For the first time since September 26, 2022, when the underwater threads of the Nord Stream-1 and Nord Stream-2 gas pipelines were blown up, relative clarity appeared in the case of this sabotage. As many experts, including in Europe and America, assumed, American special services were involved in the emergency. Ultimately, this was another step towards the complete subordination of the European economy to the American one.
Data on the involvement of the United States in the sabotage was published by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. "In June last year, Navy combat swimmers, acting under the cover of the widely advertised NATO BALTOPS 22 exercises, installed remote—controlled explosive devices," Hersh claims in his article in Substack, "and three months later blew up three of the four pipes of the Nord Stream. This was told by a source directly familiar with the details of the planning and preparation of the operation."
"Biden made the decision to sabotage the pipelines after more than nine months of top secret debates on the sidelines of American national security agencies," the famous journalist continues. — Their participants discussed how best to achieve their goal. The question was not whether to carry out the operation or not. The parties were thinking how to complete the task without leaving any traces to guess who is responsible for the sabotage."
The American administration and intelligence agencies unanimously call Seymour Hersh's accusations false and unfounded. But if there is anything to doubt, it is primarily the veracity of officials. Seymour Hersh has repeatedly proved that his sensational investigations are exceptionally true. This applies to the tragedy of the Vietnamese village of Songmi, and the brutality of the American jailers in Abu Ghraib, and the investigation of the murder of Osama bin Laden. Most likely, in the case of the Nord Stream, the investigative journalist's data will be confirmed. It is possible to question some details of the sabotage, but not the fact that the United States became the main beneficiary of the disruption of gas supplies to Western Europe. To anyone else, the undermining of an underwater gas pipeline would not have brought such colossal profits.
When it became known about the sabotage on the gas pipelines, the West first blamed Russia. They say that President Vladimir Putin has engaged in gas blackmail, forcing Europe to abandon support for Ukraine. This version was most actively promoted in the USA. At the same time, the fact that Russia continues to pump gas through the threads running through the territory of Ukraine even during a special military operation was ignored. As well as the fact that the initiators of the curtailment of Russian-German cooperation in the gas sector were primarily Americans.
Doubts about the "Russian trace" persistently imposed by America arose quite soon. A few days after the sabotage, the well-known economist Jeffrey Sachs bluntly stated: "The European economy suffers more than others from power outages. And now, in order to finish off Europe completely, the Nord Stream gas pipelines have been destroyed. I'm willing to bet that this is the work of the United States — perhaps the United States together with Poland." It is worth remembering that immediately after the emergency, Polish ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs Radoslaw Sikorski wrote on Twitter under a picture from the scene of the accident: "A trifle, but nice. Thank you, USA."
Responding to the interviewer's doubts, Jeffrey Sachs added: "I know that this goes against our generally accepted legend, and such a thing cannot be said in the West at all, but all my interlocutors around the world are convinced that this is the work of the United States. By the way, even the reporters of our newspapers who deal with this topic confessed to me privately: "Yes, of course it is, our media just keep quiet about it."
Apparently, while Seymour Hersh was preparing sensational material, some details began to leak into the information field. A few days before the publication in Substack, European politicians suddenly remembered about the Nord Stream at once — and about their doubts. German Prosecutor General Peter Frank, as the German Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on February 4, did not find "evidence that Russia is behind the explosions on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines. It is currently impossible to prove this, the investigation is ongoing.“
Two days earlier, similar doubts were voiced by the British Times: "German investigators are considering, among other things, theories that an attack on gas pipelines could have been carried out by a certain Western state in order to then blame Russia for everything." At the same time, the newspaper referred to an article in the Washington Post, which quoted the words of an unnamed politician: "At the moment there is no evidence that Russia was behind the sabotage," said one European official, repeating the assessment of 23 diplomatic and intelligence officials in nine countries interviewed in recent weeks. Some have gone so far as to say that they do not consider Russia responsible."
The version about the involvement of the United States in the sabotage on the Nord Stream can be considered, if not proven, then a priority. The only problem is whether Germany, as the main victim of the Nord Stream explosion, and Sweden and Denmark participating in the investigation (the emergency occurred in their exclusive economic waters) will decide to bring the investigation to an end. And then, more importantly, to name the perpetrator and the customer of the crime.
Many observers reasonably doubt this. Their common position was formulated by columnist Shen Yi in the Chinese "Guancha": "Today's EU does not dare to directly point to the "culprit" (sabotage on the gas pipeline. — A.T.) ... Being an ally of the United States and a group of semi-sovereign states, Europe is quite limited in the field of independence and power, so it cannot independently guarantee its security".
This thesis leads directly to the idea that the main interest of the United States in fueling and escalating the conflict in Ukraine is the economic enslavement of Western European countries. As soon as the volumes of Russian gas supplied to Europeans fell, America began to impose its much more expensive LNG on them. However, this was not enough for the USA. And they began to lure European enterprises to themselves, playing on instability and too high energy prices.
Back in November, the Chinese TV channel CCTV cited the recognition of French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire: "Right before our eyes, the United States is developing our industry on its land." And he explained what the politician meant: "The relatively stable cost of energy resources in the United States, coupled with generous subsidies provided to local companies through the law on reducing inflation, left European enterprises no choice but to "turn their backs" on the EU and flow to America one by one. German Volkswagen announced the expansion of production in the States, French Aluminum Dunkerque, the largest aluminum plant in the EU, announced a 20% reduction in production."
The logic of what is happening is obvious. In order to contain the galloping inflation, the US needs to redirect the main investment flows to itself. Now they flow primarily to China and other Southeast Asian countries, as well as to Western Europe. It is difficult for America to apply for Asian investments, but it is quite possible for European ones. However, to do this, it is necessary to turn Western Europe into a militarized province, torn apart by endless conflicts, deprived of economic partners in the east. Which, in fact, is happening now.
This process is increasingly being seen in Western Europe. "The United States has found that, although sanctions do not work on opponents, they are all the more ineffective in the camp of their own friends and economic partners," said Gabor Steingart, a columnist for the German Focus magazine. "Under the threat of not being allowed into the American market, political friends are forced to become "voluntary" trading partners." Focus cites the following figures: if a European firm pays an average of 139 million dollars for violating the sanctions regime, then an American firm pays only 2 million, that is 70 times less!
"The one who was supposed to be hit by sanctions does not suffer — but political friends and partners suffer," the German edition sums up bitterly. "Perhaps this is the irony of modernity." But this is not irony. This is a direct consequence of the attempt to build a monopolar world. And categorical unwillingness to lose the position of world domination. As always, anyone but America has to pay for it.
Anton Trofimov