Abstract image Nord Stream 2, USA, Russia, Germany flags

Seymour Hersh, the former New York Times journalist, published an explosive report last week that went into great detail about how the U.S. carried out the sophisticated attack on Russia’s Nord Stream pipelines connecting Russia with Europe. 

Hersh won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the My Lai Massacre in 1969, and he also revealed the U.S. Air Force’s clandestine bombing of Cambodia where the “United States B‐52 bombers made at least 3,500 secret bombing raids over Cambodia in a 14‐month period beginning in March, 1969” and America’s terrible treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. 

Hersh’s report was significant and underscored how the U.S. is not conducting a “proxy” war with Russia, but rather an active participant. Indeed, an attack on these pipelines would be an act of war. 

When Hersh published the 2,000+ word report on his personal Substack page, newsrooms across the U.S. had no idea how to react. In these situations, most editors hide behind the saying, “Better to be slow and accurate than fast and wrong.” 

PUBLISHER’S NOTE: In these cases, the government takes on the role of editor and news “reporters” wait for the State Department for their analysis and coverage. In this case, Washington denied the report. A spokesman told The Trends Journal that Hersh’s report was “false and complete fiction.”

Most news outlets in the West avoided the story. Reuters carried the White House’s water and titled their article, “White House Says Blog Post on Nord Stream Explosion ‘Utterly False.’”

This headline performed two functions: the wire service served as the State Department’s media arm and also tried to diminish the Pulitzer-Prize winner’s report as a lowly “blog post.”

Goebbels would blush.

European conglomerate Axel Springer’s anti-Russian Business Insider seemed to take personal offense to Hersh’s report and called him a “discredited” journalist for his use of anonymous sources… which are used in every news outlet in the U.S. as they often quote “anonymous sources.” 

Business Insider—sucking up to being on the inside of government—also discredited Hersh for his reports on a Syrian chemical attack which he blamed on the Syrian rebels and not Damascus of doing… and so did others as we reported in The Trends Journal. (See Trend-Tracking Lesson, 5 Jun 2017.)

BI said Hersh’s story was a “gift” to Russian President Vladimir Putin and said the story was greeted with a “sense of vindication” in Moscow. 

Following Hersh’s report, Russia called for an “open” international investigation. 

Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin press secretary, told reporters that the Hersh report shows the need for an open and transparent investigation into the culprits “into this unprecedented attack on this critical infrastructure,” RT, the Russian news outlet, reported. “It’s impossible to leave this without finding the perpetrators and punishing them.”

Peskov said that while Hersh’s report is valuable, it cannot be viewed as source material.

He said “it’s a very important piece, which… must provoke the acceleration of the international probe. But we, on the contrary, witness attempts to silently wind down such international investigation.”

Hersh’s report, if true, would mean the U.S. carried out an explicit act of war against Russia and intentionally destroyed a main conduit for cheap, Russian gas for Germany. 


The U.S. has blamed Russia for the 26 September 2022 attack and Russia called the accusation nonsense. (See “GERMANY ON HIGH ALERT: NORD STREAM PIPELINE AND NOW RAILWAY SABOTAGE” 12 Oct 2022, “WEST BLAMES RUSSIA FOR BLOWING UP ITS NORD STREAM PIPELINES” 4 Oct 2022, and “PREPOSTEROUS TO THINK U.S. WOULD BE BEHIND PIPELINE SABOTAGE: NED PRICE” 29 Sep 2022.)  

There have been few public answers about the culprit thus far, but comments from the Biden administration appear to lend weight to the claim that Washington played a role. Investigators from Sweden and Denmark said the pipelines were blown up deliberately.

It was earlier reported that Liz Truss, the former British prime minister, text messaged Secretary of State Antony Blinken “It’s done” shortly after the attacks.

Kim Dotcom, a tech entrepreneur who lives in New Zealand, took to Twitter on 30 October—about a month after the attacks—to claim that the Russians learned that the U.K. blew up the pipelines through Truss’s iPhone message to Blinken “before anybody else knew.”

“iCloud admin access rocks!” he posted.

Victoria Nuland, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, addressed a Senate hearing last month and told Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, “Senator 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.”

Nuland, who spearheaded the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine in 2014 and was famously caught on the phone saying “Fuck the EU,” has spoken out against Nord Stream in the past.

Nuland also once said “one way or the other” the project “will not move forward.”

TRENDPOST: The Trends Journal has long reported that the U.S.’s goal is not to bring peace to Ukraine. The goal is to destroy Russia at all costs and any country that stands in the way, like Germany. 

Indeed, Hastings ‘Pug’ Ismay, NATO’s first secretary, once said that the mission of the alliance was to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

It’s always important to follow the money.

Russia on Saturday called on NATO to hold an emergency meeting over the pipeline attack.

“There are more than enough facts here: the explosion of the pipeline, the presence of a motive, circumstantial evidence obtained by journalists,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on the Telegram, according to Reuters. “So when will an emergency NATO summit meet to review the situation?”

The Jewish Policy Center noted at the time of the blast that the pipelines are up to 360 feet below sea level and would require submersible vehicles. Ukraine blamed the Russians. The report noted that Ukraine would stand to benefit from a damaged pipeline because it would damage Russia economically.

“The fact that this would deprive Europe against deliveries in the near future, supposing an end of sanctions, makes this an unlikely move for any country that depends on NATO for security,” the report said.

The article floated the idea that the U.S. has at least some incentive to damage the pipelines to prevent European countries from wavering in the Russian energy sanctions in the cold winter months. But that would be a potentially disastrous public relations imbroglio for Washington.

Radoslaw Sikorski, a member of the European Parliament, took to Twitter to show the gas leak in the Baltic Sea, and wrote: “Thank you, U.S.A.”

Skip to content