Seymour Hersh: How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    5,137
    Reaction score
    2,455
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now

    Screenshot_20230222_174318_Substack Reader.jpg


    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 ordnance—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 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.”

    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.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.



    I know this is from a few weeks ago, but it definitely deserves it's own thread
     
    If the US is to promote a rules-based, liberal world order, destroying property of another state is hypocritical. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. All those quotes linked expressed that it helped the situation in Ukraine but none has any admission that the US did it. It isn't a secret that it helps Ukraine. Radosław Sikorski, who I respect, even tweeted a thank you to the US when the pipeline explosions news broke and later deleted.

    Regardless, the NORD 2 wasn't even operational. It was functional and can bring Russian natural gas, but effectively Scholtz shut it off. So that leaves NORD 1 as the only operational. Well guess what? The Russians threatened to shut that off. Why would the US destroy that pipeline if the Russians already intend to turn it off? As they had already reduced the pressure? That's why the Biden speech used as "proof" is so ridiculous. First he said NORD 2. Second, we didn't need to take a risk when political pressure had done the job. Just as we pressured Scholtz to send MBT. Plus one NORD 2 is still functional and the Russians declared they can still deliver natural gas through it. The US is that careless to leave one functional Nord 2 pipeline?


    Here the Gazprom sent a letter declaring force majeure on July 14, 2022 and declined by German firms. And the explosion was in September 2022?


    I have seen some say that Russia had no motive because destroying the pipeline would remove its ability to sell gas to Germany and Europe - but that isn’t true if the other pipelines are capable of transmission.

    Analyst and open-source specialist Oliver Alexander opines that when comparing vessel tracking information with reference to where the explosions occurred, it yields a theory that explosives had been planted for possible future use by Putin as leverage in the winter but then was accelerated by a pipe rupture on N2.

     
    I have seen some say that Russia had no motive because destroying the pipeline would remove its ability to sell gas to Germany and Europe - but that isn’t true if the other pipelines are capable of transmission.

    Analyst and open-source specialist Oliver Alexander opines that when comparing vessel tracking information with reference to where the explosions occurred, it yields a theory that explosives had been planted for possible future use by Putin as leverage in the winter but then was accelerated by a pipe rupture on N2.



    There is no motivation for Russia to blow up the pipelines. This doesn't get around that. They could simply not delivery gas, as they had been doing. Russia lost all leverage with the explosions. This simple fact is why a lot of senior intelligence analyst are skeptical of Russia as the cause.

    So far the investigations have not incriminated Russia.

    After the explosion, the Biden administration expressed satisfaction. Nuland said, "the administration is very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now...a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea." Secretary of State Blinken stated that the pipelines' destruction provided a "tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come."

    Two countries I feel pretty sure didn't do this, Russia, and Germany. They were the biggest losers upon it's destruction.
     
    There is no motivation for Russia to blow up the pipelines. This doesn't get around that. They could simply not delivery gas, as they had been doing. Russia lost all leverage with the explosions. This simple fact is why a lot of senior intelligence analyst are skeptical of Russia as the cause.

    So far the investigations have not incriminated Russia.



    Two countries I feel pretty sure didn't do this, Russia, and Germany. They were the biggest losers upon it's destruction.

    His take on Russia’s possible strategy:

    1677367849351.png



    And the tracking of the Minerva Julie is part of the analysis

    1677367737251.png
     
    Last edited:
    His take on Russia’s possible strategy:

    1677367849351.png



    And the tracking of the Minerva Julie is part of the analysis

    1677367737251.png
    This theory makes sense to me. I've stated this before about Russia's motives.
    1. Circumstantial evidence, yes, but they have been accused of destroying their own pipelines before in disputes with their neighbors to corner them.

    a. In the Georgian dispute when they tried to force Georgia to sell their pipelines to Gazprom. They blew it up to force an energy crisis in Georgia.

    b. In their dispute with the central Asian countries when they had a contract at a premium price and was losing a billion dollars in 1 quarter, an explosion erased that (force majeure).

