[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
US Media’s Intellectual No-Fly-Zone on US Culpability in Nord Stream Attack Bryce Greene ([link removed])


Multiple explosions ([link removed]) last week off the coast of Poland damaged both the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines, shutting down one and preventing the other from going online. The pipelines, intended to carry natural gas from Russia to Germany, are critical infrastructure ([link removed]) for Europe's energy markets.

The explosions triggered a lopsided "whodunnit" in US media, with commentators almost universally fingering Russia as the culprit ([link removed]) , despite the lack of a plausible motive. Official US opposition to the pipeline has been well-established ([link removed]) over the years, giving Washington ample motive to destroy the pipelines, but most newsrooms uniformly suppressed this history, and attacked those who raised it.
WaPo: European leaders blame Russian ‘sabotage’ after Nord Stream explosions

"Only Russia had the motivation," the Washington Post (9/27/22 ([link removed]) ) claimed—even as it reported that the pipelines "deepened Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas," which "many [presumably Western] officials now say was a grave strategic mistake."

After the explosions, much of the press dutifully parroted the Western official line. The Washington Post (9/27/22 ([link removed]) ) quickly produced an account: "European Leaders Blame Russian ‘Sabotage’ After Nord Stream Explosions," citing nothing but EU officials who claimed that while they had no evidence of Russian involvement, “only Russia had the motivation, the submersible equipment and the capability.”

Much of the media cast their suspicions towards Russia, including Bloomberg (9/27/22 ([link removed]) ), Vox (9/29/22 ([link removed]) ), Associated Press (9/30/22 ([link removed]) ) and much of cable news ([link removed]) . With few exceptions, speculation on US involvement has seemingly been deemed an intellectual no-fly-zone.

The idea that only Russia had the means and motivation is clearly false on both counts. Washington has made it clear for years that it doesn’t want the pipeline, and has taken active measures to stop it from coming online. As for the means, it's patently absurd to suggest that the US doesn’t have the capability to lay explosives in 200 feet of water.

Even Max Boot, who agreed in his Washington Post column (9/29/22 ([link removed]) ) that only Russia had the means and motive, contradictorily acknowledged that “the means are easy.”


** A long history of opposition
------------------------------------------------------------

Any serious coverage of the Nord Stream attack should acknowledge that opposition to the pipeline has been a centerpiece of the US grand strategy in Europe. The long-term goal has been to keep Russia isolated and disjointed from Europe, and to keep the countries of Europe tied to US markets. Ever since German and Russian energy companies signed a deal ([link removed]) to begin development on Nord Stream 2, the entire machinery of Washington has been working overtime to scuttle it.
RAND: Extending Russia

The RAND report (2019 ([link removed]) ) that recommended "Reduc[ing] [Russian] Natural Gas Exports and Hinder[ing] Pipeline Expansions” now comes with a warning saying it's been "mischaracterized" by "Russian entities and individuals sympathetic to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine."

A 2019 Pentagon-funded study ([link removed]) from the RAND Corporation on how best to exploit "Russia's economic, political and military vulnerabilities and anxieties" included a recommendation to “Reduce [Russian] Natural Gas Exports and Hinder Pipeline Expansions.” The study noted that a “first step would involve stopping Nord Stream 2,” and that natural gas "from the United States and Australia could provide a substitute.”

This RAND study also prophetically recommended “providing more US military equipment and advice” to Ukraine in order to “lead Russia to increase its direct involvement in the conflict and the price it pays for it,” even though it acknowledged that “Russia might respond by mounting a new offensive and seizing more Ukrainian territory.”

The Obama administration opposed ([link removed]) the pipeline. As part of the major sanctions package ([link removed]) against Russia in 2017, the Trump administration began sanctioning any company doing work on the pipeline. The move generated outrage ([link removed]) in Germany, where many saw it as an attempt to meddle with European markets. In 2019, the US implemented more sanctions on the project.

Upon coming into office, President Joe Biden made opposition to the pipeline one of his administration's top priorities. During his confirmation hearings in 2021, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken told Congress ([link removed]) he was “determined to do whatever I can to prevent" Nord Stream 2 from being completed. Months later, the State Department reiterated ([link removed]) that “any entity involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline risks US sanctions and should immediately abandon work on the pipeline.”

In July 2021, the sanctions were relaxed only after contentious negotiations ([link removed]) with the German government. The New York Times (7/21/21 ([link removed]) ) reported that the administration and Germany still had “profound disagreements” about the project.

As Russia was gathering troops ([link removed]) at Ukraine’s border at the beginning of this year, US administration officials issued threats against the pipeline’s operation in the event of a Russian invasion. In January, Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland — one of the main players ([link removed]) during the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine and wife of Robert Kagan, the founder of the neoconservative Project for a New American Century ([link removed]) — issued a stern warning ([link removed]) against the pipeline. “If Russia invades, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 Will. Not. Move. Forward.”

In February, Joe Biden himself told reporters ([link removed]) , “If Russia invades…then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” After a reporter asked how the US planned to end a project that was under German control, Biden responded ([link removed]) , “I promise you, we will be able to do that.”

On February 22, after Russian troops were given orders ([link removed]) to enter the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, Germany suspended the pipeline, in a move that was called “remarkable” at the time (New York Times, 2/22/22 ([link removed]) ).

In sharp contrast to the US’s antagonism, Russia has taken the opposite approach ([link removed]) to the pipeline it spent billions of dollars to complete. As recently as three weeks ago, Putin expressed willingness to supply more gas if the EU would lift the sanctions against the newer pipeline. He said ([link removed]) : “If things are so bad, just go ahead and lift sanctions against Nord Stream 2, with its 55 billion cubic meters per year — all they have to do is press the button and they will get going.” Diplomatic sources told the Cradle (9/29/22 ([link removed]) ) that Russia and Germany were in talks about both NS1 and NS2 on the day of the explosion.

The day after the attack, German government sources leaked to the German daily Der Spiegel (9/28/22 ([link removed]) ) that weeks earlier, the CIA warned ([link removed]) Germany of a potential attack on the pipeline. However, sources told CNN (9/29/22 ([link removed]) ) that the warnings were “vague” and that “it was not clear from the warnings who might be responsible for any attacks on the pipelines, or when they might occur.” A high-level source in German intelligence told the Cradle (9/29/22 ([link removed]) ) that they were “furious” because “they were not in the loop.”

After the attack, Blinken called ([link removed]'s%20a%20tremendous%20opportunity%20to,of%20advancing%20his%20imperial%20designs.) the bombing a “tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy,” and said that this “offers tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come.” On the other hand, Russia has already announced plans ([link removed]) to begin repairing the pipeline.

So contrary to what nearly the US entire media establishment has presented, the US has had ample motive to destroy the pipeline, and is actively celebrating its demise.


** 'Thank you, USA'
------------------------------------------------------------

One event that fueled speculation of US involvement was a tweet from a Polish member of the European Parliament, Radek Sikorski ([link removed]) —a one-time Polish Defense minister as well as a former American Enterprise Institute fellow, who was named one of the "Top 100 Global Thinkers" in 2012 by Foreign Policy (11/26/12 ([link removed]) ).
Radosław Sikorski on Twitter: Thank You, USA

The Washington Post (9/28/22 ([link removed]) ) suggested that by thanking the United States over a picture of the pipeline explosion, Radek Sikorksi may have been "crediting the United States with rendering the pipelines moot by pressuring Europe not to take Russian natural gas."

Sikorski tweeted ([link removed]) out a picture of the methane leak in the ocean, along with the caption, “As we say in Polish, a small thing, but so much joy.” He later tweeted ([link removed]) , “Thank you, USA,” with the same picture.

He later tweeted ([link removed]) against the pipeline, noting that “Nord Stream’s only logic was for Putin to be able to blackmail or wage war on Eastern Europe with impunity.” An hour later he elaborated:

Now $20 billion of scrap metal lies at the bottom of the sea, another cost to Russia of its criminal decision to invade Ukraine. Someone…did a special maintenance operation.

The last line was a joke about how Russia classifies ([link removed]) its invasion of Ukraine as a “special military operation.”

After these tweets received attention from those who suspected US responsibility, Sikorski deleted them. Business Insider (9/30/22 ([link removed]) ) dishonestly wrote that these latter tweets were actually an “attempt to clarify that the original tweet was a criticism of US support for the pipeline being built in the first place.” Any honest reading of the tweets demonstrates that the opposite is true; presumably this is why Insider didn’t link to any specific text.

The Washington Post (9/28/22 ([link removed]) ) also offered a twisted interpretation of Sikorski’s tweets:

His meaning wasn’t entirely clear; it seems possible he was crediting the United States with rendering the pipelines moot by pressuring Europe not to take Russian natural gas. In later tweets, he seemed actually to point to Russian sabotage.

For the latter claim, the Post cited Sikorski’s joke about the “special maintenance operation,” but the full tweet shows that this is a preposterous interpretation.

While certainly not a smoking gun, such a high-profile accusation (or expression of gratitude, such as it was) raises eyebrows, especially given Poland’s strenuous opposition ([link removed]) to the pipeline, and the recent completion ([link removed]) of a Norway/Poland pipeline designed to “cut dependency on Russia.” The circumstances are even more suspicious, given that Sikorski is the husband of the fervently anti-Russian ([link removed]) staff writer at The Atlantic Anne Applebaum ([link removed]) , who has been a key media figure ([link removed]) advancing the pro-NATO narrative in the West.

Applebaum even sits on the board ([link removed]) of the National Endowment for Democracy (a position she once shared with Victoria Nuland ([link removed]) before Nuland moved into the Biden administration), a government-funded conduit for US regime change and destabilization projects ([link removed]) that was an important driving force behind the 2014 coup ([link removed]) that replaced Ukraine’s pro-Russian government with a Pro-Western one. Since then, the NED has funded ([link removed]) English-language Ukrainian media like the Kyiv Independent, which, along with commentators like Applebaum herself, are now shaping coverage of the current war for Western audiences.

The fact that someone as connected as Sikorski would find it appropriate to publicly thank the US for the attack certainly deserves scrutiny. Some US media brought up the tweet, but dismissed it as unimportant (The Hill, 9/30/22 ([link removed]) ).


** 'A reminder from Moscow'
------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insider: The sabotage of gas pipelines were a 'warning shot' from Putin to the West, and should brace for more subterfuge, Russia experts warn

Business Insider (10/4/22 ([link removed]) ): If Putin is willing to blow up his own pipelines, just think what he might do to yours!

US media have all but ignored the critical context above. If a case like that existed for the Russia-did-it theory, you can be sure that it would have been spelled out in detail by everyone. But instead, US media direct attention away from the obvious and are left to grasp at straws to find a potential Russian motive. In fact, many outlets readily acknowledged that there was no obvious motive for Russia to bomb its own pipeline. For example, the New York Times (9/28/22 ([link removed]) ) wrote:

It is unclear why Moscow would seek to damage installations that cost Gazprom billions of dollars to build and maintain. The leaks are expected to delay any possibility of receiving revenue from fuel going through the pipes.

Vox (9/28/22 ([link removed]) ) reported that “experts emphasized…it may be hard to fully know Moscow’s motivation.” NPR (9/28/22 ([link removed]) ) also couldn’t readily answer “the question as to why Russia would attack its own pipelines.”
Having admitted that Russia has no readily apparent motive, establishment media are left to stretch. They presented a couple of theories for Putin's potential motivation, but neither holds up to scrutiny. One, per the Times (9/28/22 ([link removed]) ), is that the leaks “may help Russia by pushing energy prices higher,” since “the natural gas market is spooked.” But this logic makes little sense, as Russia has been pushing ([link removed]) for Europe to open the Nord Stream 2 pipeline since it was completed. Higher natural gas prices do Russia little good if it's unable to deliver its gas to market.

The Times (9/28/22 ([link removed]) ) put forth another theory: that Putin is just teaching the West some kind of lesson:

The ruptures could also be a reminder from Moscow that if European countries keep up their support for Ukraine, they risk sabotage to vital energy infrastructure.

The Washington Post (9/27/22 ([link removed]) ), speaking to “security officials,” cited similar theories:

One official said it might have been a message to NATO: “We are close.” Another said that it could be a threat to other, non-Russian energy infrastructure.

Business Insider (10/4/22 ([link removed]) ) published a piece hysterically titled: “The Sabotage of Gas Pipelines Were a 'Warning Shot' From Putin to the West, and Should Brace for More Subterfuge, Russia Experts Warn.”

CNN (9/29/22 ([link removed]) ) also found a US official to tell them that “Moscow would likely view [attacking the pipeline] as worth the price if it helped raise the costs of supporting Ukraine for Europe,” and that “sabotaging the pipelines could ‘show what Russia is capable of.’” Vox (9/28/22 ([link removed]) ) found some “experts” to tell them the same story.

But the reality is that Russia has done ([link removed]) its utmost to discourage ([link removed]) NATO from further involvement in the war. A Russian attack on the pipeline would all but guarantee greater NATO involvement in Ukraine. Antagonizing Germany to teach the rest of Europe a lesson—which would only work if Russia was understood to be behind the sabotage—would be the opposite of Russia’s interests. This argument amounts to little more than “Putin is evil and hates Europe.”

As FAIR (3/30/22 ([link removed]) ) has previously written, this cartoon narrative of Putin as Hitler allows for all logic and reasoning to fall by the wayside. The US behavior with regards to the pipeline is objectively more compelling than the case against Russia, yet the media have dismissed it out of hand.


** A crack in the facade
------------------------------------------------------------

One of the cracks in the uniform coverage was a segment ([link removed]) on Bloomberg TV (10/3/22 ([link removed]) ). Host Tom Keene brought on Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs, who was recently the head of the Lancet’s investigation (9/14/22 ([link removed](22)01585-9/fulltext) ) into the origin of Covid-19. During the interview, Sachs stated that he “would bet [the attack] was a US action, perhaps US and Poland.”
Bloomberg host Tom Keene interviewing Jeffrey Sachs

Bloomberg TV host Tom Keene (10/3/22 ([link removed]) ) takes Jeffrey Sachs to task for questioning the official Nord Stream narrative.

Keene immediately stopped him and demanded that he lay out evidence for the claim. Sachs cited radar evidence ([link removed]) that US helicopters, normally based in Gdansk, had been hovering within the area of the explosion shortly before the attack. This is certainly not a smoking gun, given Western intelligence claims ([link removed]) that Russian ships were observed in the area during this same timeframe, though it does add to the case for US responsibility. He also cited the threatening statements from Biden and Blinken as reasons for his suspicion.

Sachs acknowledged the propaganda system in which he was operating:

I know it runs counter to our narrative, you‘re not allowed to say these things in the West, but the fact of the matter is, all over the world when I talk to people, they think the US did it.... Even reporters on our papers that are involved tell me, "Of course [the US is responsible]," but it doesn’t show up in our media.

This was the only time FAIR saw an anchor push back and ask for evidence for guests' speculation of responsibility—speculation that was usually pointed toward Russia.


** The broken clock
------------------------------------------------------------

As illustration of the weirdness that is the US elite's opportunistic relationship with Russia, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson (9/27/22 ([link removed]) ), the white nationalist ([link removed]) who hosts the most popular evening talk show in America, was one of the only media figures to go against the dominant narrative. Carlson certainly overstated the case for US involvement in the pipeline attack, but he asked questions no one else in corporate media would touch.
WaPo: Russian TV is very excited about Такер Карлсон’s Nord Stream theory

The Washington Post (9/29/22 ([link removed]) ) printed Tucker Carlson's name in Cyrillic—implying that only a Russian agent would express doubts about the US's innocence.

But rather than dissect Carlson's case factually, most other media relied purely on redbaiting. The Washington Post (9/29/22 ([link removed]) ) wrote Carlson’s name in Cyrillic —"Russian TV Is Very Excited About Такер Карлсон’s Nord Stream Theory”—to play into the McCarthyite fearmongering of the New Cold War.

The Post brought up the threatening statements from Nuland and Biden, and even the tweet from Sikorski, but only to dismiss them, because they weren’t a “smoking gun.” Of course, the Post refused to acknowledge that the quotes from administration officials demonstrated a clear opposition to the pipeline, and thus an obvious motive for the attack.

Despite the fact that Carlson repeatedly claimed that “we don’t know what happened,” the Post declared that “he delivered his speculation as if it were fact and invited his viewers to do the same.” While this is a fair assessment of the tone if not the text of the segment, the Post had nothing to say about the certainty with which others in the media accused Russia.

The Post’s reporting was picked up by MSNBC Katie Phang (10/1/22 ([link removed]) ), who, also eschewing actual investigation, asked her guest, “How dangerous is it for an American media personality with the kind of reach that Tucker Calrson has to be out there spouting a talking point that ends up on Russian state TV?”


** 'Baseless conspiracy theory'
------------------------------------------------------------
ABC: Russians push baseless theory blaming US for burst pipeline

AP (via ABC, 9/30/22 ([link removed]) ) accused "Kremlin and Russian state media" of "aggressively pushing a baseless conspiracy theory" in "another effort to split the U.S. and its European allies."

The Associated Press (9/30/22 ([link removed]) ) wrote a widely republished ([link removed]) story, headlined “Russians Push Baseless Theory Blaming US for Burst Pipeline,” that called the idea the US was responsible for the attacks a “baseless conspiracy theory.”

Like the other coverage, the AP didn’t evaluate any of the evidence, but called the theory “disinformation” designed to “undermine Ukraine’s allies” and, importantly, painted such speculation as beyond legitimate discussion:

The suggestion that the US caused the damage was circulating on online forums popular with American conservatives and followers of QAnon, a conspiracy theory movement which asserts that Trump is fighting a battle against a Satanic child-trafficking sect that controls world events.

Bloomberg (reprinted in the Washington Post, 9/27/22 ([link removed]) ) acknowledged Biden’s threats against the pipeline, but writer Javier Blas dismissed them without actually explaining why:

Conspiracy theorists always see the hand of the CIA in everything. But that’s nonsense. The clear beneficiary of shutting down the Nord Stream pipelines for good is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Yes, the "clear beneficiary" of the destruction of the main method Russia could sell billions of dollars worth of natural gas to Europe was...the Russian president. It doesn't make more sense if you read the whole article.

The US press produced an overwhelming chorus of articles (e.g., Business Insider, 9/30/22 ([link removed]) ; Vox, 2/28/22 ([link removed]) ; Newsweek, 10/3/22 ([link removed]) ) that deployed the term "conspiracy theory" to discredit the idea of US culpability. Not one of these pieces adequately explored the credible reasons for the suspicion, simply ignoring the body of evidence presented above.

The Brookings Institution (where Robert Kagan works) published a long article (10/3/22 ([link removed]) ), complete with graphs and charts, that warned of the dangers of podcasters spreading the idea that the US was culpable in the attacks. It dismissed this possibility on the strength of a link to the New York Times (9/28/22 ([link removed]) ), used to substantiate a claim that “experts broadly agree that Russia is the key suspect.” It did not do any investigation of its own.


** When is a theory a 'conspiracy theory'?
------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Johnstone: It’s Only A ‘Conspiracy Theory’ When It Accuses The US Government

Caitlin Johnstone (10/4/22) ([link removed]) : "If you think the United States could have any responsibility for this attack at all, you’re a crazy conspiracy theorist and no different from QAnoners who think pedophile Satan worshipers rule the world."

This use of the term “conspiracy theory” or “conspiracy theorist,” along with the mention of QAnon, has the effect of associating speculation of US involvement in the attack with a class of people that have largely been discredited (with good reason ([link removed]) ) in the public mind. Once this link has been made, evaluating the evidence is no longer required. It’s a lazy rhetorical trick to marginalize dissent.

In his book Conspiracy Theory in America ([link removed]) , scholar Lance Dehaven Smith examined the way the term is deployed in establishment media:

What they actually have in mind are suspicions that simply deviate from conventional opinion about the norms and integrity of US officials. In practice, it is not the form or the object of conspiracy theories, or even the absence of official confirmation, that differentiates them from other (acceptable) beliefs; it is their nonconformity with prevailing opinion.

Writer Caitlin Johnstone (10/4/22) ([link removed]) put it succinctly in a piece on the hysteria surrounding the pipeline attacks: “It’s Only a ‘Conspiracy Theory’ When It Accuses the US Government.” She wrote:

Over and over again we see the pejorative “conspiracy theory” applied to accusations against one nation but not the other, despite the fact that it’s the exact same accusation. They are both conspiracy theories per definition: They’re theories about an alleged conspiracy to sabotage Russian pipelines. But the Western political/media class consistently applies that label to one and never the other.

At a meeting of the UN Security Council—hastily called by Russia in the wake of the attacks—US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield called the Russian accusations “conspiracy theories,” then went on to accuse Russia of attacking its own pipeline. Reporting on the Security Council meeting, CNN (11/29/22 ([link removed]) ) showed its own conspiratorial thinking, citing US officials who called the meeting itself “suspicious,” because “typically, the official said, Russia isn’t organized enough to move so quickly, suggesting that the maneuver was pre-planned.”

Of course there are irresponsible, popular conspiracy theories that fail to hold up to scrutiny, and are in fact quite dangerous. The QAnon theory that the world's elite are harvesting a substance called adrenochrome ([link removed]) from trafficked children to gain special abilities and extend their life is absurd. The 2020 election spawned many disproven theories about a stolen Trump victory that ended up leading to the deadly riot at the Capitol on January 6. But just as the existence of websites that fabricate pseudo-news reports ([link removed]) for profit gave Donald Trump a label to dismiss any journalism he didn't like as "fake news," so to are such fanciful theories based on leaps of logic used to disparage well-documented efforts to peer behind the scenes of US official policy.

To be sure, we still don’t know for certain who was behind the pipeline bombing, but there is a solid prima facie case for US culpability. The explosion is a watershed moment in the escalation toward a direct confrontation between nuclear powers. Media malfeasance on this topic doesn’t just threaten the credibility of the press, but literally imperils the whole of human civilization.


Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .