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.]
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.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.
Every bit helps keep this mission alive!
