Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

727

March 8 2023.

I have already translated the New York Times article that reported a group of Ukrainians blew up the Nord Streams.

While I was still sitting on the translation, German media also reported that the tracks to the Nord Stream blast "lead to Ukraine." This had been the result of joint research by ARD-Hauptstadtstudio, the ARD political magazine Kontraste, SWR and "Die Zeit". In contrast to the Hersh research a few weeks ago, this was even the lead story in the Tagesschau's 20.15 program.

In its article, the New York Times refers to unnamed sources at the U.S. intelligence services, while the German media refer to their own research and findings by German investigators. Thus, the American New York Times and the German media clearly refer to different sources, but published their essentially identical "revelations" at almost exactly the same time.

Since we are talking here about allegedly top-secret findings of the U.S. intelligence services and equally top-secret findings of the German investigators - after all, the German government has refused to answer minor questions on the subject, citing "secrecy interests" - one must assume that a media campaign coordinated by state agencies of the U.S. and the Federal Republic has been launched here; in my view, there is no other explanation for this.

Therefore, we will now take a look at what could be behind this. I'll say it right up front: I'm doing something here that I don't like to do, because I'm speculating a bit in the second half of this article. But this story just invites you to speculate about it, and the nice thing is that in this case we will already know in a few days or weeks whether these speculations will be confirmed.

The prehistory.

It is not speculation that the pipelines were blown up and it is also not speculation, but a fact that the blowing up of the pipelines was quickly swept under the carpet by the Western media, but that the issue did not leave the media and politicians outside the Western media bubble alone, as I have reported time and again. States that are not part of the U.S.-dominated West have certainly asked uncomfortable questions, because it was obvious to everyone that only states of the West could have been considered as perpetrators. Even the New York Times has now admitted this when it wrote in its recent article:

"Some initial speculation in the U.S. and Europe focused on possible culpability by Russia, especially given its capabilities in undersea operations, though it is unclear what the Kremlin's motivation would be in sabotaging the pipelines, given that they are a major source of revenue and a means for Moscow to exert influence over Europe."

This is exactly what evil "Russian propagandists" like me have been writing since the pipelines were blown up, which is why it is surprising that the New York Times, of all places, is now confirming it. But if it was not Russia that blew up the pipelines, as German media have always suggested, then the only possible culprits are the states of the West that previously railed loudest against Nord Stream: First and foremost, that was Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states, Great Britain and, above all, the leading power of the West, without whose okay nothing decisive happens in the West, the USA.

As I said, this was clear to everyone, which is why the pressure on the U.S. as the leading power of the West to contribute to the clarification was great internationally. When Seymour Hersh published his revelations that the U.S. had blown up the pipelines, the pressure became even greater, because on the international stage the U.S. was disgraced and effectively exposed as the country that had carried out an act of war against, among others, its NATO allies, especially Germany.

In addition, although Western media have tried to discredit the Hersh report, it was very detailed and convincing. The U.S. government has effectively refused to respond to it, instead simply calling the Hersh report "absurd" rather than refuting it. And refuting it would not have been particularly difficult, one could have started by summoning those responsible - i.e. the US President's security advisor, the CIA chief and perhaps the Vice Admiral of the US 6th Fleet - before Congress and questioning them about it there under oath. If Hersh's story were nonsense, they could have refuted everything in detail under oath and, above all, said clearly that the US had nothing to do with it. But that was not done, and the U.S. government's press officers did not even explicitly contradict the report, but declined to comment on it, saying it was "absurd".

After that, the U.S. government was under a lot of international pressure and traction because of the Nord Stream blast; after all, it wants to win over more countries to its anti-Russian and anti-Chinese course. But what country will join the U.S. if it even acts against its own allies?

Ending the Ukraine adventure

In January, the RAND Corporation, which is very influential in the U.S., published a paper that very clearly recommended that the U.S. government pull out of the Ukraine adventure, even quite bluntly putting into play the recognition of Russian territorial gains and the lifting of Russia sanctions. Reading RAND Corporation papers is worthwhile, because RAND de facto writes U.S. foreign policy, and when RAND recommends something, the U.S. government very often implements it a short time later, as I have shown here with an example from 2019.

RAND's January 2023 paper soberly analyzed that U.S. goals in Ukraine have failed. The U.S. provoked the Ukraine war to weaken Russia. The expected goal was to crush the Russian economy through unprecedented sanctions and to isolate Russia internationally. Neither has obviously worked.

Therefore, RAND analyzed what the U.S. stands to gain from continuing to support Ukraine if it cannot achieve its real goal of weakening Russia. RAND concluded that continuing to support Ukraine is incredibly expensive, but does not provide any corresponding benefit or gain to the United States. And RAND has openly said that it does not matter to the U.S. whether Kiev loses control of (formerly) Ukrainian territory to Russia, and that preserving Ukraine's borders is not such a priority for the U.S. that it is worth the cost.

Therefore, RAND has recommended that the U.S. government end the Ukraine adventure as quickly as possible at the negotiating table, even if that means Russia taking control of parts of Ukraine and if it means the U.S. has to ease Russia sanctions again. RAND is also willing to sacrifice Ukraine's NATO membership and more if only the U.S. government can quickly end the Ukraine adventure.

There is only one catch: the U.S. government has so thoroughly turned both its allies and the public in the West, including in the United States, against Russia that the U.S. government will have a hard time communicating such a change of course to those. RAND wrote in this regard:

"A dramatic change in U.S. policy overnight is politically impossible-both domestically and vis-à-vis allies-and would be unwise in any event. But developing these tools now and making them known in Ukraine and to U.S. allies could serve as a catalyst for beginning a process that could end this war through negotiations in a time frame that suits U.S. interests. The alternative would be a protracted war that poses major challenges to the U.S., Ukraine, and the rest of the world."

Explaining the "dramatic change in U.S. policy".

The key question, therefore, was how the U.S. could manage to get the public, as well as politicians in the West, to go along with the "dramatic change in U.S. policy."

These were all facts, from now on I speculate: if the US government decided to implement the RAND recommendation, it could explain to the West that it was Ukraine that blew up the Nord Streams. One could continue to condemn Russia for its "war of aggression," but state that Kiev has behaved, to put it politely, in an unfriendly manner toward its patrons, so it can no longer expect continued Western support on the scale it has to date.

One could force Kiev to negotiate with Russia and demand from Kiev the concessions that RAND proposed in its paper, which in effect include almost everything Russia is demanding: Recognition of the new Russian territories, including Crimea, a neutral Ukraine, the lifting (or at least greatly weakening) of Russia sanctions, and so on.

The Western public could be sold this relatively easily, although of course no expert will believe the story that Kiev single-handedly blew up the Nord Streams without the knowledge of the U.S. and NATO. But the power of the Western media can work wonders on public opinion in the West, as the silencing and discrediting of the Hersh report has just shown again. For the U.S., as one could learn at RAND, it is only important to explain the "dramatic change in U.S. policy (...) both domestically and toward allies." And this is what the Western media can do by keeping the topic "Ukraine has blown up Nord Stream" in the headlines for some time.

So, we can find the first signs of whether this may be the US government's plan in the next few days, if the Western media should jump on this issue. Should they immediately bury the issue again, my speculation is unlikely to have hit the mark.

But let's pretend that my speculation is accurate.

The implementation

The strange visit of Chancellor Scholz to Washington, where Scholz flew alone to the USA without advisors and journalists, only to talk privately with US President Biden for two hours and to quickly give CNN a short and completely content-less interview, has caused a lot of speculation.

It is not impossible that Scholz was presented with a fait accompli in Washington and sworn in to the prepared media campaign about "Ukraine has blown up Nord Stream." After all, it is a very strange coincidence that these reports were published only four days after Scholz's puzzling visit to the White House by American and German media, of all things.

That it is a media campaign is shown by the above-mentioned fact that on the same day German and American media refer to different sources who have slipped them top-secret information, which in essence says the same thing: a group of Ukrainian citizens sailed from Germany to the pipelines in a small sailing yacht, where special divers (unnoticed by the seamless NATO surveillance of the Baltic Sea off Denmark and Sweden) attached the explosives to the pipelines.

The story is absurd and completely unrealistic, but the Western media have even been able to make the public believe that the passports of the 9/11 bombers were found intact in the rubble immediately after the collapse of the Twin Towers, which is why it was urgent to wage wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. In comparison, the story of the sailing yacht that was able to plant the explosive devices unnoticed in the closely monitored Baltic Sea is downright believable.

Sit back and wait.

Now we just have to sit back and can wait to see if the Western media will prominently run the "Ukraine blew up Nord Stream" story. And should that happen, we can wait with great curiosity to see how the first Western politicians will question the aid to Ukraine and demand that Kiev ultimately negotiate with Russia.

But maybe I am off the mark with my little speculation and the obviously coordinated publications about the alleged Ukrainian lead to the Nord Stream blow-up by German and American media pursue a different goal.

Forecasts are always difficult, as we know, especially when they concern the future. Let's wait and see...

In my new book ""Putin's plan - With Europe and the USA the world does not end - How the western system just destroys itself "" I go to the question, what it in the final fight of the systems - which we just experience - really is about. We are witnessing nothing less than the battle of two systems in which Vladimir Putin is offering the world an alternative to neoliberal globalism. Have citizens in the West been asked if they want all this, if they want to give up their prosperity and freedoms in favor of neoliberal globalism?

https://www.anti-spiegel.ru/2023/spuren-fuehren-in-die-ukraine-eine-nord-stream-show-der-us-regierung/?doing_wp_cron=1678443860.0143709182739257812500

**March 8 2023.** I have already translated the New York Times article that reported a group of Ukrainians blew up the Nord Streams. While I was still sitting on the translation, German media also reported that the tracks to the Nord Stream blast "lead to Ukraine." This had been the result of joint research by ARD-Hauptstadtstudio, the ARD political magazine Kontraste, SWR and "Die Zeit". In contrast to the Hersh research a few weeks ago, this was even the lead story in the Tagesschau's 20.15 program. In its article, the New York Times refers to unnamed sources at the U.S. intelligence services, while the German media refer to their own research and findings by German investigators. Thus, the American New York Times and the German media clearly refer to different sources, but published their essentially identical "revelations" at almost exactly the same time. Since we are talking here about allegedly top-secret findings of the U.S. intelligence services and equally top-secret findings of the German investigators - after all, the German government has refused to answer minor questions on the subject, citing "secrecy interests" - one must assume that a media campaign coordinated by state agencies of the U.S. and the Federal Republic has been launched here; in my view, there is no other explanation for this. Therefore, we will now take a look at what could be behind this. I'll say it right up front: I'm doing something here that I don't like to do, because I'm speculating a bit in the second half of this article. But this story just invites you to speculate about it, and the nice thing is that in this case we will already know in a few days or weeks whether these speculations will be confirmed. **The prehistory.** It is not speculation that the pipelines were blown up and it is also not speculation, but a fact that the blowing up of the pipelines was quickly swept under the carpet by the Western media, but that the issue did not leave the media and politicians outside the Western media bubble alone, as I have reported time and again. States that are not part of the U.S.-dominated West have certainly asked uncomfortable questions, because it was obvious to everyone that only states of the West could have been considered as perpetrators. Even the New York Times has now admitted this when it wrote in its recent article: "Some initial speculation in the U.S. and Europe focused on possible culpability by Russia, especially given its capabilities in undersea operations, though it is unclear what the Kremlin's motivation would be in sabotaging the pipelines, given that they are a major source of revenue and a means for Moscow to exert influence over Europe." This is exactly what evil "Russian propagandists" like me have been writing since the pipelines were blown up, which is why it is surprising that the New York Times, of all places, is now confirming it. But if it was not Russia that blew up the pipelines, as German media have always suggested, then the only possible culprits are the states of the West that previously railed loudest against Nord Stream: First and foremost, that was Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states, Great Britain and, above all, the leading power of the West, without whose okay nothing decisive happens in the West, the USA. As I said, this was clear to everyone, which is why the pressure on the U.S. as the leading power of the West to contribute to the clarification was great internationally. When Seymour Hersh published his revelations that the U.S. had blown up the pipelines, the pressure became even greater, because on the international stage the U.S. was disgraced and effectively exposed as the country that had carried out an act of war against, among others, its NATO allies, especially Germany. In addition, although Western media have tried to discredit the Hersh report, it was very detailed and convincing. The U.S. government has effectively refused to respond to it, instead simply calling the Hersh report "absurd" rather than refuting it. And refuting it would not have been particularly difficult, one could have started by summoning those responsible - i.e. the US President's security advisor, the CIA chief and perhaps the Vice Admiral of the US 6th Fleet - before Congress and questioning them about it there under oath. If Hersh's story were nonsense, they could have refuted everything in detail under oath and, above all, said clearly that the US had nothing to do with it. But that was not done, and the U.S. government's press officers did not even explicitly contradict the report, but declined to comment on it, saying it was "absurd". After that, the U.S. government was under a lot of international pressure and traction because of the Nord Stream blast; after all, it wants to win over more countries to its anti-Russian and anti-Chinese course. But what country will join the U.S. if it even acts against its own allies? **Ending the Ukraine adventure** In January, the RAND Corporation, which is very influential in the U.S., published a paper that very clearly recommended that the U.S. government pull out of the Ukraine adventure, even quite bluntly putting into play the recognition of Russian territorial gains and the lifting of Russia sanctions. Reading RAND Corporation papers is worthwhile, because RAND de facto writes U.S. foreign policy, and when RAND recommends something, the U.S. government very often implements it a short time later, as I have shown here with an example from 2019. RAND's January 2023 paper soberly analyzed that U.S. goals in Ukraine have failed. The U.S. provoked the Ukraine war to weaken Russia. The expected goal was to crush the Russian economy through unprecedented sanctions and to isolate Russia internationally. Neither has obviously worked. Therefore, RAND analyzed what the U.S. stands to gain from continuing to support Ukraine if it cannot achieve its real goal of weakening Russia. RAND concluded that continuing to support Ukraine is incredibly expensive, but does not provide any corresponding benefit or gain to the United States. And RAND has openly said that it does not matter to the U.S. whether Kiev loses control of (formerly) Ukrainian territory to Russia, and that preserving Ukraine's borders is not such a priority for the U.S. that it is worth the cost. Therefore, RAND has recommended that the U.S. government end the Ukraine adventure as quickly as possible at the negotiating table, even if that means Russia taking control of parts of Ukraine and if it means the U.S. has to ease Russia sanctions again. RAND is also willing to sacrifice Ukraine's NATO membership and more if only the U.S. government can quickly end the Ukraine adventure. There is only one catch: the U.S. government has so thoroughly turned both its allies and the public in the West, including in the United States, against Russia that the U.S. government will have a hard time communicating such a change of course to those. RAND wrote in this regard: "A dramatic change in U.S. policy overnight is politically impossible-both domestically and vis-à-vis allies-and would be unwise in any event. But developing these tools now and making them known in Ukraine and to U.S. allies could serve as a catalyst for beginning a process that could end this war through negotiations in a time frame that suits U.S. interests. The alternative would be a protracted war that poses major challenges to the U.S., Ukraine, and the rest of the world." **Explaining the "dramatic change in U.S. policy".** The key question, therefore, was how the U.S. could manage to get the public, as well as politicians in the West, to go along with the "dramatic change in U.S. policy." These were all facts, from now on I speculate: if the US government decided to implement the RAND recommendation, it could explain to the West that it was Ukraine that blew up the Nord Streams. One could continue to condemn Russia for its "war of aggression," but state that Kiev has behaved, to put it politely, in an unfriendly manner toward its patrons, so it can no longer expect continued Western support on the scale it has to date. One could force Kiev to negotiate with Russia and demand from Kiev the concessions that RAND proposed in its paper, which in effect include almost everything Russia is demanding: Recognition of the new Russian territories, including Crimea, a neutral Ukraine, the lifting (or at least greatly weakening) of Russia sanctions, and so on. The Western public could be sold this relatively easily, although of course no expert will believe the story that Kiev single-handedly blew up the Nord Streams without the knowledge of the U.S. and NATO. But the power of the Western media can work wonders on public opinion in the West, as the silencing and discrediting of the Hersh report has just shown again. For the U.S., as one could learn at RAND, it is only important to explain the "dramatic change in U.S. policy (...) both domestically and toward allies." And this is what the Western media can do by keeping the topic "Ukraine has blown up Nord Stream" in the headlines for some time. So, we can find the first signs of whether this may be the US government's plan in the next few days, if the Western media should jump on this issue. Should they immediately bury the issue again, my speculation is unlikely to have hit the mark. But let's pretend that my speculation is accurate. **The implementation** The strange visit of Chancellor Scholz to Washington, where Scholz flew alone to the USA without advisors and journalists, only to talk privately with US President Biden for two hours and to quickly give CNN a short and completely content-less interview, has caused a lot of speculation. It is not impossible that Scholz was presented with a fait accompli in Washington and sworn in to the prepared media campaign about "Ukraine has blown up Nord Stream." After all, it is a very strange coincidence that these reports were published only four days after Scholz's puzzling visit to the White House by American and German media, of all things. That it is a media campaign is shown by the above-mentioned fact that on the same day German and American media refer to different sources who have slipped them top-secret information, which in essence says the same thing: a group of Ukrainian citizens sailed from Germany to the pipelines in a small sailing yacht, where special divers (unnoticed by the seamless NATO surveillance of the Baltic Sea off Denmark and Sweden) attached the explosives to the pipelines. The story is absurd and completely unrealistic, but the Western media have even been able to make the public believe that the passports of the 9/11 bombers were found intact in the rubble immediately after the collapse of the Twin Towers, which is why it was urgent to wage wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. In comparison, the story of the sailing yacht that was able to plant the explosive devices unnoticed in the closely monitored Baltic Sea is downright believable. **Sit back and wait.** Now we just have to sit back and can wait to see if the Western media will prominently run the "Ukraine blew up Nord Stream" story. And should that happen, we can wait with great curiosity to see how the first Western politicians will question the aid to Ukraine and demand that Kiev ultimately negotiate with Russia. But maybe I am off the mark with my little speculation and the obviously coordinated publications about the alleged Ukrainian lead to the Nord Stream blow-up by German and American media pursue a different goal. Forecasts are always difficult, as we know, especially when they concern the future. Let's wait and see... In my new book ""Putin's plan - With Europe and the USA the world does not end - How the western system just destroys itself "" I go to the question, what it in the final fight of the systems - which we just experience - really is about. We are witnessing nothing less than the battle of two systems in which Vladimir Putin is offering the world an alternative to neoliberal globalism. Have citizens in the West been asked if they want all this, if they want to give up their prosperity and freedoms in favor of neoliberal globalism? https://www.anti-spiegel.ru/2023/spuren-fuehren-in-die-ukraine-eine-nord-stream-show-der-us-regierung/?doing_wp_cron=1678443860.0143709182739257812500

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (2).
[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Medvedev's sarcastic response to the Nord Stream-fairy tale.

The latest legend of the Ukrainian track to the Northern-Stream blowing up in Russia for a lot of laughs. The former Russian Prime Minister Medvedev has posted a particularly toxic-sarcastic comment on Telegram.

  1. March 2023 19:17 PM Since the new legend, a "pro-Ukrainian group" I have, without the Knowledge of Kiev and unnoticed by the NATO, which is the area of the Nord Stream-blasting monitored, blown up secretly with "home remedies" in the Nord-stream, has been in Russia for an incredible laugh. Social networks in Russia are full of jokes about this crazy Story that the US government has come up with their own perpetration distract.

The former Russian President Medvedev, in his Telegram-channel with a lot of biting mockery of the Ukraine and the West misses, the Nord Stream-legend commented, and I have his Post translated, because he was the Russian reaction without any diplomatic weakening expresses.

The beginning of the Translation:

For three days, another epic Drama from Hollywood play in front of our eyes. It is the sequel to the film about the test tube demonstration of Saddam's chemical weapons before the UN.

With an open mouth and a slight Nausea of the world is looking at the numerous Defects of the Western media, which deal with the question, "who has hunted the Nord stream in the air". And really: Who made Roger Rabbit just?

As it turns out, it was some unknown "pro-Ukrainian group", which (and this is emphasised particularly) no, absolutely, absolutely, not a single connection to the Bandera-Kiev, not even to Europe gynecologist, or in senile stupidity sunken America, and not to the Rest of the russophob-has hysterical Western world. It only lonely heroes in the fight against the cursed ones are Moscow! A new salvation of the world through a few honorary lots of bastards.

The result is mixed, the actors are mediocre. You don't have to clear the level by brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz. And the Director is Quentin Tarantino. A very weak cast and movement of the camera. The script is just boring Shit. It is stupid American Propaganda that no one likes. To believe that not even the poisoned European average people. Do you feel as if you have overeaten to the pork chops and beer.

As the American beacon of freedom of expression and the associated German vassals of the media write, the mysterious divers (only in black balaclavas over wetsuits) "citizens of Ukraine or of Russia". At the same time, you had nothing to do with the Kiev Regime. And certainly not with the free world.

You come from any other state, yep! There are citizens of the world. There are fighters against Moskowien. Lonely Schizophrenic, people with Initiative. The average citizen is offered a bunch of cheap special effects. According to the Motto, it would stand six hardened saboteurs, under which even a Femme fatale is (how could there be a movie without it?), with a Yacht in the stormy Baltic sea. You have half a ton of explosives on Board and make a nice dive. And then they blow two huge pipes on the bottom of the sea! And sail off into the sunset. Undetected. In a sea full of NATO ships and international tracking systems. And you have brought the boat back to its owner, they are cool, but law-abiding!

What a way to open poorly made B-Movie.

The Film is then washed immediately after its Premiere. The Western audience, believe it or not: It is uncomfortable questions as to why the old Version has turned over the "Russian trace" all of a sudden 180 degrees (or 360, as grandma Baerbok think?).

And what is the Kiev Regime that asserts, with foaming at the mouth, his innocence is washed, so active in?

The answers are quite understandable, when one considers the current mood of the Europeans, who have less joy at the prospect of paying out of pocket for more and more sanctions packages, weapons supplies to Ukraine, the energy crisis and the decline in standard of living in the once-prosperous countries.

And if the Ukrainian Nazis, and even Russia have blown up the gas pipelines in the air, what they support, with fire, sword, and the sending of money? This cheap Film appears to have been turned in order to confuse the Europeans.

Whether there will be a follow-up? With a Plot that looks like this: the Same heroes invade, led by the insane asylum runaway Polish cannibals Duda, in the Bunker of the brave, white powder sniffing President Se. You take him as a hostage and strangle him accidentally. Because it is not a pity to him, and he is already sick of it. And then the Zombie Apocalypse begins, in the style of "The Last of Us".

We have covers with Popcorn and wait.