Russia on Thursday said the US was behind the drone attack that targeted the Kremlin, which Moscow said was an attempt on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s life.
“We know very well that the decisions to carry out such actions, such terrorist attacks, are made not in Kiev. Rather, it is precisely in Washington,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. He added that “often even the targets themselves are not determined by Kiev, but by Washington.”
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova made similar comments. “First and foremost, the creators and handlers of the Kiev regime, who hail from Washington, London and NATO, bear overall responsibility for everything that it [Ukraine] is perpetrating,” she wrote on Telegram.
The comments drew a denial of involvement in the drone attack from the White House. “I can assure you that there was no involvement by the United States in this. Whatever it was did not involve us,” said National Security Council spokesman John Kirby. “We had nothing to do with this.”
The comments from Moscow suggest Russia is considering a major escalation of the war. Peskov said Russia was considering a “wide variety” of responses to the drone attack.
“Naturally, I cannot provide you any details here. In any case the issue may only be about well-thought-out steps that meet the interests of our country,” he told reporters.
Ukrainian officials have also denied involvement in the drone attack, which targeted the Kremlin early Wednesday morning, but Ukrainian attacks inside Russia have stepped up in recent months.
Pentagon documents allegedly leaked by Jack Teixeira show that the US was concerned about Ukraine planning attacks in Moscow and that Zelensky might not have control over his intelligence services.
One leak showed that Ukraine’s security service, the SBU, determined its agents violated orders by attacking a Russian surveillance plane in Belarus. Another leak revealed that Ukraine postponed planned attacks in Moscow that would have coincided with the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion.
323 thoughts on “Russia Says the US Was Behind Drone Attack on the Kremlin”
Biden blew up Nordstream and discussed regime change. Who knows?
No it has not been shown that Biden did not blow up Nordstream, what the latest evidence is showing is that the Russians had ships just over the area where Nordstream was blown up – this is not proof that they did it, but it is more than a strange coincidence.
The latest evidence brought to you by US? Hersh’s story MUCH more compelling. Further, in February Hersh said the war was not going as US telling us. Now, new leaks confirm this. Biden and Nuland said the pipeline would be shut down and it was shut down. US saw this as a great opportunity.. The Hersh article provided details. The other nonsense is noise planted by intelligence agencies. Russia would not bomb its own infrastructure. Russia blew up a pipeline that US never wanted built? Sure. LOL. Most of world blames US. US also scared of and open investigation. NYT and others won’t even mention Hersh story. This again lends credibility, since they are clearly planting other “anonymous” stories. US was part of it, period. That’s reality.
No by provided by Scandinavian intelligence systems.
One man with one secret source – beware of believing in the story you want to be told – I’m not saying that he is wrong, only that the Russian stationing ships where the pipeline was sabotaged so little time before the explosions does raise questions which needs answers.
The leak only indicates that the Ukrainians may take less territory in the planned offensive – it does not otherwise contradict the US narrative – or are you being told a very different story over there?
The Hersh article provided what details?
The Russians had more to gain from blowing it up than the US and less at risk – so looking at the incentives they had the best ones to do it.
Not so sure about most of the world – depends on how you count it I guess.
Again Hersh one man with one secret source and no verifiable details that known to me.
Anybody who thinks the US was not responsible, for blowing up the pipeline raise your hand?
Anyone who thinks that the US would blow up a pipeline which was not in use and was not going to be used for a very long time, in order to achieve just what, while risking the cohesion of the coalition working to support Ukraine and resist Putin’s land grab, should consider why they think this is a proven fact.
I do not think it is proven that the Russians did it, but I think the case for the US doing it is very weak too – they had too little to gain and massive risks from doing it.
What was achieved was to deny a way back for the Germans. The pipeline was not blown up to piss off the Russians.
The target was Germany – not the Russians.
Try to keep up.
A way back to where?
The Germans had invested in buying and regassifying LNG, they were not going back to Russian NS gas and the Russians were the ones blocking sales from August 2022 – so what was achieved by blowing up the pipeline was nothing special when it came to Germans buying gas from Russia.
You are being obtuse. Is it deliberate? Or are you so innocent as to believe that the US doesn’t coerce the EU countries to do its bidding?
Perhaps you’ve been living someplace where there are neither other people or news from other people.
I happen to know that the US cannot coerce the EU countries to do its bidding, that is why Trump was humiliated when he tried to strongarm Merkel into a trade deal between the US and Germany – that is why the US failed to get wide EU support for the second Iraq war.
Perhaps look to the recent past for evidence that you have a case for the US being able to coerce large partners like the EU countries.
Nordstream II. You refuse to acknowledge this because in your eyes it’s not proved. Seriously, how old are you. Do you really think that the party responsible for this act is going to take credit for it?
Be careful out there. Those Russian bogeymen are everywhere! They might even be under your bed, so watch out.
No I do not, which is why I think it extraordinary that people here would claim that Biden & co. saying that they would end it is clear evidence that it must be the them who did it. So I look to the qui bono – and who faced the most potential down sides to doing it, and as I have pointed out repeatedly the Russians had a much higher potential gain, with very little potential risk, while the US had a much higher potential loss from doing it with very little to gain.
Why would you think so – stay rational and in absence of conclusive evidence keep an open mind while looking at the cost benefits of each side.
If they did not do, they would have told the whole world who did it. 9/11 they knew immediately who did it, but the pipeline sabotage does not even move them to investigate, why don’t they want to know who did it?
That would require that they could prove who did it – we may get there – so far we have yet to hear why the Russians had ‘hidden’ ships on the locations of the sabotage mere days before the explosions.
the notion that they do not want to investigate is plainly absurd Danish and Swedish intelligence services and ordinary forces are investigating.
What do you think sanctions are about? That is economic warfare, the US WEAPONIZED everything, energy and currencies. The US INTERFERES IN EVERY NATIONS ELECTION if they don’t vote to their liking. The current German government is bought and paid for by the US via CIA and NGOs and what have you not. In an educated society such a treasonous government in a real democracy would not be possible.
Germany was never sovereign after the war, people were manipulated to believe the country was sovereign. As long as the economy worked and standard of living is high it worked, not anymore, Biden made sure of that.
The US has not placed sanctions on EU – the only time that the US strong armed companies in EU to apply sanctions was on Iran – and that did not go down in quiet – so no the US is not strong arming EU into a policy that is not enjoying broad popular support in EU.
The government is not being harsh enough on Russia – that is the only way this German government is in any way failing to represent the will of the German electorate in this context – that is why they are being pressured by the Greens to be harsher.
Pure paranoia – not in anyway supported by the German electorate – and if this was true why has no US administration managed to get a trade deal with EU or forced EU to live up to even their WTO obligations on trade?
The US is not reliable, they break trade deals or any other deal. They are a rogue state, they coerce and extort and threaten their allies. They are the aggressors. That is why they have no friends, Biden is a bully and that has consequences. He is not the first either.
Sure, they have however not exposed EU to much of this behavior.
Again this may be true, but the notion that they have done so to EU is not supported by the available evidence.
very often also true.
Not very true – the US has in spite of being a quite bad actor, very many friends – i.e. countries willing to join it in dubious wars and other dubious adventures even when they are not forced to do so, they naturally do it because they want/expect some kind of reward for doing so, but in essence that is the only kind of friendship nations have.
No not by a longshot.
Germany was prosperous thanks to USSR. US oligarchy was scared of USSR and spreading communist ideology. They poured money into Europe and helped German Nazis to get good jobs for purpose of creating in Europe a counterbalance against USSR and getting Europe on their side. Ukrainian Nazi collaborators also were welcome in America. After the collapse of USSR, the strategy changed. They made Germany and other west European countries pay for the new members of EU and NATO in East Europe. Strong Germany became dangerous. Particular dangerous for American oligarchy was the deep economic cooperation between Germany and new democratic Russia. East European pro-American regimes helped US to sabotage the good relations between Germany and Russia and make both Germany and Russia weaker.
That is so true, it explains why the Anglo-Saxons will make sure Germany and Russia do not become economic partners and co-operate. That was the real reason for WWI. Bismarck Germany was a threat to the British empire. The US, THE OTHER RISING POWER became #1 and the British #2 at the end of the British empire.
Germany did not start WWI, the British did.
FYI the gas was in the pipeline all the Germans had to do was to open the spigots. In fact the German people demonstrated against their so-called government to deliver the energy to the people.
But MSM will not inform you, it is government owned, they are the corporate partners in government.
Wrong the Russians where ready to begin gas supplies to Germany through NS2 it was the Germans under pressure from Washington not to sign off on the Project , and why is it none of the EU political Elite want talk about it , it`s a taboo subject why because they all know it was the US who did it .
NS2 ad not even been approved for usage by EU and was not going to get approval – the Russians had effectively ended and before that severely cut supplies via NS1.
As for it being a taboo subject, there is talks about new findings and while investigations are going on it serves only Putin’s agenda wasting time on uninformed talks – so not taboo as much as a lack of desire to spend time working for the enemy at worst and wasting time at best.
My personal suspicion is the US was behind the Nord Stream 2.
But you put your finger on a reason why Russia might have been:
“the Russians where ready to begin gas supplies to Germany through NS2”
And had contracts to do so. Contracts which would have been invoked when and if the war ended and sanctions were lifted.
Which meant that if Russia wanted to pitch its products to other clients, it had to convince those other clients that it wouldn’t drop them and turn back toward Europe as soon as things calmed down and those contract obligations became a thing again.
Best way to do that? A force majeure event like the pipeline blowing up.
Nicely done. Would mean that if the US blew up the pipelines they did Russia a favor. While if Russia blew up their pipelines, they did the US a favor. A much needed optimistic view on Russo-American relations.
Opposing sides often do each other favors in wars. Hitler’s refusal to withdraw from Stalingrad end up being a huge favor to the Soviet Union. And an action that seems to serve one side’s goals can also benefit the other in this or that way.
Sure, and the US and Russia have other interests in common too. Like not destroying the planet of which they are part of. If there is any way we could be sure that they’d be doing each other that favor I’d be very happy for the both of them.
Biden and Nuland said it would be destroyed and Blinken said it was “an opportunity” when it was destroyed. Did they have Putin wiretapped/eavesdropped when Putin planned it? LOL
and the EU. Some 20 EU members are NATO members and their economies depend on Germany, without Germany there is no EU and one big competitor less for the US economy. There is still China, that comes next.
Spot on .
The pipe line was blown up to make sure Germany stay on message , now the US has achieved it`s goal of driving a wedge between Europe and Russia , making Europe dependent on the us for not only is security but for it`s energy supplies as well , that`s a win win for the US.
Only they had already invested the money to stay on message and thus blowing up the pipeline (blocked by the Russians) were more likely to make the Germans fail to stay on message – pipelines can be rebuild.
No that was achieved by Putin – Europe was already very heavily engages in support of Ukraine by September 2022 – so blowing up the pipeline only risked this ‘achievement’ if it was discovered to be the US who did it – all risk for no gain.
No Europe will not be dependent on the US, there are other suppliers and Europe is aiming for replacing fossil fuels anyway – too simplistic by far to justify the risk in other words.
Because they are the only people crazy and irrational enough to do it.
Besides, they know who did it but can’t tell, how absurd, their reaction after the sabotage said it all. The silence and the crazy excuses for the silence and stupid refusal to investigate and the lack of credibility alone speaks volumes.
The refusal to have UN investigate it – the Swedes and the Danes are investigating it. So the volumes it speaks is that they would not allow Putin the propaganda victory of having the UN involved.
We do believe the US is responsible, they did it.
It is the only plausible explanation, only they could be so irrational.
Rational or irrational depends upon what they are trying to achieve. If they are trying to decouple German industry from Russian gas, it is very much rational.
