Tucker Carlson now claims definitively that Ukraine blew up the Nordstrom pipeline. I'm not paying close attention, but by my reckoning this is the fourth narrative to emerge. First was that the Russians did it, then the Swedes, then the Americans (per Sy Hersh) and now the Ukrainians.
No matter that there is scant new evidence, Tucker claims definitively it was the Ukrainians. On that basis he concludes that they must've also blown up the Nova Kahkovka dam.
It begs some questions. Does Ukraine have a Navy? Russia claims to have sunk the last of it recently. Did it ever operate in the North Sea? Absolutely not. Does Ukraine have trained operatives like the US Navy SEALs? We have never seen them.
I would venture to say that blowing up Russian missile boats on the Black Sea would be a whole lot easier than blowing up the Nordstrom pipeline. Ukraine has a strong motive, and proximity. Ukraine regularly operates commercial vessels on the Black Sea. They have not managed it.
Ukraine has managed to send Marine drones into Sevastopol Harbor. But they have not demonstrated any ability to do much in the way of undersea warfare even close to home. They don't have the personnel or equipment. We know their limitations, which evidently preclude an operation such as the Northstream job.
"Ukraine did it" is a convenient narrative. Ukraine is at war with Russia, so holding them responsible does not hurt anybody. If Ukraine did it, it was an act of war. No need to dig further. On the other hand, Sy Hersh's explanation was deeply embarrassing to the United States.
Consider the source – the Washington Post. Has the Washington Post ever served as a conduit for US government propaganda? Think hard now. Why yes, it has. All the time.
Ukraine cannot afford denying responsibility. They cannot afford to irk their major arms donor, the United States. They cannot afford not to remain quiet on the subject.
Tucker knows all of this. He is not acting with integrity. He is choosing a narrative that supports his narrative. He doesn't actively sign up as favoring Russia, but he certainly lambastes Ukraine at every turn. The same effect.
I did not mention the slurs against Zelensky in his Twitter debut. They are unprofessional. His line about Ukraine’s Jewish president being anti-Christian could easily be taken as anti-Semitism on his part. Playing to the wahoos in his base of support. In any case, the Jews are a far smaller minority in Ukraine than the US. Zelensky was indeed brought to power by a smarmy Jewish oligarch, Igor Kholomoisky. But the predominantly Christian Ukrainians I know are very happy with his leadership.
Tucker raises a valid point about Blackrock, Soros et. al. Yes, their vulpine eyes are aglitter with visions of sugarplums such as CBDCs, vaccine passports, throttling agriculture and vaccines for everybody - people and livestock - once the Russians are defeated. Ukraine has many battles to fight. But that is the future. Russia is now.
It strikes me as a KGB operation. The KGB invented the multiple story scenario which confuses and wears down those seeking the truth. The idea is to create many plausible and not so plausible stories affecting a hot topic. When the Russians shot down MH-17, they first blamed the Ukrainians. When the Russians blew up the gas pipeline from Turkmenistan, they blamed terrorists. They always deny, obfuscate, and spread lies.
Of course, I have been thinking about the bombing of Nordstream for some time, and it seems to me that there are only two plausible stories, the US or the Russians. The US has the means and the training, but nothing really to gain. The Germans had already decided to end the contracts to buy gas from the Russians. The Russians on the other hand have several reasons to blow up the pipeline. They actually have a contract to supply gas to Germany and must pay a penalty if they do not live up to the contract. They didn't want to pay the penalty and they wanted to deprive Germany of the gas. In addition, they had done this before at least once, As mentioned above, Gazprom had a contract with Turkmenistan to buy Turkmen gas at a certain price which they would then resell, but the world price dropped below the contracted price, so the pipeline which was located on Russian territory was blown up. The Turkmen were livid and never believed the Russian fairy tale about terrorists, and of course Russia repaired the pipeline, but only after the price of gas rose above the contracted price again.
We can't forget that leading up to the war, Russia had been supplying a minimum of the contracted gas to Germany when stocks in Europe were at critical lows. This was in September before the war, and the Germans asked the Russians to increase deliveries so that they could build up reserves, but Putin refused, arguing that Nordstream 2 be approved.
For Putin, energy sales of oil and gas have always been about politics and power, never about business, but of course he was always happy to get paid as long as other countries behaved according to Putin's rules. At least twice after the Orange Revolution,. Putin cut off gas supplies to Ukraine in the middle of winter, causing gas shortages to Europe in the coldest time of the year. We can never forget that gas and oil have always been political tools for Putin. It is said that this runs counter to the Soviet strategy which always followed the model that they should be reliable and trustworthy to the world when supplying energy such as oil and gas.
For Putin, oil and gas have always been about power. Thus, I have no doubt that it was the Russians who blew up Nordstream 1 and Nordstream 2.
Should have mentioned. Harry Truman was brought along by the smarmy Tom Pendergast of the Kansas City Democrat machine. JFK by Richard Daly and the Chicago machine. They managed to be their own men.