myworldpress.com

03 Arrogant USA Actually patronizing Germany and the EU.

USA Europafeindliche Politik

USA: Partner oder Rivale der Deutschen?

Zuletzt aktualisiert am 23.02.2024 17:14 Uhr

Und im deutsch-amerikanischen Interessengeflecht haben sich wichtige Koordinaten verschoben, die ein politisches De-Risking, also eine Neujustierung der deutschen Außenpolitik, erzwingen:
Viele Politiker haben sich angewöhnt, die deutschen Wirtschaftsführer mit erhobenem Zeigefinger zur Aufgabe ihrer Handelsbeziehungen mit Russland und zur Lockerung ihrer Kontakte nach China zu drängen. Die Wirtschaft soll korrigieren, was die Politik verbockt hat. „De-Risking“ nennt das der Bundeskanzler.
Aber auch für Olaf Scholz gilt: Wenn Du mit einem Finger auf andere zeigst, zeigen drei Finger auf Dich zurück. Soll heißen: Die Bundesregierung sollte ihre Außenpolitik ebenfalls einem strategischen De-Risking unterziehen. Denn die Welt hat sich für alle gleichermaßen verändert.In der neuen Weltunordnung – wo die Menschen im globalen Süden auf gepackten Koffern sitzen, in Asien sich neue Machtblöcke formieren und Amerika vor allem den Eigennutz optimiert – ist jede deutsche Regierung gut beraten, die einseitige Westbindung, die bis dato als Gleichsetzung deutscher und amerikanischer Interessen definiert wurde, zu hinterfragen.
Warum das wichtig ist: Die Nation als wichtigste Quelle politischer Legitimation ist nie der Endpunkt der Überlegungen, wohl aber deren Ausgangspunkt. Und im deutsch-amerikanischen Interessengeflecht haben sich wichtige Koordinaten verschoben, die ein politisches De-Risking, also eine Neujustierung der deutschen Außenpolitik, erzwingen:#1 Amerika: Das brüchige Schutzversprechen
Das Konzept einer westlichen Führungsmacht funktioniert nicht, wenn diese Macht selbst gar nicht mehr führen will. „America first“ gilt mittlerweile auch ohne Trump – auf Capitol Hill und im Weißen Haus.Der Kontrast zur Nachkriegszeit enthüllt den Unterschied. In der Wirtschaftspolitik, wo Amerika nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg mit dem German-Marshall-Programm die Investitionen in Deutschland ankurbelte, wird mittlerweile Investitionskapital gezielt abgesaugt. Biden startete unter dem Tarnnamen „Inflation Reduction Act“ das größte Anreizprogramm für Auslandsinvestitionen, auch und insbesondere aus Deutschland.
 Der amerikanisch-deutsche HandelGesamtwert des US-Warenhandels (Export und Import nach und von Deutschland), in Milliarden US-Dollar 
In der Außenpolitik derselbe Befund. Das Diktum des Historikers und Diplomaten George F. Kennan von 1947 – „das wichtigste Element jeder amerikanischen Politik muss eine langfristige, geduldige und zugleich feste und wachsame Eindämmung der russischen Expansionsbestrebungen sein“ – gilt nicht mehr. Putin wird in Washington nur noch als Feind zweiter Klasse betrachtet, nach den Chinesen.
Joe Biden ist kein zweiter Bill Clinton. Der rief 1996 nach der Implosion der Sowjetunion:
 Wir sind noch immer die unentbehrliche Nation auf dieser Welt. Wir müssen die Last der Führung auf uns nehmen. “
Heute leidet Amerika im eigenen Empfinden an einem „imperial overstretch“ und zieht sich aus der Welt und auch aus Europa zurück. Um die ausbleibenden US-Waffenlieferungen für die Ukraine zu kompensieren, weiht Olaf Scholz neuerdings Munitionsfabriken ein. Die allerdings werden mutmaßlich erst dann lieferbereit sein, wenn die russische Armee in Polen steht. Der Totenschädel des Alexej Nawalny – pünktlich überreicht zur Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz – war Putins makabrer Gruß aus der Küche.
 US-Militärhilfen… und was davon bleibt
Entwicklung der US-Militärhilfen mit Blick auf verbleibende Mittel aus bewilligten Zusagen, in Milliarden Dollar 
Dieses Bild hat ein leeres Alt-Attribut. Der Dateiname ist image-15.png
#2 Russland: Deutschland kann seiner Geografie nicht entkommen.
Gleichwohl ist die geografische und auch kulturelle Nähe zu Russland keine historische Restante, sondern ein Eckpfeiler jeder geostrategischen Lagebetrachtung. Über Jahrzehnte waren die Bundesrepublik und Russland in einer Energiepartnerschaft verbunden – zum „beiderseitigen Vorteil“, wie Willy BrandtHelmut SchmidtHelmut Kohl und Gerhard Schröder immer wieder betonten.Durch den während des Ukraine-Krieges beendeten Einkauf von Gas und Öl – das Gas hat Putin abgestellt, das Öl fiel durch die westlichen Sanktionen weg – wurde die deutsche Volkswirtschaft einem Energiepreisschock ausgesetzt, derweil Russland in Indien, China und der Türkei neue Abnehmer fand.
 China: Russlands wichtigster Importeur
Die vier wichtigsten Importeure fossiler Brennstoffe aus Russland seit Anfang 2023, in Milliarden Euro 
Dieses Bild hat ein leeres Alt-Attribut. Der Dateiname ist image-16.png
Für die Bundesrepublik bedeutet die westliche Sanktionspolitik eine Zäsur, die mit der Aufgabe deutscher Fabriken in Russland und dem Drängen der Amerikaner auf Enteignung der bisher in Europa eingefrorenen russischen Milliarden ihre Fortsetzung findet.Der Interessenunterschied liegt auf der Hand: Amerika ist in Sachen Energie ein Selbstversorger. Und: Die Glaubwürdigkeit der Wall Street wäre durch eine Enteignungsaktion nicht berührt, denn die Russengelder sind vor allem bei europäischen Banken deponiert. So drängt Amerika die Deutschen immer tiefer ins Anti-Russland-Camp.#3 Freihandel: Das deutsche Interesse ist global, nicht nur westlichDie Westintegration der deutschen Nachkriegswirtschaft war die Voraussetzung für den Wiederaufstieg nach dem Weltkrieg. Im Gefolge der US-Konzerne eroberten auch die Produkte „Made in Germany“ die Exportmärkte. Wo Ford war, fuhr auch Mercedes vor. Auf General Electric folgte Siemens. Der deutsche Mittelstand kam, sah und verkaufte.
 Exportnation Deutschland
Der deutsche Außenhandel, in Billionen Euro 
Dieses Bild hat ein leeres Alt-Attribut. Der Dateiname ist image-17.png
Mittlerweile ist Deutschland aus der westlichen Hemisphäre herausgewachsen. Anders als die USA bearbeitet die deutsche Wirtschaft ihre Exportmärkte weiterhin sehr erfolgreich.Der Zahlenvergleich belegt den Unterschied: Die Exporte der USA stehen heute nicht mal mehr für 10 Prozent des amerikanischen Bruttoinlandsprodukts. Zum Vergleich: Exporte der Bundesrepublik stehen für knapp 40 Prozent des deutschen Bruttoinlandsprodukts. Selbst im deutsch-amerikanischen Handel erzielt die hiesige Exportwirtschaft deutlich höhere Zuwachsraten über die vergangenen Jahrzehnte.
