The Wall Street Journal's new "exclusive" on Nord Stream bombing is a coverup of U.S. involvement

The Wall Street Journal's new article on the Nord Stream bombing is a cover-up of the United States bombing of the pipeline.

The Wall Street Journal has just published an article claiming to have the story of how the NordStream 2 Pipeline was bombed in September of 2022. The narrative presented in the article is as follows: In May of 2022 some high-ranking Ukrainian military officers and businessmen got drunk and came up with a plan to sabotage the NordStream pipeline. They then went forward with the plan raising $30,000 and renting a small yacht and recruited six crew members including trained divers. Volodymyr Zelensky first approved the plan. Later the C.I.A. learned of the plan and told Zelesnky to end it to which he obliged. Despite this, the group went forward with the operation by renting a 50-foot yacht and carrying out the attack without government support.

This report coincides with an arrest warrant put out by Germany against one of the alleged perpetrators of the attack. The Wall Street Journal report is extremely thinly sourced and often references unnamed “people familiar with the matter”, a characteristic of past articles about Iraq’s WMDs and Trump-Russia collusion. The article also ignores the massive piles of evidence that the U.S. was behind the attack. This article will go over the evidence proving the U.S. was behind the attack as well as expose the massive gaping holes in the Wall Street Journal article.

U.S. officials not so subtly admit they are behind the Nord Stream attack

Thank you, USA

What the Wall Street Journal article ignores is the fact that many U.S. officials have signaled publicly that they were behind the attack. For starters, Polish MEP Radek Sikorski tweeted out an image of the Nord Stream Pipeline being blown up with the caption “Thank you U.S.A.”.

Sikorski later deleted the Tweet and tried to backtrack claiming it was a joke mocking American support for the NordStream pipeline, but the intention of the Tweet was clearly to imply they were behind the explosion. It is worth noting that Sikorski is married to Anne Appelbaum, an American journalist who works for the U.S. government-funded CIA cutout N.E.D. and could have had inside knowledge of the U.S. attack on Nord Stream. This could maybe be written off had it been an isolated incident, but it is not even close to the most damning evidence of U.S. officials admitting they were behind the Nord Stream Attack.

Dementia Joe’s slip-up

On February 7th of 2022, months before the attack took place, President Joe Biden heavily implied the U.S. had a plan to attack the Nord Stream Pipeline. In a press conference, Biden said, “If Russia invades (Ukraine) there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2, we will bring an end to it”. When asked by a reporter how he would do that considering it is a German pipeline, Biden responded by saying “I promise you we will be able to do it”. Also worth noting is that before saying that Biden said “We will” and then paused as if to stop himself from revealing how the U.S. plans to end the Nord Stream pipeline. If the plan of sabotaging Nord Stream was thought up by drunk Ukrainians in May of 2022 then what was Biden referring to here months earlier? It seems too much to be a coincidence that Biden said the U.S. will bring Nord Stream to an end if Russia invades Ukraine and then cryptically telling a reporter “I promise we will be able to do it” and then Nord Stream being blown up after Russia invaded.

Neo-Con Nuland Spills the Beans

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in January of 2023, Senator Ted Cruz asked Under Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland why the Biden administration did not sanction the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, to which Nuland replied “Senator Cruz, like you I am, and I think the administration is very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea”. This heavily implied that the U.S. was behind the bombing of Nord Stream. The only reason Nuland would make this statement in response to a question as to why the Biden administration was not tougher on the Nord Stream pipeline would be to imply they were the ones who bombed it.

Nuland is an extremely powerful Neo-Con in Washington. She has previously worked for Dick Cheney as his Deputy National Security Advisor and as the U.S. Ambassador to NATO in Bush’s second term. She also served as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs during Obama’s second term where she oversaw the U.S.-backed 2014 coup in Ukraine that triggered the Russian invasion in the first place. She is also married to Robert Kagan the co-founder of PNAC (Project for the New American Century), the think tank responsible for staffing the Bush administration during the Iraq war.

Nuland has a long history of saying the quiet part out loud on U.S. foreign policy, especially on Ukraine. She was caught on tape plotting the 2014 coup in Ukraine and deciding who would go in and out of the new U.S.-installed government. When questioned by Marco Rubio, she confirmed that there are Biolabs in Ukraine by saying “Ukraine has biological research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned...Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of”. Her Nord Stream comments are just another example of her saying the quiet part loud and admitting that the U.S. was behind the attacks.

Seymour Hersh’s Bombshell

One of the most important pieces of evidence missing from the Wall Street Journal article is the bombshell report from legendary journalist Seymour Hersh that details exactly how the U.S. blew up the Nord Stream Pipeline. Hersh’s article explains in great detail how Biden ordered Navy divers to place C4 explosives on the Nord Stream pipeline. According to his report, in March of 2022, American officials involved in the operation flew to Norway and discussed the best area to place explosives with the Norwegian Secret Service and Navy. The Americans and Norwegians decided the best time to plant the explosives would be during the annual June NATO exercises in the Baltic Sea which could be used as a cover story. The U.S. then carried out this plan and launched the attack on September 26th, 2022 by ordering a Norwegian Navy plane to drop a sonar buoy, setting off the C4 explosives and causing the Nord Stream explosion.

While the report is based on anonymous sources, there are several reasons to believe it is correct. First, Hersh is an extremely credible investigative journalist with an almost impeccable record who has broken some of the biggest scandals in American history. He won the Pulitzer Prize in 1970 for exposing the My Lai massacre scandal in Vietnam. Hersh also exposed the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, another one of the most infamous scandals in American history. The report is also very detailed and based on interviews with Hersh’s many inside sources who have proved credible in the past for his award-winning reports. Given Hersh and his source’s credibility based on past stories, the report is most likely correct.

The Massive Holes in the Wall Street Journal Story.

So far I have covered the massive amounts of evidence that the U.S. is behind the Nord Stream attack, now I will point out the major holes in the Wall Street Journal Story.

Nord Stream would have had to be done by a state

The Wall Street Journal article is adamant that the Nord Stream operation was carried out without the support of the CIA or the Ukrainian government. This claim contradicts the many experts who earlier on said the Nord Stream operation would have had to have state backing. For example, a Reuters article quotes a top Swedish investigator on the Nord Stream sabotage who said it was almost certainly carried out by a state. As the article said

A state actor's involvement in the blast of the Nord Stream pipelines last year is the "absolute main scenario", though confirming identity will prove difficult, the Swedish prosecutor investigating the attack said on Thursday.

The investigator is quoted in the article saying that while he cannot rule out a company carrying out the sabotage, the evidence overwhelmingly points to state backing. As the article says:

There are certain companies that have certain special missions that mean they could, in theory, carry this out," he said. "We don't rule out anything, but that it is a state actor who is directly or at least indirectly behind this is of course our absolute main scenario, given all the circumstances."

Only the United States had the motive

The theory that Russia blew up its own pipeline that they were making billions in revenue from was always a complete joke. But the Wall Street Journal article accidentally makes a good point as to why Ukraine would have no motive to do the attack without U.S. backing. In the article, it says:

The findings could upend relations between Kyiv and Berlin, which has provided much of the financing and military equipment to Ukraine,

The article goes on to quote a senior German official who said:

An attack of this scale is a sufficient reason to trigger the collective defense clause of NATO, but our critical infrastructure was blown up by a country that we support with massive weapons shipments and billions in cash,”

This brings up an interesting question. Of all the plans the drunk Ukrainian officials could have come up with to sabotage Russia, why did they come up with the one thing that would risk angering a NATO country they rely on for money and arms in their war effort against Russia? Furthermore, why would Zelensky approve this plan without U.S. approval given the risk it comes along with?

Compare this to the United States which had all the motivation in the world to blow up the Nord Stream pipeline. American officials such as Joe Biden and Victoria Nuland were already threatening to end the Nord Stream pipeline at the beginning of the Ukraine war. As stated earlier in this article Victoria Nuland stated the Biden administration was “thrilled” over the sabotage of the Nord Stream. U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken even said he believed the Nord Stream sabotage was a “tremendous opportunity” to stop Europe from relying on Russia for gas. The U.S. was also supportive of the Nord Stream sabotage because it would force Europe to buy more expensive gas from America and would take away Russia’s strategic leverage over Europe. As the website “Military Watch Magazine” put it

This follows years of American calls under multiple administrations to use more costly American LNG over Russian gas to deny Moscow both revenues and a significant strategic asset.

While it is possible that Ukraine did the Nord Stream sabotage at the behest of the U.S. as the University Of Ottawa’s Ivan Katchanovski has argued, it is almost impossible that they did so without U.S. support given that the risk would outweigh the reward for Ukraine, unless they had the go-ahead of America who openly supported ending Nord Stream.

Sources familiar with the matter

The story is riddled with unnamed “sources familiar with the matter”. As journalist and media critic Matt Taibbi often likes to point out, anytime a mainstream media article mentions “people familiar with the matter” it should be met with heavy skepticism. Taibbi has pointed out that many of the now disproven Russiagate stories appearing in mainstream media were quoting unnamed “people familiar with the matter”. As he put it

Reporters repeatedly got burned and didn’t squawk about it. Where are the outraged stories about all the scads of anonymous “people familiar with the matter” who put reporters in awkward spots in the last years

The Wall Street Journal’s unnamed sources are adamant in trying to prove the U.S. had no part in the Nord Stream sabotage. The article says: (emphasis added)

The CIA warned Zelensky’s office to stop the operation, U.S. officials said. The Ukrainian president then ordered Zalozhniy to halt it, according to Ukrainian officers and officials familiar with the conversation as well as Western intelligence officials. But the general ignored the order, and his team modified the original plan, these people said.

The fact that this part of the story is based mostly on unnamed “U.S. officials” “officials familiar with the matter” and “Western intelligence” means it is almost certainly a propaganda narrative being fed by intelligence officials to their useful idiots in the media. Intelligence agencies often feed false stories to reporters who believe they are getting a "scoop” when in reality they are useful idiots in an information operation. As the “Cato Institute” put it

More recently, the news media disseminated allegations that Saddam Hussein had a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Nearly all that information came from Iraqi exiles that the CIA supplied to “friendly” journalists, including New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Perhaps most striking, major media outlets, especially the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN and MSNBC, have avidly joined the national security state’s campaign to demonize Russia. Those media heavyweights enthusiastically promoted the false narrative about collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election. Even worse, they parroted the CIA’s unsupported, far-fetched allegation that Moscow had paid the Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers.

This is clearly another example of intelligence agents feeding a false story to a useful idiot in the mainstream media that absolves themselves of blame. The U.S. and Europe absurdly tried to initially blame Russia for the attack on Nord Stream. After Sy Hersh blew the whistle on the U.S. operations, U.S. intelligence officials fed a story to The New York Times claiming pro-Ukraine groups were behind the attack. They then changed the narrative yet again and fed a story to the New York Times claiming the Ukrainian government was behind the attack. This new story fed to the Wall Street Journal is another change in the narrative. With this narrative, the CIA can make themselves look like the good guys pretending that they found out about the attack and attempted to stop it (even though U.S. officials were clamoring for an end to Nord Stream). It also can blame Ukraine without throwing its ally under the bus too much. The story absolves Zelensky of blame for the Nord Stream attack and paints a narrative that he opposed the attack but the group behind it went forward anyway. This narrative is the perfect way for the U.S. to absolve itself of blame without angering Zelensky too much.

Biden is the Nord Stream Bomber.

There is no doubt the U.S. was involved in the Nord Stream pipeline bombing given they were the only ones with the motive and given the fact that several U.S. officials have basically admitted they were behind it without outright saying it. The only possible way Ukraine could have been involved in the sabotage would be with orders from the U.S. as that would be the only way they would risk angering Germany. The idea that a state was not behind the attack goes against what every expert has said such as the leading Swedish investigator quoted in this article. Most likely Hersh’s story was correct and the bombing happened exactly as he said it did. The only other possibility is that Ukraine did it at the behest of the United States. Either way, there is no doubt that America was behind the sabotage and the newest Wall Street Journal article is another attempt to cover that up.