    2. The Russians were playing that same game with Germany. Sanctions are hitting Russia hard, and they see Germany as the weak link due to their dependence on Russian natural gas. The Germans didn't have any LNG ports (Poland offered to import LNG and transfer via pipelines to Germany). As they did with Georgia in 2008, a gas shortage in a cold winter would force Germany's hands, so they thought. If you watch any of the propaganda videos, we would see that they have quite a few videos showing Europe freezing and their market shelves empty. In addition, since only the NORD 1 was operational (NORD 2 was shutdown due to the invasion), they began to reduce the transmission of gas through that pipeline, likely a pressure campaign. I don't know if their excuse was legitimate, but Gazprom blamed the reduce pressure on a broken turbine. The Germans forced the Canadians to return it while it was being repaired and yet the Russians still didn't increase the pressure of the pipeline. Instead, the Russians declared a force majeure, to which the Germans denied. A month or two later, the pipelines blew up...but only on NORD 1, effectively declaring a force majeure on the existing contract. NORD 2 was functional and the Russians offered to send gas through that. We don't know the stipulation for that because the Germans denied the offer. And if Alexander is correct, as I saw the pictures of the NORD 2 explosion, the NORD 2 may not have been part of the intentional sabotage. The rip in the NORD 2 is vastly different from that of NORD 1.

    So the motives for Russia is clear. They tried to pressure Germany. To prevent Germany from stocking up for the winter, they began to reduce the NORD 1 stream. The Germans said it was a breach of contract and the Russians must compensate according to their contract. A month or 2 later, the explosion occurred, making the contract dispute moot. And we need to remember that NORD 1 and 2 aren't the only pipelines to Europe.

    To be clear, though, there aren't any evidence to pin this on anyone. But if I am forced to speculate, the Russians have the strongest motivation to do this. The US and Norwegians have too much to risk for such little gain (Russia had already begun to turn off NORD 1). And as I've already made this point before, the US and Norway incentives to increase their sale of natural gas is bogus because Russia had already reduced their export to Germany on their own anticipating a cold winter where Germany has a gas shortage. Thus a market opened for Norway and the US.

    Edit: I want to emphasize also that Germany doesn't have any LNG ports. I remember reading that it would take a year for them to build one. As I haven't seen any news on it, I am to assume they they don't have any. So the theory that the US would directly benefit from Germany's loss is a bit off. They would need to route the LNG to a neighbor and that's not even a guarantee as the capacity may not be enough. Germany's plan was to wean off Russian natural gas by the end of the year after the invasion. The US needs Germany to participate in the sanctions. Blowing up their source of natural gas and pushing them into a corner isn't a smart decision. Remember only the US and Australia have sanctions on Russian natural gas. The US didn't push Germany on that [edit: They probably did as I remember the EU discussion of it now] and if they did the Germans most certainly would push back as they had no other alternatives. Also the stores that they currently have came mostly from Russian sources before it was turned off.
     
    Last edited:
    This theory makes sense to me. I've stated this before about Russia's motives.
    1. Circumstantial evidence, yes, but they have been accused of destroying their own pipelines before in disputes with their neighbors to corner them.

    a. In the Georgian dispute when they tried to force Georgia to sell their pipelines to Gazprom. They blew it up to force an energy crisis in Georgia.

    b. In their dispute with the central Asian countries when they had a contract at a premium price and was losing a billion dollars in 1 quarter, an explosion erased that (force majeure).

    2. The Russians were playing that same game with Germany. Sanctions are hitting Russia hard, and they see Germany as the weak link due to their dependence on Russian natural gas. The Germans didn't have any LNG ports (Poland offered to import LNG and transfer via pipelines to Germany). As they did with Georgia in 2008, a gas shortage in a cold winter would force Germany's hands, so they thought. If you watch any of the propaganda videos, we would see that they have quite a few videos showing Europe freezing and their market shelves empty. In addition, since only the NORD 1 was operational (NORD 2 was shutdown due to the invasion), they began to reduce the transmission of gas through that pipeline, likely a pressure campaign. I don't know if their excuse was legitimate, but Gazprom blamed the reduce pressure on a broken turbine. The Germans forced the Canadians to return it while it was being repaired and yet the Russians still didn't increase the pressure of the pipeline. Instead, the Russians declared a force majeure, to which the Germans denied. A month or two later, the pipelines blew up...but only on NORD 1, effectively declaring a force majeure on the existing contract. NORD 2 was functional and the Russians offered to send gas through that. We don't know the stipulation for that because the Germans denied the offer. And if Alexander is correct, as I saw the pictures of the NORD 2 explosion, the NORD 2 may not have been part of the intentional sabotage. The rip in the NORD 2 is vastly different from that of NORD 1.

    So the motives for Russia is clear. They tried to pressure Germany. To prevent Germany from stocking up for the winter, they began to reduce the NORD 1 stream. The Germans said it was a breach of contract and the Russians must compensate according to their contract. A month or 2 later, the explosion occurred, making the contract dispute moot. And we need to remember that NORD 1 and 2 aren't the only pipelines to Europe.

    To be clear, though, there aren't any evidence to pin this on anyone. But if I am forced to speculate, the Russians have the strongest motivation to do this. The US and Norwegians have too much to risk for such little gain (Russia had already begun to turn off NORD 1). And as I've already made this point before, the US and Norway incentives to increase their sale of natural gas is bogus because Russia had already reduced their export to Germany on their own anticipating a cold winter where Germany has a gas shortage. Thus a market opened for Norway and the US.

    Edit: I want to emphasize also that Germany doesn't have any LNG ports. I remember reading that it would take a year for them to build one. As I haven't seen any news on it, I am to assume they they don't have any. So the theory that the US would directly benefit from Germany's loss is a bit off. They would need to route the LNG to a neighbor and that's not even a guarantee as the capacity may not be enough. Germany's plan was to wean off Russian natural gas by the end of the year after the invasion. The US needs Germany to participate in the sanctions. Blowing up their source of natural gas and pushing them into a corner isn't a smart decision. Remember only the US and Australia have sanctions on Russian natural gas. The US didn't push Germany on that [edit: They probably did as I remember the EU discussion of it now] and if they did the Germans most certainly would push back as they had no other alternatives. Also the stores that they currently have came mostly from Russian sources before it was turned off.

    I tend to agree just on instant reaction that the case for “it couldn’t have been Russia” isn’t persuasive - along with with the key points you made (past behavior and totality of context being supportive of the idea) I think it’s also relevant that:

    (1) Russia is the only known capable party in the region actually blowing shirt up - so it’s already within its envelope of willingness whereas for another nation it would mark a substantial and permanent escalation into offensive operations tied to the war (and the idea that the Biden Administration, which has navigated the escalation issue both skillfully and prudently since the beginning would have undertaken such an imprudent risk on the confidence that no one would find out shouldn’t be taken without skepticism IMO), and

    (2) Russia has shown miscalculation as to the circumstances in its favor again and again in this war - it’s hardly a stretch to contend that Russia may have believed that blowing Nord1 would actually serve its interests as described. Simply saying “that’s not in Russia’s interest” isn’t persuasive because very little of this is in Russia’s actual interest - and Russia’s perceived interest is clearly the result of a dramatically flawed system.
     
    Last edited:
    I tend to agree just on instant reaction that the case for “it couldn’t have been Russia” isn’t persuasive - along with with the key points you made (past behavior and totality of context being supportive of the idea) I think it’s also relevant that:

    (1) Russia is the only known capable party in the region actually blowing shirt up - so it’s already within its envelope of willingness whereas for another nation it would mark a substantial and permanent escalation into offensive operations tied to the war (and the idea that the Biden Administration, which has navigated the escalation issue both skillfully and prudently since the beginning would have undertaken such an imprudent risk on the confidence that no one would find out shouldn’t be taken without skepticism IMO), and

    (2) Russia has shown miscalculation as to the circumstances in its favor again and again in this war - it’s hardly a stretch to contend that Russia may have believed that blowing Nord1 would actually serve its interests as described. Simply saying “that’s not in Russia’s interest” isn’t persuasive because very little of this is in Russia’s actual interest - and Russia’s perceived interest is clearly the result of a dramatically flawed system.
    Fair points. On point 1, I agree. Biden labored to form the coalition to impose the toughest sanctions on Russia. For him to just risk and fracture one that are even fighting now just doesn't make sense to me. On point 2, it tracks with the mafia mentality from Putin and Russia. Since taking over, he has only faced lesser adversaries that he could bully. Georgia had very little option once the power was turned off. Turkmenistan is going to do what? Chechnya. Just like a poor street merchant, a wise guy can just come up and give them an offer they cannot refuse. Germany and the West have options that Putin apparently didn't foresee. For example, he didn't expect the west to freeze the vast foreign reserves that they accumulated to weather the sanctions.
     
    No, but I like to see real evidence before I buy into a narrative. You obviously only need to want it to be true. You give far too much weight to what other people tell you and you do not use common sense. You have become enthralled with certain people who, for whatever reason, are carrying Putin’s water, and you refuse to acknowledge that you believe what they say no matter what.

    When will you respond to the very real incentives Russia had for blowing up said pipelines? Several people here have taken a lot of time to debunk your theories, and you only picked at one small point, and ignored the rest.

    All those things you said about me are simply excuses, and they’re not true. Show me real proof and I will believe it. But this crap you are shoveling so far is just ridiculous.

    As long as you present this type of article as fact, which you did, nobody here can take you seriously.
    You weren't too concerned about seeing "real evidence" during the Trump years. You jumped at every new supposed Trump bombshell that was based on anonymous sources and most turned out not to be true.

    You lecture me on supposedly doing the same things you do. You don't consider anything to be credible unless it comes from the corporate media. What's the most hilarious that you lecture me on sources when you constantly cite the likes of David Frum, Bill Krystol, Ron Filipkowski, Rupar(both Rupar and Filipkowski have gotten caught manipulating videos to give a dishonest impression and you still lecture me on that lol)looney Jennifer Rubin, etc.

    Trump fried the left's brain so now you guys childishly claim anyone who goes against a narrative or points out anything negative about US actions is supporting Russia or Trump. It's laughable.

    I didn't claim the article as a fact. I said earlier in this thread in response to superchuck that some skepticism is reasonable due to it being from anonymous source or sources.
     
    Last edited:
    SFL: did you even read the WaPo article about the US supposedly “blowing up” a Russian pipe line?

    this is a serious question. I looked at the article for less than 2 minutes, and it isn’t the way you describe it at all. Like you are seriously misrepresenting facts here.

    What the US actually did was discover that Russia was stealing software that runs pipelines from us, and they got the okay to sabotage the software so that if Russia stole it and used it on one of their pipelines it would cause an explosion
    Reagan Approved Plan to Sabotage Soviets


    In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural gas pipeline, according to a new memoir by a Reagan White House official.

    Let's see. What caused the explosion? Technology that the US planted. Pretty clear
     
    His take on Russia’s possible strategy:

    1677367849351.png



    And the tracking of the Minerva Julie is part of the analysis

    1677367737251.png
    I previously pointed out that the supposed evidence he's using for his claims can be manipulated. AIS data can be and is often spoofed.

    Well poisoning is an ancient war stratagem which was frequently used as a “scorched earth tactic”. Today this tactic has been adapted by malicious attackers to the digital world and evolved into “stream poisoning”, in which corrupt or fallacious data is injected into a data lake, so as to corrupt the integrity of the information stored there. Numerous maritime surveillance systems nowadays rely on the Automatic Identification System (AIS), which is compulsory for vessels over 299 Gross Tones, for vessel tracking purposes. Ship AIS spoofing involves creating a nonexistent vessel or masquerading a vessel’s true identity, resulting in hiding or transmitting false positional data, so that a vessel appears to behave legitimately, thus deceiving stakeholders and authorities.

    Additionally, Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) are open, unencrypted, and unprotected radio systems intended to operate on non-secure VHF-FM channels. As such, AIS signals can be spoofed, resulting in incorrect or missing AIS data.


    I posted this previously, but he referenced Eliot Higgins from Bellingcat in his article.
    20230226_133807.jpg


    Bellingcat is a UK spy contractor that receives funding from the CIA linked National Endowment for Democracy.


    Eliot is also on the board of thw Atlantic Council.
    20230226_134451.jpg


    The same Atlantic Council that's funded by NATO, US, Saudia Arabia, UAE, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin among others.
     
    Last edited:
    "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..."

    The US Navy and NATO held a major maritime training exercise in the Baltic Sea involving scores of allied ships throughout the region.

    The event was held off the coast of Bornholm Island and involved teams of divers who happened to be planting and locating explosives.


    The US Navy posted pictures of themselves planting "mock explosives" in the Baltic Sea where the pipelines would explode three months later.
    20230226_142125.jpg


    The gas pipelines were sabotaged near Bornholm in the Baltic Sea.

    The leaks occurred in areas where the pipelines lie at sufficiently shallow depths for divers to plant explosives.
    20230226_143008.jpg


    The CIA warned authorities in Berlin three months before the Nordstream pipeline was sabotaged of the possibility that someone would destroy the pipelines.

    I wonder how they knew?
     
    Reagan Approved Plan to Sabotage Soviets


    In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural gas pipeline, according to a new memoir by a Reagan White House official.

    Let's see. What caused the explosion? Technology that the US planted. Pretty clear
    Technology that Russia STOLE from the US. So the US is responsible for damage caused by Russian stealing our technology? The US sabotaged some tech that they knew Russia would steal, and you would blame the US for the resulting explosion when Russia did steal the tech and use it on their pipelines?

    That’s your position on that?
     
    Last edited:
    You weren't too concerned about seeing "real evidence" during the Trump years. You jumped at every new supposed Trump bombshell that was based on anonymous sources and most turned out not to be true.

    You lecture me on supposedly doing the same things you do. You don't consider anything to be credible unless it comes from the corporate media. What's the most hilarious that you lecture me on sources when you constantly cite the likes of David Frum, Bill Krystol, Ron Filipkowski, Rupar(both Rupar and Filipkowski have gotten caught manipulating videos to give a dishonest impression and you still lecture me on that lol)looney Jennifer Rubin, etc.

    Trump fried the left's brain so now you guys childishly claim anyone who goes against a narrative or points out anything negative about US actions is supporting Russia or Trump. It's laughable.

    I didn't claim the article as a fact. I said earlier in this thread in response to superchuck that some skepticism is reasonable due to it being from anonymous source or sources.
    So this is basically one long personal attack dealing with posts you say I have made at some time in the past. As I have requested in the past when you personally attack me, put up or shut up. Either keep to the current topic and my current posts, or take this discussion to pm.

    A. You did claim the article was fact, until you got called out by people who know more about this subject than I do. Then you made your crawfish statement about skepticism.

    B. We only claim you support Putin because you do so. What you do is different than simply criticizing the US. You parrot Russian talking points and propaganda. Everyone notices it.
     
    SFL: can you just summarize your points? What you post often seems contradictory, and people just want to hear what you think, in a concise way. These posts that go on and on are too cumbersome for this board.

    Also, when you use screenshots nobody can view your sources. And the screenshots are sometimes ginormous which is annoying in and of itself.
     
    Last edited:
    The one point I got was that you think it’s suspicious that the CIA got wind that someone would destroy the pipelines. Did you also think it was suspicious that the CIA knew Russia would invade Ukraine?

    Seriously, the CIA is in the business of knowing what may very well happen. Biden released a whole lot of info that the CIA had before Russia invaded and they were almost always exactly right about what Putin planned to do.

    Do you think if the CIA planned to blow up the pipelines that they would leak that it was going to happen? Or do you think it’s likely that the CIA found out about someone else’s plans and warned Berlin about it?

    Exact same argument for the naval exercises. Why would they take pictures and publicize them if they were planning to go back to the same area later for a real sabotage? This makes no sense.
     
    Russia has also significantly increased gas sales to China since the pipelines were destroyed. It's not like they didn't have a new buyer waiting.
     
    So this is basically one long personal attack dealing with posts you say I have made at some time in the past. As I have requested in the past when you personally attack me, put up or shut up. Either keep to the current topic and my current posts, or take this discussion to pm.

    A. You did claim the article was fact, until you got called out by people who know more about this subject than I do. Then you made your crawfish statement about skepticism.

    B. We only claim you support Putin because you do so. What you do is different than simply criticizing the US. You parrot Russian talking points and propaganda. Everyone notices it.
    A. You're lying. Show where I claimed it was a fact. I posted the intial article, a tweet and then said "I know this is from a few weeks ago, but it definitely deserves it's own thread."

    B. You claim people who criticize US/media narratives, US Foreign Policy, or the US Security State support Putin because you have been brainwashed by the corporate media. It's simply new age McCarthism while you eat up any propaganda that supports the US war machine or US domestic & foreign policy. What a juvenile way to address critics, but it's all you guys have left. You have all built up Putin to be Hitler 2.0 and are convinced he will take over Europe if we don't stop him now.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom