Who is colonizing Europe?
A Mystery Power is turning Europeans into cold, starving and destitute slaves.
European leaders have led the Continent into a geo-strategic catastrophe.
From prosperity to penury.
From Peace to War.
From Plenty to Debt slavery.
Who destroyed the energy lifeline of Western Europe— the Nord Stream pipelines?
Who punctured the European economy, driving its citizens into penury, the big freeze and food shortages. Soaring prices are leading to starvation or homelessness.
Who drove Europe’s peoples and nations into unprecedented debt to globalists that will burden and oppress our children for generations to come?
On the first question, the sabotage of both Nord Stream pipelines: logic and opportunity shows it was definitely not Russia. If it had been, Brussels and the politicians would never let Russia as attacker stay off the daily press headlines. Politicians would have trumpeted it forever on the TV evening news. Someone has just cut the jugular vein of the Continent. Heating is stopped, gas-based fertiliser production is blocked and production of thousands of gas-based chemicals is wrecked, all for the foreseeable future. How many Europeans will die of cold this winter and the next?
A global crime, an act of secret war, has been committed.
The reaction of the political elite? Silence.
Who gains?
The rescue gas supplies come from nations hitherto regarded as unreliable regimes, some run by despots. And also American Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG). US imported LPG in quantity as European prices sky-rocketed. Another far-away country (discussed later) is the real gainer in global politics.
Who loses?
Certainly Europe. The Nord Stream attack deflated the German and European economy for the foreseeable future. Who did they blame? Instead of an expected major hate rant against Russia, this far-reaching attack is met with embarrassed silence. Blame continues about other issues: an alleged plan to use nuclear weapons, and Russia’s ‘unprovoked attack’ on Ukraine in February. The coups and counter-coups in Ukraine and eight years of civil war there are hardly mentioned.
And the Nord Stream military attack?
It had the effect of maiming the economy as much as a nuclear bomb. None of the politicians will address it. An international enquiry has broken up without reaching a public conclusion.
Sweden says it is a question of confidentiality. It must withdraw its data from joint discussion with its military defense allies in NATO, like Germany and Denmark.
Germany, whose citizens suffer most, understands the culprit was a supposed Ally. It defends that ally by silence and stifling discussion. Why is it not defending its citizens? Who is running Germany?
They all know. They just won’t say.
Three pipelines tell the story.
Three pipelines were serving continental Europe:
two German Nord Stream pipelines that had already been switched off by Russia and
the new Baltic pipeline, so new it was opened only on the day after the attack.
It delivered Norwegian gas to Denmark and to Poland. That was a major alternative to Russian gas for continental Europe.
Strategic explosion.
First let’s look at the Nord Stream sabotage as a political event. Suppose Russia as an enemy wished to permanently destroy its own vital gas artery, paid for with German money. What motive? Would Russia do it to demonstrate it was fully in control? It builds, it destroys.
Not good sense. It has taps.
Would Russia, as the hypothetical enemy, really want to make sure that everyone knew it destroyed its own pipeline? Russia could more easily just keep the spigot shut. Why permanently destroy its future? Why destroy its decades-long past investment?
This is not just about $11 billion that it cost to build the 745 mile Nord Stream-2 submarine pipeline. It is about connecting gas that comes from the much longer pipeline with gas from the far-away Yamal gas field in Siberia.
So if Russia for some curious reason wanted to destroy its own investment and its own major money earner, a big question arises.
Why didn’t Russia bust the pipeline near its own land mass, where the pipeline entered the Baltic. That would be safer and not detectable. It would also be far easier than an explosion at depth in NATO waters at the borders of Denmark and Sweden, patrolled by foreign ships and under constant NATO surveillance.
Who confessed?
Did Russia ever say it sabotaged its own pipelines?
No.
Did any other State imply that they would intervene to block the Nord Stream pipelines?
Yes.
Surprisingly at a press conference, 7 February 2022, between US President Joe Biden and Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Biden said the following:
“If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be – 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 it.”
Even more surprisingly Chancellor Scholz agreed.
"We're one voice, and do things together and we made it very clear if there was military aggression against Ukraine, this will entail severe consequences that we agreed upon together.”
Shocking and surprising indeed. What did Scholz agree to? Russian gas was vital, not only for heating Germans through the winter, but was the essential feedstock for its gigantic chemical industries. Nearly two thousand chemical and pharmaceutical companies take 15 % and are the largest consumers of gas.
Why would Chancellor Scholz accede to anything that crippled the interests of German industries and Germans at home? Was he pushed? Cut-off of Russian gas would not hurt USA but would cripple Germany and make it subservient to US energy policy.
Germany would not ever compete with the USA on the same terms. It would remain subservient. So would the rest of Western Europe. Combined with severe sanctions and banking restrictions, it assures that Western Europe should never think about a democratic future for Russia. It should never envisage trying to create a democratic European Energy Community which would help the entirety of Europe become the most prosperous region in the world.
This dangerous, deep-sea, destruction of Nord Stream pipelines changes the geopolitics of the world.
Chemical catastrophe
The explosion near Bornholm island did not only release a massive bubble of methane into the European environment. That was the focus of some media articles because the release of an estimated 115,000 tonnes of gases from the pipeline caused a spectacular outburst at the surface covering an area of a kilometer across.
But this may be a minor effect compared with other dangers.
After World War 2, the seas around Bornholm were the dumping ground for 11,000 tonnes of lethal chemical agents in around 32,000 tonnes of Nazi munitions.
The casings of the agents has probably been dissolved in the 75 years since the Allies dumped them. The sea floor is assumed to be loaded with these chemicals. The explosions and the release of vast quantities methane would spread these materials into the breeding grounds of cod and other fish and into the atmosphere, says an article in the journal Nature. The contaminants include the radioactive isotope caesium-137, toxic flame-retardant chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers and heavy metals including mercury, cadmium and lead.
In an age of political sensitivity to environmental damage, who would have caused this dangerous pollution? It narrows down to States or specifically agencies with the military capacity to plant a bomb on precise targets like pipelines at great depth. It also assumes that their operation would not be a public scandal. Politicians and their media could hush it up. It thus involves an agency that has little concern about ecology or even public safety but is focused on global profit, geopolitical goals and warfare by other means.
Norwegian anomaly.
The alternative Norwegian pipeline also passed near the Danish island of Bornholm. The culprit did not attack this Baltic pipeline between Norway and EU. That shows saboteur was not acting to give Russia this advantage.
The three attacks did not take place in waters close to Russia. It happened in waters close to the territories and economic zones of NATO members, Denmark, Germany and Poland, and patrolled by US ships too. Sweden had just applied to join NATO.
Brazen Badge
If Europeans had been told a few years ago that their leaders would no longer be wearing the European flag on their lapel, what would they think? What if the leaders were always seen wearing the badge of a foreign country?
If instead of the European flag, they would be wearing the flag of the second most corrupt State in Europe, what would they say? If this State was at war with the most corrupt State in Europe, what would this say about corruption in Brussels?
Why did Europeans take sides, rather than pursue their role of the Community as peacemaker? They must be under the influence, directly or indirectly, of a power that sees Europe giving up this fundamental duty for its own purposes. Or is it ignorance? Maybe some agency has sent the leaders into hypnotic sleep?
It is not just that the leaders have led Europe into a policy that impoverishes the population, brings starvation to some poor sectors, and others icy coldness of super-expensive energy, more is involved. They are giving away the wealth of EU to one of the belligerent parties. And that when their tax-paying citizens must fork out more for costly energy and food.
Why do European leaders want to underwrite the Ukrainian economy to the tune of €18 billion (more than a tenth of the EU annual budget)? Why not some other country? Why not one which has lost its source of income by some mysterious military attack? Why are leaders not wearing badges of other States at war: Armenia and Azerbaijan? Yemen and Saudi Arabia? Taiwan and Communist China?
When did the European flag disappear so that a Ukraine lapel pin could become more prominent? Who is in charge? The leaders have decided that every month the EU leaders should sent between one of two billion euros to Ukraine, while citizens freeze and starve at home. Is a war policy better than a peace policy for EU citizens? How did they get into such a perfidious predicament?
Taking sides
Both Russia and Ukraine have in the past expressed their wish to join the EU. Robert Schuman, who initiated the European Community in 1950, made it clear that Russia was a potential Member State, once it accepted the Convention of Human Rights. It did so when the Soviet Union collapsed but EU leaders failed to build on this foundational and constitutional spring-board to create a democratic Europe that extended to the far reaches of Siberia.
Schuman created the European Community with the express purpose to create a peace zone of democratic nations. It would outlaw war by the five institutions that would ensure its success. Expanding the concept of the European Coal and Steel Community to cover oil and gas would do just that.
Politicians buried that in 2002.
With the same distorted mentality and lack of vision, European politicians recently converted a so-called ‘European Peace Facility” designed “to prevent conflicts, build peace and strengthen international security” into what? A means to supply military materiel without parliamentary control.
USA, China, or global companies?
Who is the culprit? Make your choice or, better, do your own analysis.
Who gains? Certainly Europeans are the losers.
USA gains if it replaces Russian oil and gas by expensive US LPG and oil. Biden gains in that the family’s long involvement in Ukraine and Ukrainian corruption is forgotten in the smoke of war. Hunter Biden’s laptop provides evidence of 459 alleged crimes of the Biden family in Ukraine, Russia and above all China. A further Chinese multi-million dollar, interest-free loan has recently come to light. Yet none has been prosecuted. Does that mean US Justice has been penetrated and crippled by America’s divisive party politics?
China gains with its Unrestricted Warfare if it sets the Europeans fighting like rats in a sack. Russia against Ukraine (the gas transit country) and then against the West. When they batter out their brains and burn their wealth in the destruction of cities and energy infrastructure, China will still be there to pick up the pieces.
Global companies gain. They are heavily involved in Chinese industries and with western consumers. Some are their own masters without national allegiance. They want to be Masters of the World. They were the great gainers in WW1 and WW2 when they formed cartels. This was the reason that Robert Schuman created the European Community in the first place. It initiated the world’s first international anti-cartel agency. In WW1 major arms firms collaborated in a cartel across borders in the arms race that outwitted patriots and defence departments. Who is gaining from war today?
So far the European population is losing. But by their numbers, and re-establishment of European law and order to replace the Democratic Deficit, they should have the eventual victory. There is a clear place to start. Open government.
The pipes are about 300 feet depth and three explosions were fired off at three different locations on two different pipes. This requires professional/ military equipment for example submersibles. Scuba diving is limited to the 200 foot depth or oxygen toxicity becomes a problem. Scuba divers have only a few minutes at that depth before they have to return to the surface. The explosives have to be placed accurately in murky waters and a system of detonation would have to be delayed to remove suspicion of a recent ship movement.
Hence the attack was most likely performed by a professional military team with special equipment such as underwater drones. That limits the possible culprits to navies which have this type of technical performance. Russians, including mafias, could bust the pipelines in Russian territorial water in the Gulf of Finland, IF they had a motive but no one has claimed they have one.
The attack was actually in heavily patrolled NATO waters. NATO navies are the most likely therefore. But the nations in the area: Denmark, Germany, Poland and Sweden, are unlikely to have undertaken the operation without US permission and/or help. The UK navy has the expertise, and would be a useful operator from the US point of view. Americans could deny that they had anything to do with the explosions.
The UK has replied to the Russian accusation by saying that Russia puts out a lot of false information all the time. But the UK has not denied that it was involved. The nature of the reply implies the reverse.
"Ministry of Defence Tweet 29 October
To detract from their disastrous handling of the illegal invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Ministry of Defence is resorting to peddling false claims of an epic scale This invented story, says more about arguments going on inside the Russian Government than it does about the west."
Things to watch out for: The Foreign Minister at the time was Liz Truss. A few days later at the Conservative Party conference her phone found to be hacked and it was suspected Kremlin agents were involved.
Thus it is possible that the hacker has proof of UK involvement through its Navy. It might be revealed at a later time. Hence the obscure way the UK Ministry of Defence replied to the accusation.
From US Newsmax also on GB News
Russia's defense ministry Saturday said British navy personnel blew up the Nord Stream gas pipelines last month, directly accusing a leading NATO member of sabotaging critical Russian infrastructure.
The defense ministry did not give evidence for its claim.
"According to available information, representatives of this unit of the British Navy took part in the planning, provision and implementation of a terrorist attack in the Baltic Sea on September 26 this year – blowing up the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines," the ministry said.
Britain's defense ministry declined immediate comment.
Russia has previously blamed the West for the explosions last month that ruptured the Russian-built Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines on the bed of the Baltic Sea.
But Russia has never before given specific details of who was responsible for the damage to the pipelines, previously the largest routes for Russian gas supplies to Europe.
The Kremlin has repeatedly said allegations of Russian responsibility for the damage were "stupid" and Russian officials have said Washington had a motive as it wants to sell more liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe.