Saturday, February 11, 2023

Honesty of US and Allied Media declined...

 

Honesty of US and Allied Media declined since 2002
By Eric Zuesse
29.01.2023

In 2002, the biggest topic in the news was whether or not Iraq was making and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (WMD), especially nuclear weapons but also chemical weapons. The U.N.-authorized agency to investigate this in regard to the main issue, which then was nuclear weapons, is and was the IAEA. As I have documented previously, the leaders of America and of UK, George W. Bush and Tony Blair, both said on 7 September 2002 that the IAEA had come out with a “new report” that said Iraq was only six months from having a nuclear weapon; the IAEA then denied three times that it had, but this denial was kept secret in all U.S.-and-allied news-media; and, meanwhile, on 8 September 2007, U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice delivered her famous “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” statement, and Bush himself addressed the U.N. General Assembly on 12 September 2007 about the matter, and the buildup to the U.S.-and-UK invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003 was steady, and the IAEA’s having denied that what Bush and Blair had said on 7 September 2002 was true, remained unknown to the public.

The good matter back then was that the IAEA didn’t confirm the U.S. and UK leaders’ lies then. The bad matter today is that such a fabrication by a U.N. WMD inspection agency, in this case by the one that’s concerned with chemical weapons, which is the OPCW, has now been successfully done in order for top U.S. and UK Government officials, such as Donald Trump and Theresa May, not to be proven to have committed an international war-crime on 14 April 2018 in response to an actually U.S.-and-allied deadly attack against civilians in the town of Douma on 7 April 2018 that was set-up and reported to the public as having been perpetrated instead by Syria’s Government. Though the 20 OPCW employees, all of whom were experts in chemical weaponry, and who were in the inspection team that entered Syria on 12 April 2018 and that participated in the collection of samples and in the interviews with the witnesses there, found only evidence that contradicted the U.S.-and-allied allegations that Syria’s Government instead of its enemies had perpetrated it, their findings were hidden by the OPCW and never reported to the public. Not even the OPCW itself did.

Then, on 27 January 2023, The Gray Zone headlined “Tanks for the memories – live with Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate” and Mate explained how the just-issued final report from the OPCW has totally ignored and didn’t even mention what its own employees had found at the site but instead hired outside ‘experts’ whom it had selected and paid to confirm the U.S.-and-allied allegations on the matter. Mate said he’d be presenting details in his future reports on it. I have long followed Mate’s career as an investigative journalist and I have never found him to have asserted anything that the evidence he cited failed to prove to be so. He, like I, is exceedingly careful never to rely upon mere opinion or on any bogus ‘evidence’; but, instead, to expose its being speculative or bogus — as he has been doing throughout his many reports regarding the 7 April 2018 Douma event.

So, this entire matter appears to indicate that, unlike what happened with one U.N.-authorized WMD inspection agency, the IAEA, in 2002, when it exposed the lie by the leaders of U.S. and UK regarding nuclear weapons but the news-media hid that fact from the public, a different U.N.-authorized WMD inspection agency, the OPCW, is, now, itself, actually controlled by the U.S. White House and its many agencies and fronts, of which this U.N.-authorized WMD inspection agency is, now, itself one. The OPCW’s just-released final report on the Douma incident, released on 27 January 2023, titled “OPCW Releases Third Report by Investigation and Identification Team: Reasonable grounds to identify Syrian Arab Air Forces as perpetrators of 2018 Douma chemical attack”, blames Syria’s Government instead of the U.S., UK, and their many fronts. (The full report is to be found here.)

Whereas in 2002, the U.S. White House controlled only its news-media and not the U.N., it now apparently controls both. Consequently: U.S.-and-allied news-media have the cooperation of an agency authorized by the U.N., so as to hide international war-crimes perpetrated by and on behalf of the U.S. White House, and are thus internationally ‘authorized’ to participate in covering-up that guilt, only the press were doing that back in 2002. International ‘news’ reported in The West was exceedingly untrustworthy in 2002 but has since become even worse — even less reliable or trustworthy — than that. The only way that this can now become even worse than it already is, is by increasing the censorship (such as by everything from the New York Times and CNN to Google and Facebook to NewsGuard — and by the U.S.-and-allied Governments themselves) in The West — which is constantly happening. Only by censoring-out truth (such as has happened in this Douma matter) can The West’s news-media continue to draw paying subscribers.

—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

Fifth-Generation Warfare is at play...

This new kind of war is already being waged against us in case you didn't realize already...

Your Guide to Fifth-Generation Warfare
The Corbett Report
Mar 27, 2022


We're in the middle of a world-changing war right now.

Oh, I don't mean the war in Ukraine, the one that all the media are asking you to focus your attention on. Yes, that conflict continues to escalate.

and every day there are new stories about provocations and threats that could lead to a nuclear exchange . . . but that's not the war I'm referring to.

And I don't mean the war in Yemen or the other military conflicts that the media are ignoring entirely. Yes, these wars are every bit as bloody, gruesome and devastating as the Russian invasion of Ukraine (if not more so), and they also risk an escalation into a broader geopolitical and geo-economic crisis . . . but they're not the wars I'm referring to, either.

No, the war I'm talking about is an even broader war. A war that is taking place everywhere on the globe, even as I write, and that involves virtually everyone on the planet, young and old, male and female, military and civilian. It is the war of every government against its own population and every international institution against free humanity.

This is no ordinary war, however. Most of the victims of this warfare aren't even able to identify it as war, nor do they understand that they are combatants in it.

It's called fifth-generation warfare, and I'm here to tell you all about it.

WHAT IS FIFTH-GENERATION WARFARE?

What is fifth-generation warfare, anyway? And, come to think of it, what were the first four generations of warfare?

Good questions. For an in-depth answer to the latter question, you'll want to read "The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation"— a 1989 article from the Marine Corps Gazette co-authored by William S. Lind — and you'll want to watch "William S. Lind & Philip Giraldi – Fourth Generation Warfare & The Deep State," especially the presentation by Lind from 13 minutes onward.

In a nutshell, Lind et al.'s thesis is that the "modern age" of warfare began with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which, Lind opines, "gave the state a monopoly on war." From that point on, modern warfare went through three generations, namely:

    First-generation warfare: the tactics of line and column, developed in the era of the smoothbore musket;

    Second-generation warfare: the tactics of indirect fire and mass movement, developed in the era of the rifled musket, breechloaders, barbed wire and the machine gun; and

    Third-generation warfare: the tactics of nonlinear movement, including maneuver and infiltration, developed in response to the increase in battlefield firepower in WWI.

This, according to Lind and his co-authors, brought us to the late-20th century, when the nation-state began to lose its monopoly on war and military combat returned to a decentralized form. In this era — the era of fourth-generation warfare — the lines between "civilian" and "military" become blurred, armies tend to engage in counter-insurgency operations rather than military battles, and enemies are often motivated by ideology and religion, making psychological operations more important than ever.

