At GZero Ian Bremmer, presumably in reaction to Seymour Hersh’s breathless post, gives his two cents on who blew up the Nordstream pipeline:
My money is on Ukraine. Ukrainians had the most to gain from blowing up this multi-billion dollar, Russian-owned cudgel. They were also the most risk-tolerant. Russia poses an existential threat to them, so they are willing to do almost anything to prevail. They knew they couldn’t win without a strong and united NATO behind them, and they knew the alliance would be vulnerable as long as Russia could leverage its gas against Germany.
Five months ago, I would’ve been skeptical that the Ukrainians had the technical and operational capabilities to do something like this. But I also didn’t think they’d be able to blow up the Kerch Bridge connecting Crimea to Russia, itself quite a sophisticated operation. Nor did I imagine they could assassinate Darya Dugina just outside of Moscow. So it’s clear the Ukrainians are eminently willing and able to plan and execute high-risk reasonably complex operations.
possibly with assistance from Poland. However, for my money this is the most important statement in Mr. Bremmer’s piece:
More broadly, the very contention that the US would sabotage infrastructure partially owned by a key ally (Germany) in concert with another shared ally (Norway) without alerting Berlin beggars belief given what we know about Washington’s strategic interests.
At the time, the Biden administration was pursuing closer ties with Germany on a range of issues, including tech regulation, China decoupling, and reversing the pullback in transatlantic cooperation initiated by the Trump administration. Blowing up Nord Stream would have jeopardized all those initiatives and invited Russian retaliation for a questionable benefit: definitively ending Germany’s already-dwindling dependence on Russia to strengthen NATO unity.
Targeting Germany in cahoots with Norway also would’ve risked fracturing the NATO coalition Biden had explicitly focused on bolstering from day one — a risky move for a generally risk-averse administration.
That rings true to me.
Bremmer is blind to the evil that controls Washington. One has to remember that the US started almost every war since 1992, some 251 military interventions and wars. That the US is actively fighting in Somalia (30 years), Iraq (20 years), Syria,, Libya, Mali… and, of course, Ukraine (over 8 years).
“pursuing closer ties†is a euphemism for threats and intimidation. There is no-question that the US attacked and destroyed a major piece of Russia’s civilian infrastructure in oder to force Germany into line on the Russian issue, none. The details are open to question.The UK, Poland, and Ukraine are all likely co-conspirators.
The reckless adventurism of our “Betters†will bring nuclear war upon us. We may already have passed the point of no return. I will die, you will die, and we will have no voice in the matter.
I don’t agree with Bremmer on the first part. Ukraine has the most to gain only so long as no one knows they did it. Ukraine is entirely dependent on western aid – If it came out that Ukraine was responsible, it would piss off a lot of Europeans (and even some Americans) and lead to reduced support for Ukraine.
It seems to me that blowing up the pipeline required sophisticated planning, equipment, and skill sets beyond those that Ukraine had on hand.