Specialists affirm that the West is just beginning its journey through other publications that will complete, as on previous occasions, the smokescreen which is in place to erase any possible implication of the White House in an act of State terrorism.
Antonio Rondón Garcia
Pulitzer prize-winner Seymour Hersh said that President John Biden spent a long time negotiating the demolition of Russian gas pipes Nord Stream I and II, especially to avoid Germany’s “regret” at participating in the Anti-Russian crusade. Regardless of the delayed results from the investigations begun by Denmark, Germany and Sweden about the gas pipeline explosions, it is clear that this was an act of terrorism.
The recent avalanche of articles with versions about sabotage organised by an alleged Pro-Ukrainian group is trying, in the first place, to dismiss accusations made by Moscow of a State terrorist act. Both the US newspaper, The New York Times, and German daily paper, Die Zeit, present a scenario in which, even when dealing with possible Ukrainian citizens, they would have no link with President Vladimir Zelensky’s government.
Last 8th February, a month ago, the White House was “unfocused” in their answers, after publishing an article by the US journalist Seymour Hersh (Pulitzer prize-winner, 1970) about US involvement in the attack. Hersh referred to intelligence sources, according to the US Special Forces frogmen who used the NATO Baltops 2022 manoeuvres as a cover to place explosives in the summer. The divers implicated in the preparation of the attack transported dynamite from the German port city of Rostock to a point in the open sea to prepare the violent act, which the Laureate journalist confirmed, had taken several months for Biden to decide.
Hersh explained that the White House leader negotiated for a while with the US intelligence community to carry out the sabotage, in an attempt to avoid Germany having regrets and re-establishing the import of Russian gas.
From the outset, similar to what happened when US intelligence espionage materials on their own Western associates were published, the most important thing for the press was to question the figure of the journalist.
Some mass media even preferred to avoid alluding to the text of the Pulitzer prize-winner’s article, just to dedicate more time to calling his reputation and the value of the sources he used into doubt.
Nevertheless, now it is intended to leave undoubted the credibility of the New York Times and Die Zeit’s articles, and also the Times, to speak of the guilt of a pro-Ukrainian group, which wanted to carry out the attack for their own private reasons.
According to specialists with digital newspaper Vzgliad, it would be difficult to imagine how a group of five amateur divers could transport 800 kg of explosives at 90 metres of depth to then detect the location of the gas pipeline tubes when they arrived.
The issue is in that these works have a method of hiding the tubes with concrete material, difficult to detect just by looking and without adequate technology, says the military expert Mijail Onufrienko, as quoted by Vzgliad.
It is noticeable that in the United States, absolute support is given for spreading a version, lacking concrete evidence, in the field of information when Washington categorically denies permission for an independent review into the attack on the gas pipelines.
According to Russian diplomat, Andrei Ledenev, the publication The New York Times was immediately given the green light in the US to silence the repercussions of the material published by Hersh.
Analysts recall that Biden himself insinuated that his country would find a way to prevent the function of Nord Stream II by any means, of which the first use never took place to carry gas directly to Germany from Russian supplies. PL