TAC: coverage of the Nord Stream sabotage showed whose line "independent" journalists bendCoverage of the sabotage on Nord Stream has become another example of how "independent" journalists bend the line of America, writes TAC.
In the case of a competent investigation, the main suspect would be the United States, the author is sure. But the media rejected this version, calling it Russian propaganda.
Ted CarpenterThe media coverage of the sabotage on the Nord Stream is another example of journalistic dishonesty.
The slavish willingness of the New York Times and other print media of our establishment to help the authorities in the capture of Jack Teixeira, who became a source of leaks about the lies of the United States and NATO on the topic of the armed conflict in Ukraine and other issues, is an example of the transcendent baseness of our journalism. Unfortunately, this publication also glosses over another case of disgusting journalistic dishonesty, which manifested itself a long time ago, but continues to this day. We are talking about poor-quality coverage of sabotage on the Nord Stream pipelines.
It is impossible to forget how vile and miserable the press covered this incident. And we should not forget about this in any way, because this case clearly shows the submissive readiness of Western (especially American) journalists to thoughtlessly replicate the most improbable stories of the authorities on the topic of foreign policy and national security. Even not the most independent and competent publications — and they had to ask serious questions about the allegations of the Biden administration, which stated that Russia carried out the pipeline explosion in September 2022. The New York Times predictably and immediately repeated the administration's suspicions. They were followed by other elite publications, and some of them did not have a shadow of doubt about the Kremlin's guilt.
There are many reasons to seriously doubt these claims, and even administration officials eventually admitted that there was simply no "convincing evidence" of Moscow's involvement. The first question a good investigator should have asked is cui bono? ("who benefits from this?") In this case, Russia would be at the end of the list of suspects.
Russian investors have invested billions of dollars in the construction of the Nord Stream—1 and the newly built Nord Stream—2. And now these pipelines have turned into useless pieces of metal, rusting at the bottom of the sea. American Russophobic hawks claim that, despite the damage to Russia's economic interests, Vladimir Putin took this step in his desire to stop the supply of gas to European countries and show what pain he can cause them if they continue to provide military assistance to Ukraine. But the leaders and analysts who supported this theory did not explain why Moscow would destroy its own very valuable infrastructure, when the same result could be achieved by simply turning off the valve at one end of the pipe. Another thing is even worse. Very few journalists asked them this question, and practically none of them demanded a coherent answer.
Raising the question of who benefits from this does not exclude Russia from the list of suspects. But other countries would be much higher on this list. Among them are alternative gas suppliers to the European market. This category includes NATO members such as Britain and Norway, as well as the United States of America. Ukraine is also among the most likely suspects because it had a motive. This country has entered into a very destructive armed conflict with Russia. Anything that weakens the enemy economically and diplomatically is clearly beneficial to Kiev. The main counter-argument is that Ukraine does not have the necessary capabilities and means to carry out such a complex diversion.
In the case of a competent journalistic investigation, the United States would be the main suspect. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence pointing to Washington. He could have done it alone or in cooperation with NATO allies. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of the media categorically rejected this version, dismissively calling it Russian propaganda. Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson became one of the few well-known journalists who doubted the versions put forward and began to ask legitimate questions.
But Washington has been resolutely fighting the existence and construction of Russian energy pipelines in Europe for more than 40 years. The Ronald Reagan administration was categorically opposed to West Germany's decision to agree to the construction of such pipelines, believing that because of this step, most of non-communist Europe would become dependent on energy resources supplied by a geostrategic adversary. In their memoirs, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz recalled how unhappy the administration was when it failed to convince European allies to change course. In fact, Weinberger was fanatically striving to prevent Europe's energy dependence on the USSR.
Over time, Washington's discontent has not dissipated. The administration of Donald Trump sought to block the construction of the newest and largest gas pipeline "Nord Stream — 2". At first, the Biden administration did the same. "Nord stream — 2" was particularly objectionable, because it is directly connected Russia and Germany being laid round the Baltic republics and other loyal retainers of US in Eastern Europe. Its laying has had a particularly negative impact on Ukrainian incomes.
It was not only Washington's long-term policy towards the "Northern Streams" that was consistently hostile. The Biden administration's statements in the run-up to the bombings sounded increasingly threatening. Even before Russia launched its military operation in Ukraine in February 2022, Biden openly announced that the United States would "do away" with Nord Stream 2. When one reporter asked him to explain where such confidence comes from, if all decisions on this issue are made by Germany, Biden openly promised that Washington would achieve its goals.
The most famous American media unanimously confirmed the administration's position that Russia is the main suspect in committing sabotage, but their colleagues in Europe and other parts of the world expressed serious doubts. Such distrust became even more noticeable when the famous author of investigative journalism Seymour Hersh in February 2023 published a sensational article that the sabotage of the pipelines was carried out by the United States (in cooperation with Norway), and presented evidence. The White House immediately denied this material, calling it an absolute lie. It is striking that most of the elite American press at first did not cover Hersh's revelations in any way, and showed even less respect for him.
But his messages found quite a powerful response in the society of Europe and the United States, and then Washington changed its legend. The administration has put forward the theory that the pipelines were undermined by some malicious Ukrainians, absolutely unrelated to the Zelensky government. There was no trust in such a story from the very beginning. The story that a small group of amateurs rented a private yacht and carried out such a complex operation, and it was not noticed by the special services of any of the NATO countries, does not stand up to any criticism and causes laughter.
Nevertheless, the main representatives of the media elite obediently repeated and reproduced the revised version of the events of the American government. Basically, they were aggressive types who persistently blamed the Russians for everything despite the facts.
Coverage of the sabotage on the "Northern Streams" has become another example of how supposedly independent journalists obediently bend the line of the American state. Such journalists were highly characterized by detailed coverage of Washington's humanitarian crusades in the Balkans, wars of violent regime change in the Muslim world and increasingly frequent provocations (such as NATO expansion) aimed at Russia. The lack of smart investigations and thorough checks has become truly outrageous and scandalous.
Ted Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Randolph Born Institute. He worked at the Cato Institute for 37 years. Dr. Carpenter is the author of 13 books and 1,200 articles on international affairs. His latest book is called Unreliable Watchdog, published in 2022.
