Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

NORDSTREAM SABOTAGE: A NEW LOW FOR WESTERN MAINSTREAM MEDIA

By Dimitri Lascaris | October 7, 2022

The Guardian’s coverage of the recent Nord Stream sabotage highlights the increasingly absurd lengths to which Western media will go to promote the U.S. government’s hegemonic agenda.

Guardian coverage of this portentous event has included at least three, shameless exercises in propaganda-masquerading-as-journalism.

On September 28 – two days after natural gas began belching into the Baltic Sea due to multiple blasts targeting Nord Stream – the Guardian published an article by Philip Oltermann, the Guardian’s Berlin bureau chief, entitled “Nord Stream blasts could herald new phase of hybrid war, say EU politicians”.

By focusing attention on the perspective of EU politicians, the title of Oltermann’s article left no doubt as to its bias: E.U. governments have flooded Ukraine with weapons and have imposed sanctions on Russia that were plainly designed to destroy its economy. None of the E.U. officials quoted in the article can plausibly claim to be independent, objective arbiters of the debate over who attacked the Nord Stream pipelines.

According to Oltermann:

Roderich Kiesewetter, a member of parliament for the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), told the Guardian the pipeline attack had the hallmarks of the “hybrid warfare approach” Russia has pursued for the last decade, with the aim of “dividing the European Union not by military but through social and diplomatic means”.

“We have to ask who has an interest in destroying this infrastructure,” said Kiesewetter, a member of the Bundestag’s committee on foreign affairs. While it was in the interest of the US, states in central and eastern Europe and the Baltics that Nord Stream 2 would never be activated, he argued that an act of state-sponsored sabotage by a Nato ally would have come attached with too large a risk of a political backlash.

“Russia, on the other hand, has an interest in sending us a signal: to threaten it could cause similar damage to pipelines between Algeria and France, to our power lines or submarine fibre-optic cables […] I consider it likely that Russia was behind this attack.”

What does Keisewetter mean by “hybrid warfare approach”, and why is this approach uniquely that of Russia? For decades, the U.S. military has degraded and destroyed the civilian infrastructure of its official enemies – for example, in Iraq and Libya. Therefore, one could just as easily argue that this act of sabotage has all “the hallmarks” of U.S. aggression.

Keisewetter does acknowledge that the U.S. (as well as certain unnamed European states) had an interest in killing the Nord Stream pipelines (more on that later), but he claims that the political backlash from their sabotage of Nord Stream would constitute “too large a risk”.

Yet, if recent history teaches us anything about relations between the United States and the E.U., it’s that the U.S. can get away with just about any betrayal of the E.U.’s trust.

In 2014, the Guardian and other Western media outlets revealed, thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden, that the U.K. intelligence agency, GCHQ, had tapped into fibre-optic cables carrying global communications, and that GCHQ had shared vast amounts of data with its U.S. counterpart, the NSA. The targeted fibre-optic cables included three undersea cables with terminals in Italy.

The Snowden documents also disclosed that the U.S. had spied on E.U. internal computer networks in Washington and the E.U.’s United Nations office in New York, and that the NSA had conducted an electronic eavesdropping operation in a building in Brussels, where the E.U. Council of Ministers and the European Council were located.

At the time, Western media outlets also reported that the U.S. had secretly intercepted and monitored cell phone conversations of Angela Merkel, who was then Germany’s Chancellor.

What was the “backlash” resulting from U.S. spying on Merkel and other top E.U officials? What price did the U.S. government pay for undermining the integrity of telecommunications infrastructure in the E.U.?

Apart from a few theatrical, you-hurt-our-feelings protestations from E.U. leaders — for example, Merkel’s pathetic complaint to Obama that U.S. spying on her cell phone conversations was “completely unacceptable” — there was no meaningful “backlash”.

The E.U. imposed no sanctions on the U.S. It did not sever diplomatic relations with the U.S.. It did not close down a single U.S. military base. Indeed, since the Snowden revelations emerged, U.S.-E.U. relations have been conducted essentially on a business-as-usual basis.

Predictably, Oltermann mentions none of these facts in his article of September 28. In fact, Oltermann evinces no scepticism that the political backlash would be too great if, indeed, the U.S. and/or its proxies had sabotaged Nord Stream.

Oltermann continues:

Nord Stream has been at the heart of a standoff between Russia and Europe over energy supplies since the start of the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine, but it is not immediately clear who stands to benefit from the destruction of the gas infrastructure.

Several paragraphs earlier, Oltermann had revealed that a member of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee had acknowledged that the U.S. and certain European states had an interest in preventing the activation of Nord Stream, yet it was “not immediately clear” to Oltermann who stands to benefit from the destruction of that infrastructure?

Oltermann then acknowledges that, in Germany, there had been calls recently “to open the pipeline as an energy crisis looms over Europe”, but he dismisses those calls as having come from “political parties on the far right and the far left.”

The reality is that, due to the inaccessibility of affordable Russian gas, Germany’s economy is now on the verge of collapse. That is why, immediately prior to the sabotage of Nord Stream, German protesters took to the streets to demand that Nord Stream be reopened and that a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine war be pursued.

Oltermann evidently believes that only Germans on the “far right” and “far left” are alarmed  about the immense hardships that Germany’s economic collapse will inflict upon their families and millions of ordinary Germans.

On September 29, the day after the Guardian published Oltermann’s article, it published an editorial focused on the Russian Federation’s just-completed annexation of four Ukrainian oblasts. In that editorial, the Guardian’s editors wrote:

The annexations come alongside the mobilisation order, and, many believe, the damage to the Nord Stream pipelines (while Russia clearly appears the most plausible culprit, US intelligence has been notably cautious about ascribing blame).

Nowhere in the editorial, however, does the Guardian explain the basis for its claim that “Russia clearly appears the most plausible culprit”. Its editors do not offer a scintilla of evidence or logic to support their eye-popping claim that Russia may have blown up its own pipelines. Nor do they explain why U.S. intelligence would hesitate to accuse Russia of sabotage if Russia “clearly” was “the most plausible culprit”. When has U.S. intelligence been reluctant to level evidence-free accusations of criminality at Russia’s government?

