Baltic Pipeline Discussion (Current Events)

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Thank you.

You're welcome. I'm sure you realize that such a risk doesn't demonstrate that the experts listed and cited on this thread are biased and incompetent, or that their post-fact analysis is comparable to the uncertainties of untested pre-fact intel. ;)
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
You're conflating known failures in pre-fact intel (preceding ISG discovery of non-significant WMD stockpiles in Iraq) with post-fact hypothesization of a possible cause
I don't follow. You seem to be shifting the "fact" from "no weapons in Iraq" to "discovery of no weapons" to make your point.

Intel on "Russia invades Ukraine" would be pre-fact before Feb 24 and post-fact afterwards. This is a usage I understand.

"Iraq has no WMD" was always a fact, what you call fact ("ISG discovery") is simply the procurement of incontrovertible evidence that the US would accept, having rejected the pre-war testimony of the UN weapons inspectors. In the sense that "pre-fact" means "pre-evidence", we're at the same stage with regard to who caused the Nordstream damage.

The report format is usually such that it allows us viewers/readers to determine for ourselves whether the conclusions made by the analysts are warranted, an over-reach or unnecessarily muted given the level of intelligence they're basing them on.
Yes. Your news clips don't.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I don't follow. You seem to be shifting the "fact" from "no weapons in Iraq" to "discovery of no weapons" to make your point.

Kindly read again with thought. No shifting.

Intel on "Russia invades Ukraine" would be pre-fact before Feb 24 and post-fact afterwards. This is a usage I understand.

"Iraq has no WMD" was always a fact, what you call fact ("ISG discovery")

Not from an intelligence perspective. It was a conjecture just as its contraposition was. Also, to be precise, WMD was discovered but not on the significant scale the policy-makers insisted.

is simply the procurement of incontrovertible evidence that the US would accept, having rejected the pre-war testimony of the UN weapons inspectors. In the sense that "pre-fact" means "pre-evidence", we're at the same stage with regard to who caused the Nordstream damage.

You're now shifting the goal-posts by moving onto ontological fact and thereby evading the main argument. It's been obvious throughout this discussion we're discussing epistemological fact -- especially with regard to scientific and intelligence evidence.

That the big bang occurred has always been an ontological fact. But epistemologically it became a fact only in the 20th century. The pre-fact and post-fact argument discusses epistemological fact. And you haven't demonstrated errors in the argument.

Yes. Your news clips don't.

My argument is they do to the unbiased and careful observer. And this is not stated to offend anyone.
 

Mauro

Senior Member
What about insurance? I read that the maintenance and penalty fees the company (G***) was getting from not running the pipelines was wicked expensive.

i know i sound like the 9/11 cters who think Silverstein blew up the Twin Towers for the insurance money... but ... is that a possibility? The owner blew it up to stop the fees and get the insurance? Is blowing up a pipeline something a company can do itself?

**Gazprom

From the same Moscow Times article of post #48:
One irony of the attack is that Russia’s Gazprom potentially stands to benefit: it will no longer need to invent excuses not to supply Europe via Nord Stream 1. Now it can claim a force majeure, which will dramatically reduce the risk of compensation claims for non-delivered volumes. This logic, however, does not explain the damage caused to Nord Stream 2. On the other hand, the Nord Stream consortium companies and eventually Gazprom might even hope to collect some insurance for the damaged pipelines. Given that they already looked set to become a stranded asset, that would be far from the worst outcome for the giant company.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022...who-attacked-the-nord-stream-pipelines-a78952


The pipelines demise may indeed help Gazprom, but I find it hard to believe this could be the main driver of the action.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Not from an intelligence perspective. It was a conjecture just as its contraposition was. Also, to be precise, WMD was discovered but not on the significant scale the policy-makers insisted.

A fact is independent of knowledge or opinion, not dependent on any observer. That someone becomes enlightened somehow makes no difference to whether a concept is a fact or not.

If the intelligence community has a different definition for fact, throw it out, it's not useful as it makes no distinctions that can't already be expressed and contradicts what those skilled in the language understand by the term.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Saw this article today. The claim is that a Russian Gazprom contractor had to finish the area of the pipeline that was damaged and may have preventatively set explosives at the time:

Gazprom brought in its own construction ships to complete work on a final section of the pipeline around the Danish island of Bornholm after US sanctions forced a Swiss contractor to pull out.

Last week's explosions, which ripped holes into at least three of the four pipelines that make up the two projects, occurred in the vicinity of where this construction work took place.

