by Clive Sulish at rebelbreeze on 23rd October 2024 via thefreeonlinetps at https://wp.me/pIJl9-ExJ Telegram t.me/thefreeonline

On 26 September 2022, explosions blew up sections of the Nord Stream deep sea gas pipelines from Russia to Germany. Investigations confirmed that it was an act of sabotage¹ but met a wall of silence and evasion in the West.

Amidst accusations and theories,² no perpetrator was conclusively identified.

But two years later, in September 2024, an important item of previously-suppressed information came to light in a Danish newspaper. It was not however picked up by the mainstream western media, despite its potentially crucial contribution to solving the mystery.

Alternative sources however alighted on it and it is now coming into the public light.

In any investigation of culpability for a human action, one of the first established principles to investigate is – and targets of investigation should be — cui bono? (in Latin, who benefits?). Next, Qui habet potestatem? — Who has the means? Finally, Who had the opportunity

Huge profits from Nord Stream sabotage – Global Times

Potentially, any in the anti-Russian coalition around NATO stood to benefit by harming not only a Russian installation but also a major source of financial benefit to Russia, i.e of sales of gas to Germany. Many eyes turned towards Russia’s opponent in the Ukraine, the Zelensky regime.

However, neither Russia nor any other serious commentators ever considered that NATO proxy to be the culprit. Russia and others stated that the operation required a major state, both in the depths concerned, in surface support needed and in the explosive type and detonation system.

A number of commentators pointed the finger at the USA, which denied any involvement. Well, the USA is a major state and certainly had the motive, as Russia was and remains its major target in the Ukraine war and it also had the potential technical and personnel means.

It would also of course, as an enemy of Russia, benefit from harm to its opponent. It would benefit the USA financially too, though that was yet to become clear.

From whom would Germany buy its power to warm its population and production through the winter as an alternative to Russian gas? That new source would turn out to be – yes, the USA.

In fact from the start the US had done everything possible to block the NordStream 2 pipeline with open threats and sanctions on construction companies. The main reason for any doubt on who did the sabotage is because the US has huge influence and control in the Western mass media.

OK, so suspicion should fall heavily on the USA, leader of NATO and chief among the enemies of Russia. But did it have the opportunity?

Since there was no record of a US naval presence in the area at the time of the explosion (even though they had been there previously in one of those major joint exercises they like to carry out to bring their allies closer and intimidate their opponents), the media investigation floundered.

Russia asked at the UN Security Council for an investigation, which was rejected. No decision of the Council can be made against a veto of even one of the five Permanent Members, of which three are part of the NATO coalition (USA, UK and France).

A number of alternative theories began to be put around, including mention of large yacht in the area and a Ukrainian oligarch financier. Official investigations were launched by two states in whose economic zone the operation must have taken place: Denmark and Sweden.³

Both regimes are part of the US/NATO/EU coalition and there may have been suspicions that their investigations might not be sufficiently thorough. In any case, in February this year both states closed their investigations without having identified the perpetrator.

Germany’s investigation is ongoing and it issued an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian oligarch who fled to NATO proxy Ukraine with assistance of NATO member Poland. However Russia and serious commentators have always said that a major state, something Ukraine is not, was culpable.