My Briefing To The United Nations Security Council on the Nord Stream Pipeline Attack

A brief summary of the Nord Stream Case as it stands today.

Below are my remarks given to the United Nations Security Council on July 11th, 2023. The text may not match my words precisely (I’m bad at reading scripts), but this is what I submitted to the UN translating staff. I have added citations to substantiate my claims for anyone interested in looking deeper.

This treatment hardly goes into enough detail, so I am in the process of writing a more substantial piece that is coming soon.

---

My name is Bryce Greene, I am an organizer, graduate student, and freelance media critic. My work has been published by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and has been republished by other outlets including Salon and the Monthly Review online. 

I’m also a United States citizen, and thus I bear the responsibility for the actions of my own government to the extent I have the ability to influence them. But I appear here before the Security Council on my own behalf, and represent no government or organization. 

It is media criticism work and studying the Ukraine war in general that brought me to investigate the Nord Stream attack, and the international response to it.

Nord Stream Basics

For a brief background: beginning around midnight September 26 of last year, 2022, a series of leaks were detected along the route of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines. Seismology reports indicated clearly that this was the result of deliberate sabotage and not an accident. 

For western officials, experts and press, the culprit was clear: Russia. Numerous articles and government officials immediately pointed the finger at Russia. What was their explanation as to why Russia would blow up its own pipeline? Even the New York Times acknowledged “It is unclear why Moscow would seek to damage installations that cost Gazprom billions of dollars to build and maintain.” 

But the press quickly fell into line with the motive that the attacks were just a “reminder from Moscow”. According to western officials, experts and media, Russia attacked themselves to intimidate the west. 

There were all sorts of problems with blaming Russia. For one, gas flows from Russia were a major point of leverage over Europe with respect to their support for Ukraine. Removing that leverage would - and has - severely harm Russian strategic interests on that front. 

Russia had already made statements urging Germany, suffering from high energy prices, to end sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, saying that both lines could be opened. 

Importantly, we know that even the leading investigator from Sweden has told the press, “Do I think it was Russia that blew up Nord Stream? I never thought so. It’s not logical”

The other problem with immediately blaming Russia was that another immediately apparent culprit, the United States, was almost completely ignored as a potential suspect. Why is that? As we shall see, the circumstantial case for US complicity in the attacks is far stronger than the case for Russia. 

US Interests

It has long been a US/NATO strategy of preventing integration between Western Europe and Russia. This was clear in the early postwar days. NATO’s first secretary general, Lord Hastings Ismay, made it clear that NATO’s role as an organization was to “ keep the Russians Out, Americans in, and the Germans down.” That hasn't changed in 80 years.

Since the announcement of the second Nord Stream project. three successive US administrations have done their best to stop the pipeline. The Obama, Trump and Biden administrations have all opposed it. 

Even people who plan out our global strategy for the military have taken these things into account. Evidence of this comes from a study from the RAND corporation in 2019. This study is very important as an insight into what military minded US officials were thinking in the years leading up the war. It was about ways to overextend and unbalance Russia. It looked at how best to exploit “Russia’s economic, political and military vulnerabilities and anxieties”

This RAND study also prophetically recommended “providing more US military equipment and advice” to Ukraine in order to “lead Russia to increase its direct involvement in the conflict and the price it pays for it,” even though it acknowledged that “Russia might respond by mounting a new offensive and seizing more Ukrainian territory.” We see how that went. So clearly an important piece of literature when one wants to understand this war.

More relevant to today’s discussion: The study included a recommendation to “Reduce [Russian] Natural Gas Exports and Hinder Pipeline Expansions.” The study noted that a “first step would involve stopping Nord Stream 2,” and that natural gas from the United States and Australia could provide a substitute.

I should note that the study has a warning that the study it’s being misused by pro-Russian propagandists, however I believe the words speak for themselves. As do the words and actions of US officials. 

At the start of the Biden administration, The United States Secretary of State Anthony Blinken told Congress he was determined to do whatever he could to prevent Nord Stream 2 from being completed. 

US undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland, told the press: “If Russia invades, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 Will. Not. Move. Forward.”

In February, President Biden himself told reporters, “If Russia invades…then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it…I promise you, we will be able to do that.”

After the attack, both Blinken and Nuland celebrated the destruction of the pipelines, calling it a “tremendous opportunity.” Sure enough, US LNG exports and profits have increased dramatically.

Seymour Hersh’s Story 

On February 8th, veteran American Journalist Seymour Hersh published a major article, hosted on Substack, about who was responsible for the pipeline attacks. The story was based on anonymous sources with knowledge of the operation, one of whom was willing to go on the record. 

The story alleged that the pipeline was attacked on orders from Joe Biden and his National security council, originating from plans that predated the war. US Navy divers used the BALTOPS exercises in June 2022, as cover to lay explosives on the pipeline. They were detonated 3 months later.

Analysts within the open source intelligence community have pushed back, citing the incongruity between some of the vessels mentioned by Hersh’s account. Hersh has responded to this criticism by pointing out that Covert operations would likely leave a trail searchable by the public.

The White House, for their part, called Hersh’s story “completely and utterly false.” But given the interests of the US in the pipeline explosions, such denials carry no real information.

There has been information collected by researchers, including Swedish scholar Ola Tunander, which appear to corroborate elements of Hersh’s story. However, to my knowledge, these have yet to be seriously looked into by western investigators. 

“Ukraine Did It”

A Month after Hersh’s Article was published, A new story emerged in both the Western Press, alleging that a “pro-Ukrainian” group was behind the attack. These reports, citing information ostensibly gathered in the ongoing German investigation, alleges that a small boat, the Andromeda, was a key part of the plot to bomb the pipelines. Some investigators are still skeptical of the role it may have played.

However, Much like the US, Ukraine has ample reason to want the pipeline gone. In 2021, Ukrainian and Polish ministers published an article in Politico titled “Nord Stream 2 has damaged the West enough. Time to put an end to it.” 

Corroboration for this story seemingly came from the Washington Post who published an addition to the ongoing Discord Leaks story. According to US intelligence intercepts of high level Ukrainian communications, Zelenskyy has been advocating making bolder moves against Russia, including attacks on pipelines. 

We have also learned that The US was training Ukrainians in undersea operations similar to the one that must have been carried out against Nord Stream 2. 

According to numerous media reports in the Western press, Dutch intelligence agencies passed information about a Ukrainian attack to the American CIA, who then warned Germany about a potential Ukrainian attack. Thus according to mainstream sources in the West, the US had some degree of advanced knowledge of the attacks.

One thorough investigation comes from James Bamford who reported that the US is almost certain to know more about the attack than they’re letting on, whether they or the Ukrainians committed the attack. It is worth quoting in full. 

US intelligence also constantly monitors Russia and other countries in near-real time from beneath the seas—including from under the Baltic, where arrays of acoustic sensors tethered to the seafloor would certainly have been able to pinpoint the exact time and location of the massive undersea explosions…

Even more important, by analyzing the distinct engine sounds of the ships, submarines, and UUVs passing above in the days surrounding the sabotage, US intelligence would have likely been able to “fingerprint” them and determine their nationality and exact identity. While the transponder on a ship can be switched off, rendering it invisible to satellites, as long as its engines are running it can be detected by the US Navy’s little known and highly secret worldwide Integrated Undersea Surveillance System…

It is highly likely that the US knows far more about what happened, and who is responsible, then it is revealing.

Thus the consensus is that it was either the United States, or it was Ukraine with the US's assistance. 

I won’t insult the intelligence of anyone here. This is likely known to everyone in this room. But given the US veto power in the security council, this body may already be a dead end. The real question is: What will change that?

On The Media

Here, I direct my comments to members of the Western press. People at CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, major American journals with a lot of resources have the power to investigate this attack, and demand answers from our officials.

There have been very few reports analyzing the situation and seriously weighing the evidence. Few members have asked the big questions from the Biden admin. 

An article from the New York Times is emblematic of the general attitude of the country. They wrote “a flurry of new findings and competing narratives has sown distrust among Western allies,” Most critically, they acknowledge “It may be in no one’s interest to reveal more.” No one’s interest? Is this serious? They have abdicated their role. 

Conclusion

The west has let these revelations sink into the background. Despite this parlor game about whether or not it was American or Ukrainian divers who planted the charges, analysts and officials in the West seem to agree on a key facts: 

• The attack originated in the West

• The BALTOPS exercises were the staging ground.

• The US knows a lot more than it is sharing. 

These facts and their implications need to be seriously understood and addressed by both the Security Council, and the world’s press.

Western media is not seriously pressing for answers. The distinction between the “US did it” and “Ukraine did it” versions of the story has been used as a distraction. Both stories clearly indicate Western complicity, and a conspiracy of silence at the absolute least. 

I Urge the UN Security Council and the Western media to utilize their considerable power and authority to shed some light on the situation, and to hold accountable those individuals and organizations, and nations responsible for this act of terror.