Source: CCTV News Client
At the recent public meeting of the UN Security Council at Russia's request, the debate over the "Nord Stream" explosion was filled with gunsmoke.
Jeffrey Sachs, former special adviser to the UN Secretary-General, professor of economics at Columbia University in the United States and invited speaker at the open meeting, said that given the difficulty of implementing the Nord Stream pipeline explosion, it could only be achieved by state-involved actions - the Nord Stream incident must be thoroughly investigated.
John Kelly, Minister Counsellor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations, the biggest suspect in the bombings, argued at the meeting that Russia's request for a meeting was an urgent attempt to change the subject in an attempt to distract all parties from the first anniversary of the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis, and that the allegations of U.S. involvement in sabotage were "completely false."
Russia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Nebenja retorted that senior officials of the US government have repeatedly made statements threatening the "Nord Stream" pipeline, and relevant evidence has emerged one after another.
What did these American politicians say?
Judging from the various indications before and after the "Nord Stream" incident, it is clear that the United States has more ability and motivation to carry out the destruction of the "Nord Stream" pipeline:
Back in 2014, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice publicly stated that the United States sought to reduce Europe's dependence on Russian energy and increase its dependence on American energy.
In January last year, US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland openly declared to reporters at a briefing by the US State Department: "If Russia enters Ukraine, the Nord Stream project will not move forward in any way." ”
On February 7 last year, a dozen days before Russia launched a special military operation against Ukraine, US President Joe Biden said at a press conference at the White House after meeting with visiting German Chancellor Scholz: "The 'invasion' means that tanks and troops cross the Ukrainian border again, then the 'Nord Stream' pipeline will no longer exist, and we will end its mission." ”
Because the pipeline is under German control, a reporter asked: How can the United States do it? Biden said, "I promise we can do it."
There is also a detail that is intriguing. On September 27 last year, the day after the Nord Stream pipeline exploded and leaked, former Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski retweeted a tweet on social media with a map of the Nord Stream pipeline accident scene, with the following sentence: "Thank you, United States. ”
After the "Nord Stream" pipeline was blown up, the statements of these Americans were even more undisguised:
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made no secret of saying that the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline could be a "huge opportunity" and that "Europe could wean itself off Russian energy once and for all."
At the end of last month, US Deputy Secretary of State Nuland once again showed off his "victory": "I think the government is happy to know that the Nord Stream pipeline has become a pile of scrap iron under the sea." ”
What did these pundits say?
There are motives, there are means, there are opportunities ... This is the biggest reason why more and more outside public opinion strongly questions the role of the United States.
As early as last September, just after the bombing of the "Nord Stream" pipeline, McGregor, a senior adviser to the former US Secretary of Defense, made a judgment that characters like the British Royal Navy and the US Navy have the ability to "blow up the pipeline."
"The gas pipeline is exceptionally strong, made of various alloys and wrapped in concrete. Therefore, it is necessary to use hundreds of kilograms of explosives to blow up, not as simple as hanging a grenade with a fishing line. ”
Jeffrey Sachs, an economics professor at Columbia University, has bluntly said many times that there are indications that "the most likely perpetrator is the United States."
"This is something that the CIA and other secret services of the US government often do, and they will blow up a lot of infrastructure in the past and then try to cover up the facts."
The motives of the United States could not be clearer: to stop Russian gas from flowing to Europe, cut off cooperation between Europe and Russia, and completely draw Germany, Europe's number one economy and a core member of NATO, into the arms of the United States.
Seymour Hersh, the whistleblower of the "Nord Stream" bombing and a well-known independent journalist in the United States, bluntly said that the United States blew up the "Nord Stream" pipeline because it was worried that Germany would agree to open the gates for gas transmission when the harsh winter came, and the United States, which is committed to isolating Russia, is worried that Europe will avoid war.
Oberry, founder of the Swedish Transnational Peace and Future Research Foundation think tank, bluntly said in an interview with a reporter from the main station that after successfully causing an energy crisis, the United States made huge profits by selling natural gas to Europe at high prices, which is a kind of "economic terrorism" and an "economic war" against European allies.
Why are the official and "mainstream" media in the West silent?
Intriguingly, the governments of Germany, Sweden and Denmark affected by the Nord Stream explosion have not released any findings five months after the incident and have refused to take a position on the findings of the investigation by American journalist Seymour Hersh.
Until the February 21 open meeting of the UN Security Council, the foreign ministries of Sweden, Denmark and Germany said in letters to the Security Council that investigations into the Nord Stream pipeline bombing were continuing.
Alain Corvais, a former adviser to the French defense and interior ministry, ruthlessly revealed: "This is a terrorist attack perpetrated by Western countries, and this result will not have any official proclamation, because the attacking party is the initiator of the attack." ”
What is even more puzzling is that the Western media are as collectively "dumb" as Western governments.
British journalist Neil Oliver asked: "Why didn't the media follow up on this?" Traditionally, an event of this magnitude should be the stuff of the front page. ”
The Western media, which has always loved "fierce materials", turned a blind eye to Seymour Hersh's revelations, which were described by an opinion piece by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Governance, a US think tank, as the "Hersh effect" - killing messengers and ignoring information.
"The Western mainstream media turned a blind eye to the question posed by the long-faced whistleblower: Did the United States blow up the Nord Stream pipeline? If not the United States, and who? ”