The suggestion was that Russia had sabotaged in recent days. But Andriy Kobolyev, who was CEO of Naftogaz up until 2021, told the Telegraph it could have been the result of explosive devices planted well in advance as a sort-of insurance measure.

He said that it was common practice in Soviet times to build explosives into key infrastructure in case it was captured in war.

“Knowing that many of these guys are ex-KGB, we shouldn’t be surprised that they use this as a standard,” said Mr Kobolyev, 44.

He said that all gas and oil pipelines are equipped with highly sensitive sensors that would normally detect any interference with the line once it is up and running.

“Even in Ukraine we have such sensors. Gazprom, with all its money, will have installed more sensitive ones of Nord Stream 2,” he said, adding that such equipment is “sensitive enough to answer the questions we are asking.”

But the noise of final construction work could have given the company the cover to place explosives on both Nord Stream 2 and the already operational Nord Stream 1, he believes.

“The most important thing to have is construction noise that you can use to hide your actions.”

He added that he did not believe that Russia had planted explosives on any other infrastructure key to western Europe, saying that the consequences would be “too painful.”
Content from External Source
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...am-pipelines-during-construction/ar-AA12yWlL?

Of course, this is coming from a Ukrainian guy, so who knows. But I assume someone could check and see if the claim about a Gazprom contractor working on this part of the pipeline is correct.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
If the intelligence community has a different definition for fact, throw it out
This swayed me into explaining why I've decided to disengage from debating @LilWabbit . Since this is meta-discussion and doesn't concern pipeline explosions, I'll spoiler it so that those not interested in drama or epistemology can pass it by.
It's been obvious throughout this discussion we're discussing epistemological fact
No, it hasn't.

Part of the reason for this is that you're making up your own terms. Google doesn't know "pre-fact intel" or "pre-fact intelligence", and there are some niche financial reports concerned with "pre-fact analysis", but they're referring to hard facts such as loan performance or exchange rates.

Likewise, Google does know "epistemological facts", but they're typically facts about epistemology. "Epistemic facts" are facts about what someone knows:
Article:
Metaepistemological realists at the very least accept that there are epistemic facts, and that these facts are not (non-trivially) mind-dependent. Thus, this means that, for the realist, when you say that you know that Paris is the capital of France, there is a fact of the matter—either you do or you do not know this
However, neither usage quite matches yours. ( @FatPhil , maybe insist on @LilWabbit sourcing his terms.)

On the other hand, you have ignored the terminology I tried to introduce for your distinction ("pre-fact" vs. "pre-evidence"), which places the burden of the conversation on me: I'm supposed to follow your terminology while you ignore mine. Likewise, "Kindly read again with thought" is shifting the burden of discourse to me. It is also presumptuous.

Not only do you ignore my conversational leads, you impute meaning not in evidence, for example the "incompetence" that keeps coming up in your writing as if I had said this, when in fact I did not. It indicates to me either a lack of respect, or a lack of care in reading my posts that's well below the care you expect me to treat your writing with.

These properties of your discourse make conversing with you cumbersome and not fun for me, and due to the fact that it's not clear which parts you are making up on the go, ultimately fairly useless and frustrating. I've had the same experience with you in the past, and I don't much care about repeating it.

Thankfully, I don't have to.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Of course, this is coming from a Ukrainian guy, so who knows. But I assume someone could check and see if the claim about a Gazprom contractor working on this part of the pipeline is correct.
I've seen the claim before and commented on it here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/baltic-pipeline-discussion.12685/post-280769

I think what the guy means is that the Danish section was finished last, not necessarily that exact spot; I tried to find the exact location where the pipeline was completed and gave up.

The fact of the matter is that there are two holes in Nordstream 1, not anywhere near the Nordstream 2 rupture, so associating these with the construction of Nordstream 2 seems not well supported?

It is true that Russia laid the final segment; the Swiss contractor Allseas who had laid the other parts quit due to US sanctions (see my linked post above).
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
P.S.:
may have preventatively set explosives at the time
so the question is, would Russia have thought in June/September 2021, "we're going to want to blow up this pipeline some day"? Why?

Why would they think this was a precaution and not an additional risk?
If they wanted to be able to stop Germany from receiving gas, all they had to do is shut it off.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
A fact is independent of knowledge or opinion, not dependent on any observer.

Let's have another brief derail into semantics then, albeit it doesn't really change the intended meaning of "fact" in the least, and therefore has no bearing on the actual argument propounded.

Article:
...one view about facts is that to be a fact is to be a true proposition. On another, incompatible view, facts are what make true propositions true, or more generally, account for their truth.


I was using "fact" in the former sense (epistemological, bolded) and not in the latter (ontological) sense. It's a very common usage even in ordinary parlance, albeit not the only one. When applied to observational descriptions (which are logical propositions) whereby we describe direct observations, the proposition "only non-significant WMD stockpiles were found in Iraq" is a true proposition which is dependent on observers, namely the investigators actually making the observation/finding. Not independent. This particular fact (true proposition) could not have been made before the investigation conducted by the observers indicated (implicitly by the terms 'were found') in the proposition. Leastways, not without a time machine.

As you and I have discussed earlier, in natural languages irrespective of culture, a word can have several different and even mutually incompatible meanings. The context usually reveals which meaning is intended. If the context earlier didn't, then I hope the above explanation clarifies the matter for good.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
P.S.:

so the question is, would Russia have thought in June/September 2021, "we're going to want to blow up this pipeline some day"? Why?

Why would they think this was a precaution and not an additional risk?
If they wanted to be able to stop Germany from receiving gas, all they had to do is shut it off.
I'm not saying it makes a lot of sense and I guess I missed your post about it earlier. It was out there as one possible theory of many. It's strange that it seems every possible suspect that has a reason to want to do it, also has reasons not to.

How is it looking for you guys in Germany this winter? Actual gas shortages and shutoffs, or maybe put on sweater indoors and muddle through? I guess a mild winter might be welcome this year.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
How is it looking for you guys in Germany this winter? Actual gas shortages and shutoffs, or maybe put on sweater indoors and muddle through? I guess a mild winter might be welcome this year.
Article:
The German government’s goal of filling the gas storage facilities to 95 percent by November 1 is now in jeopardy, Business Insider reported on Monday.

According to a Deutsche Bank report published by the news site, German households have to reduce gas consumption by at least 20 percent to get through the winter without shortages.

But the households have already increased their consumption in September compared to the last year, experts told the news site.

If German households reduce their gas consumption by 15 percent, the country will likely avoid shortages until early March, according to the experts.

But if the consumption drops by only 10 percent, gas storage facilities will be empty in February, experts said.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
@Mendel, for clarity:

You were using:

(1) US intelligence failures in Iraq which became apparent by means of observation of non-significant WMD stockpiles by investigators after the faulty intelligence conclusions had already been produced and relied upon;

To logically imply:

(2) An anti-Russian / US-exonerating bias compromising the experts cited by me on this thread because some of them are former US intelligence officers.

These experts, amongst many others, are hypothesizing Russia as the likeliest culprit of the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage which was, obviously, observed before positing any hypotheses.

These two are very different types of analysis where the first type did not benefit from direct observation and thereby adding an extra layer of uncertainty (i.e. likelihood of error) above and beyond the standard scientific uncertainties of the second type. The second type is closer to so-called basic research in science where we have an observed phenomenon first, followed by attempts to explain it with rival hypotheses while continuing to make more and better observations of the phenomenon in question.

Also, as already stated many times earlier, such a reasoning (i.e. you arriving from statement 1 to 2) invites the burden of proof on you to demonstrate that statement 1 logically implies, or even renders it very probable, that the cited experts in statement 2 are biased.

I will be waiting for your proof.

Thirdly:

You've yet to acknowledge that your chief motive to question these experts is actually your own bias in favour of narratives that do not incriminate Russia, rather than your access to objective evidence, or sound logical proof, on these experts being biased.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
@Mendel, for clarity:

You were using:

(1) US intelligence failures in Iraq which became apparent by means of observation of non-significant WMD stockpiles by investigators after the faulty intelligence conclusions had already been produced and relied upon;

To logically imply: ...

(1) is not a statement, it has no truth value. It's not even a sentence, it is a noun phrase ("US intelligence failures in Iraq") with a nonrestrictive relative clause (everything after that). A simple analogue: (1b) Apples, which contained maggots.

Something with no truth value cannot imply anything. Clarity not achieved.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
(1) is not a statement, it has no truth value. It's not even a sentence, it is a noun phrase ("US intelligence failures in Iraq") with a nonrestrictive relative clause (everything after that). A simple analogue: (1b) Apples, which contained maggots.

Something with no truth value cannot imply anything. Clarity not achieved.

Add "There were" to the beginning of statement 1 and "There is" to statement 2 if you think the whole schema falls apart because formalism wasn't properly (read: explicitly) adhered.

I don't.
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Senior Member
The sabotage investigation is forging ahead. Some material has been seized by Säpo from the blast site which could determine those responsible.

Article:
Strengthened suspicions of gross sabotage in Baltic Sea

Published 6 October 2022

The Swedish Security Service’s crime scene investigation of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines has now been completed. The investigation has strengthened the suspicions of gross sabotage.

The Security Service carried out the crime scene investigation, beginning this past weekend, with excellent support and cooperation from the Swedish Coast Guard, Armed Forces and Police Authority.

The crime scene investigation has shown that there have been detonations near Nord Stream 1 and 2, within the Swedish economic zone, resulting in extensive damage to the gas pipelines.

Certain seizures were made during the on-site investigation. The Swedish Security Service is continuously taking various measures in its investigation into these events. As part of this work, the seized material will now be processed and analysed. The continued investigation will show whether anyone can be suspected of, and later prosecuted for, this crime.

The investigation into the Nord Stream events is being conducted by the Swedish Security Service and is headed by a National Security Unit prosecutor. As the crime scene investigation has been completed, the prosecutor has lifted the cordons around the area.

The Swedish Security Service assesses the Baltic Sea incidents to be very serious, and is keeping a close eye on developments and taking the measures needed to fulfil our duty to protect Sweden and its security.
 
Last edited:

Duke

Active Member
The sabotage investigation is forging ahead. Some material has been seized by Säpo from the blast site which could determine those responsible.

Article:
Strengthened suspicions of gross sabotage in Baltic Sea

Published 6 October 2022

The Swedish Security Service’s crime scene investigation of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines has now been completed. The investigation has strengthened the suspicions of gross sabotage.

The Security Service carried out the crime scene investigation, beginning this past weekend, with excellent support and cooperation from the Swedish Coast Guard, Armed Forces and Police Authority.

The crime scene investigation has shown that there have been detonations near Nord Stream 1 and 2, within the Swedish economic zone, resulting in extensive damage to the gas pipelines.

Certain seizures were made during the on-site investigation. The Swedish Security Service is continuously taking various measures in its investigation into these events. As part of this work, the seized material will now be processed and analysed. The continued investigation will show whether anyone can be suspected of, and later prosecuted for, this crime.

The investigation into the Nord Stream events is being conducted by the Swedish Security Service and is headed by a National Security Unit prosecutor. As the crime scene investigation has been completed, the prosecutor has lifted the cordons around the area.

The Swedish Security Service assesses the Baltic Sea incidents to be very serious, and is keeping a close eye on developments and taking the measures needed to fulfil our duty to protect Sweden and its security.
Post detonation analysis of the energetic materials employed, assuming enough remnants/residue was found, should identify the explosive, or its chemical components. The same is true for casings, detonators, timers, batteries, etc. Explosive devices do not consume themselves entirely.

If this was "gross sabotage" committed by a nation state, that nation state would have known a forensic analysis of the damage would be undertaken. While I suspect the devices used were uniquely tailored for this application, I'd also suspect they were constructed with as much ubiquitous, C/OTS material and components as possible so as to not pinpoint a specific source of origin.

I'll go one further to suggest the responsible party, to the extent possible, might have constructed devices using components/materials identifiable from a source that would point the finger at an adversary or scapegoat. An explosive "false flag," if you will.

Bottom line, expect the Swedes to forensically identify "what" and "how," but identifying "who" will be inconclusive.... unless the perpetrating nation steps forward.
 
Last edited:

qed

Senior Member
@LilWabbit While I agree with some of your points, I don't agree with others, and certainly don't understand why you accused some of us here of Russian propaganda and tribalism.

In order to try and understand your motivation, I have an side question for you.
  • What probability would you have assigned, at the start of the war, to the hypothesis that Iraq had WMDs?
[... did you assign ...]
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Post detonation analysis of the energetic materials employed, assuming enough remnants/residue was found, should identify the explosive, or its chemical components. The same is true for casings, detonators, timers, batteries, etc. Explosive devices do not consume themselves entirely.

If this was "gross sabotage" committed by a nation state, that nation state would have known a forensic analysis of the damage would be undertaken. While I suspect the devices used were uniquely tailored for this application, I'd also suspect they were constructed with as much ubiquitous, C/OTS material and components as possible so as to not pinpoint a specific source of origin.

I'll go one further to suggest the responsible party, to the extent possible, might have constructed devices using components/materials identifiable from a source that would point the finger at an adversary or scapegoat. An explosive "false flag," if you will.

Bottom line, expect the Swedes to forensically identify "what" and "how," but identifying "who" will be inconclusive.... unless the perpetrating nation steps forward.

We're lucky to have expertise of your calibre and experience on this thread.

Your argument for inconclusivity is very sound when it comes to determining 'the perpetrating nation' solely based on the 'source of origin' of the recovered C/OTS material and components.

But wouldn't you say there are also other variables to consider in conjunction with the analysis of the origins of the residue that, taken together, could give us the 'culprit'?

Such as:

(1) The nature of the operation required to accomplish the sabotage given the nature of the residue;

(2) The timing and sequence of events involved in the execution of such an operation interpolated from the residue and the timing of the blasts;

(3) Followed by comparison of maritime traffic, nearby vessels, intel on deployment of known operatives and necessary capabilities & other evidence with the timing and sequence of events required for such an operation.
 

Duke

Active Member
We're lucky to have expertise of your calibre and experience on this thread.

Your argument for inconclusivity is very sound when it comes to determining 'the perpetrating nation' solely based on the 'source of origin' of the recovered C/OTS material and components.

But wouldn't you say there are also other variables to consider in conjunction with the analysis of the origins of the residue that, taken together, could give us the 'culprit'?

Such as:

(1) The nature of the operation required to accomplish the sabotage given the nature of the residue;

(2) The timing and sequence of events involved in the execution of such an operation interpolated from the residue and the timing of the blasts;

(3) Followed by comparison of maritime traffic, nearby vessels, intel on deployment of known operatives and necessary capabilities & other evidence with the timing and sequence of events required for such an operation.
I was commenting only on the article you posted about the Swedes, but yes, there are bound to be a number of other investigative variables beyond just on site forensic findings. On top of those you suggested, there is satellite surveillance/tracking, SIGINT, undersea sensors, etc., but most of that spook stuff is well outside my bailiwick. What experience I had with those guys was all military aviation related. I learned you answer their questions, not ask them questions. ;)

And thanks for the compliment. I try to limit comments to things I know about, or at least have experience with.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Here's a video from Danish military analyst Anders Puck Nielsen.
Source: https://youtu.be/hk-0qJXyido


First, he assumes that the pipeline explosions are part of the hybrid warfare surrounding the Ukraine conflict.

He then introduces Kilcullen's classification of hybrid warfare:
Screenshot_20221007-134600_YouTube.jpg
He classifies the pipeline attack as covert operation.
He notes that the attack had the effect of destabilizing European energy markets.
He proposes that if the US had wanted to disable the pipeline, they'd have chosen a clandestine operation instead and avoided this effect.

Secondly, he introduces prospect theory. Screenshot_20221007-134746_YouTube.jpg
Article:
Consider two scenarios;

1.) 100% chance to gain $450 or 50% chance to gain $1000
2.) 100% chance to lose $500 or 50% chance to lose $1100

Prospect theory suggests that;

When faced with a risky choice leading to gains agents are risk averse, preferring the certain outcome with a lower expected utility (concave value function).Agents will choose the certain $450 even though the expected utility of the risky gain is higher

When faced with a risky choice leading to losses agents are risk seeking, preferring the outcome that has a lower expected utility but the potential to avoid losses (convex value function).Agents will choose the 50% chance to lose $1100 even though the expected utility is lower, due to the chance that they lose nothing at all
He assumes that the pipeline sabotage is a big risk.
Because the West is winning the Ukraine conflict, and Russia is losing it, Russia should be more likely to choose this risk to maybe avert the loss.

I'm not really convinced by either argument. However, this seems similar to what @LilWabbit argued earlier, so here's a well-argued version of that.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I've met David Kilcullen in person and attended his seminars. A smart guy who knows what he's talking about.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
He proposes that if the US had wanted to disable the pipeline, they'd have chosen a clandestine operation instead and avoided this effect.
what does "existence of operation unknown" mean? how do you disable a pipeline without the operation being detected?
 

Duke

Active Member
what does "existence of operation unknown" mean? how do you disable a pipeline without the operation being detected?
Yeah, I wondered the same thing. A competent, capably equipped military force could disable the pipeline clandestinely without be detected or getting caught, but it seems to me the resulting disabling is going to destabilize Europen energy markets regardless of how it was done or by who.
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Yeah, I wondered the same thing. A competent, capable military force could disable the pipeline clandestinely without be detected or getting caught, but it seems to me the resulting disabling is going to destabilize Europen energy markets regardless of how it was done or by who.

Contrive things so that they do not appear to have been a military operation, but merely one of those things that could happen naturally. So you avoid blasts, and consider more slow-acting insideous things like fatigue or rusting, or some other kind weakening that will increase the deleterious effects of natural wear-and-tear. Something that may not have its ultimate catastrophic results until 10^7 seconds have passed, rather than one sub-second blast.
 

Duke

Active Member
Contrive things so that they do not appear to have been a military operation, but merely one of those things that could happen naturally. So you avoid blasts, and consider more slow-acting insideous things like fatigue or rusting, or some other kind weakening that will increase the deleterious effects of natural wear-and-tear. Something that may not have its ultimate catastrophic results until 10^7 seconds have passed, rather than one sub-second blast.
I was only commenting on the theories and analysis presented by Anders Puck Nielsen, and subsequent posts regarding Nielsen's thoughts. That said, I think we'll know soon enough if this was sabotage or system failure. My money's on the former, but I've been wrong before.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
There does seem to be a conspiracy theory growing, i.e., the USA did it.
unfortunately we've been so saturated with "Russia did it" narratives here (and sometimes they did do it) that as soon as i hear "Russian disinfo" i think...eh. This is the medias fault really, not the governments per se.

That's why i was hoping someone will look up exactly what this ADM (ret) credentials are to make such a claim.

(and no, lil wabbit. I'm not a pinko, just a skeptic.)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Article:
As is typical following an event like this, conspiracy theories about who was responsible quickly proliferated online, with the Kremlin promoting a familiar trope: that the United States was responsible for a nefarious, clandestine plot. In official statements, state-backed media, and tweets, Kremlin messengers promoted the idea that the United States carried out the attack.

To track their spread and understand the role of state propaganda in such information, researchers typically examine posts on Twitter. But this only provides a partial view. In this case, as elsewhere, popular political podcasts served as an important, understudied, means through which Kremlin narratives reach American audiences.


like people don't have brains and need Russia to tell them what to think. smh.
 

qed

Senior Member
I do think "Russia probably did it" is the most appropriate skeptic position at this time.

And I think "USA did it" is clearly silly, Biden does not have the ...:)
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Fox News interview with John Kirby, who has been serving as Coordinator for Strategic Communications at the Nation al Security Council in the White House since late May 2022:
Article:
“Did the U.S. or a proxy for the U.S. have anything to do with the explosion on the Nord Stream pipeline?” asked Baier after discussing other issues like China.

“The United States had nothing to do with it. That’s just Russian propaganda and disinformation,” Kirby replied, adding:

Now we know it was an act of sabotage, but there’s an investigation going on right now. I don’t think we’re going to get into into credentialing that in terms of who was responsible. We’re going to let the investigators take a look at that.


Article:
The United States National Security Council (NSC) is the principal forum used by the President of the United States for consideration of national security, military, and foreign policy matters.

Since its inception in 1947 by President Harry S. Truman, the function of the Council has been to advise and assist the President on national security and foreign policies. It also serves as the President's principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies. The Council has subsequently played a key role in most major events in U.S. foreign policy, from the Korean War to the War on Terror.

Oliver North served on the NSC for Iran-Contra, from his bio:
Article:
During his tenure at the National Security Council, North managed a number of missions. This included leading the hunt for those responsible for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 299 American and French military personnel, an effort that saw North arrange a mid-air interception of an EgyptAir jet carrying those responsible for the Achille Lauro hijacking. While at the National Security Council, he also helped plan the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the 1986 bombing of Libya.[15]

It appears to me that if there was a US operation to blow up these pipelines, the NSC would probably be running it.

Unfortunately, it would also probably be classified, and nobody would be allowed to admit it exists.

(Post edited to include interview and delete reference to removed post, thanks you @deirdre for bringing it to my attention)
 
Last edited:

qed

Senior Member
i havent heard anyone say "USA did it" i dont even see that claim on the hyperlink you provided.

do you still see that headline? (Im curious if headlines vary by country) i see:
U.S. podcasters spread Kremlin narratives on Nord Stream sabotage
October 3, 2022
Tucker Carson says this at 9 secs into the video: "If they did this, this would be one of the craziest most most destructive things any American administration has ever done" Right-wing media Nord Stream conspiracy theories echo Russia
 
Top