But, some argue, we have now entered a new era of warfare, namely fifth-generation warfare. There is still much debate about what defines fifth-generation warfare, how we know we are engaged in it, or even if it exists at all (Lind, for one, rejects the concept). Various scholars have made their own attempts at defining fifth-generation warfare (5GW), like Dr. Waseem Ahmad Qureshi, who identifies it as "the battle of perceptions and information," or Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui of the People's Liberation Army, who write of the era of "Unrestricted Warfare" in which "a relative reduction in military violence" has led to "an increase in political, economic, and technological violence."

If academic debates about the changing nature of warfare are your thing, then there's plenty of reading for you to do on the subject, from The Handbook of 5GW: A Fifth Generation of War? to a slew of academic articles.

But for the purposes of this editorial, I'm not interested in that debate. In fact, we're going to use a decidedly non-academic definition of fifth-generation warfare from an Al Jazeera article as our starting point: "The basic idea behind this term [fifth-generation warfare] is that in the modern era, wars are not fought by armies or guerrillas, but in the minds of common citizens."

There are two important things to note about this definition. The first is that fifth-generation warfare is not waged against either standing armies of nation-states or guerrilla insurgents but against everyday citizens. The second is that this war is not being fought in a battlefield somewhere, but in the mind.

I will expand the definition somewhat to include the fact that this war is being waged at all levels, not just the mental. The gist of it is this: Fifth-generation warfare is an all-out war that is being waged against all of us by our governments and the international organizations to which they belong. It is being waged against each and every one of us right now, and it is a battle for full-spectrum dominance over every single aspect of your life: your movements and interactions, your transactions, even your innermost thoughts and feelings and desires. Governments the world over are working with corporations to leverage technology to control you down to the genomic level, and they will not stop until each and every person who resists them is subdued or eliminated.

The most incredible part of all of this is that so few know that the war is even taking place, let alone that they are a combatant in it.

The best way to understand this war is to look at some of the ways that it is being waged against us.

INFORMATION WARFARE

Stop me if you've heard this before, but this is an infowar and the powers-that-shouldn't-be are engaged in "a war for your mind."

Of course, you have heard of "Infowars" if you've been in the alternative media space for any length of time. And for good reason: information warfare is an absolutely essential part of the war on everyone that defines fifth-generation warfare.

The most obvious way to understand this is to look at the actual military forces that are engaging in psychological operations against their own citizens. You'll remember, for instance, less than two years ago, when the Canadian Armed Forces launched their brazen fake wolves psyop on the Canadian public, declaring that the scamdemic presented them with a "unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on Canadians."

Or you might recall a decade ago when the US Army deployed an Information Operations unit against the US Senate to "manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war."

But it's not just out-and-out military operations by soldiers dressed up in camo fatigues that are part of this fifth-generation infowar. In the war on everyone, the establishment uses every means at its disposal to manipulate the public's perception.

Thus, Richard Stengel — the former editor of Time who bestowed Time's person of the year (dis)honour on You! back in 2006 — is happy to chair a Council on Foreign Relations conversation in which he defends the US government's use of propaganda against its own citizens. Or Hill & Knowlton — the PR firm hired by the Kuwaiti government to create the Nayirah deception in the First Gulf War — is retained by the WHO in 2020 to identify celebrity "influencers" who could be used to amplify the scamdemic messaging. Or the UK government's Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours outright admits that they use psychological techniques to manipulate the public into fearing the scamdemic, a move that some of the panel members called "totalitarian"... and no one bats an eyelid.

Perhaps the most insidious part of the fifth-generation infowar is that it has become so normalized that everyone knows it is happening, but no one thinks of it as warfare. Of course everything is "advertising" and "propaganda." And of course it's being used to manipulate our behaviour.

That's just how the world works, isn't it?

But we ignore the real nature of the infowar at our own peril. After all, I have often observed that this is a war for your mind and that the most contested battlespace in the world is the space between your ears. You might have thought I meant that metaphorically, but actually I mean it quite literally. Which brings us to...

NEUROLOGICAL WARFARE

If you listen to Dr. James Giordano speak without listening to what he's saying, you get the impression he is merely an articulate, well-informed scientist who is passionate about his research. When you do listen to what he's saying, however — or even just look at his PowerPoint slides, like the "NeuroS/T for NSID" slide above — you realize that he is Dr. Strangelove. Or, if not Dr. Strangelove himself, then at least Dr. Strangelove's spokesman.

But it's not nuclear armageddon that motivates Giordano, it's what he calls "weapons of mass disruption" — the various technologies for neurological intervention that the US military and militaries around the world are developing. These include (in Giordano's well-rehearsed patter) the "drugs, bugs, toxins and devices" that can either enhance or disrupt the cognitive functions of their target, like the "high CNS aggregation" nano-particulates that, according to Giordano, "clump in the brain or in the vasculature" and "create essentially what looks like a hemorrhagic diathesis." As sci-fi as this sounds, he insists these nano-particulates (and many, many other horrific neurological weapons) are already being worked on:

In fact, this is one of the things that has been entertained and examined to some extent by my colleagues in NATO and [by] those who are working on the worst use of neuro-biological sciences to create populational disruption. [They're] very, very worried about the potential for these nano-particulate agents to be CNS aggregating agents to cause neural disruption, either as hemorrhagic and vascular disruptors or as actual neural network disruptors, because they interfere with the network properties of various neural nodes and systems within the brain.

And just in case you didn't get the point, you'll notice he illustrates his slide with an image of a human brain in the crosshairs of one of these neurological weapons. There's nothing hard to understand about the picture that is being painted here: we are at war with an enemy who is literally targeting our brains.

But yet again, it isn't just the literal use of neurological weapons by conventional militaries in conventional warfare settings that we — the largely unwitting combatants of the fifth-generation war on everyone — have to worry about. As my listeners already know, avowed technocrat Elon Musk is trying to sell his Neuralink brain chip technology to the hipster crowd as a cool and sexy way to upgrade your cognition ... or so that the coming AI godhead will have mercy on us. Or something like that. Anyway, you should totally stick the Neuralink in your head at your earliest opportunity! And definitely don't ask any questions about why 15 of the 23 macaque monkeys that Neuralink was using as test animals in their "brain-machine interface" experiment have dropped dead.

To anyone not yet a victim of the information warfare operation designed to prepare humanity for the coming transhuman dystopia, all of this sounds insane. But for those who have fallen for the infowars psyop of the enemy, these types of mind-altering technologies are exactly as advertised: exciting opportunities to "upgrade" the feeble biological wetware we call our brain.

But if you think you can avoid the biological aspect of the fifth-generation war by simply avoiding the brain chip, you're out of luck. You're also going to have to deal with...

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

The biowarfare narrative is, understandably, back at the forefront of the public consciousness in recent years, not just because of the scamdemic but also because of the questions being raised about the US-backed Ukrainian biolabs and whatever work they may or may not be doing on Russia's doorstep.

The picture above, for example, comes straight from Army.mil, which was only too happy to brag as recently as last July that US soldiers were conducting "hands-on training and field training exercises with Ukrainian troops in laboratory and field environments" that included ensuring the readiness of "deployable mobile laboratories." Nothing to see here, folks. (Perhaps the only surprising thing about the article is that they haven't scrubbed it from their website . . . yet.)

Yet, once again, if we are only thinking of bio-warfare in conventional military terms, we neglect the much, much wider operation to manipulate, control and weaponize all aspects of our environment, our food supply and even our genome itself for the purposes of the ruling oligarchs.

This fifth-generation biological warfare being waged against us includes:

    The mRNA and DNA and genetically-modified adenovirus vector "vaccines" that have been "normalized" over the past two years and which, as the miraculously "lucky" companies that bet it all on this technology like to brag, is re-programming the "software of life."

    The genetically-modified organisms — both GMO crops and GMO animals — that are now being unleashed upon the world in an uncontrolled experiment that puts our health and the very future of the biosphere in jeopardy.

    The push toward synthetic, lab-based "food" that is being funded by the usual eugenicist billionaires and which threatens to sever humanity from the natural abundance of the earth, make us dependent on an increasingly shrinking number of companies for our food supply, and, ultimately, to drive us toward a Soylent Green-style future.

I'm sure you can fill in the blanks with myriad other examples of the attacks upon the world's air, water and biome that constitute this unconstrained fifth-generation biological war being waged against us.

When and if you do put the pieces of this puzzle together and seek to warn people en masse that they are under attack, your ability to resist this agenda will be predicated on your ability to use your accumulated resources (your wealth) to foster communities of resistance. Don't worry, though; the enemy has that domain covered, too...

ECONOMIC WARFARE

Given the events of recent weeks, even the sleepiest of the sleepy now realize that we are in a period of economic warfare.

This war, too, has its conventional aspects. On the 2D board, we've seen the NATO empire launch its Weapons of Financial Destruction at Russia in recent weeks, and, exactly as predicted, it has resulted in the consolidation of a convenient geopolitical bogeyman bloc and a gigantic loss of faith in the international monetary system itself. And, also as predicted, it has supplied the "Problem" and "Reaction" needed for the technocrats to present their pre-determined "Solution" of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). Just ask Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock:

    “The war will prompt countries to re-evaluate their currency dependencies. Even before the war, several governments were looking to play a more active role in digital currencies and define the regulatory frameworks under which they operate."

This is not merely a battle between nation-states or even competing power blocs. This is a battle being waged by every authoritarian power structure and every government (but I repeat myself) against their own citizens for control of the most important resource of all: their wallets.

Yes, we are seeing the beginning of a truly world-historic moment: the collapse of Pax Americana, the death of the dollar reserve system, and the beginning of an entirely new monetary paradigm, the "Central Bank Digital Currency" system of programmable money that will be able to algorithmically control when, how and if you are allowed to transact in the economy at all. We only have to look to recent events in Canada to understand what this will look like.

This perfect control of humanity down to the level of being able to witness and, ultimately, to allow or disallow any transaction between any individuals at any time, represents the apotheosis of technocracy and one of the key objectives of the fifth-generation war itself. As this nightmare comes closer and closer to reality, all seems hopeless.

But then again, that's exactly the point ...

THE REAL WAR


I could go on. And on and on and on. But hopefully you get the point by now: There is a world war happening right now. It is a fifth-generation war (or whatever you want to call it). It is being waged across every domain simultaneously. It is a war for full-spectrum dominance of every battlefield and every terrain, from the farthest reaches of the globe (and beyond) to the inner spaces of your body and even to your innermost thoughts. And it is a war on you.

Recognizing this, the task we face seems nearly insurmountable. How are we to fight back in a war that the majority of people don't even recognize is taking place? How do we fight back against an enemy that has spent decades refining its weapons of economic and military and technological and biological control? How do we fight back in a war that is not taking place on two fronts or even three fronts, but in every domain and battlespace simultaneously?

Framed like this, our prospects do indeed appear hopeless. But therein lies the key: our perception that it is our duty to "fight back" against the enemy in their war on their battlefield on their terms of engagement is itself a narrative frame. And that narrative itself is a weapon that is being wielded against us in the battle for our minds.

You'll allow me space here to quote myself at length because this is a point I have made many times before, perhaps most notably in my conversation on "The Anatomy of the New World Order" that I had with Julian Charles on The Mind Renewed podcast nine years ago:

    I’m intrigued by the idea that we’ve been given false templates to follow in terms of solving our problems — one being to "fight our enemies" — templates provided for us through so much social conditioning and the media. Here, the idea is that we must find the heart or the head of the organization and somehow kill that person or that group, or whatever it is; eliminate that, and everything will magically turn to the better!

    Thinking in broad terms, that false template appears in virtually every science fiction dystopia you’ve ever seen: if it turns out well in the end, it’s only because they have managed to decapitate the Head of the Beast, whether it be The Lord of the Rings or Tron, or any such movie. I think that’s fundamentally and completely the wrong way to look at it, because at the end of the day the particular individuals who may or may not be holding the ‘Ring of Power’ are replaceable. Indeed, there are very many people who would be chomping at the bit to get into that position of power should that old guard be swept away for whatever reason.

    I think what's needed is a more fundamental revolution: not of overthrowing a specific instantiation of this idea, but of overthrowing the idea altogether. And that can only come, I think, from building up an alternative system to which people actually want to apply themselves. I think we have to detach ourselves from this system that we’ve been woven into. Unfortunately that’s probably as difficult to do as that analogy would make it sound, because we are so woven into the fabric of society that it's difficult to imagine extricating ourselves from all these processes.

    We rely for so many of our daily needs on this vast, unwieldy corporate system that ties into these very organizations that pull the strings of governmental institutions, that it can seem quite overwhelming. How can a single individual affect this? But I think we have to look for any and every possible point at which we can start to detach ourselves from those systems of control, and to start to reassert some kind of independence. That can be an extremely small thing like, just for example: instead of buying groceries at the grocery store, perhaps buy them at a farmers’ market, or at least some of your groceries. Or perhaps you could grow them yourself in a vegetable garden. Something of that
sort is a tiny thing on the individual level, but I think it's the only thing in the long run that can lead to the type of society we want to bring to fruition. Again, I think it’s small things like that, if we start to apply ourselves with diligence and perseverance, that will eventually be able to overthrow this. But, unfortunately, as I say, we are on the cusp of this scientific revolution which makes scientific dictatorship possible, so unfortunately we don’t necessarily have generations of time. That gives a time perspective to all this — I won't say it's a time bomb — but you get the idea. We don’t have a lot of time to waste.

    We have a choice. Either we continue going into this technological, corporate matrix — which involves even things like buying the next generation of iPhone, which they’re already saying is going to have its own fingerprint scanning technology, and all of these corporate, military, Big Brother elements to it that we're willingly signing up to every day of our lives, and actually paying money for — or we start to create alternative structures which don’t rely on that system. It's a choice that we have to make in our lives, I would say more quickly than has been apparent at any other time in human history.

My regular readers will understand what I am proposing here: the creation of a parallel society. We will not achieve this by asking for more scraps from the masters table, or by gently complying as we are herded into ever more constrictive technological pens, or by thinking that we can win this war by engaging the enemy in their controlled domain. We can only achieve this by creating our own table, our own economy and our own communities of interest. This will require the long and difficult task of increasing our independence from the authoritarian systems in every domain: the information domain, the food domain, the health domain, the monetary domain, the mental domain and every other contested battlespace in this all-out, fifth-generation war.

Easier said than done, of course. But there is no alternative.

Some will say "But won't they come after that parallel society?" as if that is a rebuttal to what I have laid out here. The point is that you are already the target of the enemy in a war that most people but dimly understand is happening. Yes, the enemy will come after you. But they are already dominating you in more ways than any one person can fully understand. That does not stop just because you comply with their demands or take part in their system.

We must stop playing their game. We must stop fighting their war. We must stop ceding our power, our authority, our time, our attention, our energy and our resources to engaging the enemy in their terms in their battlefield.

We must create our own parallel society on our own terms.

And so we rediscover an old piece of wisdom. To paraphrase: "Fifth-generation warfare is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

War is over . . . if we want it.

How the US imposed “democracy” across the world through wars

The Chinese Embassy has published a list of states that were bombed by the U.S. after World War II:

Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War).
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia (1958)
Cuba (1959-1961)
Guatemala (1960)
Congo (1964)
Laos (1964-1973)
Vietnam (1961-1973)
Cambodia (1969-1970)
Guatemala (1967-1969)
Granada (1983) - Lebanon (1983, 1984)
Libya (1986)
Salvador (1980)
Nicaragua (1980)
Iran (1987)
Panama (1989)
Iraq (1991) (Gulf War)
Kuwait (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994, 1995)
Sudan (1998)
Afghanistan (1998)
Yugoslavia (1999)
Yemen (2002)
Iraq (1991-2003)
Iraq (2003-2015)
Afghanistan (2001-2015)
Pakistan (2007-2015)
Somalia (2007-2008, 2011)
Yemen (2009, 2011)
Libya (2011, 2015)
Syria (2014-2015)

There are more than 20 countries on the list. China urged to "never forget who is the real threat to the world." Were there outrages from the Western community regarding the United States? Were there loud cries of indictment? Were there at least once sanctions against the United States?

All these hypocritical peace hawks sat quietly in one place when the United States, like a real bandit, is putting other countries through the nightmares. No outcry, no hint of reproach, no glimmer of outrage. Cowardly, shameless, hypocritical creatures! One should spit in everyone's hypocritical face and stick their nose in this list.

With fire and sword. How the US imposed “democracy” across the world through wars
Feb 09, 2023

The US is the undisputed leader in the number of unlawful acts of armed aggression against states around the world. They have conducted 19 military operations over the past 50 years, many of them still raise questions about their appropriateness. However, they are more likely to accuse countries attempting to conduct independent politics of terror and undemocratic activities. After the launch of the special military operation, the US began to actively lobby anti-Russian sentiment around the world, claiming that Russia had unleashed an “illegal war” against a sovereign state. For this reason, we propose to recall the most famous illegal military operations of the US that were carried out without UN Security Council approval and were blatant violations of international law. We will tell you more about this in our story.

Invasions of Grenada and Panama

The United States intervened on at least two occasions in Latin America between 1983 and 1989 in Grenada and Panama. According to the UN Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, no state has the right to intervene directly or indirectly, for any reason whatsoever, in the internal and external affairs of any other state. Nevertheless, in both cases, the United States intervened when it was no longer happy with the policies of the two countries. In 1979, the left-wing New JEWEL Movement came to power in Grenada, which did not please the United States. In 1983, the Americans launched an invasion of Grenada, claiming the need to protect several hundred American medical students and the appeal of several countries in the Organization of American States. An invasion of Panama was launched in 1989. This time, the reason was the Panamanian authorities’ desire to pursue a foreign policy independent of the US – strengthening ties with Central and South America, including Nicaragua. Both US military operations were condemned by the international community. The UN General Assembly adopted resolutions on the invasions of Grenada and Panama, in which the actions of the Americans were considered a flagrant violation of international law and an encroachment on the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the two states.

“Allied Force”

In 1995, the US took part in a NATO military operation in Yugoslavia, still without UN authorization, and in 1999 carried out an illegal intervention on its territory. In 1992, as part of the Bosnian war, the U.S. and its NATO allies took an anti-Serb stance and implemented military support for Bosnian Muslims. However, the UN Security Council did not pass a resolution authorizing the military intervention of the alliance forces. NATO aircraft bombed Bosnian Serb positions. In 1996 a new war broke out in the territory of Yugoslavia – the Kosovo war. This time, the USA blamed the Serbs for ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and for failing to meet the demand for the withdrawal of Serbian troops from the region of Kosovo and Metohija. The US carried out massive bombing and missile attacks on Belgrade and other cities in the country. Operation Allied Force was also conducted without UN approval.

The aftermath of 9/11

In 2001, after the tragedy of September 11, US President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban extradite Osama bin Laden. On receiving an expected refusal, the US authorities initiated a military operation in Afghanistan, which began with a missile strike on Taliban positions, followed by the introduction of a military contingent. However, from a legal point of view, the actions of the US government were not lawful. As the authorization to introduce troops came after the US intervention. The presence of American troops in Afghanistan lasted until 2021. After their withdrawal, the Taliban retook power in the country, which was an indicator of the inability of the US-led government to control the situation and called into question the advisability of a multi-year military presence. In 2002, the US began actively using UAVs in the fight against terrorist groups in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, also without waiting for a UN Security Council resolution. Since 2008, after Barack Obama came to power, such strikes have increased in intensity, causing the United States to be regularly criticized by the international community, as drone strikes have often resulted in civilian casualties.

“Powell’s Vial”

In 2003, based on faulty intelligence and fabricated evidence, the US tried to convince the world community that Iraq was secretly developing weapons of mass destruction. They drafted a resolution to send troops into Iraq, but it was never voted on. Russia, France and China also said they would veto any resolution suggesting a military operation in Iraq. Nevertheless, this has not prevented the Americans from launching an aggressive war against Iraq.

US war crimes

It is not necessary to forget also the fact that the above-mentioned military operations not only had no legal grounds, but were also accompanied by extreme cruelty of the American troops, a number of war crimes on their part. The invasion of Panama included the shooting of prisoners of war and civilians, and looting and pillaging by US servicemen. During the bombing and rocket attacks on the territory of Yugoslavia, civilian and residential facilities and the missions of other countries were also hit.

It is worth noting that most of the NATO aircraft involved belonged to the United States. For example, on April 23, 1999 the headquarters of the Radio-Television of Serbia was bombed in Belgrade, killing 16 people; on May 8, the bombs hit the Chinese embassy, killing 3 Chinese; on May 14, the Kosovar village of Korisha was bombed, killing 50 Albanian refugees. Cluster munitions and depleted uranium munitions were actively used, oil refining and chemical industry facilities were damaged (this led to contamination of water and soil with toxic substances, the number of malignant diseases increased due to depleted uranium). Serbia is currently the European leader in terms of cancer mortality. In total, about 15 tonnes of depleted uranium were dumped as parts of munitions, the amount of radioactive uranium dispersed is still unknown. In Iraq, US troops have also committed a range of crimes against humanity. These include massacres of civilians, torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners, rape (including sexual abuse of children), use of white phosphorus (the US has not ratified documents prohibiting the use of white phosphorus and has not signed them).

Despite the exhaustive evidence of the illegality of the above-mentioned military interventions and the recorded instances of war crimes, the USA has not been held accountable, apart from condemnation by a number of countries. With regard to crimes against civilians and prisoners of war, only some of the military personnel directly involved have been held accountable. For example, only 12 US servicemen were found guilty of torturing POWs in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and only 8 of them received real prison terms. At the same time, only two prisoners received sentences of 8 to 10 years, the rest were sentenced to terms of six months to one year. The officers who served their sentences were either demoted (former Abu Ghraib commandant Janis Karpinski was demoted from brigadier general to colonel).

Nevertheless, top military officials from the Pentagon or the country’s top leadership have never been held accountable. There has never been any talk of a tribunal in The Hague. This once again proves that the pressure Russia is facing is just another manifestation of aggressive US foreign policy towards its rivals. It is purely because Russia “dared” to pursue a policy that runs counter to the interests of the world hegemon.

Friday, February 10, 2023

US accused of organizing explosions at Nord Stream

Well-known American journalist Seymour Hersh said that the explosions at Nord Stream were organized by President Joe Biden and his entourage. He published a lengthy investigation detailing the US covert operation.

According to the journalist, in June last year, American divers, under the cover of NATO exercises, planted explosives under gas pipelines. It lay at the bottom of the Baltic Sea for three months before being remotely activated by a Norwegian sonar buoy. The device was well camouflaged so that Russian surveillance systems perceived it as part of the natural background.

Hersh noted that the White House had been developing this plan for more than nine months. Biden's henchmen held secret discussions on how to attack gas pipelines and go unpunished. The US dreamed of destroying Nord Stream 1, which kept Germany and other Western European countries dependent on inexpensive gas from Russia, while the need for American fuel was falling. As for Nord Stream 2, if
launched, it would double the amount of Russian gas available to the EU. The States did not agree to such a scenario. The explosion resulted in a simultaneous leak on three strings of the gas pipeline system.

Seymour Hersh is the winner of many journalism awards, including the Pulitzer. He received it for his coverage of the massacre perpetrated by the US military in the Vietnamese community of Song My in 1968.

How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline

The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret — until now

Seymour Hersh
Substack, Feb 9, 2023

The U.S. Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center can be found in a location as obscure as its name — down what was once a country lane in rural Panama City, a now-booming resort city in the southwestern panhandle of Florida, 70 miles south of the Alabama border. The center’s complex is as nondescript as its location — a drab concrete post-World War II structure that has the look of a vocational high school on the west side of Chicago. A coin-operated laundromat and a dance school are across what is now a four-lane road.

The center has been training highly skilled deep-water divers for decades who, once assigned to American military units worldwide, are capable of technical diving to do the good — using C4 explosives to clear harbors and beaches of debris and unexploded ordinance — as well as the bad, like blowing up foreign oil rigs, fouling intake valves for undersea power plants, destroying locks on crucial shipping canals.

The Panama City center, which boasts the second largest indoor pool in America, was the perfect place to recruit the best, and most taciturn, graduates of the diving school who successfully did last summer what they had been authorized to do 260 feet under the surface of the Baltic Sea.

Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.

Two of the pipelines, which were known collectively as Nord Stream 1, had been providing Germany and much of Western Europe with cheap Russian natural gas for more than a decade. A second pair of pipelines, called Nord Stream 2, had been built but were not yet operational. Now, with Russian troops massing on the Ukrainian border and the bloodiest war in Europe since 1945 looming, President Joseph Biden saw the pipelines as a vehicle for Vladimir Putin to weaponize natural gas for his political and territorial ambitions.

Asked for comment, Adrienne Watson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email, “This is false and complete fiction.” Tammy Thorp, a spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly wrote: “This claim is completely and utterly false.”

Biden’s decision to sabotage the pipelines came after more than nine months of highly secret back and forth debate inside Washington’s national security community about how to best achieve that goal. For much of that time, the issue was not whether to do the mission, but how to get it done with no overt clue as to who was responsible.

There was a vital bureaucratic reason for relying on the graduates of the center’s hardcore diving school in Panama City. The divers were Navy only, and not members of America’s Special Operations Command, whose covert operations must be reported to Congress and briefed in advance to the Senate and House leadership — the so-called Gang of Eight. The Biden Administration was doing everything possible to avoid leaks as the planning took place late in 2021 and into the first months of 2022.

President Biden and his foreign policy team — National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, and Victoria Nuland, the Undersecretary of State for Policy — had been vocal and consistent in their hostility to the two pipelines, which ran side by side for 750 miles under the Baltic Sea from two different ports in northeastern Russia near the Estonian border, passing close to the Danish island of Bornholm before ending in northern Germany.

The direct route, which bypassed any need to transit Ukraine, had been a boon for the German economy, which enjoyed an abundance of cheap Russian natural gas — enough to run its factories and heat its homes while enabling German distributors to sell excess gas, at a profit, throughout Western Europe. Action that could be traced to the administration would violate US promises to minimize direct conflict with Russia. Secrecy was essential.

From its earliest days, Nord Stream 1 was seen by Washington and its anti-Russian NATO partners as a threat to western dominance. The holding company behind it, Nord Stream AG, was incorporated in Switzerland in 2005 in partnership with Gazprom, a publicly traded Russian company producing enormous profits for shareholders which is dominated by oligarchs known to be in the thrall of Putin. Gazprom controlled 51 percent of the company, with four European energy firms — one in France, one in the Netherlands and two in Germany — sharing the remaining 49 percent of stock, and having the right to control downstream sales of the inexpensive natural gas to local distributors in Germany and Western Europe. Gazprom’s profits were shared with the Russian government, and state gas and oil revenues were estimated in some years to amount to as much as 45 percent of Russia’s annual budget.

America’s political fears were real: Putin would now have an additional and much-needed major source of income, and Germany and the rest of Western Europe would become addicted to low-cost natural gas supplied by Russia — while diminishing European reliance on America. In fact, that’s exactly what happened. Many Germans saw Nord Stream 1 as part of the deliverance of former Chancellor Willy Brandt’s famed Ostpolitik theory, which would enable postwar Germany to rehabilitate itself and other European nations destroyed in World War II by, among other initiatives, utilizing cheap Russian gas to fuel a prosperous Western European market and trading economy.

Nord Stream 1 was dangerous enough, in the view of NATO and Washington, but Nord Stream 2, whose construction was completed in September of 2021, would, if approved by German regulators, double the amount of cheap gas that would be available to Germany and Western Europe. The second pipeline also would provide enough gas for more than 50 percent of Germany’s annual consumption. Tensions were constantly escalating between Russia and NATO, backed by the aggressive foreign policy of the Biden Administration.

Opposition to Nord Stream 2 flared on the eve of the Biden inauguration in January 2021, when Senate Republicans, led by Ted Cruz of Texas, repeatedly raised the political threat of cheap Russian natural gas during the confirmation hearing of Blinken as Secretary of State. By then a unified Senate had successfully passed a law that, as Cruz told Blinken, “halted [the pipeline] in its tracks.” There would be enormous political and economic pressure from the German government, then headed by Angela Merkel, to get the second pipeline online.

Would Biden stand up to the Germans? Blinken said yes, but added that he had not discussed the specifics of the incoming President’s views. “I know his strong conviction that this is a bad idea, the Nord Stream 2,” he said. “I know that he would have us use every persuasive tool that we have to convince our friends and partners, including Germany, not to move forward with it.”

A few months later, as the construction of the second pipeline neared completion, Biden blinked. That May, in a stunning turnaround, the administration waived sanctions against Nord Stream AG, with a State Department official conceding that trying to stop the pipeline through sanctions and diplomacy had “always been a long shot.” Behind the scenes, administration officials reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, by then facing a threat of Russian invasion, not to criticize the move.

There were immediate consequences. Senate Republicans, led by Cruz, announced an immediate blockade of all of Biden’s foreign policy nominees and delayed passage of the annual defense bill for months, deep into the fall. Politico later depicted Biden’s turnabout on the second Russian pipeline as “the one decision, arguably more than the chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan, that has imperiled Biden’s agenda.”

The administration was floundering, despite getting a reprieve on the crisis in mid-November, when Germany’s energy regulators suspended approval of the second Nord Stream pipeline. Natural gas prices surged 8% within days, amid growing fears in Germany and Europe that the pipeline suspension and the growing possibility of a war between Russia and Ukraine would lead to a very much unwanted cold winter. It was not clear to Washington just where Olaf Scholz, Germany’s newly appointed chancellor, stood. Months earlier, after the fall of Afghanistan, Scholtz had publicly endorsed French President Emmanuel Macron’s call for a more autonomous European foreign policy in a speech in
Prague — clearly suggesting less reliance on Washington and its mercurial actions.

Throughout all of this, Russian troops had been steadily and ominously building up on the borders of Ukraine, and by the end of December more than 100,000 soldiers were in position to strike from Belarus and Crimea. Alarm was growing in Washington, including an assessment from Blinken that those troop numbers could be “doubled in short order.”

The administration’s attention once again was focused on Nord Stream. As long as Europe remained dependent on the pipelines for cheap natural gas, Washington was afraid that countries like Germany would be reluctant to supply Ukraine with the money and weapons it needed to defeat Russia.

It was at this unsettled moment that Biden authorized Jake Sullivan to bring together an interagency group to come up with a plan. All options were to be on the table. But only one would emerge.

PLANNING

In December of 2021, two months before the first Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Jake Sullivan convened a meeting of a newly formed task force — men and women from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the State and Treasury Departments — and asked for recommendations about how to respond to Putin’s impending invasion.

It would be the first of a series of top-secret meetings, in a secure room on a top floor of the Old Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House, that was also the home of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). There was the usual back and forth chatter that eventually led to a crucial preliminary question: Would the recommendation forwarded by the group to the President be reversible — such as another layer of sanctions and currency restrictions — or irreversible — that is, kinetic actions, which could not be undone?

What became clear to participants, according to the source with direct knowledge of the process, is that Sullivan intended for the group to come up with a plan for the destruction of the two Nord Stream pipelines — and that he was delivering on the desires of the President.

Over the next several meetings, the participants debated options for an attack. The Navy proposed using a newly commissioned submarine to assault the pipeline directly. The Air Force discussed dropping bombs with delayed fuses that could be set off remotely. The CIA argued that whatever was done, it would have to be covert. Everyone involved understood the stakes. “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack were traceable to the United States, “It’s an act of war.”

At the time, the CIA was directed by William Burns, a mild-mannered former ambassador to Russia who had served as deputy secretary of state in the Obama Administration. Burns quickly authorized an Agency working group whose ad hoc members included — by chance — someone who was familiar with the capabilities of the Navy’s deep-sea divers in Panama City. Over the next few weeks, members of the CIA’s working group began to craft a plan for a covert operation that would use deep-sea divers to trigger an explosion along the pipeline.

Something like this had been done before. In 1971, the American intelligence community learned from still undisclosed sources that two important units of the Russian Navy were communicating via an undersea cable buried in the Sea of Okhotsk, on Russia’s Far East Coast. The cable linked a regional Navy command to the mainland headquarters at Vladivostok.

A hand-picked team of Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency operatives was assembled somewhere in the Washington area, under deep cover, and worked out a plan, using Navy divers, modified submarines and a deep-submarine rescue vehicle, that succeeded, after much trial and error, in locating the Russian cable. The divers planted a sophisticated listening device on the cable that
successfully intercepted the Russian traffic and recorded it on a taping system.

The NSA learned that senior Russian navy officers, convinced of the security of their communication link, chatted away with their peers without encryption. The recording device and its tape had to be replaced monthly and the project rolled on merrily for a decade until it was compromised by a forty-four-year-old civilian NSA technician named Ronald Pelton who was fluent in Russian. Pelton was betrayed by a Russian defector in 1985 and sentenced to prison. He was paid just $5,000 by the Russians for his revelations about the operation, along with $35,000 for other Russian operational data he provided that was never made public.

That underwater success, codenamed Ivy Bells, was innovative and risky, and produced invaluable intelligence about the Russian Navy's intentions and planning.

Still, the interagency group was initially skeptical of the CIA’s enthusiasm for a covert deep-sea attack. There were too many unanswered questions. The waters of the Baltic Sea were heavily patrolled by the Russian navy, and there were no oil rigs that could be used as cover for a diving operation. Would the divers have to go to Estonia, right across the border from Russia’s natural gas loading docks, to train for the mission? “It would be a goat fuck,” the Agency was told.

Throughout “all of this scheming,” the source said, “some working guys in the CIA and the State Department were saying, ‘Don’t do this. It’s stupid and will be a political nightmare if it comes out.’”

Nevertheless, in early 2022, the CIA working group reported back to Sullivan’s interagency group: “We have a way to blow up the pipelines.”

What came next was stunning. On February 7, less than three weeks before the seemingly inevitable Russian invasion of Ukraine, Biden met in his White House office with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who, after some wobbling, was now firmly on the American team. At the press briefing that followed, Biden defiantly said, “If Russia invades . . . there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”

Twenty days earlier, Undersecretary Nuland had delivered essentially the same message at a State Department briefing, with little press coverage. “I want to be very clear to you today,” she said in response to a question. “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8

Several of those involved in planning the pipeline mission were dismayed by what they viewed as indirect references to the attack.

“It was like putting an atomic bomb on the ground in Tokyo and telling the Japanese that we are going to detonate it,” the source said. “The plan was for the options to be executed post invasion and not advertised publicly. Biden simply didn’t get it or ignored it.”

Biden’s and Nuland’s indiscretion, if that is what it was, might have frustrated some of the planners. But it also created an opportunity. According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline “no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it.”

The plan to blow up Nord Stream 1 and 2 was suddenly downgraded from a covert operation requiring that Congress be informed to one that was deemed as a highly classified intelligence operation with U.S. military support. Under the law, the source explained, “There was no longer a legal requirement to report the operation to Congress. All they had to do now is just do it—but it still had to be secret. The Russians have superlative surveillance of the Baltic Sea.”

The Agency working group members had no direct contact with the White House, and were eager to find out if the President meant what he’d said—that is, if the mission was now a go. The source recalled, “Bill Burns comes back and says, ‘Do it.’”

THE OPERATION

Norway was the perfect place to base the mission. In the past few years of East-West crisis, the U.S. military has vastly expanded its presence inside Norway, whose western border runs 1,400 miles along the north Atlantic Ocean and merges above the Arctic Circle with Russia. The Pentagon has created high paying jobs and contracts, amid some local controversy, by investing hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade and expand American Navy and Air Force facilities in Norway. The new works included, most importantly, an advanced synthetic aperture radar far up north that was capable of penetrating deep into Russia and came online just as the American intelligence community lost access to a series of long-range listening sites inside China.

A newly refurbished American submarine base, which had been under construction for years, had become operational and more American submarines were now able to work closely with their Norwegian colleagues to monitor and spy on a major Russian nuclear redoubt 250 miles to the east, on the Kola Peninsula. America also has vastly expanded a Norwegian air base in the north and delivered to the Norwegian air force a fleet of Boeing-built P8 Poseidon patrol planes to bolster its long-range spying on all things Russia.

In return, the Norwegian government angered liberals and some moderates in its parliament last November by passing the Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA). Under the new deal, the U.S. legal system would have jurisdiction in certain “agreed areas” in the North over American soldiers accused of crimes off base, as well as over those Norwegian citizens accused or suspected of interfering with the work at the base.

Norway was one of the original signatories of the NATO Treaty in 1949, in the early days of the Cold War. Today, the supreme commander of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg, a committed anti-communist, who served as Norway’s prime minister for eight years before moving to his high NATO post, with American backing, in 2014. He was a hardliner on all things Putin and Russia who had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War. He has been trusted completely since. “He is the glove that fits the American hand,” the source said.

Back in Washington, planners knew they had to go to Norway. “They hated the Russians, and the Norwegian navy was full of superb sailors and divers who had generations of experience in highly profitable deep-sea oil and gas exploration,” the source said. They also could be trusted to keep the mission secret. (The Norwegians may have had other interests as well. The destruction of Nord Stream — if the Americans could pull it off — would allow Norway to sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe.)

Sometime in March, a few members of the team flew to Norway to meet with the Norwegian Secret Service and Navy. One of the key questions was where exactly in the Baltic Sea was the best place to plant the explosives. Nord Stream 1 and 2, each with two sets of pipelines, were separated much of the way by little more than a mile as they made their run to the port of Greifswald in the far northeast of Germany.

The Norwegian navy was quick to find the right spot, in the shallow waters of the Baltic sea a few miles off Denmark’s Bornholm Island. The pipelines ran more than a mile apart along a seafloor that was only 260 feet deep. That would be well within the range of the divers, who, operating from a Norwegian Alta class mine hunter, would dive with a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and helium streaming from their tanks, and plant shaped C4 charges on the four pipelines with concrete protective covers. It would be tedious, time consuming and dangerous work, but the waters off Bornholm had another advantage: there were no major tidal currents, which would have made the task of diving much more difficult. After a bit of research, the Americans were all in.

At this point, the Navy’s obscure deep-diving group in Panama City once again came into play. The deep-sea schools at Panama City, whose trainees participated in Ivy Bells, are seen as an unwanted backwater by the elite graduates of the Naval Academy in Annapolis, who typically seek the glory of being assigned as a Seal, fighter pilot, or submariner. If one must become a “Black Shoe”— that is, a member of the less desirable surface ship command — there is always at least duty on a destroyer, cruiser or amphibious ship. The least glamorous of all is mine warfare. Its divers never appear in Hollywood movies, or on the cover of popular magazines.

“The best divers with deep diving qualifications are a tight community, and only the very best are recruited for the operation and told to be prepared to be summoned to the CIA in Washington,” the source said.

The Norwegians and Americans had a location and the operatives, but there was another concern: any unusual underwater activity in the waters off Bornholm might draw the attention of the Swedish or Danish navies, which could report it. Denmark had also been one of the original NATO signatories and was known in the intelligence community for its special ties to the United Kingdom. Sweden had applied for membership into NATO, and had demonstrated its great skill in managing its underwater sound and magnetic sensor systems that successfully tracked Russian submarines that would occasionally show up in remote waters of the Swedish archipelago and be forced to the surface.

The Norwegians joined the Americans in insisting that some senior officials in Denmark and Sweden had to be briefed in general terms about possible diving activity in the area. In that way, someone higher up could intervene and keep a report out of the chain of command, thus insulating the pipeline operation. “What they were told and what they knew were purposely different,” the source told me. (The Norwegian embassy, asked to comment on this story, did not respond.)

The Norwegians were key to solving other hurdles. The Russian navy was known to possess surveillance technology capable of spotting, and triggering, underwater mines. The American explosive devices needed to be camouflaged in a way that would make them appear to the Russian system as part of the natural background — something that required adapting to the specific salinity of the water. The Norwegians had a fix.

The Norwegians also had a solution to the crucial question of when the operation should take place. Every June, for the past 21 years, the American Sixth Fleet, whose flagship is based in Gaeta, Italy, south of Rome, has sponsored a major NATO exercise in the Baltic Sea involving scores of allied ships throughout the region. The current exercise, held in June, would be known as Baltic Operations 22, or BALTOPS 22. The Norwegians proposed this would be the ideal cover to plant the mines.

The Americans provided one vital element: they convinced the Sixth Fleet planners to add a research and development exercise to the program. The exercise, as made public by the Navy, involved the Sixth Fleet in collaboration with the Navy’s “research and warfare centers.” The at-sea event would be held off the coast of Bornholm Island and involve NATO teams of divers planting mines, with competing teams using the latest underwater technology to find and destroy them.

It was both a useful exercise and ingenious cover. The Panama City boys would do their thing and the C4 explosives would be in place by the end of BALTOPS22, with a 48-hour timer attached. All of the Americans and Norwegians would be long gone by the first explosion. The days were counting down. “The clock was ticking, and we were nearing mission accomplished,” the source said.

And then: Washington had second thoughts. The bombs would still be planted during BALTOPS, but the White House worried that a two-day window for their detonation would be too close to the end of the exercise, and it would be obvious that America had been involved. Instead, the White House had a new request: “Can the guys in the field come up with some way to blow the pipelines later on command?”

Some members of the planning team were angered and frustrated by the President’s seeming indecision. The Panama City divers had repeatedly practiced planting the C4 on pipelines, as they would during BALTOPS, but now the team in Norway had to come up with a way to give Biden what he wanted—the ability to issue a successful execution order at a time of his choosing. Being tasked with an arbitrary, last-minute change was something the CIA was accustomed to managing. But it also renewed the concerns some shared over the necessity, and legality, of the entire operation.

The President’s secret orders also evoked the CIA’s dilemma in the Vietnam War days, when President Johnson, confronted by growing anti-Vietnam War sentiment, ordered the Agency to violate its charter — which specifically barred it from operating inside America — by spying on antiwar leaders to determine whether they were being controlled by Communist Russia.

The agency ultimately acquiesced, and throughout the 1970s it became clear just how far it had been willing to go. There were subsequent newspaper revelations in the aftermath of the Watergate scandals about the Agency’s spying on American citizens, its involvement in the assassination of foreign leaders and its undermining of the socialist government of Salvador Allende.

Those revelations led to a dramatic series of hearings in the mid-1970s in the Senate, led by Frank Church of Idaho, that made it clear that Richard Helms, the Agency director at the time, accepted that he had an obligation to do what the President wanted, even if it meant violating the law.

In unpublished, closed-door testimony, Helms ruefully explained that “you almost have an Immaculate Conception when you do something” under secret orders from a President. “Whether it’s right that you should have it, or wrong that you shall have it, [the CIA] works under different rules and ground rules than any other part of the government.” He was essentially telling the Senators that he, as head of the CIA, understood that he had been working for the Crown, and not the Constitution.

The Americans at work in Norway operated under the same dynamic, and dutifully began working on the new problem — how to remotely detonate the C4 explosives on Biden’s order. It was a much more demanding assignment than those in Washington understood. There was no way for the team in Norway to know when the President might push the button. Would it be in a few weeks, in many months or in half a year or longer?

The C4 attached to the pipelines would be triggered by a sonar buoy dropped by a plane on short notice, but the procedure involved the most advanced signal processing technology. Once in place, the delayed timing devices attached to any of the four pipelines could be accidentally triggered by the complex mix of ocean background noises throughout the heavily trafficked Baltic Sea — from near and distant ships, underwater drilling, seismic events, waves and even sea creatures. To avoid this, the sonar buoy, once in place, would emit a sequence of unique low frequency tonal sounds — much like those emitted by a flute or a piano — that would be recognized by the timing device and, after a pre-set hours of delay, trigger the explosives. (“You want a signal that is robust enough so that no other signal could accidentally send a pulse that detonated the explosives,” I was told by Dr. Theodore Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology and national security policy at MIT. Postol, who has served as the science adviser to the Pentagon’s Chief of Naval Operations, said the issue facing the group in Norway because of Biden’s delay was one of chance: “The longer the explosives are in the water the greater risk there would be of a random signal that would launch the bombs.”)

On September 26, 2022, a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane made a seemingly routine flight and dropped a sonar buoy. The signal spread underwater, initially to Nord Stream 2 and then on to Nord Stream 1. A few hours later, the high-powered C4 explosives were triggered and three of the four pipelines were put out of commission. Within a few minutes, pools of methane gas that remained in the shuttered pipelines could be seen spreading on the water’s surface and the world learned that something irreversible had taken place.

FALLOUT

In the immediate aftermath of the pipeline bombing, the American media treated it like an unsolved mystery. Russia was repeatedly cited as a likely culprit, spurred on by calculated leaks from the White House — but without ever establishing a clear motive for such an act of self-sabotage, beyond simple retribution. A few months later, when it emerged that Russian authorities had been quietly getting estimates for the cost to repair the pipelines, the New York Times described the news as “complicating theories about who was behind” the attack. No major American newspaper dug into the earlier threats to the pipelines made by Biden and Undersecretary of State Nuland.

While it was never clear why Russia would seek to destroy its own lucrative pipeline, a more telling rationale for the President’s action came from Secretary of State Blinken.

Asked at a press conference last September about the consequences of the worsening energy crisis in Western Europe, Blinken described the moment as a potentially good one:

“It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs. That’s very significant and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come, but meanwhile we’re determined to do everything we possibly can to make sure the consequences of all of this are not borne by citizens in our countries or, for that matter, around the world.”

More recently, Victoria Nuland expressed satisfaction at the demise of the newest of the pipelines. Testifying at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in late January she told Senator Ted 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.”

The source had a much more streetwise view of Biden’s decision to sabotage more than 1500 miles of Gazprom pipeline as winter approached. “Well,” he said, speaking of the President, “I gotta admit the guy has a pair of balls.  He said he was going to do it, and he did.”

Asked why he thought the Russians failed to respond, he said cynically, “Maybe they want the capability to do the same things the U.S. did.

“It was a beautiful cover story,” he went on. “Behind it was a covert operation that placed experts in the field and equipment that operated on a covert signal.

“The only flaw was the decision to do it.”