 USA vs. Deutschland:
Der ExportunterschiedExportquote (der Anteil der Exporte am BIP) von Deutschland und den USA 2023, in Prozent 
Dieses Bild hat ein leeres Alt-Attribut. Der Dateiname ist image-18.png
Das bedeutet: Für Amerika sind die Chinesen und viele andere Staaten nicht zuerst Partner, sondern Rivalen. Amerika fühlt sich von den Chinesen regelrecht abgehängt und drängt mit humanitären Argumenten – Menschenrechte, Arbeitslager, chinesische Überwachungsgesellschaft – auf Entkoppelung.
Der ehemalige Ford-Manager und langjährige Erste Bürgermeister Hamburgs, Klaus von Dohnanyi, rät zur Vorsicht:
 Auch gegenüber China spielen für die USA heute Machterhalt, Geopolitik, Wirtschaftsinteressen und nicht humanitäre Überlegungen die entscheidende Rolle. Die Verschleierung ihrer Machtinteressen mit humanitären Argumenten hat in den USA Tradition und darf uns nicht täuschen. “
Fazit: Der große Transatlantiker Josef Joffe schrieb 2006 in seinem Buch „Die Hypermacht: Warum die USA die Welt beherrschen“ die denkwürdigen Sätze:
 Der Untergang der Sowjetunion markiert das Ende der Bipolarität und die Geburtsstunde der Unipolarität. Die ‚Eisenspäne‘ – zweihundert Staaten – hängen nicht wie früher an zwei Polen, sondern sind entlang verschieden starker Gradienten der Anziehungskraft auf einen einzigen ausgerichtet: Dieser Pol ist Amerika. “
Dieser Satz war damals schon fragwürdig und ist heute falsch. Die Geschichte hat den westlichen Triumphalismus widerlegt. Das Problem: Die Bundesrepublik hat daraus noch keine Schlussfolgerung gezogen. Bei uns heißt der Irrtum nicht Irrtum, sondern Außenpolitik.
#2: Wer stoppt den Subventionswettlauf?
Während Deutschland sich ökonomisch im Abstiegskampf befindet, ist die US-Wirtschaft robust unterwegs. Trotz Inflation und Zinsanstieg sind die Vereinigten Staaten in 2023 um 2,5 Prozent gewachsen. Der Trick: Joe Biden kurbelt seine heimische Wirtschaft auch auf Kosten der Europäer an.Mit dem Inflation Reduction Act offiziell einem Gesetz zur Erreichung von Klimazielen – wurde in Wahrheit ein gigantisches Subventionsprogramm geschaffen, das ausländische Direktinvestitionen anlocken soll. Und das tut es auch. Insgesamt sind 739 Milliarden US-Dollar an Investitionszuschüssen vorgesehen. Nach Angaben der US-Regierung wurden mehr als 170.000 Arbeitsplätze geschaffen und Unternehmen kündigten Investitionen in Höhe von über 110 Milliarden Dollar an. In Deutschland werden die Folgen unter dem Stichwort „Deindustrialisierung“ beklagt.Scholz hält mit Anlock-Prämien für Intel und andere Chiphersteller dagegen. Im Interesse guter transatlantischer Beziehungen müsste dieser Subventionswettlauf eigentlich beendet werden. Eigentlich.
Inflation Reduction Act: Was genau fördern die USA
Anteil der einzelnen Bereiche an allen IRA-Ausgaben für die Energiewende, in ProzentAnteil der einzelnen Bereiche an allen IRA-Ausgaben für die Energiewende, in Prozent
#3: Warum stoppt Biden den Bau neuer Flüssiggasterminals?Deutschland fand nach dem Exportstopp von russischem Gas einen neuen Partner in Form der USA. Immerhin kamen 2023 laut dem Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft durchschnittlich 6,4 Prozent des in Deutschland verbrauchten Gases aus LNG-Lieferungen über die neuen inländischen Terminals. Davon rund 80 Prozent aus den USA.
Doch erst vor wenigen Tagen stoppte Präsident Biden die Genehmigung von weiteren LNG-Export-Terminals – mit Rücksicht auf seine ökologisch gesinnten Wähler. Akut sei damit der Export von LNG-Gas nach Deutschland zwar nicht bedroht, heißt es. Aber Timm Kehler, Chef des Branchenverbands Zukunft Gas, fürchtet eine neue Preistreiberei:
Die Möglichkeit, dass zusätzliche US-LNG-Exportkapazitäten nicht realisiert werden, wird die globale Angebotsknappheit verschärfen“
Deutschland und seine wichtigsten LNG-Partner
LNG-Lieferungen nach Deutschland nach Herkunftsland 2023, in Prozent20240209-infografik-media-pioneer-LNG-Liefermengen ohne
#4: Ist China Partner oder Rivale?Die größte Volkswirtschaft der Welt will der zweitgrößten Volkswirtschaft nicht mehr freien Lauf lassen. China ist vom wichtigen Partner zum Rivalen geworden, zumindest dem der USA. Im vergangenen August verbot die Regierung Biden amerikanische Investments in chinesische Quantencomputer, künstliche Intelligenz und fortschrittliche Halbleiter.
Die Sorge: Diese Technologien könnten dazu beitragen, die Fähigkeiten des chinesischen Militärs und der Spionagebehörden zu verbessern. Auch weitere Einschränkungen, etwa im Bereich der Biotechnologie, sind im Gespräch. Biden bezeichnet China als „tickende Zeitbombe“.Für Deutschland aber ist China der wichtigste Handelspartner in Asien, die Bundesrepublik wiederum der wichtigste Handelspartner Chinas in der EU. Man wolle zwar kritische Abhängigkeiten reduzieren, die Beziehungen jedoch weiter ausbauen, sagt Außenministerin Baerbock: „weil wir sie brauchen“.
China: Deutschlands wichtiger Handelspartner
Entwicklung des deutschen Warenhandels (Importe und Exporte) mit China, in Milliarden Euro20240209-infografik-media-pioneer-Warenhandel-mit-China ohne
#5: Wo bleibt die transatlantische Regulierung von Künstlicher Intelligenz?Die Europäische Union und die USA beschreiten bei der KI-Regulierung unterschiedliche Pfade. Während in den USA sektorspezifisch, dezentral und damit fragmentiert reguliert wird, verfolgt die EU einen die ganze EU abdeckenden Ansatz.
Aus Sicht der hiesigen Wirtschaft wäre eine aufeinander abgestimmte KI-Regulierung in der EU und den USA wünschenswert. Andernfalls fürchten Tech-Unternehmen, dass sie bei einer strengen EU-Regulierung im globalen KI-Rennen weiter in Rückstand gegenüber Meta, Google und OpenAI geraten. Denn derzeit laufen die unterschiedlichen Gesetze auf ein Behörden-Chaos hinaus.Fazit: Wenn dann noch Zeit bleibt, könnten die beiden Regierungschefs ihre gesunkenen Popularitätswerte beklagen. Beide sehen gegen ihre konservativen Herausforderer alt aus. Vielleicht sollte Scholz „seinen Freund Joe“, wie er ihn neuerdings nennt, in tröstender Absicht umarmen: Mein Donald Trump heißt Friedrich Merz. You’ll never walk alone.

Video: Has Germany Become a Colony of the United States?

Chancellor Olaf Scholz Gives „The Green Light“ to Joe Biden

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, February 19, 2023

There never was an effective “Secret Operation” to ensure that an act of sabotage of Nord Stream would be “untraceable to the United States”.

The project had been discussed behind closed doors in 2021 as outlined by Seymour Hersh, but the actual planning of this so-called “secret operation” started in December 2021 extending to its execution in June 2022 and the actual sabotage on September 26-27, 2023. (see map below).

image 12

Timeline

In late December  2021, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan convened what was described as “a newly formed task force” (Joint Chiefs of Staff, CIA, State Department, and Treasury) pertaining to Russia’s War preparations.

Within the group, there was a debate as to what action was to be taken regarding Nord Stream. “The CIA argued that whatever was done, it would have to be covert. Everyone [in the task force] involved understood the stakes”.

Early 2022:  A covert operation was envisaged. The CIA reported to the Task Force: “We have a way to blow up the pipelines.” i.e. which is “untraceable”.  

One Month Later, February 7, 2022

While we are not privy to the conversations in the Oval Office between President Joe Biden and Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz, the public declarations of both Biden and Scholz at the February 7, 2022 White House Press Conference confirm the following:

  • The “Secret Operation” was no longer Secret,
  • The Decision was made Public,
  • There was a de facto “bilateral understanding” between U.S. President Biden and Germany’s Chancellor Scholz to proceed with the act of sabotage of Nord Stream 2. 
Did the US Blow Up Nord Stream If There Is No Media to Report It?
Feb 20, 2023
Norway’s Atonement for Nord Stream Sabotage
Feb 20, 2023
Is the U.S. Biden Administration Behind the Blowing Up of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 Pipelines Between Russia and Western Europe?
Feb 16, 2023
The US Destroyed the Nord Stream Pipeline. Interview with Seymour Hersh
Feb 16, 2023

Blow-up of Nord Stream I and II: Did the German Chancellor and the President of the European Commission Betray the People of Germany and Europe?

By Peter Koenig Global Research, March 02, 2023

Betrayal by politicians of their compatriots, the very people who trust them, who may have voted for them and who pay with their taxes for their wages and livelihoods, must be one of humanity’s most miserable crimes. It is so “low”, there is no word that adequately describes the absolute absence of ethics, morals and souls of such people.

Other than they are soulless, without ethics and without morals.

They may be rare, but such people and politicians do exist. They are in high demand by the oligarch-elitists and the masters of deceit and of corporate finance, operating from the dark, the Deep State, ruling through their executing organs, Washington / the White House; the World Economic Forum (WEF), WHO, the FED, the European Union / EU Commission – and, finally, via the Bank for International Settlement (BIS).

A reminder: In the 1930s and 40s, the BIS channeled US funding to Germany’s Reichsbank (Central Bank) to finance Hitler’s war against the Soviet Union. Today, the BIS is literally the Central Bank of (almost) all Central Banks.

*

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and unelected President of the EU Commission (EC), Ursula von der Leyen, meet the profile of such sought-after traitors. It took the obscure Powers that Be months of vetting the candidacy of the two for their designated jobs of respectively, Chancellor of Germany and President of the European Commission (EC).

They way these tasks have to be carried out, they are jobs of “integrity” to the obscure, to the Deep State, to the Death Cult that seems to be running our world – for now.

The latter, Ms. Von der Leyen, proved her disloyalty to the European people by ordering in September 2022 4.5 billion doses of Pfizer covid vaxxes for a European population of about 450 million – about ten jabs per person. These are billions of people’s tax euros paid to Pfizer for a totally invalid and highly dangerous experimental mRNA injection.

And this after Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has openly recognized that Pfizer vaxxes are not preventing the covid “disease”, nor the spread of covid. He also acknowledged the serious side effects that the mRNA experimental injections may have.

Instead of immediately calling off all the vaccination programs around the globe to protect what’s left of unvaxxed people, especially children, mankind’s future generation, von der Leyen puts more fuel into the vaxx bulldozer so that more people suffer, lose their immunity, become ill and may die. Not to mention the utter corruption behind the 4.5 billion doses deal – so far unpunished. Von der Leyen keeps her illustrious position of hypocrisy and falsehood.

However, today the focus is on the former, on German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on his fore-knowledge of the Nord Stream Pipeline blow-up.

As a precursor to what will follow, Madame Von der Leyen was fully aware, involved and up-to-date as a compatriot and ally of Olaf Scholz’s, having gone through the same Schwab / WEF Academy for Young Global Leaders (YGL). On top of it, Ursula von der Leyen is also on the WEF’s Board of Trustees. She is deeply committed to the Agenda WEF / UN 2030.

Germany: Is the Chancellor Betraying the US Emperor? The New German-China “Connection”

How much advance knowledge did Chancellor Scholz have about the blow-up of Nord Stream 2 on 26 September 2022?

Notwithstanding some lacking precisions in Seymour Hersh’s article – see this – during a joint Press Conference by President Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the White House on February 7, 2022, about two weeks before Russia’s Special Action on Ukraine, Joe Biden said these precise words, “If Russia invades, there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2, we will bring an end to it.”

When a reporter asked how exactly he intended to do it, given that the project was within the control of Germany, Biden just said, “I promise we will be able to do it.”

Mr. Scholz, standing next to Biden, answered the same question, saying something like, we are in this together. (See Michel Chossudovsky’s detailed analysis and video interview)

This – “we are in this together” – would indicate that they talked about and agreed before on how to stop Nord Stream 2. If you were a German businessman in manufacturing, who depends on cheap Russian gas to remain internationally competitive, or a simple German or European citizen, whose winter heating depends on Russian gas, wouldn’t these words alone already indicate an utmost betrayal by Scholz of the German and European people?

Europe depends about 40% on Russian gas. The percentage in Germany in 2021 may be in excess of 50%.

On 22 February 2022, two days before the Russian military action on Ukraine, Chancellor Scholz called off the completion of Nord Stream 2 which at that time was scheduled to be ready for Russian gas deliveries within about three months. See this.

The Russian military intervention on Ukraine’s constant aggression on the 95% Russian Donbass population – ever since the 2014 western- / US- / NATO-instigated Maidan coup, as well as on Ukraine’s dozens of US-funded bio-weapon laboratories – took place only two days later, on 24 February 2022.

Did Olaf Scholz have previous knowledge of the date and timing of the Russian military action?

There were many omissions or unanswered questions in Sy Hersh’s article (above), some of which were cleared up by a follow-up interview of Hersh’s by journalist Fabian Scheidler. See this interview for more details.

What emerged from this Hersh–Scheidler conversation is that Gordon Sullivan, a member of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was leading an “interagency group” that met in December 2021 secretly to figure out what “actions” to take, i.e. how to destroy the pipelines.

Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland – remember, “f*ck Europe” – who had been deeply involved in the infamous US- / NATO-instigated February 2014 Ukraine Maidan Coup and in every step from then to now, talked already earlier about “we can do it” – meaning destroying the pipelines.

From the Hersh–Scheidler conversation expired that the decision to blow up the gas ducts was taken around 20 January 2022.

These are Sy Hersh’s words in his conversation with Fabian Scheidler,

“And then the president as well, with Olaf Scholz, said on February 7 [referring to the joint Biden-Scholz Press Conference] that we could do it. Scholz said nothing specific; he was vague. But a question that I would ask Scholz, if I had a parliamentary hearing, is this: Did President Biden tell you about this? Did he tell you at that time why he was so confident he could blow it up? We didn’t have a plan yet, but we knew we had the capability to do it.”

This question is, indeed, crucial. To what extent was Olaf Scholz – and by association Madame von der Leyen – involved in the decision-making process? In any case, it is almost sure that Scholz knew already about it at the 7 February 2022 Press Conference, when he told the asking journalist “We are in this together”.

The unelected President of the EC, Ursula von der Leyen, was without the slightest doubt fully on board with the decision – to the detriment of citizens of Germany and Europe. 

Mr. Scholz also knew that the overall WEF / UN Agenda 2030 included destructionand deindustrialization of Germany as a precursor to annihilation of the European economy. He was also aware that Germany’s corporate manufacturing community, and, of course, the public at large, were completely against such measures.

Olaf Scholz also knows about the close links the German business community has with Russia and may have suspected, even above and beyond the US-CIA suspicions, that these close ties may find ways of accessing Russian gas.

As an obedient scholar of Klaus Schwab’s WEF, might it then be too far-fetched to speculate that Mr. Scholz himself may have given Washington, the Biden Administration, a hint in the direction of “blowing-up” the pipelines – “just to be sure”?

Knowing by now, the degree of traitors of the German and European people Scholz and von der Leyen are, this is, of course, just pure speculation. It’s left to the reader to form his or her own opinion.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Sy Hersh and the Way We Live Now. “The Propaganda Apparatus that Manipulates and Controls our Society”

Coverage of the sabotage of the Nordstream pipelines helped Murray realize something important about how the Big Lie works.

It is a clear indicator of the disappearance of freedom from our so-called Western democracies that Sy Hersh, arguably the greatest living journalist, cannot get this monumental revelation on the front of The Washington Post or The New York Times, but has to self-publish on the net.

Hersh tells the story of the U.S. destruction of the Nordstream pipelines in forensic detail, giving dates, times, method and military units involved. He also outlines the importance of the Norwegian armed forces working alongside the U.S. Navy in the operation.

One point Sy does not much stress, but it is worth saying more about, is that Norway and the U.S. are of course the two countries that have benefitted financially, to an enormous degree, from blowing up the pipeline.

Not only have both gained huge export surpluses from the jump in gas prices, Norway has directly replaced Russian gas to the tune of some $40 billion per year. From 2023 the United States will appear in that list in second place behind Norway, following the opening in the last two months of two new liquefied natural gas terminals in Germany, built to replace Russian gas with U.S. and Qatari supplies.

So Russia lost out massively financially from the destruction of Nordstream and who benefited? The U.S. and Norway, the two countries who blew up the pipeline.

But of course, this war is nothing to do with money or hydrocarbons and is all about freedom and democracy….

To return to Hersh’s account, particularly interesting are the series of decisions taken to avoid classification of the operation in various ways which would require it to be reported to Congress. In terms of United States history, this ought to be a big deal.

For the executive branch to commit what is an act of war without the approval of the legislature is fundamentally unconstitutional. But that is one of those quaint remnants of democracy that the neoliberal elite consensus can quietly sidestep nowadays.

Hersh sets out the well-known background in compelling detail, including that, from U.S. President Joe Biden down, the Americans effectively announced what they were going to do, openly.

Victoria Nuland: “FxxK the EU.” Nord Stream Is “A Hunk of Metal at the Bottom of the Sea”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 08, 2023

In recent developments, Germany’s Prosecutor General Peter Frank confirmed “there is no evidence to blame Russia for the destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipelines”:

“It currently has not been proven (…) The investigation is ongoing (…) We are currently evaluating all this forensically. [The suspicion] that there had been a foreign sabotage act [in this case], has so far not been substantiated”, he said during the interview with Die Welt.

If it’s not Russia, Who Did It? 

“No evidence of foreign sabotage” of an act which has created social havoc and hardship in the European Union, with rising energy prices? People are freezing, unable to pay their heating bills. This crisis which emanates from Washington has been conducive to a process of impoverishment all over Europe from a never-ending surge in energy prices.

The Evidence is There: It is Being Ignored by Germany’s Prosecutor Peter Frank as well as by Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

It had been ordered by the president of the United States. Joe Biden. They know it!  They are liars.

Victoria Nuland: “Fxxk the EU” Again

President Biden’s decision to order the sabotage of Nord Stream (see below) is now confirmed by a recent January 2023 declaration by Victoria Nuland to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“Senator Cruz, like you I am and I think the administration is very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”

click Victoria Nuland or image below to view the video of her statement:

F**k the EU again:  “A Hunk of Metal at the bottom of the Sea”

You do not need a Prosecutor to lead an “expert investigation” into Who’s Behind this Act of War against more than 400 million Europeans. 

Joe Biden’s February 2022 Statement

Biden in February: „If Russia invades, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2, we will bring an end to it.“

Reporter: „But how will you do that, exactly, since…the project is in Germany’s control?“ Biden: „We will… I promise you we will be able to do it.“

At a Senate hearing, top US diplomat Victoria Nuland celebrated the Nord Stream 2 pipeline bombing:

„Senator Cruz, like you, I am, and I think the administration is, very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.“

Pres. Biden:

If Russia invades…then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.“ Reporter: „But how will you do that, exactly, since…the project is in Germany’s control?“ Biden: „I promise you, we will be able to do that.“ http://abcn.ws/3B5SScx

But what most worries me about the entire story is the unanimous complicity of the mainstream media in ignoring the completely obvious.

The media line, parroted here relentlessly by the BBC and corporate media, was  that the Russians had probably themselves blown up the pipeline on which they had expended such great resources and three decades of intense diplomatic activity, and which was to be the key to Russia’s single most valuable source of income for the next 40 years.

This was always quite literally incredible. You would have to be deranged to believe it.

By Craig Murray Global Research, February 13, 2023 Craig Murray 9 February 2023

Haben die USA Nordstream 2 gesprengt? | Seymour Hersh

image 2

Nord Stream: What Hersh Got Wrong

By Mike Whitney Global Research, February 13, 2023

There’s something not-quite-right about Sy Hersh’s report on the destruction of Nord Stream 2. There is a number of inconsistencies in the piece that lead me to believe that Hersh was less interested in presenting ‘the unvarnished truth’ than relaying a version of events that advance a particular agenda.

That is not to say that I don’t appreciate what the author has done. I do. In fact, I think it would be impossible to overstate the significance of a report that positively identifies the perpetrators of what-appears-to-be the biggest act of industrial terrorism in history. Hersh’s article has the potential to greatly undermine the credibility of the people in power and, by doing so, bring the war to a swift end. It is an incredible achievement that we should all applaud. Here’s a brief recap by political analyst Andre Damon:

On Wednesday, journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that the United States Navy, at the direction of President Joe Biden, was responsible for the September 26, 2022 attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines carrying natural gas between Russia and Germany.

This article, which has been met with total silence in the major US publications, has blown apart the entire narrative of US involvement in the war as a response to “unprovoked Russian aggression.” It lifts the lid on far-reaching plans to use the escalating conflict with Russia to solidify US economic and military domination over Europe.

Hersh revealed that: The operation was ordered by US President Joe Biden and planned by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.” (“Seymour Hersh’s exposure of the Nord Stream bombing: A lesson and a warning”, Andre Damon, World Socialist Web Site)

This short excerpt summarizes the primary claim that is the focal point of the entire article and—in my opinion—the claim is well researched, impartially presented and extremely persuasive. But there are other parts of the article that are not nearly as convincing and will undoubtedly leave alot of fairly well-informed readers scratching their heads. For example, here’s Hersh discussing the timeline for the Nord Stream operation:

“Biden’s decision to sabotage the pipelines came after more than nine months of highly secret back and forth debate inside Washington’s national security community about how to best achieve that goal. For much of that time, the issue was not whether to do the mission, but how to get it done with no overt clue as to who was responsible.” (“How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline”, Seymour Hersh, Substack)

“Nine months”?

The war broke out on February 24. The pipeline was blown up on September 26. That’s seven months. So, if there were “more than nine months of highly secret back and forth debate inside Washington’s national security community about how to” “sabotage the pipelines” then we must assume the scheming preceeded the war. This is a crucial point, and yet Hersh skims over it like it’s ‘no big deal’. But it is a big deal because—as Andre Damon points out—it “blows apart the entire narrative of US involvement in the war as a response to “unprovoked Russian aggression.” In other words, it proves that the United States was planning to engage in acts of war against Russia regardless of developments in Ukraine. It also suggests that the Russian invasion was merely a cover for Washington to execute a plan that it had mapped out years earlier.

Later in the article, Hersh makes the same claim again without emphasizing its underlying significance. He says: “The Biden Administration was doing everything possible to avoid leaks as the planning took place late in 2021 and into the first months of 2022.”

The truth—as journalist John Helmer states in a recent article—is far different than Hersh describes. Here’s Helmer to explain:

From the full text of the Hersh report, it appears that neither the source nor Hersh has “direct knowledge” of the history of US-led operations to sabotage and destroy the pipelines which became public more than a year before; they directly involved the Polish government and the Danish government. In fact, by error of omission Hersh and his man are ignorant of those operations and of that history.” (“WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE HERSH REPORT ON THE NORD STREAM ATTACKS“, John Helmer, Dances With Bears)

US opposition to Nord Stream is not a recent development; it has a long history dating back to the very beginning of the project in 2011. Even back then, an article appeared in the German magazine Spiegel claiming that ” The project is aimed at ensuring the long-term security of Europe’s energy supplies, but it remains controversial”

Controversial?

Why was Nord Stream considered controversial? What is controversial about sovereign nations strengthening economic ties with other countries in order to ensure they have enough cheap energy to fuel their factories and heat their homes?

This question really cuts to the heart of the matter, and yet, Hersh eschews it altogether. Why? Here’s more from Hersh:

President Biden and his foreign policy team—National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, and Victoria Nuland, the Undersecretary of State for Policy—had been vocal and consistent in their hostility to the two pipelines… From its earliest days, Nord Stream 1 was seen by Washington and its anti-Russian NATO partners as a threat to western dominance...

America’s political fears were real: Putin would now have an additional and much-needed major source of income, and Germany and the rest of Western Europe would become addicted to low-cost natural gas supplied by Russia—while diminishing European reliance on America.” (“How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline”, Seymour Hersh, Substack)

The Gas Pipeline War: On the Day Nord Stream was Sabotaged, the “Alternative Pipeline” was Opened

Why is Hersh defending the imperial mindset that economic transactions between foreign nations must somehow benefit the United States or be regarded as a national security threat? That is not the role of an impartial journalist gathering information for his readers? That is the role of a propagandist.

Yes, it is true, that Putin would have “an additional and much-needed major source of income”, because that is how the free market works: You sell your gas and you get paid. End of story. There is nothing criminal or sinister about this, and it certainly does not provide a justification for acts of terrorism.

And following this shocking statement, Hersh follows with his other concern that “Germany and the rest of Western Europe would become addicted to low-cost natural gas supplied by Russia.”

Why does Hersh invoke this tedious “addiction” meme that is repeated ad nauseam by the political activists in the mainstream media? And what does it actually mean?

The simple fact is, that Germany was getting cheap gas from Russia which increased its competitiveness, profitability and economic prosperity. How is that a bad thing? How can access to cheap fuel be characterized as an “addiction”? If you were able to fill your gas-tank for 1 dollar per gallon, would you refuse on the basis that you might become addicted?

Of course, not. You’d be grateful that you could buy it that cheap. So, why is Hersh pushing this nonsense and why does he double-down shortly afterwards when he says:

“Nord Stream 1 was dangerous enough, in the view of NATO and Washington, but Nord Stream 2, (would) double the amount of cheap gas that would be available to Germany and Western Europe.”

Horrors! Imagine the free market actually working as it was designed to work; lifting people from poverty and spreading prosperity across national borders. Can you see how narrowly imperialistic this is?

Germany needs Russia’s cheap gas. It’s good for its industry, good for working people, and good for economic growth. And, yes, it is good for Russia, too. The only one it’s not good for is United States whose power is undermined by the German-Russian partnership. Can you see that?

And, by the way, there has never been an incident in which Putin has used Russian gas or oil for the purpose of blackmail, coercion or extortion. Never. That is a myth concocted by Washington spinmeisters who want to throw a wrench in German-Russo relations. But there’s not a word of truth to any of it. Here’s more from Hersh:

Opposition to Nord Stream 2 flared on the eve of the Biden inauguration in January 2021, when Senate Republicans… repeatedly raised the political threat of cheap Russian natural gas during the confirmation hearing of Blinken as Secretary of State….

Would Biden stand up to the Germans? Blinken said yes…. “I know his strong conviction that this is a bad idea, the Nord Stream 2,” he said. “I know that he would have us use every persuasive tool that we have to convince our friends and partners, including Germany, not to move forward with it.”

A few months later, as the construction of the second pipeline neared completion, Biden blinked. That May, in a stunning turnaround, the administration waived sanctions against Nord Stream AG, with a State Department official conceding that trying to stop the pipeline through sanctions and diplomacy had “always been a long shot.” Behind the scenes, administration officials reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, by then facing a threat of Russian invasion, not to criticize the move.

There were immediate consequences. Senate Republicans, led by Cruz, announced an immediate blockade of all of Biden’s foreign policy nominees and delayed passage of the annual defense bill for months, deep into the fall. Politico later depicted Biden’s turnabout on the second Russian pipeline as “the one decision, arguably more than the chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan, that has imperiled Biden’s agenda.” (“How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline”, Seymour Hersh, Substack)

This is interesting. We already know that Biden and his lieutenants were resolutely committed to terminating Nord Stream regardless of the risks. So, why did Biden decide to do an about-face and lift sanctions, even while his team was putting the final touches on the plan to blow up the pipeline?

Why?

Are we supposed to believe that Joe Biden suddenly changed his mind and decided to pursue a less dangerous and felonious strategy?

No, as Hersh points out, the decision to blow up the pipeline had already been made, which means the administration was merely looking for a way to hide their tracks. In other words, they were already working on a legal defense of “plausible deniability” which was reinforced by the lifting of sanctions. That was the real objective, to create as much distance between themselves and the terrorist act they had already approved and were about to launch. Here’s more from Hersh:

The administration was floundering, despite getting a reprieve on the crisis in mid-November, when Germany’s energy regulators suspended approval of the second Nord Stream pipeline. Natural gas prices surged 8% within days, amid growing fears in Germany and Europe that the pipeline suspension and the growing possibility of a war between Russia and Ukraine would lead to a very much unwanted cold winter. It was not clear to Washington just where Olaf Scholz, Germany’s newly appointed chancellor, stood. Months earlier, after the fall of Afghanistan, Scholtz had publicly endorsed French President Emmanuel Macron’s call for a more autonomous European foreign policy in a speech in Prague—clearly suggesting less reliance on Washington and its mercurial actions.” (“How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline”, Seymour Hersh, Substack)

This is pure fiction. Of course, Scholz paid lip service to a more “autonomous European foreign policy”. What would you expect him to say to a domestic audience? And, does Hersh honestly believe that Scholz has not been in Washington’s back-pocket from the very beginning? Does he think that Scholz based his decision on Putin’s invasion and not on agreements he had made with Washington before the war had even begun?

Keep in mind, the United States has been arming, training and providing logistical support for Ukrainian forces in the east for the last 8 years, the purpose of which was to prepare for a war with Russia.

Does anyone deny that?

No, no one denies that.

Was Scholz aware of this?

Of course, he was aware of it. Every leader in Europe knew what was going on. There were even articles in the mainstream news that explained in minute detail what the United States was up-to. It was not a secret.

And this is just one inconsistency, after all, didn’t former Chancellor Angela Merkel openly admit (in an interview with a German magazine) that Germany deliberately shrugged off its obligations under the Minsk treaty in order to buy time so the Ukrainian army could get stronger so they’d be better prepared to fight the Russian invasion.

Yes, she did! So, we can be 100% certain that Scholz knew what the overall game-plan was. The plan was to lure Russia into a war in Ukraine and then claim “Unprovked aggression”. Scholz knew it, Hollande knew it, Zelensky knew it, Boris Johnson knew it, Petro Poroshenko knew it and Biden knew it. They all knew it.

Even so, Hersh wants us to believe that Scholz knew nothing about these elaborate and costly plans, but simply made his decisions as developments took place in real time. That is not true. That is not what happened and, I would argue, that Hersh knows that is not what happened.

But the biggest failing of the Hersh piece is the complete omission of the geopolitical context in which this act of terrorism took place. The US doesn’t go around the world blowing up critical energy infrastructure for nothing. No. The reason Washington embarked on this risky gambit was because it is facing an existential crisis that can only be resolved by crushing those emerging centers of power that threaten America’s dominant position in the global order. That’s what’s going on below the surface; the US is trying to roll back the clock to the glorious 1990’s after the Soviet empire had collapsed and the world was Washington’s oyster. But those days are gone forever and US power is irreversibly eroding due to its basic lack of competitiveness. If the US was still the industrial powerhouse it was following WW2—when the rest of the world was in ruins—then there would be no need to blow up pipelines to prevent European-Russian economic integration and the emergence of a massive free trade zone spanning the area from Lisbon to Vladivostok . But the fact is, the US is not as essential to global growth as it once was and, besides, other nations want to be free to pursue their own growth model. They want to implement the changes that best fit their own culture, their own religion and their own traditions. They don’t want to be told what to do. But Washington doesn’t want change. Washington wants to preserve the system bestows the greatest amount of power and wealth on itself. Hersh does not simply ignore the geopolitical factors that led to the sabotage, he proactively creates a smokescreen with his misleading explanations. Check it out:

“As long as Europe remained dependent on the pipelines for cheap natural gas, Washington was afraid that countries like Germany would be reluctant to supply Ukraine with the money and weapons it needed to defeat Russia. It was at this unsettled moment that Biden authorized Jake Sullivan to bring together an interagency group to come up with a plan.”

More baloney. Washington doesn’t care about Germany’s pathetic contribution to the war effort. What Washington cares about is power; pure, unalloyed power. And Washington’s global power was being directly challenged by European-Russian economic integration and the creation of a giant economic commons beyond its control. And the Nord Stream pipeline was at the very heart of this new bustling phenom. It was the main artery connecting the raw materials and labor of the east with the technology and industry of the west. It was a marriage of mutual interests that Washington had to destroy to maintain its grip on regional power.

Think about it: This new economic commons, (“Greater Europe”) would eventually ease trade and travel restrictions, allow the free flow of capital and labor between countries, and harmonize regulations in a way that would build trust and strengthen diplomatic ties. Here’s more from an earlier piece that sums it up:

In a world where Germany and Russia are friends and trading partners, there is no need for US military bases, no need for expensive US-made weapons and missile systems, and no need for NATO. There’s also no need to transact energy deals in US Dollars or to stockpile US Treasuries to balance accounts. Transactions between business partners can be conducted in their own currencies which is bound to precipitate a sharp decline in the value of the dollar and a dramatic shift in economic power. This is why the Biden administration opposes Nord Stream. It’s not just a pipeline, it’s a window into the future; a future in which Europe and Asia are drawn closer together into a massive free trade zone that increases their mutual power and prosperity while leaving the US on the outside looking in.” (“The Crisis in Ukraine Is Not About Ukraine. It’s About Germany“, Unz Review)

It is the responsibility of a journalist to provide the context that is needed for the reader to understand the topic of discussion. Hersh doesn’t do that, which leads me to believe that John Helmer is right when he says:

This is an indictment of the Biden pipeline plot, not of the US war plan.” (“What’s Wrong with the Hersh Report”, John Helmer, Dances With Bears)

Video: America is at War with Europe

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, February 16, 2023

There Never Was a “Secret Operation” 

There never was a “Secret Operation” with a view to preventing that the act of sabotage of Nord Stream be “traceable to the United States”.

The project had been discussed behind closed doors in 2021 as outlined by Seymour Hersh, but the actual planning of this so-called “secret operation” started in December 2021 extending to its execution in June 2022 and the actual sabotage on September 26-27, 2023. (see map below).

In late December  2021, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan convened what was described as “a newly formed task force” (Joint Chiefs of Staff, CIA, State Department, and Treasury) pertaining to Russia’s War preparations.

Within the group, there was debate as to what action was to be taken regarding North Stream. “The CIA argued that whatever was done, it would have to be covert. Everyone [in the task force] involved understood the stakes”

Let us look briefly at the timeline of this alleged “Secret Operation”: Late December 2021 – June 2022 – September 26-27 2022: A period of nine months:

Late December 2021: “newly formed (inter-agency) Task force” convened by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan

Early 2022:  A covert operation was envisaged. The CIA reported to the Task Force: “We have a way to blow up the pipelines.” i.e. which is “untraceable”.

A month later:

February 7, 2022: White House Press Conference together with Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz (on an official visit to the U.S.),  President Biden makes the following statement: 

If Russia invades “there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2”

June 10, 2022: (approximate date)

The underwater planting of the bombs. Biden “wanted the right to bomb anytime, to set the bombs off anytime remotely by us”.

September 26-27, 2022 

Six bombs exploded underwater close to the island of Bornholm in the Baltic Sea, destroying 3 of the 4 major pipelines of Nord Stream 1 and 2.(See S. Hersh, see map above)

The Biden-Scholz February 7, 2022 White House Press Conference:

See the video of the Press Conference in Annex to the article. See also The White House Transcript .

There was nothing “Secret”.  The public statements made regarding Nord Stream by President Biden and Chancellor Scholz are abundantly clear:

Andrea (Reuters) Q    Thank you, Mr.  President.  And thank you, Chancellor Scholz.  Mr.  President, I have wanted to ask you about this Nord Stream project that you’ve long opposed.  You didn’t mention it just now by name, nor did Chancellor Scholz.  Did you receive assurances from Chancellor Scholz today that Germany will, in fact, pull the plug on this project if Russia invades Ukraine?  And did you discuss what the definition of “invasion” could be?

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  The first question first.  If Germany — if Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the — the border of Ukraine again — then there will be — we — there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2.  We will bring an end to it. 

Q    But how will you — how will you do that exactly, since the project and control of the project is within Germany’s control?

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  We will — I promise you, we’ll be able to do it.  (White House Press Conference emphasis added)

“The Project is within Germany’s Control”

Chancellor Olaf Scholz responds to Reuter’s journalist pertaining to Biden’s decision to “pull the plug” on Nord Stream 2:

Andreas (Reuters) Q  [to Chancellor Scholz]  And will you commit today — will you commit today to turning off and pulling the plug on Nord Stream 2?  You didn’t mention it, and you haven’t mentioned it.

CHANCELLOR SCHOLZ:  As I’ve already said, we are acting together, we are absolutely united, and we will not be taking different steps.  We will do the same steps, and they will be very, very hard to Russia, and they should understand.  (emphasis added)

He casually ignores the journalist’s question: Nord Stream is “under control of Germany” of which he is the head of government. Chancellor Scholz fully abides by Washington’s demand, acting as a political proxy. “we will not be taking different steps”, he says.  

Read Chancellor Scholz’s response above: Has Germany become a  “Semicolony” of the United States? 

“Secret Operation” Made Public at a White House Press Conference

Biden’s Press Conference statement supported by Germany’s Chancellor Scholz, invalidates the notion that a so-called “secret operation” was unfolding, and that the US attack would be “untraceable”.

“Biden’s and Nuland’s indiscretion, if that is what it was, might have frustrated some of the planners. But it also created an opportunity. According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline “no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it.” (Seymour Hersh)

This was not a blunder on the part of Joe Biden. It was a political decision by the president and his political entourage including Nuland to make known that a U.S. act of sabotage against Nord Stream was envisaged (with the support of Germany’s government).  ( See analysis in article below) 

Biden’s public statement de facto acknowledges that the planned sabotage operation would be “traceable to the White House”. It was no longer a “secret operation”.

Biden’s statement was formulated with the endorsement of  Germany’s Chancellor Scholz several months before the so-called secret act of sabotage carried out in June 2022. 

Several analysts and journalists have pondered  as to “who was responsible for the sabotage”. This is a nonsensical exercise.  The answer is obvious. POTUS, The President of the United States in consultation with Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz. 

President Biden’s February 7, 2022 pronouncement granted “the green light” for the implementation of the act of sabotage, which was no longer part of a covert operation.  Those (within the team) who had undertaken the sabotage were carrying out instructions emanating from the White House with the endorsement of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. 

As outlined in my article, the sabotage of Nord Stream was an U.S. Act of War against both Germany and the European Union. 

And Germany’s Chancellor was fully aware that an act of sabotage against Nord Stream had been envisaged by the US, to the detriment of more than 400 million Europeans. (See analysis below). In this regard, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s acceptance of the U.S. initiative was an act of treason.

Michel Chossudovsky, February 16, 2023

Zurück zum Inhaltsverzeichnis der Dokumentationen

Kommentare

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

Verified by MonsterInsights