North Stream Bombing: Food for thought

Gallier the Elder says:


About the german pipelines
Nord Stream Blast – Thoughts on the “Ukraine Version
Western services and media now report every week about new findings on the blasting of the Nord Stream pipelines last September. Even if these findings contradict the research of the well-connected journalist Seymour Hersh, they are not implausible and therefore cannot be excluded from the outset. If one hypothetically assumes that these findings are correct, this would raise a whole series of uncomfortable questions for the U.S. government and even more so for the German government. After all, it would be a matter of state terrorism, if not an act of war against German and European energy supplies. Committed by Ukraine; a country that the German government sees as a value partner and even ally, and which receives not only financial but also military aid worth billions from Germany. By Jens Berger.

If the version favored by the services and the media is correct, it was the Dutch military intelligence service MIVD that allegedly informed the U.S. and German services as early as last spring about indications of a planned Ukrainian commando operation to blow up the Nord Stream pipelines. According to this information, the planned attack was to take place in July 2022. At least the Americans took this warning so seriously, according to press reports, that the CIA allegedly warned Ukraine to carry out such a plan. To what extent this detail is true, however, is another open question, since the Americans had a great self-interest in the demolition. Two months later, as is well known, the blast took place.

Be that as it may – according to the reports, the German services were also warned by the Dutch and at the latest here the story becomes interesting. If the USA took this warning so seriously that Ukraine was formally warned, what was the assessment of the Germans? And why? Obviously, there was no warning to Ukraine by the German services or even the German government. Did they – unlike the USA – not take the Dutch reports seriously? Did they perhaps even accept the risk? Or did they take the reports seriously, warn Ukraine as well, and then were coldly betrayed by Ukraine? Questions upon questions. It is interesting that these questions are not asked by the media. This is incomprehensible, since these same media apparently consider the version of Ukrainian perpetration to be probable. But if one says A, one must also say B and ask the right questions.

The blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines is probably the biggest case of state terrorism in post-war history. The victims of this attack are not only Russia, but also, first and foremost, Germany and the other EU states that were supplied with cheap natural gas via Nord Stream. If the Ukrainian perpetration is confirmed, it can be assumed that an act of war of this dimension could not have been carried out without the knowledge and approval of the Ukrainian government. The statement that circles of the Ukrainian military did not inform their government about the attack out of “self-protection” is completely implausible.

If the version is confirmed, this cannot remain without consequences. How stupid do you have to be to continue to support a state that has committed an act of war of this dimension on our infrastructure? Strangely enough, however, this question is not asked either. People insist that Ukraine is behind the attacks, but refuse to draw the consequences. There can be two reasons for this:

One is that one has already given up one’s sovereignty and one’s own interests to such an extent that one allows a country like Ukraine to play tricks on one’s nose in front of the world public.
Or the whole story is just a diversionary tactic to avoid asking the more serious question of the consequences in the event of American perpetration.

Take your pick. Neither answer is a credit to our government.

Translated with (free version)

Leave a Reply