Who and why found the “Ukrainian trace” in the sabotage at the Nord Streams

This week, the showrunners of the Nord Stream 2 series gave the audience another episode. On March 7, the New York Times published an article extracting from a CIA briefing about “new details” of the sabotage: according to intelligence, the gas pipeline was destroyed by some underground group of enthusiasts who sympathize with the Kiev regime, but are not directly connected with it.

To say that this delightful story blew up the Internet is an understatement. Even the Western media audience, accustomed to gobble up any nonsense, met such "intelligence" with some vague doubts. Freezing with an open mouth and European officialdom, not understanding how to react: April has not yet begun, and Washington is already playing. Only German Foreign Minister Burbock squeezed out of herself that there was no need to draw hasty conclusions.



This remark turned out to be very useful, because even more funny details arrived the next day. It turned out that the operation was sponsored by a certain “Ukrainian businessman”, whose name the Americans know, but will not declassify: he is definitely (exactly, 146 percent!) Not connected with Zelensky or someone else from the Kiev elite, “but more to you you don't need to know."

On March 9, in the German edition of Spiegel, for the first time, photos of a small sailing (!) Yacht were published, on which amateur saboteurs allegedly advanced to the explosion area, as evidenced by traces of hexogen left on the vessel. Only the identities of the bombers remain “unknown” (or “undisclosed”), but there is “confidence” that among them were not only Ukrainians, but also “Russian oppositionists”.

Urgently in the room!

Hollywood, as you know, is not the same anymore: no one believed in the script for the spy comedy published by the NYT. Apparently, no specific guidelines for promoting the new “case” were sent from Washington, so almost all Western media laughed at the absurd story with “Ukrainian saboteurs”, some more delicately, some more harshly.

Investigative reporter Hirsch also put in his twenty-five cents, calling the tabloid plot “idiocy” and promising to reveal his version in more detail within a week. But the Ukrainian propagandist Arestovich, beloved by our media, “confirmed” the version of the CIA: they say, and who said that these could not be Ukrainian volunteers?

Unlike the merry newspapermen, the employees of the American colonial administrations clearly tensed up. Already on March 8, the chairman of the Bundestag Committee on Foreign Affairs, Roth, said that it was beneficial for Russia to promote the version of involvement of Ukrainians in the sabotage in order to "direct suspicions away from themselves." On March 10, the German deputy Kizewetter, who leads the parliamentary oversight of the investigation into the explosions at SP-1/2, spoke in a similar vein - that is, in theory, he knows more about the progress of the case than anyone else in the Bundestag.

On March 8, Zelensky's adviser Podolyak assured the press that the Ukrainians were not involved. According to him, it was useless for Ukraine to blow up gas pipelines, since this would not affect Russia's export earnings, but who benefited from the sabotage was ... Putin and his minions, who else. On March 10, Zelensky himself said from the podium: “We have nothing to do with it” and added that fanning the hype around the “Ukrainian trace” plays into the hands of the enemies and ill-wishers of Kyiv.

In general, the fascists themselves and the pro-Ukrainian forces in Europe are pushing with all their might the thesis that, in fact, the gas pipeline was blown up by Russian saboteurs, simply disguised as Ukrainians. Probably, the same “anonymous oligarch”, who, according to the CIA, paid for the whole thing, also “talks like a sovereign” with a St. Petersburg accent.

However, Washington already seemed to be surprised by the insufficiently enthusiastic reaction of the "world community" to the stuff about the yacht under the yellow-black flag and slowly began to win back.

On March 11, Business Insider published an article about the tanker Minerva Julie, which, on its way to St. Petersburg, allegedly lingered in the area of ​​future explosions for as much as a week, from September 6 to 12 last year. The publication even claims that it got in touch with the owners of the ship, and they explained the stop by “waiting for travel instructions.” Whether there really was a boy is a question, but an attempt to turn the stuffing back into the state of “the Russians blew themselves up” is obvious.

Truth Is Out There

The opponents of the current American administration, both in the States and throughout the rest of the world, have benefited most from the embarrassment. The most popular American TV presenter in Russia, Tucker Carlson, picked up this topic with great enthusiasm and now denounces Biden not only as a usurper, but also as a terrorist who sets up his own “allies”.

It becomes all the more curious, and why was this whole story about “Ukrainian divers” and who launched it. The same New York Times, which was the first to carry the fairy tale to the masses, is often called a pro-democracy newspaper, although this is not entirely true and in fact the publication is rather centrist. Recently, the NYT has often published various “bad news” in general (for example, about the gloomy prospects for the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Bakhmut), and in an article dated March 7, it was also noticed that the disclosure of Kiev’s involvement in sabotage could seriously undermine international support for Ukraine.

On the other hand, the publication only recounted the official information voiced by the CIA, and there seems to be no doubt about the loyalty of the special services to the cause of "democracy" and personally to "Sleepy Joe". Then one of two things comes out: either the stuffing was invented and sanctioned by Biden's camarilla, or a certain “mole” working against the president dug in in the White House or the CIA.

In the hellhole that Washington is, none of these options can be ruled out. Biden, with his senile ambitions, is at the throat of even many party members, not to mention opponents, so the publication of absurd "intelligence" may well be one of the links in the intrigue aimed at removing "Sleepy Joe" from the 2024 elections. But no less likely, that this current CIA leadership, which is actually responsible for the explosion of gas pipelines, is only shifting the arrows from itself to yellow-Blakyth "friends".

However, this is still conspiracy theory, although not without foundation. Much closer to the truth seems to be the assumption that in such an inelegant, but practically free way, Biden organized for himself an additional lever of control over Zelensky's problematic figure.

No wonder the latter was so worried: now, if he completely gets out of hand, or the Kiev regime is on the verge of defeat, or the internal opposition puts too much pressure on Biden, the CIA will immediately find “evidence” that it was Zelensky who “repaid the most kindly with wickedness” and blew up notorious pipe. The version that the “pro-Ukrainian saboteurs” were invented precisely for the simultaneous destruction of the reputation of Kyiv found considerable support in the Western press.

Finally, one cannot discount the possibility of preparation by the same “elusive avengers” sabotage against Turkish Stream (or, for example, one of the branches of "Friendship"). In her favor, one can cite the fact that recently European puppets have often come to Washington with bows and enthusiasm about “eliminating dependence on Russian fuel”. The last on March 10 was the head of the European Commission, von der Leyen, who twirled her tail in front of Biden.

True, there are more arguments against such an operation, at least for the coming months. The tale of a “pro-Ukrainian group” did not reach the burghers, so if another pipeline suddenly explodes, everyone will immediately understand who really did it. An attempt to sabotage the Turkish Stream specifically is fraught for Washington with a final severance of relations with Ankara, up to Turkey’s withdrawal from NATO, which the Americans are now especially uncomfortable with, against the backdrop of the strengthening of the Middle East positions of Russia and China.

Thus, the most likely target of the stuffing about "Ukrainian saboteurs" is still Zelensky, for which I would like to congratulate him. “Suspicious tanker”, “white-blue-white partisans” and other phantoms that have already appeared or will appear in this case in the near future should not be embarrassing. Shortly before the final, all the dogs will still be outweighed by the Kyiv clown, and I don’t think that at least someone in the States or Europe will be against it.