Finally, on September 30, the Guardian published an article by Kate Connolly, the Guardian’s Berlin correspondent, entitled “Size of Nord Stream blasts equal to large amount of explosive, UN told”. Connolly wrote:

Intelligence sources quoted in the news magazine Spiegel believe the pipelines were hit in four places by explosions using 500kg of TNT, the equivalent to the explosive power of a heavy aircraft bomb. German investigators have undertaken seismic readings to calculate the power of the blasts.

The first signs of explosions were registered on Monday morning by a Danish earthquake station after suspicious activity in the waters of the Baltic Sea. A monitoring station on the Danish island of Bornholm measured severe tremors.

A representative of the Swedish coastguard told AFP: “There are two leaks on Swedish territory and two on the Danish side.”

It remains a mystery as to how the explosives reached the pipeline. According to initial reports, the explosions happened at depths of between 70 and 90 metres.

There has been speculation that mini submarines might have been used to deliver the explosives. However, the amount of explosives that would have been necessary to cause such large blasts make this theory increasingly unlikely.

Instead, experts are suggesting that maintenance robots operating within the pipeline structure may have planted the bombs during repair works.

If this theory proves to be right, the sophisticated nature of the attack as well as the power of the blast would add weight to suspicions that the attacks were carried out by a state power, with fingers pointed at Russia. Moscow has repeatedly underlined its capability to disrupt Europe’s energy infrastructure.

On Friday, Vladimir Putin blamed the US and its allies for blowing up the pipelines, raising the temperature in the crisis. Offering no evidence for his claim, the Russian president said in a speech to mark the annexation of four Ukrainian regions: “The sanctions were not enough for the Anglo-Saxons: they moved on to sabotage. It is hard to believe but it is a fact that they organised the blasts on the Nord Stream international gas pipelines.”

Three elements of Connolly’s report merit commentary.

First, who are “the experts” who suggest that maintenance robots operating within the pipeline may have planted bombs during maintenance? Connolly doesn’t tell us, nor does she explain why she omitted to reveal their identities. Are they government “experts”? Were they not authorized to speak publicly? If they were government experts, to what governments do they belong? Without this information, Connolly’s readers are unable to assess whether her sources do indeed have relevant expertise and are truly objective.

Second, Connolly claims that Moscow has repeatedly “underlined” its capability to disrupt Europe’s energy infrastructure. Really? I have never seen a threat from the Russian government to disrupt Europe’s energy infrastructure. If indeed the Russian government ever issued such a threat, then why doesn’t Connolly tell us when, how and by whom that threat was issued?

By contrast, the President of the United States explicitly threatened earlier this year to “bring an end” to Nord Stream if Russia invaded Ukraine. That threat was issued in a press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholtz:

What is most damning about Biden’s threat is his response to a reporter’s question about Germany. When the reporter points out to Biden that Germany – a supposedly key ally of the United States – is part-owner of Nord Stream, Biden doesn’t flinch. He simply disregards Germany’s stake in the project and declares (with the hapless, weak-kneed Scholz standing near him) “I promise you, we will be able” to bring Nord Stream to an end.

For the sake of appearances and diplomacy, Biden could have dissembled. He could have said something like “of course, we will consult with our German partners before taking any action to end Nord Stream” or “the decision about ending Nord Stream will be made jointly with the German government”. Yet Biden said no such thing, evidently believing that the whole world should know that Germany’s view of the matter was irrelevant to the U.S. government.

Connolly says nothing in her article about Biden’s recent, explicit threat to ‘bring an end’ to Nord Stream, but she does make an unsubstantiated claim that Moscow had “underlined” its capacity to disrupt Europe’s energy infrastructure.

Finally, Connolly reports that Putin blames “the Anglo-Saxons” – presumably, the British and Americans – for the Nord Stream sabotage.

Let us contemplate that fact for a moment.

If in fact Russia did not blow up its own pipelines, and if the Russian government is convinced that the British and Americans sabotaged Nord Stream, the world is likely heading toward a very dark place, both figuratively and literally. The Russian government is not likely to tolerate Western attacks on vitally important Russian energy infrastructure. Somehow, at some point, Russia is liable to retaliate against the West’s energy infrastructure. The disabling of key energy infrastructure may well have dire consequences for Western economies that are already reeling from a global energy crisis.

If one or more Western governments are behind the sabotage of Nord Stream, they have crossed a red line that will expose Western economies and citizens to heightened energy insecurity in the months and years ahead. They may well have hurt the West far more than they have hurt Russia.

The Case Against Russia

I am a lawyer. I was first called to the bar in the State of New York thirty years ago. For most of my career, I have specialized in class action litigation. Typically, on behalf of my clients, I’ve prosecuted claims of fraud and other forms of corporate wrongdoing. Often, the claims I advance involve potential criminality. The complex evidence underlying these claims must be assessed and interpreted with meticulous attention to detail, but also with a healthy dose of scepticism and common sense.

Like any case of potential criminality, I approach the question of who sabotaged Nord Stream like a lawyer. I bring to bear my experience litigating claims of wrongdoing. Among other things, I ask: who possessed a motive to commit the crime? Who had both the ability and the opportunity to carry it out? Are the protagonists and the witnesses marshalled for and against those protagonists credible? What do qualified experts say? Are those experts unbiased? Taking into account these and other considerations, what are the most rational inferences to be drawn from all available evidence?

Certainly, the Russian military possessed the capacity to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines, but what possible motive would it have to do so?

Gazprom, a fossil fuels behemoth that is controlled by the Russian state, invested over US$5 billion in Nord Stream 2. Moreover, had Russia wanted to stop the flow of gas to Europe through Nord Stream, all it had to do was turn off the gas taps in Russia. There was no need for Russia to destroy those pipelines and jeopardize a state-owned entity’s multi-billion-dollar investment.

As long as Nord Stream remained functional, the Russian government was able to offer an enticement to Germany to remove sanctions on Russia. As long as Nord Stream remains non-functional, Russia’s leverage over Germany is diminished considerably.

Moreover, it is questionable whether the Russian military had the opportunity to commit this sabotage.

The explosions occurred near Bornholm, a Danish island in the Baltic Sea. Bornholm is surrounded by states that are either members of NATO or have applied to join NATO (Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Poland). It is only 100 km from the Polish coastline.

NATO heavily monitors and effectively controls the western Baltic Sea, where the sabotage occurred. How could Russian saboteurs execute this challenging operation while escaping detection by NATO?

The Case Against the United States

Arguably, no government had a greater motivation to destroy Nord Stream than the United States government.

Joe Biden was by no means the first U.S. politician to express a desire to see Nord Stream terminated. For years, U.S. government officials have condemned Nord Stream 2 and have pressured Germany’s government to abandon the project.

Here are but a few examples.

In 2014, former U.S. Secretary of State and unrepentant war criminal Condoleeza Rice gave an interview in which she was asked whether Germany had been sufficiently “aggressive” with Russia. In response, Rice expressed her desire that Europe “depend more on the North American energy platform” and “the tremendous bounty of oil and gas we are finding in North America.” “You want to have pipelines that don’t go through Ukraine and Russia,” she added. “For years, we’ve tried to get the Europeans to be interested in different pipeline routes. It’s time to do that.”

In December 2021, as fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine intensified, Victoria Nuland, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, was questioned by Republican Senator Ron Johnson about the Biden administration’s plans for sanctioning Russia. Johnson prefaced his questions by noting that, despite their differences, Republicans and Democrats were united in their hostility to Russia. Johnson also stated that it was important to make Vladimir Putin understand how “harmful” U.S. sanctions would be to the “Russian people”. Then, after noting the Senate’s strong support for sanctions on Nord Stream, Johnson asked Nuland whether the Biden administration was contemplating sanctions that “would prevent Nord Stream 2 from ever being completed.” Nuland replied “absolutely”.

If Victoria Nuland is familiar to you, that might be due to her infamous 2014 conversation with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. A leaked recording of that conversation revealed that the U.S. government had handpicked the next Prime Minister of Ukraine in advance of a coup that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected President, Viktor Yanukovych. In Nuland’s conversation with Pyatt, Pyatt noted that E.U. officials did not agree with Washington’s choice for Ukraine’s next PM. In response, Nuland said to Pyatt “fuck the E.U.”

One cannot overstate the U.S. government’s contempt for the priorities of its European allies vassals.

Despite the extensive and unambiguous record of U.S. government hostility to Nord Stream, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken laughably claimed, on the day after the sabotage, that the destruction of Nord Stream was in “no one’s interest”. If that were true, why would anyone destroy it?

It took the dim-witted Blinken less than one week to publicly contradict himself. On October 2, he giddily declared in a press conference with Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly that the destruction of Nord Stream presented to the United States a “strategic” and “tremendous opportunity” to end Europe’s dependence on Russian gas.

Even in the absence of these and similar statements by U.S. officials, it would be obvious that the U.S. government has a motive to “bring an end” to Nord Stream.

The neocons who control U.S. government foreign policy covet, above all else, global hegemony. Maintaining U.S. global hegemony requires that the U.S. effect regime change in Russia and that it replace Russia’s nationalist government with a Yeltsin-like buffoon who will slavishly do the bidding of his American handlers. Only then will it be possible for the U.S. to isolate and ‘contain’ China, whose growing wealth and power is the primary impediment to U.S. hegemony. As long as the powerful German economy is closely intertwined with that of Russia, the U.S. government’s ability to undermine Russia’s economy will be limited.

Quite apart from that, the U.S. fossil fuels industry stands to gain enormously from the E.U.’s rejection of Russian fossil fuels. As Blinken acknowledged, U.S. gas producers are undoubtedly licking their chops at the “tremendous opportunity” created by Nord Stream’s destruction.

Not only did the U.S. have the motive to destroy Nord Stream, it had both the technological capability and the opportunity to do so.

The site of the sabotage lies in waters that are effectively controlled by NATO.

According to Flightradar24 data, U.S. military helicopters habitually and on numerous occasions circled for hours over the site of the Nord Stream sabotage near Bornholm Island earlier in September.

Moreover, in June of this year, the U.S. military conducted the BALTOPS naval exercise off the coast of Bornholm to demonstrate NATO’s mine hunting capabilities. According to an official publication of the Navy League of the United States, this exercise was used as “an opportunity to test emerging technology”:

In support of BALTOPS, U.S. Navy 6th Fleet partnered with U.S. Navy research and warfare centers to bring the latest advancements in unmanned underwater vehicle mine hunting technology to the Baltic Sea to demonstrate the vehicle’s effectiveness in operational scenarios.

Experimentation was conducted off the coast of Bornholm, Denmark, with participants from Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport, and Mine Warfare Readiness and Effectiveness Measuring all under the direction of U.S. 6th Fleet Task Force 68.

By contrast, I’m aware of no reports of the presence of Russian military assets at or near the site of sabotage in the months leading up to the incident. (If you have seen such reports, I encourage you to share them with me.)

Immediately before the explosions that disabled Nord Stream, German protesters had taken to the streets to call for the reopening of Nord Stream in the face of skyrocketing energy bills. What better way to prevent the German government from acceding to public pressure than making it impossible for Nord Stream to deliver gas to Germany?

Of course, this circumstantial evidence does not prove definitively that the U.S. military or a proxy acting with the consent and support of the U.S. government sabotaged Nord Stream, nor does it disprove definitively that Russia sabotaged its own pipelines.

Nonetheless, the totality of the circumstantial evidence makes a mockery of claims by the Guardian and other pro-NATO, Western media outlets that Russia is ‘the most plausible culprit’.

By any rational measure, the United States government is, by a wide margin, ‘the most plausible culprit’.

Another plausible culprit is Poland.

Not only is Poland closer to the site of the sabotage than Russia, Poland’s government is intensely hostile to Russia.

Poland’s government detests the Nord Stream pipelines. Using highly undiplomatic language against a fellow NATO and E.U. member, the Polish government has repeatedly castigated Germany’s government for the Nord Stream project. In 2021, for example, it accused Germany of forming a “brutal alliance” with Russia against the interests of other European states.

Shortly after the sabotage was revealed, Radek Sikorski, the former foreign and defence minister of Poland, tweeted an image of natural gas spewing from the site of the Nord Stream sabotage, along with the words “Thank you, USA.” He quickly deleted the tweet after it went viral.

It may well be that Poland played a role in the attacks on Nord Stream, but it is difficult to imagine that it would commit a crime of this magnitude without the consent and support of the U.S. government, NATO’s dominant member.

Where do we go from here?

Danish and Swedish authorities are reportedly conducting an investigation into the Nord Stream attacks. The Kremlin claims that it has not been invited to participate in the investigation, while Nord Stream operators say that they were unable to inspect the damaged sections of the pipelines because of restrictions imposed by Danish and Swedish authorities who had cordoned off the area.

Denmark is a member of NATO, while Sweden has applied for NATO membership.

If Germany was a truly sovereign state, its government would demand an independent, international investigation into the attacks on Nord Stream.

Moreover, no investigation supervised by a NATO or a wannabe-NATO government could be truly independent, especially if Russian authorities have been excluded from the investigation. All NATO states, and particularly NATO’s most powerful member (the U.S.), have a strong interest in pointing the finger at Russia.

The fact that Germany’s government has not demanded a truly independent investigation speaks volumes about Germany’s supposed sovereignty, but the German government’s feeble response should surprise no one. At the behest of their masters in Washington, German ‘leaders’ committed their country to economic suicide months ago.

Sooner or later, however, the truth about Nord Stream may well emerge. If it is ultimately demonstrated that the United States or a U.S. proxy attacked Nord Stream, and did so at a moment when Germany’s economy is collapsing under the weight of an energy crisis, the consequences will be enormous, not only for Russia’s relations with the West, but also for Germany’s (and the E.U.’s) relations with the United States and NATO.

Indeed, the Nord Stream sabotage may ultimately prove to be one of the most consequential crimes of the twenty-first century. If the U.S. committed the crime, Western media will have played a key role in protecting the criminals who did it.

I leave you with this video clip of an October 3, 2022 interview of Professor Jeffrey Sachs, former director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. When Dr. Sachs has the temerity to suggest that the U.S. government is behind the Nord Stream sabotage, two Bloomberg reporters freak out and attempt, unsuccessfully, to shut him down. (Check out his priceless facial expression when the Bloomberg reporters lose it.)

October 8, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Economics, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

EU Ban on RT, Sputnik Breaches Swedish, Danish Constitutions – Danish Journalists

Samizdat – 07.10.2022

The EU ban on Russian news outlets is in breach of Swedish and Danish constitutions, which explicitly prohibit all forms of censorship, Danish journalists and media educators said Friday.

The EU Council of Ministers banned the dissemination of RT and Sputnik content in March and added three other Russian outlets to the blacklist in June. The European Court of Justice defended the controversial measure, saying the rights of journalists were protected as long as they acted “in good faith.”

This is despite that legal safeguards in the Swedish Constitution’s freedom of the press act protect “the right of everyone to publish without prior interference by a public authority,” whereas the Danish constitution states that “Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.”

Media experts argued in an article in the EUobserver that the EU intervention effectively overrode the basic laws of Sweden and Denmark, raising doubts about the EU leadership’s commitment to democratic values and the rule of law.

The journalists said the EU executive set aside constitutional defenses of freedom of expression with the silent approval of media and the public. The only exception was Norway, which is not a member state but is closely associated with the union.

They said the EU’s court in Luxembourg had granted itself the right to decide what journalism was acceptable while denying European citizens the ability to deal themselves with “unfiltered statements from questionable sources.”

“There is no confidence in our ability to deal with contradictory views of events. The EU institutions decide what we can cope with. Freedom of expression is not absolute, and never was,” they said.

October 7, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Food, energy, housing: True German inflation is 56 percent

Free West Media | October 7, 2022

Prices are skyrocketing and we are all getting poorer – everyone feels the price shock, but in statistics it shows up much smaller. Official inflation figures are around 10 percent. But many citizens notice in their everyday life: Prices are rising – in the supermarket, at the gas station – much faster.

The true inflation is much higher: That’s why there is now the inflation radar from pleiticker.de – one can find it updated daily on their homepage. They have calculated price developments in the areas that really matter: housing, energy and basic foodstuffs. With the latest figures, inflation there was a whopping 56,3 percent over the past year – and 11,6 percent over the past week alone. For the average net income of a German household (€3 600), this means a loss in value of €1 296. This is mainly driven by the rise in energy costs. The price of electricity has risen by an unbelievable 344 percent in the past year.

The official figures, on the other hand, are hardly meaningful: The figures from the Federal Statistical Office are significantly lower and not very plausible for the reality of people’s lives for two reasons: On the one hand, it includes hundreds of products in its unrealistic “shopping basket”. On the other hand, the price shock for electricity and gas only becomes visible in the Federal Statistical Office’s inflation calculator with a long delay. Instead of the market price, the current consumer price is used, which reflects even more favorable market prices from the past. The real market price only reaches the end consumer after many weeks.

Germany economy is grinding to a halt

The German economy is slipping as a consequence of the exploding electricity and gas prices and the galloping inflation, which has now solidified in the double-digit range. The former Bild editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt has been documenting the German economic bankruptcy with a new project, called pleiticker.de.

The project is described as follows on the website pleiticker.de: “Every day, companies collapse under the exploding energy costs and file for bankruptcy. More and more people can no longer afford to live. Pleitticker.de documents the crisis that Economics Minister Robert Habeck doesn’t want to see […] The truth is: the wave of bankruptcies has long been here.”

At the beginning of September, the Economics Minister said: “I can imagine that certain sectors will simply stop producing for the time being. Don’t become insolvent.”

This is illustrated on the website not only by the sheer numbers, but also by numerous reports on the effects of the failed policy – for example on already known company bankruptcies, impending waves of insolvencies in clinics and other sectors or the mass terminations of gas customers by the public utility company.

The website also examines actual inflation, because according to Reichelt, the so-called “shopping basket” of the Federal Statistical Office does not reflect the price increases for many everyday products, but, for example, prices for home cinema systems, surfboards, services from domestic staff or visits to the opera. Essentially these are items and services that few avail themselves of.

Reichelt’s new portal therefore calculates the authentic inflation rate in the areas of housing, energy and staple foods.

Journalists who touted ‘climate’ price hikes demand pay rise

Hacks from the German regional public broadcaster WDR, have been demanding inflation compensation for themselves – in order to cope with the price increases that they themselves have demanded

Lorenz Beckhardt, WDR journalist and Quarks editor, called for a “warning strike in WDR” on Twitter: “With a few exceptions”, public service broadcasting is not done by people who “earn top salaries”. He does not offer any details on his own remuneration and whether he counts himself among his “struggling colleagues”.

The journalists want to push through a 5 percent salary hike and inflation compensation – mainly to be able to cope with the massively rising food and energy prices. For this reason they stopped work on Wednesday, October 5.

The irony is particularly biting: Not long ago, Lorenz Beckhardt had personally demanded price increases – for the sake of the “environment”. In July 2019 he appealed to politicians in a comment on: “Make meat, driving cars and flying so damn expensive that we can put an end to it. Please! Quickly!”.

Now that he has got what he wanted, he is whining about money. For the likes of Beckhardt this is obviously not a contradiction.

Totally clueless or complicit politicians?

The next hurdle facing the Scholtz federal government’s energy policy is that nobody in Berlin can say how much gas will actually be available to supply the country in winter. Despite – allegedly – ​​well-filled storage tanks, gas in unknown quantities are not intended for Germany at all, but flows abroad.

Officially, Germany’s gas storage facilities are more than 90 percent full. But that is no reason for relief, because the gas is not reserved for German consumers and companies. The news magazine Focus recently reported on a letter from the Ministry of Economic Affairs to the deputy chairman of the Union parliamentary group, Jens Spahn, which stated: “The Federal Government does not have any knowledge of where the individual stored gas is going.”

The Federal Network Agency told the German weekly Bild am Sonntag: “The stored gas is largely owned by gas traders and suppliers who often operate across Europe.”

Particularly riling is that this also applies to the gas that Trading Hub Europe buys with state aid and has stored under trusteeship of the Federal Network Agency in the former Gazprom storage facility in Rehden. So, although this gas was financed with tax money, it is not reserved for Germany.

It can be purchased by all national and international companies registered on the German gas market to the highest bidder. For German gas customers, whether private or corporate, this is tantamount to a resounding slap in the face: their own government obviously shows no interest in ensuring energy security and giving preference to German customers.

CDU politician Jens Spahn, also criticized this outrage: “The very expensive gas bought in our storage facilities must reach German consumers in winter,” he demanded. In view of the crisis, that should actually go without saying, but in Germany, of course, politicians are pursuing Anglo-Saxon priorities.

Incidentally, neighboring Austria has a similar problem: according to the head of Austria’s largest energy storage company, RAG, a gas storage capacity of 85 percent should be reached by the end of the month. But even there, the country owns just under half of the gas.

October 7, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

OPEC+ decision to cut oil counteracts Europe’s idea of price cap on Russian energy

US and Europe can no longer make condescending and hegemonic demands on energy producers

By Ahmed Adel | October 7, 2022

The European Commission is hoping to impose a cap on gas prices as the current energy crisis will inevitably deepen over the winter. However, European Union member states are divided over the proposed measures, which are designed to lower soaring inflation amid Moscow’s response to sanctions imposed for its military operation in Ukraine. 

Although France, Italy, Poland and 12 other EU countries urged the Commission to propose a broader price cap targeting all wholesale gas trade, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany – Europe’s biggest gas buyer – are among those opposed against the measure as they believe capping prices could endanger the security of supply as it undermines the EU’s ability to attract gas deliveries.

It is recalled that in early September, Russian President Vladimir Putin described the idea of a price cap as “stupid”, highlighting that the EU was “in no position to dictate”. After warning that the EU would “freeze” if such a cap was imposed, Putin said: “We will not supply gas, oil, coal, heating oil – we will not supply anything.”

While EU leaders are doggedly and obsessively calling for a price cap, industry experts show their scepticism, and in some cases concern on the repercussions of such an action. It is already noted that EU sanctions imposed against Russia are already affecting European economies far worse than the Russian economy.

In this light, chairman and CEO of French energy major TotalEnergies, Patrick Pouyanné, said on October 5: “Honestly, I am not sure that a price cap on Russian oil is a good idea.”

“What I am sure is that if we do that (cap), then Putin will say that ‘we don’t sell my oil’ – and the price will not be at $95, it will be at $150,” Pouyanné said.

For her part, Elisabetta Cornago, a senior energy researcher at the Centre for European Reform, explained that “It’s hard to picture such a level of market intervention. This is uncharted territory.” Another expert, Bram Claeys, a senior advisor at the Regulatory Assistance Project, said that the energy price cap would “quickly start costing billions” because it would force governments to continually subsidise the difference between the real market price and the artificially capped price.

Despite the scepticism from energy experts, the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, maintains the need to introduce a ceiling on the price of Russian gas. At the end of August, she announced that the European Commission was taking quick and long-term measures to improve the situation amid rising electricity prices in the EU. 

However, it appears that Russia is already pre-emptively responding to price cap suggestions by convincing its partners in OPEC+ (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) to reduce oil production by 2 million barrels per day from November. This will cause a severe crisis, which will reverberate in Europe and the United States, especially as the OPEC+ decision was made just weeks before the US midterm elections.

For this reason, the White House angrily said in a statement that Biden was “disappointed by the shortsighted decision by OPEC+ to cut production quotas while the global economy is dealing with the continued negative impact of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.”

OPEC+ comprises of 24 members, many of them close partners with Russia, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran and Venezuela, and not a single member is Western. In addition, the most influential members have significant differences with Washington, and unlike in decades past, are not afraid to push back to defend their own interests.

Washington is trying to impose the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels, or NOPEC bill, which is designed to protect US consumers and businesses from oil spikes. However, OPEC’s most influential members have warned that this legislation would cause chaos in the energy market.

Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said on October 5: “We will continuously prove that OPEC+ is here not only to stay but here to stay as a moderating force to bring about stability.”

It is recalled that when Biden arrived in Saudi Arabia earlier this year on a mission to urge one of the world’s largest oil exporters to ramp up production in a bid to help bring down gasoline prices, OPEC+ raised oil output by a minuscule 100,000 barrels per day in what was widely seen as an insult to Biden.

In this way, it is demonstrated that Western influence over energy is waning and that OPEC+ members are behaving more confidently in protecting their own interests. Putin has delivered on every warning he has made whenever a red-line was crossed, and there is little doubt that if Europe imposes a cap, he will counteract Europe’s economic aggression by significantly cutting energy flows, which will make prices soar. There is effectively very little Europe and the US can do to stop this and they must accept the fact that they are at the mercy of OPEC+ and can no longer impose their condescending and hegemonic demands over the organisation and its member states.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

October 7, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Serbia furious over latest anti-Russia sanctions

Samizdat | October 6, 2022

The Serbian government has slammed the latest package of EU sanctions targeting Russia’s oil exports, describing it as the “first EU sanctions package” against Serbia.

Restrictions on the maritime transportation of Russian oil would make it too expensive for Serbia and severely hit the nation’s economy, government officials said on Thursday. In a scathing statement, Serbian Interior Minister Aleksandar Vulin called the EU “the place of our future humiliation and suffering.”

Belgrade will now be “forced to buy more expensive Iraqi oil and thus lose hundreds of millions of euro,” he argued, accusing neighboring Croatia, which is an EU member state, of lobbying for the new measures.

Vulin said the only “consistent” feature of EU policy is “revenge on free nations,” and decried the fact that Western Balkan nations had not been exempted from the latest batch of anti-Russia measures.

The EU “introduced not the eighth package of sanctions against Russia but the first sanctions package against Serbia,” the minister said. He argued that this was why it is “better to be a militarily and politically neutral country” rather than a member of a club of nations that allows the “[psychological] complexes” of its members to run the show.

Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabic was equally critical of the new sanctions, saying they were introduced “at the expense of the lives and living standards” of all Serbian people. “It will cost us hundreds of millions of euro,” Brnabic told Serbia’s Happy TV broadcaster.

“What they thought they would do to Russia they did to us on Wednesday, because we depend on the oil pipeline in Croatia,” the prime minister added, accusing Brussels of “using energy for political blackmail and retribution.”

On Thursday, the EU announced the eighth package of restrictions on Russia which include a price cap and “further restrictions” on the maritime transportation of Russian crude oil and petroleum products to third countries. Serbia imports Russian oil by sea through a Croatian port terminal on the island of Krk, from which it is then transported through a pipeline to Serbian territory.

The new measures would make such imports at least 20% more expensive, according to Serbian media. In June, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic warned that Serbia would not be able to import Russian oil after November 1 due to EU sanctions.

October 6, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

EU must decide where it stands on Ukraine – Kremlin

Samizdat – October 6, 2022

The European Union must decide whether it wants the Ukraine conflict to be resolved diplomatically or in a violent manner, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a briefing on Thursday.

Asked to comment on Austria’s reported proposal to host de-escalation talks, Zakharova said Moscow could only contemplate such initiatives after the EU figures out what it stands for regarding Ukraine.

“First of all, the EU should make up its mind about itself,” Zakharova said, urging the EU to decide whether it is pursuing a unified foreign policy or if decisions are handled by individual member states.

Russia, she said, has repeatedly heard “contradicting statements” coming from the EU. Zakharova noted that many supposed initiatives had been put forward by member states and were later retracted or never followed-up on because they were not approved by Brussels.

“Secondly, the EU also needs to make up its mind whether they support the talks [on Ukraine], or the battlefield solution, as [EU foreign policy chief Josep] Borrell had put it,” she said.

Zakharova’s comment comes after Borrell signaled on Wednesday that the EU was ready to seek a “diplomatic solution” to the conflict in Ukraine, but vowing that the bloc would continue to provide Kiev with military and financial support while ramping up pressure on Russia through sanctions.

However, in April Borrell issued a much different statement, claiming then that the conflict in Ukraine “will be won on the battlefield.”

Russia sent troops into Ukraine on February 24, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. The protocols, brokered by Germany and France, were first signed in 2014. Former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.”

During referendums that took place in late September, the two Donbass republics, along with Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions, overwhelmingly voted to join Russia. On Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law unification treaties with former Ukrainian territories, officially making them part of Russia. Prior to this, the Russian leader vowed to use “all means” necessary to defend the country’s territorial integrity in the face of external threats.

October 6, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

EU nation temporarily waives anti-Russia sanctions

Samizdat | October 5, 2022

Energy-starved Bulgaria will temporarily cease to enforce EU sanctions on Russian fuel, to ensure the work of government institutions, the state press service reported on Wednesday following a Cabinet meeting.

According to the report, Russian companies supplying automotive fuel will be exempt from the embargo until the end of 2024, due to shortages in the country.

“It is permitted to conclude new state contracts and framework agreements with automotive fuel suppliers from the Russian Federation after October 10, 2022… An exception is introduced due to the need to ensure the normal operation of state bodies and other structures requiring motor fuel, in order to protect public order, the life and health of the citizens of Bulgaria, and national security,” the press service announced. The ban will come back into force on December 31, 2024.

The dominant fuel provider in the Balkan country is the Neftochim Burgas refinery, which is owned by Russia’s Lukoil. Until the sanctions, half of its oil supply came from Russia.

In early September, the head of the Bulgarian Finance Ministry, Rositsa Velkova, announced her intention to obtain permission from Brussels to continue buying fuel from Russia until at least the end of 2024. If Sophia does not receive a reprieve from the sanctions, the country’s drivers risk being left without fuel, the minister stressed.

October 5, 2022 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Western regimes are intent on maintaining energy poverty in Africa

By Ekaterina Blunova – Samizdat – 05.10.2022

Sudanese-British billionaire Mo Ibrahim criticized the West on Monday for obstructing African nations’ effort to develop their own hydrocarbon reserves and constantly ignoring the energy poverty problems of the Global South. What’s behind the Global North’s political short-sightedness and who benefits from the controversy?

Even though Africa boasts roughly 12% and 9% of the world’s oil and natural gas reserves, respectively, most of the continent’s nations suffer from energy poverty. However, once the energy crisis hit Europe, EU governments immediately turned to the African continent, seeking to tap its resources while overlooking the continent’s longstanding problems.

“The West’s exploitation of Africa’s wealth is driven by two factors,” explained Dr. Mamdouh G. Salameh, an international oil economist and a global energy expert. “The first is the old racist view that African people are backward and inferior to Western people and therefore can’t defend themselves or protect their natural resources. In a nutshell, it is doable. The second factor is greed and profit, which are the core of the Western capitalist system of taking advantage of poor and helpless people and exploiting their resources without letting them benefit the slightest from their stolen resources. That is how Western empires were built in Africa and around the world in the 19th and 20th centuries.”

The Central African Countries suffer from severe energy poverty because they neither have the infrastructure (refineries, oil and gas pipelines) to benefit from their vast energy resources and also distribute energy, nor do they have the financial means to build such infrastructure, according to the oil economist. The deplorable state of Africa’s energy infrastructure stems from the fact that the West is by no means interested in the continent’s sustainability, Salameh highlighted.

“The ultimate beneficiary from Africa’s energy poverty, particularly refined products, is Western oil companies,” the energy expert said.

One glaring example is the 4,128 km-long Trans-Saharan gas pipeline. It is supposed to link Nigeria to Algeria, passing through Niger and bring Nigerian and Algerian gas exports to Europe while simultaneously benefiting energy-poor African countries from Nigeria’s and Algeria’s plentiful gas reserves estimated at 206.53 trillion cubic feet (tcf) and 159 tcf respectively, the oil economist explained.

Although this pipeline was conceived in the 1970s, it is still at the drawing board stage despite many memorandums of understanding signed over the years, the latest in mid-February, Salameh pointed out, forecasting that “it won’t see the light of day even in the next 10 years.”

“Western countries have consistently ignored Africa’s energy resources for years declining to offer investments as long as they didn’t need these resources at the time,” he said. “But in the aftermath of the Ukraine conflict and having introduced sweeping sanctions against Russia, the European Union is trying to curry favor with African hydrocarbon producers to reduce its dependence on Russia’s gas and oil supplies.”

The unfolding energy crisis offers new opportunities for Africa to develop oil and gas infrastructure and step up production of hydrocarbons. However, while African business leaders and policy-makers are brushing off the dust from their long-delayed energy projects, Western politicians and environmentalists have raised concerns about climate change issues, insisting that Africa’s consumption of fossil fuels could make matters far worse.

“The West puts so much importance on the climate change agenda in Africa,” said Salameh. “I would hazard two explanations for the West’s attitude. The first explanation is that the West is under the misjudged and erroneous view that any future energy assets – like investing in oil and gas production and building pipelines will end up after 2030 as stranded assets. The second explanation is a more sinister one, with the West wishing to keep African energy resources underground in order to satisfy its own appetite for energy in the future.”

Last month, US climate czar John Kerry discouraged investors from funding long-term gas projects in Africa, warning that they would be unable to recoup their investments beyond 2030. According to Kerry, it will be important to capture the emissions from gas after 2030, as the world is set to reach net-zero emissions in 2050.

On October 3, Sudanese-British billionaire Mo Ibrahim lambasted the West for hypocrisy and a double-standard approach at the “Reuters impact” conference in London. Ibrahim drew attention to the fact that the “Global North” is preventing African nations from developing their own gas reserves over climate change fears, while at the same time seeking opportunities to gain from African resources themselves.

This is not the first time that Ibrahim has lambasted Western policy-makers over their Africa policies. In July 2022, the billionaire’s foundation released “The road to COP27: Making Africa’s case in the global climate debate,” dedicated to the forthcoming 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Egypt scheduled for November, 6-18. The report highlighted that “the current climate agenda is failing Africa” and placed the emphasis on the continent’s people’s right to energy access, given that a staggering 600 million Africans are still lacking it.

“The green agenda is hampering African countries from fully tapping and exploiting their hydrocarbon resources,” said Salameh. “This is a double-edged approach in that it enhances energy poverty in Africa while simultaneously depriving the EU of Africa’s energy resources (…) If African countries don’t have the infrastructure, the technical know-how and the financial resources to benefit from their own vast hydrocarbon resources, how would anyone expect them to develop green energy?”

Meanwhile, the Western green agenda for Africa is “faulty,” according to the energy expert: Africa accounted for only 3.8% of the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuels and industry in 2020, which is the smallest share among all world regions.

On the other hand, climate groups who call for an abrupt end to fossil fuels and a sudden adoption of renewable energy fail to recognize the obvious lack of logic in this, continued Salameh.

“On their own, renewables aren’t capable of satisfying global demand for electricity and energy because of their intermittent nature,” the oil economist explained, characterizing a total energy transition as an “illusion.”

The current energy crisis in Europe clearly indicated that the Old Continent can’t rely on renewables alone. Furthermore, EU member states had to restart their coal plants after resorting to an anti-Russia energy embargo over the latter’s special military operation in Ukraine.

“While denying Africa’s right to push ahead with its own energy endeavors, the West would be eager to offer investments and technological know-how to the continent in exchange for receiving the lion’s share of the regional hydrocarbon wealth. The West doesn’t care whether African countries are experiencing severe energy poverty or not as long as it gets its hands on these reserves,” Salameh concluded.

October 5, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | Leave a comment

Orbán: ‘Sanctions were not decided democratically’

Free West Media | October 5, 2022

Hungarian President Orbán has once again positioned himself as a committed advocate of genuine European interests and persists in his criticism of the EU’s sanctions policy against Russia.

At least in Hungary, citizens will be able to vote on the sanctions that are causing massive damage to Europe, after Orbán confirmed that there would soon be a referendum on this.

“The sanctions were not decided in a democratic way, but decided by Brussels bureaucrats and European elites,” he said in the Budapest parliament. “Although Europe’s citizens are paying the price, they have not been asked,” he added, underlining that “the sanctions imposed are causing enormous damage to Europe.”

Orbán recalled that since the war began, Russia has earned 158 billion euros over the last six months from energy exports at increased prices. That is more than Russia’s total annual export earnings for 2021 in half a year. Half of this, 85 billion euros, was paid for by the EU countries.

Orbán considers this situation to be intolerable: “European companies are unable, or only with difficulty, to pay the sanctioned energy prices. We are waiting for an answer, the whole of Europe is waiting for an answer from Brussels on the question of how much longer we have to go through with this. If this continues, all of Europe will be ruined. It’s time to talk openly about this with our American friends while it’s not too late.”

October 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

The EU prioritises the Abraham Accords

By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | October 4, 2022

At the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister, Yair Lapid, defined Israel’s security concerns as the motivating factor behind supporting the two-state paradigm, even as the US has been repeating that it does not envisage any resolution in the immediate future. With the Abraham Accords being the main driving force behind US-Israeli decisions, Lapid’s nod towards the failed international consensus holds no substance for the Palestinian people. In practice, Lapid’s words are no different from refuting the paradigm – the Israeli government’s colonial settlement expansion has determined the pace.

However, the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief, Josep Borrell, claimed encouragement at Lapid’s words. “This is also what we want to push for. We want the resumption of a political process that can lead to a two-state solution and a comprehensive regional peace,” Borrell stated at the EU-Israeli Association Council meeting on Monday.

The EU’s position statement regarding the meeting, however, indicates full agreement with the Abraham Accords, which are mentioned prior to the bloc’s adherence to the two-state compromise. Referencing the normalisation agreements, the EU’s statement partly reads, “In this regard, the EU will seek to encourage and build upon the recent establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and a number of Arab countries, with a view to enhancing the prospects to reach a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East Peace Process.” Giving prominence to the Abraham Accords in this way suggests that the EU was not as averse to the Trump administration’s politics as it sought to portray. Only US President Joe Biden made it easier for the EU to retain its two-state diplomacy, while overtly agreeing to policies which were previously ridiculed only because the US had Donald Trump as President.

Since the US is actively engaging with Arab countries through the normalisation framework and trying to get the Palestinian Authority on board as well, the Abraham Accords have gained more recognition in international circles. The EU, however, is clearly stating that it will be using the agreements to “enhance” the possibility of a resolution, knowing full well that the agreements only serve to solidify Israel’s diplomatic ties and, in return, bolster its impunity.

In his virtual address to the meeting yesterday, Lapid’s commitment to the two-state paradigm included an assertion that Jerusalem would remain Israel’s undivided capital, which goes against international resolutions. However, Lapid’s best card was the Israeli government’s economic concessions to the PA, spoken of without the context of Israel knowing it is facing a gradually changing Palestinian society which will not wait upon its leadership to determine the way forward to legitimate resistance against colonialism.

The EU’s press release describing the meeting states the intent to “build upon the momentum generated at the UN General Assembly” in terms of the so-called peace process. Yet, Palestinians know that the veneer of concern was nothing more than a bid to deflect criticism from the fact that the EU chose, yet again, to engage with a colonial entity which specialises in breaking international law and committing war crimes. With the Abraham Accords subtly taking centre stage, and with full agreement on behalf of the EU, it should at least be made clear that no independence and no Palestinian State can be reached, unless a radical change in politics is implemented.

October 4, 2022 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pakistan’s Energy Crisis Worsens as Gov’t Fails to Finds Bidder to Supply Natural Gas Before 2028

Samizdat – 04.10.2022

Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has said that the European countries are purchasing most of the gas supplies available on the market, leaving Pakistan with no source of energy. Similar concerns about difficulties experienced by the ‘Global South’ in meeting their energy demands have been voiced by Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar.

Islamabad has failed to find even a single bidder in response to a tender floated by Pakistan LNG Limited (PLL) for supplying liquefied natural gas (LNG) between 2023 and 2028, as per an official document.

As per tender documents, the PLL had in August invited bids for the supply of 72 units of LNG cargo starting in January next year. Under the terms of the tender, the government agency said it wanted to import 140,000 cubic meters of LNG every month for six years. The results of the bid were published on Monday.

A tender for procuring 10 cargoes of LNG floated by the Pakistani government in July had also failed to attract even a single bidder.

The latest development comes against the backdrop of an ongoing energy and economic crisis in the South Asian country, which is grappling with power shortages owing to a shortfall in energy supplies spurred by high prices and a surge in demand in the European countries.

Pakistan has also been facing the problem of depleting forex reserves and is awaiting the disbursement of $1.17 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) after reaching a staff level agreement (SLA) in July.

Billions of dollars in aid are also awaited from other countries such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the authorities have said.

S&P Global said last month that power shortages have been exacerbated by unprecedented flooding, as major grid stations have been endangered due to the climate disaster and connectivity options have been disrupted.

Before the floods struck in June-July, Pakistan was already reeling under high energy import bills, which had surged 91 percent to $4.98 billion on a year-on-year basis as of the end of the financial year in June, as per the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics.

A report by Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has said that energy import bills could increase to more than $32 billion by 2030.

The global surge in energy prices has largely been blamed on Western sanctions against Russia in the wake of the eruption of Ukraine crisis, with many European countries looking for alternatives to Russian energy.

As the EU seeks to draw down its reliance on Russia, which has been EU’s primary supplier of gas, many EU countries have ramped up their imports from other countries such as Qatar, another major producer of natural gas.

In many cases, the richer EU nations have been offering better rates for sourcing energy than the developing countries.

October 4, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Nord Stream pipelines can be restored – Moscow

Samizdat | October 2, 2022

Russia may be able to fix the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, which were damaged earlier this week, Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak said on Sunday.

“There are technical possibilities to restore the infrastructure, it requires time and appropriate funds. I am sure that appropriate opportunities will be found,” Novak told Russia 1 TV.

According to the official, however, the first step should be to determine who is behind the incident.

“As of today, we proceed from the fact that it is necessary, first of all, to figure out who did it, and we are sure that certain countries, which had expressed their positions before, were interested in it. Both the US and Ukraine, as well as Poland at one time said that this infrastructure is not going to work, that they will do everything to make sure of it, so, of course, it is necessary to seriously look into it,” Novak stated.

Citing German security services, Der Tagesspiegel newspaper earlier reported that the damaged routes could be permanently out of use if they are not repaired quickly, as salt water could cause corrosion.

The Danish authorities reported leaks on both the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines on Monday after a local pipeline operator noted a loss of pressure following a series of undersea explosions in the area. The Danish Energy Agency reported earlier on Sunday that the pressure on the Nord Stream 1 is stable and the gas leakage is over, while on Saturday, it said the Nord Stream 2 also stopped leaking gas.

The incident is widely considered to be the result of sabotage. Russia has called it a terrorist attack. While those behind it have not yet been identified, Moscow has blamed the US.

October 2, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »