Showing posts with label NORD STREAM PIPELINE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NORD STREAM PIPELINE. Show all posts

Thursday, August 15, 2024

POLITICO Nightly: Blue Dogs aim to grow their ranks


POLITICO Nightly logo

By Natalie Fertig

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) smiles after a news conference on Aug. 8 in Portland, Ore.

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) smiles after a news conference on Aug. 8 in Portland, Ore. | Jenny Kane/AP

ENDANGERED SPECIES — No Democrats voted more out of step with President Joe Biden in 2023 than Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.). They’ve received heavy criticism from liberal and progressive circles for not always backing party priorities, but instead of running for the hills, they’re digging in — and hoping to expand their populist ranks.

Tuesday night brought a measure of success, when Rebecca Cooke, a waitress and small business owner raised on a Wisconsin dairy farm, beat out two other Democrats in western Wisconsin’s 3rd District.

Cooke has an uphill battle against freshman Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden in her Republican-leaning district in November. But if she wins, she plans to join the Blue Dog Coalition currently co-chaired by Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez.

The group, currently a cadre of 11 House Democrats who regularly break with President Joe Biden and work across the aisle on bipartisan legislation, has been forced to reshape itself again and again over the years like the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. Once numbering over 40, the group was decimated in the 2010 election and has since drifted ideologically from pro-corporation centrists to pro-worker populists. Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez are aiming to expand the Blue Dog numbers in 2024, and the Blue Dogs PAC has spent $1.45 million backing a handful of Democratic primary candidates in swing districts from Palm Springs to the Des Moines suburbs as part of that effort.

Many of the Democratic lawmakers who broke most with Biden in 2023 are Blue Dogs: Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez are the first and second most likely to vote against Biden, according to data analyzed by Five Thirty Eight , while Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), and Mary Peltola (D-Alaska) are third, sixth and tenth, respectively.

Their willingness to break with their party has also made them valuable negotiators. Earlier this year, for example, Golden, Gluesenkamp Perez and fellow Blue Dog Jim Costa (D-Calif.) were part of a bipartisan coalition that crafted a deal to provide funding for Ukraine and Israel and secure the southern border.

Cooke wants to join this club. Raised in a bipartisan household, she understands both parties — but chose to run as a Democrat because of a number of issues, including reproductive rights and the GOP’s immovability on widely supported policies like universal background checks. She’s already building a tight relationship with Gluesenkamp Perez, who picked her up from the airport when she visited D.C. in the spring.

“I was motivated to step up for working families like mine that had to make that really tough choice to put away and to shutter a 150-year-old [farm] tradition, ” Cooke told POLITICO on a phone call in July, “and that’s the story of a lot of people.”

She’s betting that staking out moderate positions can help her pull an upset in November by winning so-called pivot counties, places that voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 and then Donald Trump in 2016. Wisconsin’s 3rd District includes a handful of these elusive places; of the more than 3,000 counties in the U.S., only about 200 fall in this category. They prefer Democrats of the populist variety: Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden both hail from districts with multiple pivot counties, as did Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz when he was in Congress.

A populist Blue Dog as a House member, Walz backed gay marriage and gun rights while opposing the 2008 bank bailout supported by most Democrats. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Walz survived the Blue Dog massacre of 2010.

Trump succeeded in areas like western Wisconsin, Cooke said, because people were looking for a change to the status quo. Brought up on a farm, she’s passionate about increasing the number of lawmakers in Congress who actually know something about agriculture and will speak more for family farmers than agricultural conglomerates. Wisconsin’s 3rd District ranks first in the state and 29th nationally for the total market value of agricultural products sold, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture . Ninety-six percent of the district’s farms are family-owned.

“I’m excited about the House Blue Dogs coalition because they’re intent on recruiting a new class of lawmakers that have those kind of bonafides… [of] understanding their communities, of understanding industries and culture, that I think is really critically important to making laws,” said Cooke, who cites former Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone as an inspiration. “Who knows what a Holstein [cow] is in Congress, right?”

There are echoes in Cooke’s approach to farm policy of the way Golden talks about the fishing industry, or MGP about forestry, in their largely rural districts. They’re all populists who argue that their district’s industries would benefit from addressing Democratic priorities like climate change, but that workers and small business owners in those industries should be brought into the discussion and listened to.

The Democratic Party has been bleeding rural voters in recent years. But they’d have more success running in rural and working class districts if the Democratic Party changed their recruiting style, Cooke says. “A lot of recruitment is [about] how much money you can raise, [or] ‘what’s in your personal network’,” she said. “But it’s not about that out here, when you get to rural Wisconsin.”

Gluesenkamp Perez, an auto shop owner, did not receive support from the party’s House campaign arm in her upset political victory in 2022. Through the Blue Dogs PAC, she’s making sure that won’t be the case for candidates like Cooke.

“Candidates we’ve endorsed, I’ve had other members lobby against,” Gluesenkamp Perez told POLITICO about Cooke in April. “[They say] ‘she didn’t have a real job. She’s a waitress.’”

To win, Cooke is going to have to overcome Trump’s popularity in rural America, which will boost her rival. The most recent New York Times/Siena College poll puts his lead over Kamala Harris at 57 percent to 40 percent among rural voters.

To make up the difference against Trump’s popularity, the Cooke campaign is targeting overlooked voting blocs such as students at the district’s six colleges and universities, registering them as they show up for classes in the fall. She’s also targeting voters who “are going to zig and zag on their ballot.”

Should Democrats scrape out a narrow House majority — a difficult feat that will likely require Blue Dogs to hold their current seats and Blue Dog PAC-backed candidates to flip a couple more — their working class caucus will have both a bigger footprint and a lot of pull in the next Congress. Golden, who is facing a very tough reelection race of his own, says the group plans to use its bargaining power in a narrow Democratic majority to push for working class issues.

“I think we got to be out there pushing for the middle class tax cuts to be protected,” he said. “And that’s probably going to mean that we got to go after the upper end, like the wealthy folks.”

Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@politico.com . Or contact tonight’s author at nfertig@politico.com or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @natsfert .

 

DON’T MISS OUR AI & TECH SUMMIT: Join POLITICO’s AI & Tech Summit for exclusive interviews and conversations with senior tech leaders, lawmakers, officials and stakeholders about where the rising energy around global competition — and the sense of potential around AI and restoring American tech knowhow — is driving tech policy and investment. REGISTER HERE .

 
 
What'd I Miss?

— Trump’s attempt to remove judge from hush money case fails again: The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal case today denied the former president’s latest bid to have the judge remove himself from the case , writing that Trump’s argument consisted of “nothing more than a repetition of stale and unsubstantiated claims.” Justice Juan Merchan’s decision means that he will remain on the case through Trump’s sentencing, which is set to take place Sept. 18, for his conviction over falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to a porn star.

— Google confirms Iran-linked hackers targeted Trump, Biden campaigns: An Iranian government-linked hacking group has targeted officials on the campaigns of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump , and attacks are ongoing against campaign officials, Google’s cybersecurity arm announced today. The report — put out days after the Trump campaign confirmed to POLITICO that it had been hacked — does not say if the hackers were behind the specific hacked and leaked documents that POLITICO reported on.

— Germany zeroes in on Ukrainian suspect in Nord Stream pipeline explosions: The man accused of being behind the most serious attack on Germany’s energy supplies since World War II can be seen on Facebook standing by the sea and smiling at the camera. A German warrant was issued in June for the involvement of Vladimir Zhuravlev , a Ukrainian diving instructor, in the Sept. 26, 2022 attack on the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines, according to a report in German news program Tagesschau today.

Nightly Road to 2024

Donald Trump arrives to speak to reporters.

Former President Donald Trump arrives to speak to reporters at his Mar-a-Lago estate on Aug. 8, 2024, in Palm Beach, Fla. | Alex Brandon/AP

NOT MAKING BOTH SIDES HAPPY — Donald Trump still doesn’t have an answer on how he’ll vote on an abortion measure in his home state . And it’s about to become a lot harder for him to avoid it, writes POLITICO. Four months ago, Trump announced he favored leaving the issue of abortion to the states. Now, state-level referendums on the lightning-rod issue are making ballots across the country — including, on Monday, in the battleground state of Arizona, and on Tuesday in Missouri.

And in Florida, where Trump is a registered voter, the former president has yet to say how he’ll cast his own vote on the measure known as Amendment 4, which would abolish the state’s newly-enacted ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. The looming referendum is threatening Trump’s efforts, as he put it in April, to “make both sides happy” with his position, and it’s giving Democrats an opening to continue hammering him.

THE CROWDED ARIZONA BALLOT — The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that a proposal that would let local police make arrests near the state’s border with Mexico will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot for voters to decide , reports the Associated Press. That sets up the biggest push to draw local authorities into immigration enforcement since the state’s landmark 2010 law that required police to question people’s immigration status in certain situations.

The court late Tuesday afternoon rejected a challenge from Latino groups that argued the ballot measure had violated a rule in the state constitution that says legislative proposals must cover a single subject. If approved by voters, the proposal, known as Proposition 314, would make it a state crime for people to cross the Arizona-Mexico border anywhere except a port of entry, give state and local law enforcement officers the power to arrest violators and let state judges order people to return to their home countries.

OUTSOURCING THE CAMPAIGN — The Republican campaign for president is quietly being remade by new federal guidelines that empower big-money groups and threaten to undermine party control well beyond the 2024 election, reports the New York Times. Former President Donald J. Trump’s team has enlisted some of these groups to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to knock on hundreds of thousands of doors across the country — saving the campaign significant money in the process. But the Trump campaign is making a serious gamble in doing so, betting that these outside groups, which they do not directly control, can carry out their marching orders without accountability.

GHOSTS OF 2020 — Kamala Harris may be done with Medicare for All, but Medicare for All – with a new nudge from former President Donald Trump – isn’t done with her, writes CNN. The Trump campaign today attacked Harris over her past support for a move to the single-payer, government-run health care system long championed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Medicare for All gained broad support among progressive Democrats, especially those with eyes on the White House, before and during the early stages of the party’s 2020 presidential primary. Harris’ team said recently that she no longer backs the plan, which fell out of vogue with Democrats as Joe Biden surged to the nomination four years ago as one of the few candidates to vocally oppose it.

AROUND THE WORLD

GOING GLOBAL — The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared a new global health emergency as Africa grapples with a fast-spreading and deadly outbreak of mpox.

The virus has been detected for the first time in numerous countries in Africa and is disproportionately affecting children. It has killed at least 517 people with more than 17,000 suspected cases across Africa so far this year, according to the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The detection and rapid spread of a new clade of mpox in eastern DRC [Democratic Republic of Congo], its detection in neighboring countries that had not previously reported mpox, and the potential for further spread within Africa and beyond is very worrying,” WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a press briefing this evening.

Cases have surged since 2022, when the WHO last declared mpox a public health emergency of international concern. More recently, an alarming new variant that first appeared in 2023 has spread within the DRC and to neighboring regions, now recorded in at least five countries.

NIGHT MOVES — Kyiv’s forces continued their incursion into Russian territory overnight, targeting airbases , sending a barrage of missiles and drones into the Kursk region and triggering a state of emergency in the entire Belgorod region.

The Russian Ministry of Defense said in a statement this morning that dozens of Ukrainian drones were shot down across the southwest of the country over the regions of Kursk, Belgorod, Voronezh, Volgograd, Bryansk, Orel, Rostov and Nizhny Novgorod.

Ukraine appeared to be targeting Russia’s airbases. The Nizhny Novgorod region is home to Savasleyka airbase, where Moscow’s forces house aircraft equipped with the hypersonic Kinzhal missiles. According to local and Ukrainian media reports, multiple drones hit the airbase. The Astra independent news site reported that the Borisoglebsk aviation center in the Voronezh region had been hit, noting that pro-war military bloggers said at least three Russian airbases were targeted overnight. Last week, Ukraine said it hit Russia’s Lipetsk airbase.

 

A YEAR OF CALIFORNIA CLIMATEA year ago, the California Climate newsletter was created with a goal in mind — to be your go-to source for cutting-edge climate policy reporting in the Golden State. From covering Gov. Newsom's crucial China trip to leading the coverage on California's efforts to Trump-proof its climate policies, we've been at the forefront of the climate conversation. Join us for year two if you haven’t already, subscribe now.

 
 
Nightly Number

2.9 percent

The annual rate at which prices in the United States climbed in July , the Federal Reserve announced today, inching closer to the Fed’s 2 percent target.

RADAR SWEEP

CONTENT CRUNCH — In the midst of a barrage of lawsuits against AI companies for copyright infringement, big record companies made a fairly straightforward claim — that AI companies’ synthetic music generation is “saturat[ing] the market” and “cheapen[ing] … the genuine sound recordings.” The strange thing is what happened next — the defendant AI companies accepted the assessment that their content is deeply similar . The bold move is part of a broader legal strategy: Cast the deep-pocketed record companies as the aggressors and the AI companies as startups trying to break into the industry. Plus, given that re-releases of similar material is generally not challenged in the same way (see: Taylor Swift), the idea that similar content represents copyright infringement might not play. Eriq Gardner reports on the state of play for Puck.

Parting Image

On this date in 1982: Mother Teresa carries one of 37 children who arrived in East Beirut, Lebanon. The children were in a hospital in the Sabra area of West Beirut when it was destroyed by Israeli forces in the midst of the Lebanon War.

On this date in 1982: Mother Teresa carries one of 37 children who arrived in East Beirut, Lebanon. The children were in a hospital in the Sabra area of West Beirut when it was destroyed by Israeli forces in the midst of the Lebanon War. | Alexis Duclos/AP

Did someone forward this email to you?  Sign up here .

 

Follow us on Twitter

Charlie Mahtesian @PoliticoCharlie

Calder McHugh @calder_mchugh

 

Follow us

Follow us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterFollow us on InstagramListen on Apple Podcast
 

 POLITICO, LLC 1000 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA, 22209, USA

Thursday, March 23, 2023

FOCUS: Seymour Hersh | The Biden Administration Continues to Conceal Its Responsibility for the Destruction of the Nord Stream Pipelines

 


Reader Supported News

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

STILL NOT A SINGLE LARGER DONATION — So far this month the larger donation has eluded us. The importance of just a few donations in the one thousand dollar range cannot be overstated. Who out there can come through?
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

President Joe Biden meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in the Oval Office, March 3, 2023. (photo: Adam Schultz/White House)
FOCUS: Seymour Hersh | The Biden Administration Continues to Conceal Its Responsibility for the Destruction of the Nord Stream Pipelines
Seymour Hersh, Seymour Hersh's Substack
Hersh writes: "It’s been six weeks since I published a report, based on anonymous sourcing, naming President Joe Biden as the official who ordered the mysterious destruction last September of Nord Stream 2." 



The Biden Administration continues to conceal its responsibility for the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines


It’s been six weeks since I published a report, based on anonymous sourcing, naming President Joe Biden as the official who ordered the mysterious destruction last September of Nord Stream 2, a new $11-billion pipeline that was scheduled to double the volume of natural gas delivered from Russia to Germany. The story gained traction in Germany and Western Europe, but was subject to a near media blackout in the US. Two weeks ago, after a visit by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to Washington, US and German intelligence agencies attempted to add to the blackout by feeding the New York Times and the German weekly Die Zeit false cover stories to counter the report that Biden and US operatives were responsible for the pipelines’ destruction.

Press aides for the White House and Central Intelligence Agency have consistently denied that America was responsible for exploding the pipelines, and those pro forma denials were more than enough for the White House press corps. There is no evidence that any reporter assigned there has yet to ask the White House press secretary whether Biden had done what any serious leader would do: formally “task” the American intelligence community to conduct a deep investigation, with all of its assets, and find out just who had done the deed in the Baltic Sea. According to a source within the intelligence community, the president has not done so, nor will he. Why not? Because he knows the answer.

Sarah Miller—an energy expert and an editor at Energy Intelligence, which publishes leading trade journals—explained to me in an interview why the pipeline story has been big news in Germany and Western Europe. “The destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines in September led to a further surge of natural gas prices that were already six or more times pre-crisis levels,” she said. “Nord Stream was blown up in late September. German gas imports peaked a month later, in October, at 10 times pre-crisis levels. Electricity prices across Europe were pulled up, and governments spent as much as 800 billion euros, by some estimates, shielding households and businesses from the impact. Gas prices, reflecting the mild winter in Europe, have now fallen back to roughly a quarter of the October peak, but they are still between two and three times pre-crisis levels and are more than three times current US rates. Over the last year, German and other European manufacturers closed their most energy-intensive operations, such as fertilizer and glass production, and it’s unclear when, if ever, those plants will reopen. Europe is scrambling to get solar and wind capacity in place, but it may not come soon enough to save large chunks of German industry.” (Miller writes a blog on Medium.)

In early March, President Biden hosted German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Washington. The trip included only two public events—a brief pro forma exchange of compliments between Biden and Scholz before the White House press corps, with no questions allowed; and a CNN interview with Scholz by Fareed Zakaria, who did not touch on the pipeline allegations. The chancellor had flown to Washington with no members of the German press on board, no formal dinner scheduled, and the two world leaders were not slated to conduct a press conference, as routinely happens at such high-profile meetings. Instead, it was later reported that Biden and Scholz had an 80-minute meeting, with no aides present for much of the time. There have been no statements or written understandings made public since then by either government, but I was told by someone with access to diplomatic intelligence that there was a discussion of the pipeline exposé and, as a result, certain elements in the Central Intelligence Agency were asked to prepare a cover story in collaboration with German intelligence that would provide the American and German press with an alternative version for the destruction of Nord Stream 2. In the words of the intelligence community, the agency was “to pulse the system” in an effort to discount the claim that Biden had ordered the pipelines’ destruction.


READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611






Monday, February 20, 2023

FOCUS: Seymour Hersh | How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline

 

Reader Supported News
16 February 23

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

FOLKS, WE HAVE NO MONEY COMING IN! Big problem on donations right now. Everyone is in ignore the fundraiser mode and the process is tanking. It will not happen for free. We are going to need some support. Help out please!
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

A screen grab from Danish Defense shows the gas leak on the surface of the Baltic Sea on Sept. 30. (photo: Swedish Coast Guard/Getty)
FOCUS: Seymour Hersh | How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline
Seymour Hersh, Seymour Hersh's Substack
Hersh writes: "The New York Times called it a 'mystery,' but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now." 

"EDITOR’S NOTE: Bear in mind that Seymour Hersh is rarely if ever inaccurate in his reporting, and he probably isn’t on this story. I note that there are no denials of this report by the Biden administration and no mention of it at all by the US corporate press, that amounts to confirmation. Keep your eyes on the balloons, nothing to see here. — MA/RSN"



The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now


The U.S. Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center can be found in a location as obscure as its name—down what was once a country lane in rural Panama City, a now-booming resort city in the southwestern panhandle of Florida, 70 miles south of the Alabama border. The center’s complex is as nondescript as its location—a drab concrete post-World War II structure that has the look of a vocational high school on the west side of Chicago. A coin-operated laundromat and a dance school are across what is now a four-lane road.

The center has been training highly skilled deep-water divers for decades who, once assigned to American military units worldwide, are capable of technical diving to do the good—using C4 explosives to clear harbors and beaches of debris and unexploded ordinance—as well as the bad, like blowing up foreign oil rigs, fouling intake valves for undersea power plants, destroying locks on crucial shipping canals. The Panama City center, which boasts the second largest indoor pool in America, was the perfect place to recruit the best, and most taciturn, graduates of the diving school who successfully did last summer what they had been authorized to do 260 feet under the surface of the Baltic Sea.

Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.

Two of the pipelines, which were known collectively as Nord Stream 1, had been providing Germany and much of Western Europe with cheap Russian natural gas for more than a decade. A second pair of pipelines, called Nord Stream 2, had been built but were not yet operational. Now, with Russian troops massing on the Ukrainian border and the bloodiest war in Europe since 1945 looming, President Joseph Biden saw the pipelines as a vehicle for Vladimir Putin to weaponize natural gas for his political and territorial ambitions.

Asked for comment, Adrienne Watson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email, “This is false and complete fiction.” Tammy Thorp, a spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly wrote: “This claim is completely and utterly false.”

Biden’s decision to sabotage the pipelines came after more than nine months of highly secret back and forth debate inside Washington’s national security community about how to best achieve that goal. For much of that time, the issue was not whether to do the mission, but how to get it done with no overt clue as to who was responsible.

There was a vital bureaucratic reason for relying on the graduates of the center’s hardcore diving school in Panama City. The divers were Navy only, and not members of America’s Special Operations Command, whose covert operations must be reported to Congress and briefed in advance to the Senate and House leadership—the so-called Gang of Eight. The Biden Administration was doing everything possible to avoid leaks as the planning took place late in 2021 and into the first months of 2022.

President Biden and his foreign policy team—National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, and Victoria Nuland, the Undersecretary of State for Policy—had been vocal and consistent in their hostility to the two pipelines, which ran side by side for 750 miles under the Baltic Sea from two different ports in northeastern Russia near the Estonian border, passing close to the Danish island of Bornholm before ending in northern Germany.

The direct route, which bypassed any need to transit Ukraine, had been a boon for the German economy, which enjoyed an abundance of cheap Russian natural gas—enough to run its factories and heat its homes while enabling German distributors to sell excess gas, at a profit, throughout Western Europe. Action that could be traced to the administration would violate US promises to minimize direct conflict with Russia. Secrecy was essential.

From its earliest days, Nord Stream 1 was seen by Washington and its anti-Russian NATO partners as a threat to western dominance. The holding company behind it, Nord Stream AG, was incorporated in Switzerland in 2005 in partnership with Gazprom, a publicly traded Russian company producing enormous profits for shareholders which is dominated by oligarchs known to be in the thrall of Putin. Gazprom controlled 51 percent of the company, with four European energy firms—one in France, one in the Netherlands and two in Germany—sharing the remaining 49 percent of stock, and having the right to control downstream sales of the inexpensive natural gas to local distributors in Germany and Western Europe. Gazprom’s profits were shared with the Russian government, and state gas and oil revenues were estimated in some years to amount to as much as 45 percent of Russia’s annual budget.

America’s political fears were real: Putin would now have an additional and much-needed major source of income, and Germany and the rest of Western Europe would become addicted to low-cost natural gas supplied by Russia—while diminishing European reliance on America. In fact, that’s exactly what happened. Many Germans saw Nord Stream 1 as part of the deliverance of former Chancellor Willy Brandt’s famed Ostpolitik theory, which would enable postwar Germany to rehabilitate itself and other European nations destroyed in World War II by, among other initiatives, utilizing cheap Russian gas to fuel a prosperous Western European market and trading economy.

Nord Stream 1 was dangerous enough, in the view of NATO and Washington, but Nord Stream 2, whose construction was completed in September of 2021, would, if approved by German regulators, double the amount of cheap gas that would be available to Germany and Western Europe. The second pipeline also would provide enough gas for more than 50 percent of Germany’s annual consumption. Tensions were constantly escalating between Russia and NATO, backed by the aggressive foreign policy of the Biden Administration.

Opposition to Nord Stream 2 flared on the eve of the Biden inauguration in January 2021, when Senate Republicans, led by Ted Cruz of Texas, repeatedly raised the political threat of cheap Russian natural gas during the confirmation hearing of Blinken as Secretary of State. By then a unified Senate had successfully passed a law that, as Cruz told Blinken, “halted [the pipeline] in its tracks.” There would be enormous political and economic pressure from the German government, then headed by Angela Merkel, to get the second pipeline online.

Would Biden stand up to the Germans? Blinken said yes, but added that he had not discussed the specifics of the incoming President’s views. “I know his strong conviction that this is a bad idea, the Nord Stream 2,” he said. “I know that he would have us use every persuasive tool that we have to convince our friends and partners, including Germany, not to move forward with it.”

A few months later, as the construction of the second pipeline neared completion, Biden blinked. That May, in a stunning turnaround, the administration waived sanctions against Nord Stream AG, with a State Department official conceding that trying to stop the pipeline through sanctions and diplomacy had “always been a long shot.” Behind the scenes, administration officials reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, by then facing a threat of Russian invasion, not to criticize the move.

There were immediate consequences. Senate Republicans, led by Cruz, announced an immediate blockade of all of Biden’s foreign policy nominees and delayed passage of the annual defense bill for months, deep into the fall. Politico later depicted Biden’s turnabout on the second Russian pipeline as “the one decision, arguably more than the chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan, that has imperiled Biden’s agenda.”

The administration was floundering, despite getting a reprieve on the crisis in mid-November, when Germany’s energy regulators suspended approval of the second Nord Stream pipeline. Natural gas prices surged 8% within days, amid growing fears in Germany and Europe that the pipeline suspension and the growing possibility of a war between Russia and Ukraine would lead to a very much unwanted cold winter. It was not clear to Washington just where Olaf Scholz, Germany’s newly appointed chancellor, stood. Months earlier, after the fall of Afghanistan, Scholtz had publicly endorsed French President Emmanuel Macron’s call for a more autonomous European foreign policy in a speech in Prague—clearly suggesting less reliance on Washington and its mercurial actions.

Throughout all of this, Russian troops had been steadily and ominously building up on the borders of Ukraine, and by the end of December more than 100,000 soldiers were in position to strike from Belarus and Crimea. Alarm was growing in Washington, including an assessment from Blinken that those troop numbers could be “doubled in short order.”

The administration’s attention once again was focused on Nord Stream. As long as Europe remained dependent on the pipelines for cheap natural gas, Washington was afraid that countries like Germany would be reluctant to supply Ukraine with the money and weapons it needed to defeat Russia.

It was at this unsettled moment that Biden authorized Jake Sullivan to bring together an interagency group to come up with a plan.

All options were to be on the table. But only one would emerge.

PLANNING

In December of 2021, two months before the first Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Jake Sullivan convened a meeting of a newly formed task force—men and women from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the State and Treasury Departments—and asked for recommendations about how to respond to Putin’s impending invasion.

It would be the first of a series of top-secret meetings, in a secure room on a top floor of the Old Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House, that was also the home of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). There was the usual back and forth chatter that eventually led to a crucial preliminary question: Would the recommendation forwarded by the group to the President be reversible—such as another layer of sanctions and currency restrictions—or irreversible—that is, kinetic actions, which could not be undone?

What became clear to participants, according to the source with direct knowledge of the process, is that Sullivan intended for the group to come up with a plan for the destruction of the two Nord Stream pipelines—and that he was delivering on the desires of the President.

Over the next several meetings, the participants debated options for an attack. The Navy proposed using a newly commissioned submarine to assault the pipeline directly. The Air Force discussed dropping bombs with delayed fuses that could be set off remotely. The CIA argued that whatever was done, it would have to be covert. Everyone involved understood the stakes. “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack were traceable to the United States, “It’s an act of war.”

At the time, the CIA was directed by William Burns, a mild-mannered former ambassador to Russia who had served as deputy secretary of state in the Obama Administration. Burns quickly authorized an Agency working group whose ad hoc members included—by chance—someone who was familiar with the capabilities of the Navy’s deep-sea divers in Panama City. Over the next few weeks, members of the CIA’s working group began to craft a plan for a covert operation that would use deep-sea divers to trigger an explosion along the pipeline.

Something like this had been done before. In 1971, the American intelligence community learned from still undisclosed sources that two important units of the Russian Navy were communicating via an undersea cable buried in the Sea of Okhotsk, on Russia’s Far East Coast. The cable linked a regional Navy command to the mainland headquarters at Vladivostok.

A hand-picked team of Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency operatives was assembled somewhere in the Washington area, under deep cover, and worked out a plan, using Navy divers, modified submarines and a deep-submarine rescue vehicle, that succeeded, after much trial and error, in locating the Russian cable. The divers planted a sophisticated listening device on the cable that successfully intercepted the Russian traffic and recorded it on a taping system.

The NSA learned that senior Russian navy officers, convinced of the security of their communication link, chatted away with their peers without encryption. The recording device and its tape had to be replaced monthly and the project rolled on merrily for a decade until it was compromised by a forty-four-year-old civilian NSA technician named Ronald Pelton who was fluent in Russian. Pelton was betrayed by a Russian defector in 1985 and sentenced to prison. He was paid just $5,000 by the Russians for his revelations about the operation, along with $35,000 for other Russian operational data he provided that was never made public.

That underwater success, codenamed Ivy Bells, was innovative and risky, and produced invaluable intelligence about the Russian Navy's intentions and planning.

Still, the interagency group was initially skeptical of the CIA’s enthusiasm for a covert deep-sea attack. There were too many unanswered questions. The waters of the Baltic Sea were heavily patrolled by the Russian navy, and there were no oil rigs that could be used as cover for a diving operation. Would the divers have to go to Estonia, right across the border from Russia’s natural gas loading docks, to train for the mission? “It would be a goat fuck,” the Agency was told.

Throughout “all of this scheming,” the source said, “some working guys in the CIA and the State Department were saying, ‘Don’t do this. It’s stupid and will be a political nightmare if it comes out.’”

Nevertheless, in early 2022, the CIA working group reported back to Sullivan’s interagency group: “We have a way to blow up the pipelines.”

What came next was stunning. On February 7, less than three weeks before the seemingly inevitable Russian invasion of Ukraine, Biden met in his White House office with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who, after some wobbling, was now firmly on the American team. At the press briefing that followed, Biden defiantly said, “If Russia invades . . . there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”

Twenty days earlier, Undersecretary Nuland had delivered essentially the same message at a State Department briefing, with little press coverage. “I want to be very clear to you today,” she said in response to a question. “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.”

Several of those involved in planning the pipeline mission were dismayed by what they viewed as indirect references to the attack.

“It was like putting an atomic bomb on the ground in Tokyo and telling the Japanese that we are going to detonate it,” the source said. “The plan was for the options to be executed post invasion and not advertised publicly. Biden simply didn’t get it or ignored it.”

Biden’s and Nuland’s indiscretion, if that is what it was, might have frustrated some of the planners. But it also created an opportunity. According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline “no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it.”

The plan to blow up Nord Stream 1 and 2 was suddenly downgraded from a covert operation requiring that Congress be informed to one that was deemed as a highly classified intelligence operation with U.S. military support. Under the law, the source explained, “There was no longer a legal requirement to report the operation to Congress. All they had to do now is just do it—but it still had to be secret. The Russians have superlative surveillance of the Baltic Sea.”

The Agency working group members had no direct contact with the White House, and were eager to find out if the President meant what he’d said—that is, if the mission was now a go. The source recalled, “Bill Burns comes back and says, ‘Do it.’”

THE OPERATION

Norway was the perfect place to base the mission.

In the past few years of East-West crisis, the U.S. military has vastly expanded its presence inside Norway, whose western border runs 1,400 miles along the north Atlantic Ocean and merges above the Arctic Circle with Russia. The Pentagon has created high paying jobs and contracts, amid some local controversy, by investing hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade and expand American Navy and Air Force facilities in Norway. The new works included, most importantly, an advanced synthetic aperture radar far up north that was capable of penetrating deep into Russia and came online just as the American intelligence community lost access to a series of long-range listening sites inside China.

A newly refurbished American submarine base, which had been under construction for years, had become operational and more American submarines were now able to work closely with their Norwegian colleagues to monitor and spy on a major Russian nuclear redoubt 250 miles to the east, on the Kola Peninsula. America also has vastly expanded a Norwegian air base in the north and delivered to the Norwegian air force a fleet of Boeing-built P8 Poseidon patrol planes to bolster its long-range spying on all things Russia.

In return, the Norwegian government angered liberals and some moderates in its parliament last November by passing the Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA). Under the new deal, the U.S. legal system would have jurisdiction in certain “agreed areas” in the North over American soldiers accused of crimes off base, as well as over those Norwegian citizens accused or suspected of interfering with the work at the base.

Norway was one of the original signatories of the NATO Treaty in 1949, in the early days of the Cold War. Today, the supreme commander of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg, a committed anti-communist, who served as Norway’s prime minister for eight years before moving to his high NATO post, with American backing, in 2014. He was a hardliner on all things Putin and Russia who had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War. He has been trusted completely since. “He is the glove that fits the American hand,” the source said.

Back in Washington, planners knew they had to go to Norway. “They hated the Russians, and the Norwegian navy was full of superb sailors and divers who had generations of experience in highly profitable deep-sea oil and gas exploration,” the source said. They also could be trusted to keep the mission secret. (The Norwegians may have had other interests as well. The destruction of Nord Stream—if the Americans could pull it off—would allow Norway to sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe.)

Sometime in March, a few members of the team flew to Norway to meet with the Norwegian Secret Service and Navy. One of the key questions was where exactly in the Baltic Sea was the best place to plant the explosives. Nord Stream 1 and 2, each with two sets of pipelines, were separated much of the way by little more than a mile as they made their run to the port of Greifswald in the far northeast of Germany.

The Norwegian navy was quick to find the right spot, in the shallow waters of the Baltic sea a few miles off Denmark’s Bornholm Island. The pipelines ran more than a mile apart along a seafloor that was only 260 feet deep. That would be well within the range of the divers, who, operating from a Norwegian Alta class mine hunter, would dive with a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and helium streaming from their tanks, and plant shaped C4 charges on the four pipelines with concrete protective covers. It would be tedious, time consuming and dangerous work, but the waters off Bornholm had another advantage: there were no major tidal currents, which would have made the task of diving much more difficult.

After a bit of research, the Americans were all in.

At this point, the Navy’s obscure deep-diving group in Panama City once again came into play. The deep-sea schools at Panama City, whose trainees participated in Ivy Bells, are seen as an unwanted backwater by the elite graduates of the Naval Academy in Annapolis, who typically seek the glory of being assigned as a Seal, fighter pilot, or submariner. If one must become a “Black Shoe”—that is, a member of the less desirable surface ship command—there is always at least duty on a destroyer, cruiser or amphibious ship. The least glamorous of all is mine warfare. Its divers never appear in Hollywood movies, or on the cover of popular magazines.

“The best divers with deep diving qualifications are a tight community, and only the very best are recruited for the operation and told to be prepared to be summoned to the CIA in Washington,” the source said.

The Norwegians and Americans had a location and the operatives, but there was another concern: any unusual underwater activity in the waters off Bornholm might draw the attention of the Swedish or Danish navies, which could report it.

Denmark had also been one of the original NATO signatories and was known in the intelligence community for its special ties to the United Kingdom. Sweden had applied for membership into NATO, and had demonstrated its great skill in managing its underwater sound and magnetic sensor systems that successfully tracked Russian submarines that would occasionally show up in remote waters of the Swedish archipelago and be forced to the surface.

The Norwegians joined the Americans in insisting that some senior officials in Denmark and Sweden had to be briefed in general terms about possible diving activity in the area. In that way, someone higher up could intervene and keep a report out of the chain of command, thus insulating the pipeline operation. “What they were told and what they knew were purposely different,” the source told me. (The Norwegian embassy, asked to comment on this story, did not respond.)

The Norwegians were key to solving other hurdles. The Russian navy was known to possess surveillance technology capable of spotting, and triggering, underwater mines. The American explosive devices needed to be camouflaged in a way that would make them appear to the Russian system as part of the natural background—something that required adapting to the specific salinity of the water. The Norwegians had a fix.

The Norwegians also had a solution to the crucial question of when the operation should take place. Every June, for the past 21 years, the American Sixth Fleet, whose flagship is based in Gaeta, Italy, south of Rome, has sponsored a major NATO exercise in the Baltic Sea involving scores of allied ships throughout the region. The current exercise, held in June, would be known as Baltic Operations 22, or BALTOPS 22. The Norwegians proposed this would be the ideal cover to plant the mines.

The Americans provided one vital element: they convinced the Sixth Fleet planners to add a research and development exercise to the program. The exercise, as made public by the Navy, involved the Sixth Fleet in collaboration with the Navy’s “research and warfare centers.” The at-sea event would be held off the coast of Bornholm Island and involve NATO teams of divers planting mines, with competing teams using the latest underwater technology to find and destroy them.

It was both a useful exercise and ingenious cover. The Panama City boys would do their thing and the C4 explosives would be in place by the end of BALTOPS22, with a 48-hour timer attached. All of the Americans and Norwegians would be long gone by the first explosion.

The days were counting down. “The clock was ticking, and we were nearing mission accomplished,” the source said.

And then: Washington had second thoughts. The bombs would still be planted during BALTOPS, but the White House worried that a two-day window for their detonation would be too close to the end of the exercise, and it would be obvious that America had been involved.

Instead, the White House had a new request: “Can the guys in the field come up with some way to blow the pipelines later on command?”

Some members of the planning team were angered and frustrated by the President’s seeming indecision. The Panama City divers had repeatedly practiced planting the C4 on pipelines, as they would during BALTOPS, but now the team in Norway had to come up with a way to give Biden what he wanted—the ability to issue a successful execution order at a time of his choosing.

Being tasked with an arbitrary, last-minute change was something the CIA was accustomed to managing. But it also renewed the concerns some shared over the necessity, and legality, of the entire operation.

The President’s secret orders also evoked the CIA’s dilemma in the Vietnam War days, when President Johnson, confronted by growing anti-Vietnam War sentiment, ordered the Agency to violate its charter—which specifically barred it from operating inside America—by spying on antiwar leaders to determine whether they were being controlled by Communist Russia.

The agency ultimately acquiesced, and throughout the 1970s it became clear just how far it had been willing to go. There were subsequent newspaper revelations in the aftermath of the Watergate scandals about the Agency’s spying on American citizens, its involvement in the assassination of foreign leaders and its undermining of the socialist government of Salvador Allende.

Those revelations led to a dramatic series of hearings in the mid-1970s in the Senate, led by Frank Church of Idaho, that made it clear that Richard Helms, the Agency director at the time, accepted that he had an obligation to do what the President wanted, even if it meant violating the law.

In unpublished, closed-door testimony, Helms ruefully explained that “you almost have an Immaculate Conception when you do something” under secret orders from a President. “Whether it’s right that you should have it, or wrong that you shall have it, [the CIA] works under different rules and ground rules than any other part of the government.” He was essentially telling the Senators that he, as head of the CIA, understood that he had been working for the Crown, and not the Constitution.

The Americans at work in Norway operated under the same dynamic, and dutifully began working on the new problem—how to remotely detonate the C4 explosives on Biden’s order. It was a much more demanding assignment than those in Washington understood. There was no way for the team in Norway to know when the President might push the button. Would it be in a few weeks, in many months or in half a year or longer?

The C4 attached to the pipelines would be triggered by a sonar buoy dropped by a plane on short notice, but the procedure involved the most advanced signal processing technology. Once in place, the delayed timing devices attached to any of the four pipelines could be accidentally triggered by the complex mix of ocean background noises throughout the heavily trafficked Baltic Sea—from near and distant ships, underwater drilling, seismic events, waves and even sea creatures. To avoid this, the sonar buoy, once in place, would emit a sequence of unique low frequency tonal sounds—much like those emitted by a flute or a piano—that would be recognized by the timing device and, after a pre-set hours of delay, trigger the explosives. (“You want a signal that is robust enough so that no other signal could accidentally send a pulse that detonated the explosives,” I was told by Dr. Theodore Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology and national security policy at MIT. Postol, who has served as the science adviser to the Pentagon’s Chief of Naval Operations, said the issue facing the group in Norway because of Biden’s delay was one of chance: “The longer the explosives are in the water the greater risk there would be of a random signal that would launch the bombs.”)

On September 26, 2022, a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane made a seemingly routine flight and dropped a sonar buoy. The signal spread underwater, initially to Nord Stream 2 and then on to Nord Stream 1. A few hours later, the high-powered C4 explosives were triggered and three of the four pipelines were put out of commission. Within a few minutes, pools of methane gas that remained in the shuttered pipelines could be seen spreading on the water’s surface and the world learned that something irreversible had taken place.

FALLOUT

In the immediate aftermath of the pipeline bombing, the American media treated it like an unsolved mystery. Russia was repeatedly cited as a likely culprit, spurred on by calculated leaks from the White House—but without ever establishing a clear motive for such an act of self-sabotage, beyond simple retribution. A few months later, when it emerged that Russian authorities had been quietly getting estimates for the cost to repair the pipelines, the New York Times described the news as “complicating theories about who was behind” the attack. No major American newspaper dug into the earlier threats to the pipelines made by Biden and Undersecretary of State Nuland.

While it was never clear why Russia would seek to destroy its own lucrative pipeline, a more telling rationale for the President’s action came from Secretary of State Blinken.

Asked at a press conference last September about the consequences of the worsening energy crisis in Western Europe, Blinken described the moment as a potentially good one:

“It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs. That’s very significant and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come, but meanwhile we’re determined to do everything we possibly can to make sure the consequences of all of this are not borne by citizens in our countries or, for that matter, around the world.”

More recently, Victoria Nuland expressed satisfaction at the demise of the newest of the pipelines. Testifying at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in late January she told Senator Ted Cruz, “ Like you, I am, and I think the Administration is, very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”

The source had a much more streetwise view of Biden’s decision to sabotage more than 1500 miles of Gazprom pipeline as winter approached. “Well,” he said, speaking of the President, “I gotta admit the guy has a pair of balls. He said he was going to do it, and he did.”

Asked why he thought the Russians failed to respond, he said cynically, “Maybe they want the capability to do the same things the U.S. did.

“It was a beautiful cover story,” he went on. “Behind it was a covert operation that placed experts in the field and equipment that operated on a covert signal.

“The only flaw was the decision to do it.”


READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

                                                                    PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611 




This Weekend in Politics, Bulletin 441.

                                                                               LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER..... OR REMOVED ON THEIR WHI...