Dear Friends and Patriots,

A couple of days ago, I was asked to respond to Tucker Carlson’s coverage of the sabotage of the Nordstream I (NS1) & II (NSII) pipelines. This is an expanded version of the answer I gave in response. I won’t go into the details of the damage to those pipes; that’s a tangential discussion. The truth is it’s too early to tell much—other than Nordstream is out of business for months, if not a year.

I thought Tucker’s report was one of the worst I've ever seen and heard from him. It's very odd. He declares it an act of terrorism and an environmental catastrophe. He cited the certain deaths of marine mammals and the effects of releasing all that gas into the atmosphere. He repeats those assertions near the end of his commentary. He says it makes no sense for Putin to blow up the pipelines. Then he began a dissertation to bolster an argument that it's more likely the work of the U.S. He says we have the most to gain of anyone.

The truth is there are few marine mammals that would be harmed. They wouldn't go into the area of the gas. The field of bubbles in the water would make them wary. Besides, they would find it difficult to breathe, so they'd just go somewhere else. The same thing isn’t true for birds in the area. It's more likely birds would be killed because they would fly into the gas envelope, huffing and puffing and even if they turned around, which is unlikely, some number won't make it out alive. Tucker never mentioned birds as potential casualties. Marine mammals! That's more dramatic, so let's get everyone thinking of dying whales, dolphins, seals, and such—even if there is never any confirmed deaths.

Releasing gobs of methane into the environment! Holy Moly! Don't volcanoes do that? Some are doing it right now in volumes—many times than what's being released by the pipeline. Methane is natural. Every living thing creates it. Decaying life in the sea creates methane. In fact, the oceans are the single biggest contributor to methane released into the atmosphere. Add to that the truth that the pipeline supply was shut off as soon as the Russians noticed it was depressurizing. The gas that went into the sea and subsequently into the atmosphere was whatever was in the pipe at the time. Tucker seemed to be implying the Nordstream attack was on par with the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, when there’s no similarity at all.

Is there a big deal? Normally, Tucker's statements are the very kinds of things he would declare as extremist propagandizing.

We have several points Tucker made that are environmentalist hyperbole. It’s very odd. Is Tucker trying to get more viewership from environmental extremists? Do you have any ideas you’d like to share?

Let's go on to the question of Putin as a potential perp. Tucker’s on a bit more solid ground there. Even so, something's been going on that's curious and not really being investigated. NS2 has not gone on-line, as far as I've been able to determine. Something about it isn't completed. Meanwhile, NS1 has been operating well below capacity for months; some say it’s been around 30% of maximum capacity. The European press has blamed Russia for imposing energy rationing. Something's not right with that picture. The general storyline is Putin is putting the squeeze on Europe by reducing the pressure in NS1, forcing all of Europe into a panic. It's true that's happened, but the truth of why NS1 is below pressure hasn't been exactly forthcoming. Could it be there's been some kind of industrial failure (or even sabotage) in Russia that accounts for it? Could it be their gas compressors aren't capable of more than they've been putting into the NS1 pipeline? I don't know. I'm speculating on this. It seems like most of that story is speculation—it's not like the Russians are going to tell anyone if Ukrainian or some unidentified foreign special forces have put part of their ability to supply energy out of commission.

It may be true the regime in Washington has threatened NS2, but I don't recall them specifically threatening NS1, which was sanctioned, but not overtly threatened. Besides, what's in it for the Biden bunch? Are the commie ideologues so committed to green they'd destroy Russian infrastructure to stop "fossil" fuel sales in Europe? Somehow I don't think so. There are speculations that consider the recent demonstrations in Europe—efforts meant to force their governments to depart from western Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia. The notion being touted is a secret strike against the pipelines would make all of Europe more dependent on the U.S., which in turn would dissuade the Germans from abandoning NATO sanctions. That’s a thought, but somehow, I just can’t buy into it.

I might consider thinking of this as some kind of project of the CIA, but I can't think of a logical reason. I might prefer to consider the New World Order crowd is behind it because they're itching to see European countries fail sooner, rather than later. In fact, that's one of my favorite notions (not a theory, mind you). Forcing the failure of most western economies would do more for Klaus Schwab's buddies than for us or the Russians. And, blowing up Nordstream might be the trick to do just that. What would such a thing take, other than a lot of money, a few people with the know-how, and some strategic planning?

It’s interesting the Biden people are pointing out another pipeline. It’s called the Baltic Pipe, and runs from Norway to Poland. The company that owns it started pressurizing it last month. It's supposed to be at full capacity by the end of November. There are details to that story that matter greatly. NS1 is a very large diameter pipe. Its capacity is estimated at 55 billion cubic meters per year. The new Baltic Pipe is roughly 1/5 that size, at 10 billion cubic meters. It's not going to replace NS1 on its best day. Was there a motive for commercial sabotage? Yes, there was. Do I think that played a role? The timing sure is curious, but bad actors are very picky about timing. My thought is the attack on the NS pipes was timed to create confusion and divert suspicion from the real actor. In other words, the timing of the attack was almost certainly a diversionary tactic.

One media source pointed out that the U.S. has Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) and Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) capable of planting large explosives, which can be detonated remotely from a significant distance. Mention was made of the USS KEARSARGE being in the area only two weeks before the blasts. What that media speculation seems ignorant of that I’m not is that KEARSARGE is 20 year old amphibious warship designed to support a Marine Expeditionary Force, and is not capable of operations with UUVs, ROVs, or other unmanned crafts. In other words, there are stories out there that make the case Tucker Carlson is making, but those stories have errors in them that make me consider them to be either the work of ignorant reporters, or they’re purposeful disinformation. You can pick between those two options; it makes no difference to me. I’m just interested in figuring out things that are true.

When I do the calculus of who gains and who loses, I come up with: Putin—No. Biden admin.—No (unless this is a CIA op that's being kept secret from the Biden administration). Any western European nation—No. Why? There's no real gain for any of them. Ukraine—Maybe. But, Ukraine is not likely. They have pipelines to the rest of Europe, too. It wouldn’t be a sane move to risk an operation like the NS attacks. That might lead to a tit-for-tat exchange that would almost guarantee all of Europe freezes to death this winter. Now, I invite you to contemplate Agenda 2030 and its timeline requirements. When I do that, I can easily put a YES! next to the World Economic Forum. They have the money and they have the need.

So, who do you think did it? You see where my thoughts run.

As for Tucker—What's wrong with that boy? Whose pocket is he in? He'd have done far better just saying he sees no gain for Putin sabotaging the pipeline, then going on to say, "It looks like we need a lot more information before we'll know anything that's more certain. It's most likely we'll never learn who did this." That would be stating the non-hyperbolic truth.

In Liberty,

Steve