The US’ Latest Disinfo Campaign About The Nord Stream Terrorist Attacks Was Preplanned
Keep up to Date & Bypass the Big Tech Censorship
Get uncensored news and updates, subscribe to our daily FREE newsletter!
What’s most interesting about the emerging narrative that’s being leaked to the press by US spies is that it attempts to indirectly blame Kiev instead of doubling down on the initial lie that this terrorist attack was a false flag attack by Russia. False “evidence” in support of the second-mentioned could just as easily have been concocted, yet the decision was made to not go along that route, but rather to reshape popular perceptions in the direction of getting Westerners to think that their Ukrainian proxies did this.
The average Westerner is incredibly confused after US media just began to decisively shift their official narrative about the Nord Stream terrorist attacks in September from one of very strongly implying that it was a Russian false flag to extending serious credence to the possibility that Kiev was the true culprit. The latest reports circulating through the media citing unnamed intelligence officials allege that a mysterious Ukrainian-connected sabotage group was to blame and that there’s “evidence” to prove it.
According to the emerging interpretation of events that was first shared by the New York Times, a commando group with forged passports employed a Ukrainian-owned yacht to carry out their terrorist attack, with German prosecutors already having searched the vessel and found traces of explosives. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius cautioned against jumping to conclusions, however, even going as far as to introduce his own conspiracy theory by speculating that it might have been a false flag to blame Kiev.
| Recommended Books [ see all ] | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 |  |  |  |
 |
Moscow, meanwhile, insists that these latest developments are a disinformation campaign to divert attention from what really happened. Russian representatives have elaborated that the objectives behind these latest provocations are to convince everyone that there’s no need for a multilateral and transparent investigation, thus making it all yet another red herring. These “controlled leaks”, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said, only suit the Anglo-American agenda.
Observers should also remember that this decisive shift in the official narrative that’s coming from unnamed US intelligence officials shortly follows Seymour Hersh’s detailed report citing his own inside sources allegedly confirming that the US and Norway colluded to carry out this terrorist attack. This fact adds credence to Russian representatives’ convictions that the whole thing is a disinformation campaign to divert attention from the truth, namely that which was revealed in his latest report.
The story that’s being spun by US spies is detailed enough to carry with it a certain “logic”, however unbelievable it may objectively be considering the extreme improbability of a truly non-state-sponsored terrorist group blowing up a pipeline in NATO-controlled waters without being caught at the scene. It nevertheless serves the purpose of a public relations campaign for reshaping popular perceptions about what happened among those average folks with poor knowledge about how the world really works.
In light of this insight, it’s almost certainly the case that the US planted this false “evidence” well ahead of time in order to serve as a back-up plan for deploying at the most narratively crucial moment in the event that someone like Hersh’s sources spilled the beans about what ultimately happened. This means that the leaks are “real” in the sense that the false “evidence” veritably exists, but as was just explained, it’s nothing but a preplanned red herring and doesn’t prove what truly took place.
What’s most interesting about the emerging narrative that’s being leaked to the press by US spies is that it attempts to indirectly blame Kiev instead of doubling down on the initial lie that this terrorist attack was a false flag attack by Russia. False “evidence” in support of the second-mentioned could just as easily have been concocted, yet the decision was made to not go along that route, but rather to reshape popular perceptions in the direction of getting Westerners to think that their Ukrainian proxies did this.
Only one of two mutually exclusive motivations makes sense: either this is meant to maliciously throw them under the bus and thus pressure the Europeans to scale back their armed aid to Kiev; or it’s a completely misguided attempt to make Kiev look like an intelligence superpower so as to boost morale. The first explanation doesn’t correspond to NATO recently declaring a “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with Russia while the second actually only makes Kiev look like a rogue regime.
The larger context within which this narrative evolution is being tacitly facilitated by US spies is the gradual on-the-ground gains that Russia recently made around Artyomovsk/“Bakhmut”, which prompted Kiev to send panicked appeals to its patrons for more lethal aid as soon as possible. Zelensky even told CNN that Russia could roll through the rest of Donbass if it captures that city, though Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin downplayed that scenario.
Whatever ends up happening there, the point is that the US wouldn’t have pushed a weaponized conspiracy theory blaming its proxies for blowing up a major NATO ally’s pipeline at this sensitive military-strategic point in the Ukrainian Conflict when Kiev needs all the military aid it can get. If that was truly the intent of this preplanned red herring, then it could have waited to be deployed until Kiev reconquers more territory and to pressure it into restarting peace talks with Russia.
Hersh’s latest report was already largely buried by the Mainstream Media (MSM) and discredited by those that even spent the time to inform their audience about it. It didn’t meaningfully reshape domestic German dynamics either and thus didn’t have to be responded to right away. The considerations shared in the preceding sentences therefore enable observers to confidently rule out the possibility that this was done to throw Kiev under the bus ahead of a large-scale reduction of armed aid.
Instead, it was likely always a completely misguided attempt to make Kiev look like an intelligence superpower in order to boost morale at whatever moment it was decided to deploy this weaponized conspiracy theory. As it turned out, this ended up coinciding with both Hersh’s report and the latest disadvantageous developments (from the West’s perspective) around Artyomovsk/ “Bakhmut”, the latter of which in a twisted way might have actually end giving their provocation a sense of urgency.
In the minds of whoever concocted this preplanned red herring, they apparently thought that now was counterintuitively the best possible moment to pin the blame on Kiev for the Nord Stream II attacks in order to inspire similarly anti-Russian Central & Eastern European (CEE) states to rally around it. Ukraine would have done what none of them were hitherto capable of doing, according to this artificially manufactured information warfare narrative, by dealing a deathblow to the “hated” Nord Streams.
While Western Europe and especially Germany continues to drag its feet when it comes to scaling up their armed aid to Kiev, the CEE states have led the way this entire time and continue to do so due to their shared grand strategic goal related to strategically crippling Russia. The masterminds behind this disinformation operation therefore probably already calculated that its potential impact on Germany’s participation in their proxy war would remain manageable since it was already largely minimal anyhow.
Not only that, but Germany is so deeply under US influence that its Defense Minister’s earlier referenced reaction wasn’t anger at the possibility that Kiev carried out this terrorist attack, but the concocting of his own conspiracy theory claiming that this might have been an anti-Ukrainian false flag. Even if officials fell for the US’ preplanned red herring for covering its own tracks by sincerely believing that Kiev was responsible, it’s highly unlikely that they would advertise such and/or scale back their aid.
To wrap it all up, the average Westerner might still be confused about everything even after reading this analysis, which is normal since there’s a lot for them to take in at once. Those who feel that way should consider rereading it if they want to better understand the points being conveyed. In sum, the US is deploying this weaponized conspiracy theory to cover up its culpability, and those behind this disinformation operation actually think that blaming Kiev makes it look like an intelligence superpower.
