIjoiIzRFNzlBNyIsInRleHQiOiJ0ZXh0PVwicGlwZWxpbmVcIiJ9XX0">cable
news</a>. With few exceptions, speculation on US
involvement has seemingly been deemed an intellectual
no-fly-zone.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Even Max Boot, who agreed in his <strong>Washington</strong>
<b>Post </b>column (<a
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/29/baltic-nordstream-pipeline-sabotage-putin-russia/">9/29/22</a>)
that only Russia had the means and motive,
contradictorily acknowledged that “the means are easy.”</p>
<h3><b>A long history of opposition</b></h3>
<p>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 <a
href="https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-forum-nord-stream/update-2-gazprom-european-partners-sign-nord-stream-2-deal-idUSL5N11A0G420150904">deal</a>
to begin development on Nord Stream 2, the entire
machinery of Washington has been working overtime to
scuttle it.</p>
<div id="attachment_9030592" class="wp-caption">
<p><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-9030592"
src="https://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/RAND-Extending-Russia-350x525.png"
alt="RAND: Extending Russia"
class="moz-reader-block-img" width="350"
height="525"></p>
<p id="caption-attachment-9030592"
class="wp-caption-text"><em>The RAND report (<a
href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html">2019</a>)
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.”</em></p>
</div>
<p>A 2019 Pentagon-funded <a
href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html">study</a>
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.”</p>
<p>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.”</p>
<p>The Obama administration <a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/14/world/europe/nord-stream-2-russia-germany.html">opposed</a>
the pipeline. As part of the major sanctions <a
href="https://www.dw.com/en/us-bill-on-russia-sanctions-prompts-german-austrian-outcry/a-39270624">package</a>
against Russia in 2017, the Trump administration began
sanctioning any company doing work on the pipeline. The
move generated <a
href="https://www.dw.com/en/us-bill-on-russia-sanctions-prompts-german-austrian-outcry/a-39270624">outrage</a>
in Germany, where many saw it as an attempt to meddle
with European markets. In 2019, the US implemented more
sanctions on the project.</p>
<p>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 <a
href="https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-joe-biden-nord-stream-2/">told
Congress</a> he was “determined to do whatever I can
to prevent” Nord Stream 2 from being completed. Months
later, the State Department <a
href="https://www.state.gov/nord-stream-2-and-potential-sanctionable-activity/">reiterated</a>
that “any entity involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
risks US sanctions and should immediately abandon work
on the pipeline.”</p>
<p>In July 2021, the sanctions were relaxed only after <a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/us/politics/nord-stream-2.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article">contentious
negotiations</a> with the German government. The <b>New
York Times</b> (<a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/us/politics/nord-stream-2.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article">7/21/21</a>)
reported that the administration and Germany still had
“profound disagreements” about the project.</p>
<p>As Russia was <a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/01/07/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html">gathering
troops</a> 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 <a
href="https://www.mintpressnews.com/victoria-nuland-hand-in-every-us-intervention-past-30-years/275272/">main
players</a> during the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine and
wife of Robert Kagan, the founder of the <a
href="https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/project_for_the_new_american_century/">neoconservative
Project for a New American Century</a> — issued a <a
href="https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/1486818088016355336">stern
warning</a> against the pipeline. “If Russia invades,
one way or another, Nord Stream 2 Will. Not. Move.
Forward.”</p>
<p>In February, Joe Biden himself told <a
href="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">reporters</a>,
“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 <a
href="https://www.dw.com/en/biden-promises-no-nord-stream-2-if-russia-invades-ukraine/a-60684640">responded</a>,
“I promise you, we will be able to do that.”</p>
<p>On February 22, after Russian troops <a
href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/21/europe/russia-ukraine-tensions-monday-intl/index.html">were
given orders</a> to enter the Donbas region in eastern
Ukraine, Germany suspended the pipeline, in a move that
was called “remarkable” at the time (<b>New York Times</b>,
<a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/business/nord-stream-russia-putin-germany.html">2/22/22</a>).</p>
<p>In sharp contrast to the US’s antagonism, Russia has
taken the <a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/business/energy-environment/putin-nord-stream-germany.html?searchResultPosition=8">opposite
approach</a> 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
<a
href="http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69366">said</a>:
“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<b>
Cradle</b> (<a
href="https://thecradle.co/Article/Columns/16307">9/29/22</a>)
that Russia and Germany were in talks about both NS1 and
NS2 on the day of the explosion.</p>
<p>The day after the attack, German government sources
leaked to the German daily <b>Der Spiegel</b> (<a
href="https://www.spiegel.de/politik/nord-stream-gasleitungen-cia-warnte-bundesregierung-vor-anschlag-auf-ostsee-pipelines-a-3ab0a183-8af6-4fb2-bae4-d134de0b3d57">9/28/22</a>)
that weeks earlier, the CIA <a
href="https://www.reuters.com/world/cia-warned-berlin-about-possible-attacks-gas-pipelines-summer-spiegel-2022-09-27/">warned</a>
Germany of a potential attack on the pipeline. However,
sources told <b>CNN</b> (<a
href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-leak-russian-navy-ships/index.html">9/29/22</a>)
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 <b>Cradle</b>
(<a href="https://thecradle.co/Article/Columns/16307">9/29/22</a>)
that they were “furious” because “they were not in the
loop.”</p>
<p>After the attack, Blinken <a
href="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.">called</a>
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 <a
href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-deputy-pm-says-its-possible-restore-nord-stream-pipelines-tass-2022-10-02/">announced
plans</a> to begin repairing the pipeline.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><b>‘Thank you, USA’</b></h3>
<p>One event that fueled speculation of US involvement was
a tweet from a Polish member of the European Parliament,
<a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rados%C5%82aw_Sikorski">Radek
Sikorski</a>—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 <b>Foreign Policy</b> (<a
href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/11/26/the-fp-top-100-global-thinkers-2/">11/26/12</a>).</p>
<div id="attachment_9030596" class="wp-caption">
<p><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-9030596"
src="https://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Twitter-Thank-You-USA-350x308.png"
alt="Radosław Sikorski on Twitter: Thank You, USA"
class="moz-reader-block-img" width="350"
height="308"></p>
<p id="caption-attachment-9030596"
class="wp-caption-text"><em>The <strong>Washington
Post</strong> (<a
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/28/tucker-carlson-nord-stream/">9/28/22</a>)
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.”</em></p>
</div>
<p>Sikorski <a
href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220927182826/https://twitter.com/sikorskiradek/status/1574777986737655810?cxt=HHwWhMDSuYiP3torAAAA">tweeted</a>
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 <a
href="https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/polish-eu-parliament-member-on-nord-stream-explosion:-thank">tweeted</a>,
“Thank you, USA,” with the same picture.</p>
<p>He later <a
href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220928143155/https://twitter.com/radeksikorski/status/1574849994062020609">tweeted</a>
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:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The last line was a joke about how <a
href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-authorises-military-operations-donbass-domestic-media-2022-02-24/">Russia
classifies</a> its invasion of Ukraine as a “special
military operation.”</p>
<p>After these tweets received attention from those who
suspected US responsibility, Sikorski deleted them. <b>Business
Insider </b>(<a
href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-echoes-us-far-right-blaming-biden-nord-stream-2022-9">9/30/22</a>)
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 <b>Insider</b> didn’t link to any specific text.</p>
<p>The <b>Washington Post </b>(<a
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/28/tucker-carlson-nord-stream/">9/28/22</a>)
also offered a twisted interpretation of Sikorski’s
tweets:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For the latter claim, the <b>Post </b>cited
Sikorski’s joke about the “special maintenance
operation,” but the full tweet shows that this is a
preposterous interpretation.</p>
<p>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 <a
href="https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-revives-putins-pipeline-dream/">strenuous
opposition</a> to the pipeline, and the recent <a
href="https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/27/baltic-pipe-norway-poland-gas-pipeline-opens-in-key-move-to-cut-dependency-on-russia">completion</a>
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 <a
href="https://www.anneapplebaum.com/2021/11/15/the-bad-guys-are-winning/">anti-Russian</a>
staff writer at <b>The Atlantic</b> <a
href="https://fair.org/home/media-undermine-democracy-by-speculating-wildly-about-undermining-democracy/">Anne
Applebaum</a>, who has been a <a
href="https://unherd.com/thepost/anne-applebaum-swaps-foreign-policy-for-fan-fiction/">key
media figure</a> advancing the pro-NATO narrative in
the West.</p>
<p>Applebaum even <a
href="https://www.ned.org/about/board-of-directors/">sits
on the board</a> of the National Endowment for
Democracy (a position she once shared with <a
href="https://www.mintpressnews.com/victoria-nuland-hand-in-every-us-intervention-past-30-years/275272/">Victoria
Nuland</a> before Nuland moved into the Biden
administration), a government-funded conduit for <a
href="https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/NED-Is-a-Tool-of-US-Foreign-Policy-for-Subversion-Cuban-Expert-20220513-0008.html">US
regime change and destabilization projects</a> that
was an important driving force behind the <a
href="https://consortiumnews.com/2022/06/02/us-state-affiliated-newsguard-targets-consortium-news/">2014
coup</a> that replaced Ukraine’s pro-Russian
government with a Pro-Western one. Since then, the NED
has <a
href="https://www.mintpressnews.com/280167-2/280167/">funded</a>
English-language Ukrainian media like the <b>Kyiv
Independent</b>, which, along with commentators like
Applebaum herself, are now shaping coverage of the
current war for Western audiences.</p>
<p>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 (<b>The
Hill</b>, <a
href="https://thehill.com/policy/international/3668946-pipeline-sabotage-is-mystery-but-putin-russia-are-prime-suspects/">9/30/22</a>).</p>
<h3><b>‘A reminder from Moscow’</b><b><br>
</b></h3>
<div id="attachment_9030598" class="wp-caption">
<p><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-9030598"
src="https://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Business-Insider-Nord-Stream-350x291.png"
alt="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" class="moz-reader-block-img" width="350"
height="291"></p>
<p id="caption-attachment-9030598"
class="wp-caption-text"><em><strong>Business Insider</strong>
(<a
href="https://www.businessinsider.com/sabotage-of-pipelines-were-a-warning-shot-from-putin-experts-2022-10">10/4/22</a>):
If Putin is willing to blow up his own pipelines,
just think what he might do to yours!</em></p>
</div>
<p>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 <b>New York Times</b> (<a
href="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">9/28/22</a>)
wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>Vox </b>(<a
href="https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/28/23376356/nord-stream-pipeline-russia-explosions-sabotage">9/28/22</a>)
reported that<b> “</b>experts emphasized…it may be hard
to fully know Moscow’s motivation.” <b>NPR </b>(<a
href="https://www.npr.org/2022/09/28/1125525798/what-caused-2-key-natural-gas-pipelines-under-the-baltic-sea-to-rupture">9/28/22</a>)
also couldn’t readily answer “the question as to why
Russia would attack its own pipelines.”<b><br>
</b><b><br>
</b>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 <b>Times </b>(<a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/world/europe/nordstream-pipeline-gas-leak-explosions.html">9/28/22</a>)<b>,
</b>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 <a
href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-putin-says-moscow-not-blame-eu-energy-crisis-2022-09-16/">Russia
has been pushing</a> 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.</p>
<p>The <b>Times </b>(<a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/world/europe/pipeline-sabotage-mystery-russia.html?searchResultPosition=1">9/28/22</a>)
put forth another theory: that Putin is just teaching
the West some kind of lesson:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <b>Washington</b> <b>Post </b>(<a
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/27/nord-stream-gas-pipelines-damage-russia/">9/27/22</a>)<b>,
</b>speaking to “security officials,” cited similar
theories:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>Business Insider </b>(<a
href="https://www.businessinsider.com/sabotage-of-pipelines-were-a-warning-shot-from-putin-experts-2022-10">10/4/22</a>)
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.”</p>
<p><b>CNN </b>(<a
href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-leak-russian-navy-ships/index.html">9/29/22</a>)
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.’” <b>Vox </b>(<a
href="https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/28/23376356/nord-stream-pipeline-russia-explosions-sabotage">9/28/22</a>)
found some “experts” to tell them the same story.</p>
<p>But the reality is that Russia has <a
href="https://news.antiwar.com/2022/04/14/russia-formally-warns-us-to-stop-arming-ukraine/">done</a>
its utmost to <a
href="https://original.antiwar.com/ted_galen_carpenter/2022/05/02/this-time-nato-better-take-putins-ukraine-warnings-seriously/">discourage</a>
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.”</p>
<p>As FAIR (<a
href="https://fair.org/home/depicting-putin-as-madman-eliminates-need-for-diplomacy/">3/30/22</a>)
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.</p>
<h3><b>A crack in the facade</b><b><br>
</b></h3>
<p>One of the cracks in the uniform coverage was a <a
href="https://nypost.com/2022/10/04/jeffrey-sachs-yanked-off-air-after-accusing-us-of-sabotaging-nord-stream/">segment</a>
on<b> Bloomberg TV</b> (<a
href="https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1576995183052214273?">10/3/22</a>).
Host Tom Keene brought on Columbia University economist
Jeffrey Sachs, who was recently the head of the <b>Lancet</b>’s
investigation (<a
href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01585-9/fulltext">9/14/22</a>)
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.”</p>
<div id="attachment_9030583" class="wp-caption">
<p><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-9030583"
src="https://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Bloomberg-Sachs-1-350x198.png"
alt="Bloomberg host Tom Keene interviewing Jeffrey
Sachs" class="moz-reader-block-img" width="350"
height="198"></p>
<p id="caption-attachment-9030583"
class="wp-caption-text"><em><strong>Bloomberg TV</strong>
host Tom Keene (<a
href="https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1576995183052214273?">10/3/22</a>)
takes Jeffrey Sachs to task for questioning the
official Nord Stream narrative.</em></p>
</div>
<p>Keene immediately stopped him and demanded that he lay
out evidence for the claim. Sachs cited <a
href="https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/us-military-aircraft-circled-nord-stream-incident-site-in-se">radar
evidence</a> 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 <a
href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-leak-russian-navy-ships/index.html">claims</a>
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.</p>
<p>Sachs acknowledged the propaganda system in which he
was operating:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><b>The broken clock</b></h3>
<p>As illustration of the weirdness that is the US elite’s
opportunistic relationship with Russia, <b>Fox News</b>’
Tucker Carlson (<a
href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-what-happened-nord-stream-pipeline">9/27/22</a>),
the <a
href="https://fair.org/home/cable-news-no-1-host-flirts-with-fascism/">white
nationalist</a> 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.</p>
<div id="attachment_9030581" class="wp-caption">
<p><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-9030581"
src="https://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/WaPo-Carlson-Cyrillic-350x324.png"
alt="WaPo: Russian TV is very excited about Такер
Карлсон’s Nord Stream theory"
class="moz-reader-block-img" width="350"
height="324"></p>
<p id="caption-attachment-9030581"
class="wp-caption-text"><em>The <strong>Washington
Post</strong> (<a
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/29/russia-nord-stream-tucker-carlson-fox-news/">9/29/22</a>)
printed Tucker Carlson’s name in Cyrillic—implying
that only a Russian agent would express doubts about
the US’s innocence.</em></p>
</div>
<p>But rather than dissect Carlson’s case factually, most
other media relied purely on redbaiting. The<b>
Washington Post </b>(<a
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/29/russia-nord-stream-tucker-carlson-fox-news/">9/29/22</a>)
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.</p>
<p>The <b>Post </b>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 <b>Post </b>refused to
acknowledge that the quotes from administration
officials demonstrated a clear opposition to the
pipeline, and thus an obvious motive for the attack.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that Carlson repeatedly claimed that
“we don’t know what happened,” the <b>Post</b> 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 <b>Post </b>had nothing to say about the
certainty with which others in the media accused Russia.</p>
<p>The <b>Post</b>’s reporting was picked up by <b>MSNBC</b>
Katie Phang (<a
href="https://archive.org/details/MSNBCW_20221001_110000_The_Katie_Phang_Show/start/3246/end/3426">10/1/22</a>),
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?”</p>
<h3>‘Baseless conspiracy theory’</h3>
<div id="attachment_9030584" class="wp-caption">
<p><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-9030584"
src="https://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ABC-Pipeline-350x344.png"
alt="ABC: Russians push baseless theory blaming US
for burst pipeline" class="moz-reader-block-img"
width="350" height="344"></p>
<p id="caption-attachment-9030584"
class="wp-caption-text"><em><strong>AP</strong> (via <strong>ABC</strong>,
<a
href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/russians-push-baseless-theory-blaming-us-burst-pipeline-90780807">9/30/22</a>)
accused “<span><span>Kremlin and Russian state
media” of “aggressively pushing a baseless
conspiracy theory” in “another effort to split
the U.S. and its European allies.”</span></span></em></p>
</div>
<p>The <b>Associated Press </b>(<a
href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/russians-push-baseless-theory-blaming-us-burst-pipeline-90780807">9/30/22</a>)
wrote a <a
href="https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Russians+push+baseless+theory+blaming+US+for+burst+pipeline%2C&t=brave&ia=web">widely
republished</a> 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.”</p>
<p>Like the other coverage, the <b>AP </b>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:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>Bloomberg</b> (reprinted in the <b>Washington Post</b>,
<a
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/is-putin-fully-weaponizing-the-nord-stream-pipelines/2022/09/27/9be3c836-3e68-11ed-8c6e-9386bd7cd826_story.html">9/27/22</a>)
acknowledged Biden’s threats against the pipeline, but
writer Javier Blas dismissed them without actually
explaining why:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The US press produced an overwhelming chorus of
articles (e.g., <b>Business Insider, </b><a
href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-echoes-us-far-right-blaming-biden-nord-stream-2022-9">9/30/22</a>;
<b>Vox, </b><a
href="https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/28/23376356/nord-stream-pipeline-russia-explosions-sabotage">2/28/22</a>;
<b>Newsweek</b>, <a
href="https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-green-nord-stream-putin-1748318">10/3/22</a>)
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.</p>
<p>The Brookings Institution (where Robert Kagan works)
published a long article (<a
href="https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/u-s-podcasters-spread-kremlin-narratives-on-nord-stream-sabotage/">10/3/22</a>),
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 <b>New York Times</b>
(<a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/world/europe/pipeline-sabotage-mystery-russia.html">9/28/22</a>),
used to substantiate a claim that “experts broadly agree
that Russia is the key suspect.” It did not do any
investigation of its own.</p>
<h3>When is a theory a ‘conspiracy theory’?</h3>
<div id="attachment_9030586" class="wp-caption">
<p><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-9030586"
src="https://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Johnstone-Conspiracy-350x275.png"
alt="Caitlin Johnstone: It’s Only A ‘Conspiracy
Theory’ When It Accuses The US Government"
class="moz-reader-block-img" width="350"
height="275"></p>
<p id="caption-attachment-9030586"
class="wp-caption-text"><em>Caitlin Johnstone (<a
href="https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/10/04/its-only-a-conspiracy-theory-when-it-accuses-the-us-government/">10/4/22)</a>:
“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.”</em></p>
</div>
<p>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 <a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/21/the-storm-is-upon-us-review-qanon-history-updated-trump-january-6">good
reason</a>) 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.</p>
<p>In his book <a
href="https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/18699376-conspiracy-theory-in-america"><i>Conspiracy
Theory in America</i></a>, scholar Lance Dehaven
Smith examined the way the term is deployed in
establishment media:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Writer Caitlin Johnstone (<a
href="https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/10/04/its-only-a-conspiracy-theory-when-it-accuses-the-us-government/">10/4/22)</a>
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:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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, <b>CNN </b>(<a
href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-leak-russian-navy-ships/index.html">11/29/22</a>)
showed its own conspiratorial thinking<b>, </b>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.”</p>
<p>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 <a
href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/02/03/fact-check-qanons-adrenochrome-conspiracy-theory-baseless/9268681002/">adrenochrome</a>
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
<a
href="https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/">fabricate
pseudo-news reports</a> 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<div>
<hr>
<p><strong><em>FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous
contributors, who allow us to remain independent.
<a href="https://www.cambeywest.com/EXT/?f=donate">Donate</a>
today to be a part of this important mission.</em></strong></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</body>
</html>