How the Game Works: New York Times Suggests Nord Stream Sabotage Responsibility Remain Secret

Editor’s note: This article’s headline has been updated.

I love a good mystery; I can’t help myself. Part of me is still enamored with the question of whatever happened to Malaysian Flight 370. Still, lately, my mind has been focused on the best international whodunit in years — who sabotaged the Nord Stream pipeline last September?

In a day and age where we have satellites that can see the gray hairs peaking through my overly dyed hair, and surveillance conducted on almost every corner of the globe, it truly is perplexing how we haven’t been able to answer this question yet. Or perhaps we have, but the truth is being purposely buried to protect the guilty parties involved.

There have been numerous speculations as to who participated in this underwater intrigue. So, naturally, one of the premier newspapers in all the land is hot on the pursuit of truth and disclosure. But, oh wait a minute, I got that all wrong; the Gray Lady, as those in the biz affectionately call her, is telling us perhaps the truth is overrated.

RELATED: New York Times Claims ‘Pro-Ukrainian’ Group Sabotaged Nord Stream Pipelines

You Can’t Handle the Truth

The New York Times recently published an article titled ‘Suspicions Multiply as Nord Stream Sabotage Remains Unsolved’ with the following byline:

“Intelligence leaks surrounding the sabotage of the pipelines have provided more questions than answers. It may be in no one’s interest to reveal more.”

Wait a second, no one’s interest? I’m certainly interested. 

A significant fuel line was purposely destroyed during a proxy war with one of our main adversaries. It’s been relatively well established that it wasn’t Russia that sabotaged their pipeline, so knowing if perhaps it was a state-sponsored attack by maybe a Western Big Boy such as the United Kingdom or, dare I say it… us, I would argue, is in everyone’s interest.

This is precisely why the powers that be are pulling the marionette strings over at the NYT’s to spin their web of misdirection to deflect from what is more than likely the truth behind the Nord Stream attack. What is that truth?

RELATED: White House Denies Explosive Report That the US Sabotaged Nord Stream 2

Obviously, We Probably Did it

Now, I’m just an amateur sleuth, and I would argue above average journalist, so take my opinion for what it’s worth, which, personally, if I were to put a price on it, I would say my opinions are damn near priceless. I believe that the United States was behind the Nord Stream attack. I’m not the only one with this inclination.

Former NYT alum Seymour Hersch busted out a pretty outstanding theory based on an unnamed source that claims the United States orchestrated and executed the undersea detonation with the CIA thanks to cooperation with the Norwegian government. Talk about a juicy take. 

At the time, his article made quite the wave. However, many in the mainstream channels dismissed this award-winning journalist’s work as reckless and shoddy, given his penchant for using unnamed sources because it’s only acceptable when rags like the NYT use unnamed officials. 

However, Mr. Hersh has had more exciting tidbits lately that got less buzz. For instance, when German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited President Joe Biden, both leaders asked the CIA to generate a cover story with the help of German intelligence to provide an alternative version of the pipeline destruction for American and German press outlets. 

This is known as “pulsing the system,” which means flooding willing outlets with disinformation – such as the yarn the NYTs tried to sell that a pro-Ukrainian group was behind the attack utilizing a German party boat. But let’s say you don’t believe little ole’ me and Seymour…perhaps you will believe the Swedes.

RELATED: NSA Whistleblower Snowden Digs Up Video of CIA Agent Admitting to Peddling Disinformation

The Truth Will Set You Free

“We got a pretty clear picture at the scene of the crime of who carried it out,” said Mats Ljungqvist, Sweden’s senior prosecutor on this particular case, “It cannot be ruled out that there are some private individuals who may have been the perpetrators. Still, our main lead is, of course, that a government is behind it – directly or indirectly.”

What does all that mean? Essentially that it’s pretty apparent that this was a state-sponsored attack, either directly with a government’s military or indirectly with a government paying a third party to execute this aquatic crime. 

As Ljungqvist put it, “Those who carried this out were careful with the traces they left behind.”

This smells of a Mission Impossible or James Bond plot. So the Swedes are confident a government was involved in the attack but are pretty mum on which government it could be.

Even more suspicious, when Russian President Vladimir Putin asked the United Nations to sanction an independent international commission to investigate the attack, all but China, Brazil, and Russia voted ‘no.’ That’s odd; doesn’t an independent investigation sound good?

I suppose it isn’t if the truth points to the alleged ‘good guys.’

We Don’t Care About the Truth

In the recent New York Times piece Danish Naval Commander Jens Kristofferson was quoted, saying “Is there any interest from the authorities to come out and say who did this? There are strategic reasons for not revealing who did it.”

And what could be those strategic reasons to hide the truth? Let’s take a look at the possibilities:

• If Russia did it (which they didn’t), there could be calls for a counter-attack escalating the war
• If Ukraine did it (which they didn’t), it might raise questions regarding further support for reckless behavior 
• If it was an orchestrated attack by a cabal of Western nations, it paints the West as the warmongers 
• If it were the United States, it would shake public confidence and trust, although, to be fair, that boats been rockin’ for awhile

“As long as they don’t come out with anything substantial, then we are left in the dark on this – as it should be,” said Kristofferson.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate that sometimes the forces of good must do questionable, morally grey things under cover of darkness to prevail against evil. However, I can’t abide by journalists and news outlets that should always be endeavoring to shine a light in the dark, willfully unplugging those lights to maintain their status as tools of the state.