Follow us on social

google cta
2023-03-07t170001z_2_lynxmpej260py_rtroptp_4_ukraine-crisis-nordstream-mothball-scaled

On NYT Nord Stream theory, German official raises specter of 'false flag'

The timing of a new report suggesting rogue 'pro-Ukrainian group' might be to blame for pipeline blast is questioned today.

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

Move over Sy Hersh, the White House has its own theory about the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines back in September 2022.

But not everyone, at least right now, is buying it — including German officials, who seem completely taken aback by Tuesday’s New York Times report, which said “new intelligence” suggests a “pro-Ukrainian group” might have been behind the sabotage.

In a German Deutsche Welle (DW) report Wednesday morning, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius “warned against premature accusations of responsibility for the attacks.”

"It may just as well have been a false flag operation staged to blame Ukraine, an option brought up in the media reports as well," Pistorius told German public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk. Meanwhile, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock “echoed the same caution, saying investigations by the relevant authorities must be concluded first,” saying Wednesday that Berlin would not "jump to conclusions" until the federal prosecution's investigation is concluded.

Meanwhile, other German joint reporting by public broadcasters ARD and SWR and Die Zeit have been conducting their own investigation, which in part fleshes out the information offered by the anonymous sources in the NYT story. According to German paper Taggesshau (translated from German):

Specifically, according to information from the ARD capital studio , "Kontraste", SWR and "ZEIT", the investigators succeeded in identifying the boat that was allegedly used for the secret operation. It is said to be a yacht rented from a company based in Poland, apparently owned by two Ukrainians. According to the investigation, the secret operation at sea was carried out by a team of six people. It is said to have been five men and one woman.

Accordingly, the group consisted of a captain, two divers, two diving assistants and a doctor, who are said to have transported the explosives to the crime scenes and placed them there. The nationality of the perpetrators is apparently unclear. (They) used professionally forged passports, which are said to have been used, among other things, to rent the boat.

According to the investigation, the command set sail from Rostock on September 6, 2022

As with the NYT article, there is no confirmation offered on the nationalities of the alleged saboteurs, or any evidence that President Zelensky or his top officials were aware of the plot. Ukrainian authorities, by the way, have been adamant that their government has no ties to the explosions.

The NYT report comes nearly a month to the day that Sy Hersh published his own explosive theory in an extensively reported piece on its Substack newsletter. In it, he alleges that a small group of expert U.S. Navy divers secretly carried out the explosions on behalf of top Washington officials who wanted to take the pipelines offline after the February 2022 Russian invasion. The story was rejected as complete "fiction" by government officials and roundly ignored by the mainstream media.

Interestingly, the NYT report says "the explosives were most likely planted with the help of experienced divers who did not appear to be working for military or intelligence services, U.S. officials who have reviewed the new intelligence said. But it is possible that the perpetrators received specialized government training in the past." (emphasis mine)

The German news investigation claims the boat that was used in the operation was launched from Rostock, Germany. Hersh's report claims the boat (a minesweeper) carrying the U.S. Navy divers launched from Bornholm Island in Denmark. Moreover, while critics of Hersh's report say no minesweeper by Hersh's description was tracked on publicly available radar on the day in question, the NYT says this:

According to a European lawmaker briefed late last year by his country’s main foreign intelligence service, investigators have been gathering information about an estimated 45 “ghost ships” whose location transponders were not on or were not working when they passed through the area, possibly to cloak their movements.

George Beebe, former CIA officer and now head of Quincy Institute's Grand Strategy program suggested the timing of Tuesday's reports didn't quite pass the smell test.

"It is suspicious to me that suddenly this intelligence comes to light — many months after the fact. It’s odd, and it very conveniently serves as an alternative to Sy Hersh's reporting," he tells me. "One could perhaps explain it but it very much begs the question, where did this come from, and why now?"

Foreign policy analysts and reporters had similar reactions on Tuesday. Jack Murphy, a Special Operations veteran, author, and journalist who in December broke a story about CIA-backed, pro-Ukraine saboteurs operating in Russia, seemed incredulous that if it were a pro-Ukrainian group, the U.S. wouldn't know about it.

"Still scratching my head over this one," he wrote on Twitter. "So, I'm to believe we cracked Russian military comms, have sources in the Kremlin, are 3 steps ahead of them, but... We have "limited visibility" into the decision making process of the Ukrainians, and are frustrated by their renegade ops?"

Others puzzled over the idea that a seemingly rogue group could be responsible for a sophisticated operation that investigators said could likely only be pulled off by a state actor — and only a handful of states at that. While investigations have been ongoing, Russia's culpability — which had been suggested from the get-go by American officials, punditry and media — has been all but written off.

If this is some sort of false flag — traces left to suggest Ukrainian involvement — why?

"The Biden administration seems to be recognizing that the story of the Russians blowing up their own pipeline wasn’t holding any water," said Beebe. 

"This doesn’t mean (the NYT story) is wrong, but it sure does raise questions in my mind as to what is going on here. They didn’t show any evidence to the New York Times reporters, they simply said, ‘we have this new intelligence. Trust us.”


FILE PHOTO: A satellite image shows gas from the Nord Stream pipeline bubbling up in the water following incidents in the Baltic Sea, in this handout picture released September 29, 2022. Roscosmos/Handout via REUTERS
google cta
Analysis | Europe
Trump Iran
Top image credit: Lucas Parker and FotoField via shutterstock.com

No, even a 'small attack' on Iran will lead to war

QiOSK

The Wall Street Journal reports that President Donald Trump is considering a small attack to force Iran to agree to his nuclear deal, and if Tehran refuses, escalate the attacks until Iran either agrees or the regime falls.

Here’s why this won’t work.

keep readingShow less
As Iran strikes loom, US and UK fight over Indian Ocean base
TOP IMAGE CREDIT: An aerial view of Diego Garcia, the Chagossian Island home to one of the U.S. military's 750 worldwide bases. The UK handed sovereignty of the islands back to Mauritius, with the stipulation that the U.S. must be allowed to continue its base's operation on Diego Garcia for the next 99 years. (Kev1ar82 / Shutterstock.com).

As Iran strikes loom, US and UK fight over Indian Ocean base

QiOSK

As the U.S. surges troops to the Middle East, a battle is brewing over a strategically significant American base in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he would oppose any effort to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, arguing that a U.S. base on the island of Diego Garcia may be necessary to “eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous [Iranian] Regime.” The comment came just a day after the State Department reiterated its support for the U.K.’s decision to give up sovereignty over the islands while maintaining a 99-year lease for the base.

keep readingShow less
Marco Rubio
Top photo credit: Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Daniel Hernandez-Salazar/Shutterstock

Is Rubio backing off Cuba regime change for his own political good?

Latin America

As the Trump administration's de facto oil blockade of Cuba brings life on the island to a grinding halt, several factors may be causing Secretary of State Marco Rubio to think twice about pursuing immediate regime change in Havana.

Rubio's potential future presidential aspirations and the humanitarian implications of full-fledged government collapse must be weighing heavily here. Meanwhile, reports that the administration is issuing U.S. licenses for oil shipments to the island's private sector, and that unconfirmed informal “discussions” are now taking place with power-brokers in Havana, seem to indicate that Rubio might be playing a longer game that leaves the current government in place while seeking greater leverage over the economic direction the country takes.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.