Wednesday, August 28, 2024

170 - Former Bulgarian Minister of Economy Rumen Gechev - comment




28 August 2022 - The Nord Stream bombing was a tragedy for all of Europe,

as Russian gas was a significant contributor to the development of the European economy.

This act of sabotage could not have been committed without the involvement of the US and its allies, says former Bulgarian Minister of Economy Rumen Gechev.

[MRT: The statement is consistent with this investigation - overview here

[Similar statement was said by Hungary:  Viktor Orbán on Nordstream affair: "under American direction"


RELATED POSTS:




***
Uncovering the truth took over two years of self-funded, tireless investigation.
I decided to open it for free, no paywall, despite huge investment.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.

Every bit helps keep this mission alive!

(retweet and follow)

 

Monday, August 26, 2024

169 - German Government: Blowing up Nord Stream is a crime

 


25 August 2024 - Germany dismisses Polish, Czech claims about Nord Streams being 'legitimate target'

"The chancellor stated this explicitly during his talks with the Polish and Czech sides, as well as with many other international partners," Spokesperson Steffen Hebestreit went on to say.

The German government does not share the position of the Czech president that the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines were a legitimate target and considers their undermining a crime, German government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit said.

He stressed that this crime must be investigated and recalled that the German Prosecutor General's Office continues to investigate the blowing up of Nord Stream

... 


The German government does not share the position of the Polish and Czech leadership that Nord Stream could have been a "legitimate target"

 

 RELATED POSTS

Previous posts related to the definition of the act:
INT. INVESTIGATIONS, EXPERT OPINIONS

053 - Anglo-Saxons and Nordstream affair - the Russian perspective

058 - Investigations, Sweden: Mats Ljungqvist - the Swedish investigator

090 - The UK Ministry of Defence - Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and Nordstream

093 - Former mine clearance diver of the French Navy Philippe Chêne talks about Nordstream 


OTHER RELATED POSTS



***

***
Uncovering the truth took over two years of self-funded, tireless investigation.
I decided to open it for free, no paywall, despite huge investment.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.

Every bit helps keep this mission alive!

(retweet and follow)

168 - Hungary: The sabotage on Nord Streams is an Act of State Terrorism

24 August 2024 - Hungarian Foreign Minister: sabotage on Nord Streams is an act of state terrorism


Sabotage on the Nord Streams is an Act of state terrorism.

After all, if the authorities of any state are involved in organizing or committing a gas pipeline explosion, then such an action should be qualified as such.


As Zoltan Kovacs, Secretary of State for International Communications under the Hungarian government, reported on his social network page, this was stated by Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó.

The official also criticized the EU leadership's response to the sabotage.

According to Szijjártó, it took the incident too lightly.

"Any response must be proportionate to the severity of such an attack"

- Kovacs quotes the opinion of the Hungarian Foreign Minister.

25 August 2024 - HUN, Zoltan Kovacs, SecState for International Communication, International spokesman, Cabinet Office of the Prime Minister; Govt. Commissioner for the #HU24EU presidency 

FM Péter Szijjártó has criticised the European Union's response to the terrorist attack on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, accusing the EU of either applauding or ignoring the incident.

"For years, the European Union has been rejoicing over the fact that a large part of the infrastructure that guarantees the security of Europe's energy supply was blown up in a terrorist attack," he said, pointing out the lack of a serious investigation into the case.

Minister Szijjártó expressed disbelief at the explanations given for the attack, rejecting the idea that "two diving instructors and three enthusiastic students" could have carried out the attack. 

He called it "state terrorism" when a state was involved, stressing that the response must be appropriate to such a serious act.

26 August 2024 - Szijjártó: Hungary must be ready for serious attacks against sovereign foreign policy

Hungary has to prepare for serious attacks against its sovereign foreign policy in the coming years, Péter Szijjártó, the foreign minister, said at the Tranzit Festival in Tihany, at Lake Balaton, on Saturday. Protecting Hungary’s sovereignty is not a “question of political ideology”, but a “matter of life and death”, Szijjártó said. He said Hungary’s insistence on protecting its sovereignty


-------

Previous posts related to the definition of the act:

Security Law: Guidelines for Grey Zone Naval Incidents: Distinguishing between the Rules of Armed Conflict and Law Enforcement 

 
MANAGING THE CRISIS AT THE EUROPEAN LEVEL



INT. INVESTIGATIONS, EXPERT OPINIONS

 Anglo-Saxons and Nordstream affair - the Russian perspective

 The UK Ministry of Defence - Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and Nordstream

Former mine clearance diver of the French Navy Philippe Chêne talks about Nordstream 



OTHER RELATED POSTS:

***

***
Uncovering the truth took over two years of self-funded, tireless investigation.
I decided to open it for free, no paywall, despite huge investment.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.

Every bit helps keep this mission alive!

(retweet and follow)

 

167 - About the NATO statement: "deliberate, reckless, and irresponsible acts of sabotage"

What does it mean to be reckless?

"Careless act in a way which shows that they do not care 
about danger or the effect their behavior will have on others"

What does it mean to be deliberate?

"Planned act, decided beforehand on purpose rather than by a chance" 

What does it mean to execute an irresponsible act?

"The actor was not showing a proper sense of responsibility,
The actor was careless about the consequences of its actions."


29 Sept 2022 - Statement by the North Atlantic Council on the damage to gas pipelines

The NATO Invitees associate themselves with this Statement.

  1. The damage to the Nordstream 1 and Nordstream 2 pipelines in international waters in the Baltic Sea is of deep concern. All currently available information indicates that this is the result of deliberate, reckless, and irresponsible acts of sabotage. These leaks are causing risks to shipping and substantial environmental damage. We support the investigations underway to determine the origin of the damage.
     
  2. We, as Allies, have committed to prepare for, deter and defend against the coercive use of energy and other hybrid tactics by state and non-state actors.  Any deliberate attack against Allies’ critical infrastructure would be met with a united and determined response.
30 September 2022 - UK: We will continue to work alongside our partners to protect Europe’s energy security

[MRT: Why even such a statement? Has there been any doubts why not?]

Statement by Ambassador James Kariuki at the UN Security Council meeting on the Nord Stream gas pipeline.

I’d like to thank our briefers for setting out what we know so far about this case, which is still clearly very limited.

Once again in this chamber, we have heard some absurd Russian claims and conspiracy theories this afternoon.

Russia’s request for this meeting was a cynical attempt to distract from President Putin’s illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory today.

The damage to the Nordstream 1 and Nordstream 2 pipelines in the Baltic Sea is of deep concern.

These leaks are not only causing risks to shipping but also substantial environmental damage in the Baltic Sea. They are releasing enormous amounts of methane into the earth’s atmosphere.

We agree with the assessment that all currently available information indicates this damage is the result of sabotage. We strongly support the investigations by Denmark, Sweden and Germany.

Intentional damage to civilian infrastructure is reckless and irresponsible, wherever it takes place. We must establish clear international norms that such damage is utterly unacceptable.

[MRT: The UK acknowledges that there are no proper norms - see here Sunak´s 2017 work on the issue.] 


For NATO’s part, as set out in yesterday’s statement of the North Atlantic Council, Allies remain committed to prepare for, deter and defend against any hybrid tactics by state and non-state actors including coercive approaches to energy.

We are clear that any deliberate attack against Allies’ critical infrastructure would be met with a united and determined response.

The UK will continue to work alongside our partners to protect Europe’s energy security.

[MRT: Is the UK committing to no more attacking developing clear rules?]



->  R-E-C-K-L-E-S-S   A-C-T  <-
(And not a terrorist act?)
REALLY?


RELATED POSTS:

"...As you may be aware, in Western states, in their basic laws, an attack targeting critical infrastructure is equated to a declaration of war.

In this particular case, if it’s established that a terrorist attack against a NATO country’s critical infrastructure was perpetrated by another NATO country it will bring up the question about the rationale for NATOwhich declares as its goal protecting member countries from outside attacks, but at the same time makes possible attacks on one of its members from within the bloc. This is a rather interesting question..."




***

***
Uncovering the truth took over two years of self-funded, tireless investigation.
I decided to open it for free, no paywall, despite huge investment.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.

Every bit helps keep this mission alive!

(retweet and follow)

Friday, August 23, 2024

166 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Channel One’s The Great Game political talk show, Moscow, March 10, 2023





Keyword: "Nord Stream"

Question: 

There is a hybrid war, there is also a war, as you (if I understood correctly) said had almost become a real war, and there is a real war.

[MRT: See connected post: 081 - The United Kingdom's secret war against Russia?

I’m not talking about what is happening on the battlefields in Ukraine, but terrorist attacks as well. The most recent attack which, for obvious reasons, drew the greatest attention is the explosion on Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2.

An article by Seymour Hersh was published which was covered much wider outside the United States than in America itself where it was mostly ignored. We are now seeing reports in high-profile US publications, such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and Germany’s Die Zeit to the effect that this explosion was carried out by a strange anonymous group of either Ukrainians, or Russian oppositionists, or both.

The company behind it was allegedly registered in Poland and carried out the attack from Germany. For the first time, it is admitted that the US intelligence services knew about this operation, if not in advance, then for many months.

Someone even tried to point the finger at Russia as a party responsible for these explosions. They are still unwilling to say what is known about this operation, the perpetrators and the masterminds behind it. This raises questions about the role of the United States.

[MRT: The role of the USA is explored in several posts here 

Do you believe the Biden administration is responsible for what happened with Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2?


Sergey Lavrov: 

In order for me to give you a clear answer, we need an objective investigation. That is what we are pushing for. Soon after Seymour Hersh published his investigation, we had questions to ask about it. Or rather, we asked questions immediately after the terrorist attack took place. Publicly and in writing on behalf of Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, we sent inquiries to his counterparts in Germany, Denmark and Sweden.

We have sent multiple official diplomatic notes to these countries asking them to give us answers and allow us to participate in inspecting the section of gas pipelines that had been targeted by the terrorists.

No clear reaction followed, except them saying they will figure it out themselves. “This investigation is off-limits to the public and you will know everything in due time” is all we heard from them. The inquiries that Prime Minister Mishustin sent in September 2022 have remained without an official answer so far.

This is a matter of manners and more. I think that in addition to manners, there is also the fact that these countries are confused. They aren’t sure what to say, especially after Mr Hersh published his findings and vowed to continue to publish additional estimates and findings. For us, this came as an extra factor that forced us to submit a UN Security Council resolution, which is now being discussed, and which we will definitely put to a vote. We want investigations.

 [MRT: "...extra factor..." -> looks like USA has not been considered until Hersh put his claim up as a suspect by Russia, interesting.]

Question: What if they turn down your request for an investigation?


Sergey Lavrov: 

When Seymour Hersh published his piece, a gentleman by the name of Ned Price, who is nearing the end of his career with the press service of the US State Department and going to work directly for Antony Blinken, called it nonsense.

As always, everything related to the facts pointing to the possible role of the United States (I would even say the highly likely role of the US government) is called nonsense, fiction, or the like. And no investigation is needed, they say, since national investigations are underway, which is enough.

[MRT: "...possible role..." -> again, looks like USA has not been considered until Hersh put his claim up as a suspect by Russia, interesting.] 

Suddenly, these very days (they don’t do a good job coordinating their public plans and projects), the press secretary of the US President, Karine Jean-Pierre, demanded at a briefing an international investigation into the reports about poisonings at schools in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nothing less than an international investigation, although no one was badly hurt there.

However, a direct attack on critical energy infrastructure does not need an investigation, because the Swedes, Danes and Germans will figure it out themselves.

As you may be aware, in Western states, in their basic laws, an attack targeting critical infrastructure is equated to a declaration of war.

In this particular case, if it’s established that a terrorist attack against a NATO country’s critical infrastructure was perpetrated by another NATO country it will bring up the question about the rationale for NATO, which declares as its goal protecting member countries from outside attacks, but at the same time makes possible attacks on one of its members from within the bloc. This is a rather interesting question.

You mentioned the latest wave of stories in the US and some in the German press about new leads: a Ukrainian oligarch who had better come clean himself; they did not want to talk about a Ukrainian “trace” because it could spoil German-Ukrainian relations, and all that kind of stuff. First, this is “baby talk.” Second, even if one accepts the logic they are now putting forward, that they wanted to secure the strategy between Germany and Ukraine, it would mean by and large to “cook their goose.” If they wanted to attribute everything to a Ukrainian or a pro-Ukrainian trained diver who was no longer in the service, all the same; if they wanted to throw in a Ukrainian “trace,” the average German, like probably any other country’s citizen, would wonder: is this Ukraine again? The Ukrainian “trace?” They blew up Nord Stream, which, as President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said (not just because of Nord Stream, of course), and the energy commodity problem, caused the European Union to pay 300 percent more for energy.

Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, recently said that this is now permanent, that there will be no return to past prices that ensured the economic well-being of Europe, including Germany.

Now German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has boasted that they survived the winter and that Russia’s plan “did not work.” We didn't have any “plans.” It was their plan to give up Russian gas. They survived the winter. However, they are not very keen to tell us how much it cost the budgets and consequently the taxpayers.

The burghers will have a question: why do they need Ukraine at all? If they are blowing them up (whoever he is – an agent of Kiev, paid off by someone from abroad, or just a loner), why do they need to send Leopards there, to admit this country to NATO? I think there are a lot more questions here because of this attempt to literally make it hide the ends in the water” – both literally and figuratively.

You mentioned that there was advance warning from the intelligence community. There was a Wall Street Journal article that in June and July of 2022 the CIA warned the intelligence services of Germany and other European countries about a Ukrainian trace, about this forthcoming action.

And the Times, in September 2022, after the attack took place, reported that a week after the explosion it was established that the traces led in the direction of Ukraine. That is, they warned in June that it would happen, and in September it was established that it did. You know, somehow, it's not serious, it's not a mature way of looking at things.

[MRT: The original oxymoron article from 27-08-2022 did mention that it  was a "VAGUE warning" and non-specific" but "strategic" warning without a date and place. The additional data that it was warning against Ukrainians was added only in 2023. Note that the German head of Navy Kaack said that Germany had another warning from September 2022 which was about possible actions against undersea cables and/or pipelines. See my data.]  



Question: 

A few months ago, when I was in Washington, I spoke with a prominent Republican member of Congress. He asked me a question which I would like to pose to you. He asked me what Russia could do in response. Can there be any negative consequences for the United States from Russia?

You don’t need me to tell you (you know America and the Washington political scene very well) that they often wonder less about the quality of Russian arguments and more about specific consequences for the United States. If there’s no objective investigation which you mentioned earlier (which is quite likely), and if Russia’s requests go unanswered, is it fair to assume that one way or another Russia will find a way to respond to this act of terror that impacts our fundamental interests?

Sergey Lavrov: 

You have no idea how badly I’m itching to...


Question: 

Of course, I do. That is why I am asking you this question. I had to try.

Sergey Lavrov: 

I serve as head of the Foreign Ministry. We have our own methods. I’m not going to make predictions or speculate.


***

***
Uncovering the truth took over two years of self-funded, tireless investigation.
I decided to open it for free, no paywall, despite huge investment.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.

Every bit helps keep this mission alive!

(retweet and follow)

Thursday, August 22, 2024

165 - Security Law: Did an Alleged Ukrainian Attack against the Nord Stream Pipelines Violate the Law of Armed Conflict?


Were the Nord Stream Pipelines a Legitimate Military Objective?

"This post demonstrates that the legality of the Nord Stream explosions can be assessed from the perspective of the law of armed conflict." 


By: Alexander Lott (Marie Curie research fellow at the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea).

PDF: https://site.uit.no/nclos/wp-content/uploads/sites/179/2023/11/Alexander-Lott-NCLOS-Blog_Nord-Stream-Jus-in-Bello-Case-Study_-Final.pdf

Introduction:

Preliminary Western intelligence reports have emerged about a purportedly pro-Ukrainian group of six divers conducting the sabotage against the Nord Stream pipelines in September last year. The Ukrainian Government denies any involvement in such an alleged operation. Nonetheless, recently, the Washington Post and Der Spiegel published a joint report which reached the unequivocal conclusion that:

“A senior Ukrainian military officer with deep ties to the country’s intelligence services played a central role in the bombing of the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines last year, according to officials in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe, as well as other people knowledgeable about the details of the covert operation. /…/ Chervinsky did not act alone, and he did not plan the operation, according to the people familiar with his role, which has not been previously reported. The officer took orders from more senior Ukrainian officials, who ultimately reported to Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s highest-ranking military officer, said people familiar with how the operation was carried out.”

...

Conclusion:

In the context of an armed conflict, the attribution standards are more flexible than in peace time. It would suffice that a belligerent State exercises overall control over a group of persons by way of financing and provision of training, logistics, and weapons for invoking that State’s responsibility for the relevant acts. In case Ukraine as a belligerent State exercised overall control over the group of divers that allegedly conducted the Nord Stream explosions, it would prima facie imply Ukraine’s responsibility for the sabotage against the Nord Stream pipelines. 

During an international armed conflict, the protection standards of offshore critical infrastructure differ depending on whether the object is located within or outside the limits of a neutral State’s territorial sea. Conducting military operations within a neutral State’s territorial sea is prohibited. By contrast, even such pipelines (as well as cables) that do not exclusively serve belligerent States might, in situations of military necessity, serve as lawful military targets in areas where the high seas freedoms apply even if the pipelines (or cables) land in a neutral State. However, belligerent States must meet the requirement of due regard for the rights and duties of the coastal State, inter alia, for the exploration and exploitation of the economic resources of the EEZ and the continental shelf and the protection and preservation of the marine environment.

It is doubtful that the Nord Stream pipelines could have served as a military objective even in the context of the armed conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The Nord Stream pipelines likely did not serve as a civilian object that contributed to a belligerent State’s war-sustaining effort from the perspective of the ongoing international armed conflict in Europe, given that the flow of natural gas from the Russian Federation to Germany had stopped by the time the attacks were launched against the Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022. Nor did the perpetrators of the attack give due regard for the protection and preservation of the Baltic Sea marine environment. Based on these reasons, it appears that an attack allegedly attributable to Ukraine against the Nord Stream pipelines was not in conformity with the law of armed conflict. 

Latest News - here

In an interview with Novinky, Petr Pavel (Czech president) said: “Nord Stream is legitimate target in war, since pipelines are a strategic target. If the attack was aimed at cutting off gas and oil supplies to Europe and returning money back to Russia, then - and I'm speaking conditionally - it would be a legitimate target. At the time, we already had a number of alternatives, so Nord Stream was not a critical pipeline on which Europe's energy security depended. Of course, it caused some complications, but not ones that we could not handle”

The Answer - here

Maria Zakharova’s TG Channel -

*I read this delusional statement and thought that even for such a provocative fringe figure, this is over the top. Previously, only representatives of banned international terrorist organizations would express such "thoughts." Judge for yourself:

* *"We call on you to carry out attacks on American citizens and military personnel both inside the U.S. and outside the country" (Ibrahim al-Asiri, chief bomb-maker of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula [an organization banned in the Russian Federation]).

* *"We must punish those who violate borders and desecrate sanctities. The operation of Muhammad Abdulaziz (the Muhammad Yusuf Abdulaziz terrorist attack in Tennessee), which took place in the very heart of American soil, is a vivid example of this. He infiltrated the base during a blessed jihadist operation. We ask Allah to accept him and elevate him among the martyrs" (Khalid Batarfi, head of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula).

* *"Attack the bases of the Egyptian army on the Sinai Peninsula, capture and blow up their homes, behead them, ambush them. Turn their lives into hell. Do not let them breathe easily or feel safe" (Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, spokesperson for ISIS [an organization banned in the Russian Federation]).* *"You all must direct your arrows and swords against the USA" (Qasim al-Raymi, head of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula).

* *"The coalition that Saudi Arabia has decided to form today is nothing more than a new group of watchdogs. Therefore, we advise the mujahideen in Syria to target anyone who joins or intends to join this army" (Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, spokesperson for ISIS).*


***

***
Uncovering the truth took over two years of self-funded, tireless investigation.
I decided to open it for free, no paywall, despite huge investment.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.

Every bit helps keep this mission alive!

(retweet and follow)