Scandinavian intelligence? LOL. Were they not involved in bombing? Come on. Even legacy media has given up on the Russia bombed it story. Hersh was right about Abu Ghraib, and My Lai. I will go with his anonymous sources over countries involved in cover up “intelligence.” Also Jerusalem Post reported sub story a while back.
By the way there are verifiable facts:
1. Biden said pipeline would be shutdown. THAT IS A FACT.
2. Nuland said it would be shut down. FACT.
US happy when pipeline destroyed. FACT.
US conducted diving exercises with NATO near pipeline in summer of 2022. FACT.
US has the requisite skilled divers and technology to plant remote explosives. FACT.
US vehicles were also around bombing shortly after it occurred. FACT. (Less important fact. One could argue just checking what happened.
US had clear motive and means and celebrated destruction. So murderer threatened to kill someone, murderer has means to kill someone, and murderer celebrates death. Circumstantial evidence points to
Murderer. There is NOT a smoking gun yet. Police want to investigate. But murderer and friends say no: we will handle investigations.
No they were not and the Danish authorities invited the Russians to take part in the investigation – but naturally if you disqualify all other sources than the ones that agree with your point of view then you will arrive at the conclusion you wanted in the first place.
As the link proves this is clearly not the case.
As stated if you disregard all sources than the ones that agrees with your point of view then…
Very true but:
1) the pipeline was already shut down by Putin so no additional gain for the US
2) The Germans had financed regassification installations that would make them independent of the NS deliveries – so not a lot to indicate that they would buy from the Russians should Putin decide to reopen the NS.
3) Blowing up the NS caused price hikes on gas and created uncertainty about other underwater connections – not in the interest of the west at all
4) Being able to claim that it was likely the US or UK had a reasonable likelihood of splitting the coalition working against Putin.
5) NS being blown up freed the Russians from the obligation to deliver gas and the obligation to pay penalties for not doing so.
6) Should it be revealed that it was the Russians who did it, the worst that could happen to them were to be obliged to pay these penalties and a compensation to minority shareholders.
In short massive down sides for the west to do it and few benefits while the reverse potentially was/is the case for the Russians.
Russian ships were there for hours just very short time before the explosions with their AIS senders switched off – FACT – very weird for this to be the case if they had nothing to do with it or at the very least were not inspecting the pipeline – an explanation required.
True as does the Russians.
What needs to be explained is being there before the explosions – had the Russians been there to inspect what the US might have been doing it would be OK, but with their AIS senders switched off and staying there for hours just days before the explosions…!?
The motives are as I point out very far from clear, had they done it in April I would have agreed but in September after the Russians had ended supplies through the pipeline and after the Germans had invested in replacing the NS deliveries – it’s far less clear, especially if we also look at the potential downsides.
The Danes invited the Russians to investigate.
Can you provide a legitimate journalistic source stating that the Danes invited the Russians to investigate?
Helping to lift an unidentified object is not the same as an investigation. Russia has been denied participation in any investigation.
No that is part of the investigation – about the only type of on site investigation that there is, i.e. investigating the actual ‘crime scene’ and what traces there is at location – what do you expect an investigation would look like???
Did the Norwegians at any time deny that their AF was involved? Not as far as I know, not once was there a denial from NORWAY, but their pipeline to Poland was ready to pump energy to Poland the very next day, they were ready to go.
Norway, a NATO member, sabotaging another NATO member tells you how broken and unreliable the alliance is, they can’t trust each other, only US coercion is holding them as of now together.
Be sure, after this debacle there will be no NATO left.
There were no Norwegian ships in the area at or close to the time of the explosions – Norwegian AF (air force?) were also not in the area – I’m not sure that it is policy to deny absurd claims, that would be giving such absurdities too much attention – do you have any sources indicating Norwegian presence in the area at or near the time of the action?
It was airplanes that ignited the explosives, that info was in all papers.
Be sure the Russians have lots of info which they will make available at the right time.
No it was not airplanes which ignited the explosives – there were no airplanes overflying the area at the time of the explosions – there was a story about a (US) plane flying to within 24 kilometers of the site but that was after the explosion.
There is no support for any military planes flying over the area at the time of the explosion from either Danish or Swedish air traffic controls.
And of course if they had any evidence they would have let us know, because they are honest and have nothing to hide.
BTW most likely Russian satellites picked up the signals.
There is no evidence supporting the US to be innocent, there is no other plausible evidence of others like the strange unknown Ukrainians, no evidence and such a stupid fairy tale.
Who the Russians or the Swedes/Danes?
And they are keeping it a secret because???
There were Russian ships at the specific locations of the explosions mere days before the action, with their tracking AIS equipment turned off – so no evidence that others could not have been involved???
As for the there is no evidence supporting the US to be innocent – is there any to support the Iranians being innocent? The point being if there was evidence of innocence I would find that highly suspect – as in why would they have prepared to look uninvolved.
Biden and his cabal did it, that is why they know and need not investigate. The Europeans know, the whole media is organized to plant stories.
The Russophobes in DC have lost their marbles, there would have been some sane person in the room, any other time it could not have happened, it is just too idiotic, so much so, no one can make that up.
By your level of logics, since the sabotage is being investigated they are not the ones who did it.
I’m sorry with you refusing to use any rational level of arguments
– the US is guilty because they did not want to give Putin the satisfaction of getting the UN involved in the ongoing investigations – which you reduce to that they are not investigating
– the US cheats at cards so the Russians are not providing the evidence they have
– Russophobes in DC have lost their marbles, there would have been some sane person in the room, any other time it could not have happened, it is just too idiotic, so much so, no one can make that up. Yet you claim providing no actual evidence that it did happen and that it was the US.
It makes no sense trying to debate the issue – you believe what you believe and will continue to do so without any evidence if that is what it takes – so why even try. The Russians have the proof they are just not publishing it according to you because the US cheats at cards.
You can be sure the Russians have their very own satellite information, you do know the first man in space was a Russian man and the first satellite was Russian made. They were not born yesterday, regardless what Americans think.
And be sure there was plenty of security observation. The people who did the job were not invisible, that information is still out there.
Why would you think I did not know this?
If the Russians were in possession of such evidence what is the great strategy behind keeping it a secret?
Seeing as it is entirely possible to sabotage the pipeline without leaving a trace (from e.g. a nuclear powered sub) why would the US if it was them leave obvious traces?
They don’t show their cards of course, they know the Americans cheat when they play cards, that is why.
So now you are just being childish – provide a sound reason to withhold evidence if you have it otherwise stick to the likely truth, i.e. we do not at present have firm evidence only speculations and these very much involves the Russian ships at the location of the explosions mere days ahead of the action with AIS equipment turned off staying there for hours before leaving for Russia.
You need an open mind, you are frozen in the governments narrative and you trust your government would never tell a lie.
You are the one with the frozen narrative – all I say is that it is not yet proven, and all I ask is for an explanation for why there were Russian ‘black’ ships at the site of the explosion mere days before the action – facts that you simply ignore, perhaps you should keep an open mind as you are the only one of us with a frozen narrative (i.e. the US did it).
The Norwegians never denied their involvement, the fact that their AF detonated the explosives.
Don’t you think they would have said so if they did not do it?
The Norwegians never commented on this – I do not think they would have made comments unless accusations had been leveled at them directly by e.g. Russia – idle speculations by journalists based on anonymous sources do not get that level of attention.
You are grasping for straws to prove your narrative.
You have a narrative that requires that you reject any story that disagrees with the notion that it was the US who did it – I’m keeping an open mind and hence not grasping at straws but taking in all available sources including Hersh – but have not yet closed my mind as to who did it as there are as yet several unanswered questions.
So which one of us is trying to prove a narrative?
Do you have any real, credible evidence to show Sy was actually wrong? So far you try to create doubts about his reporting but you have no concrete evidence. Hersh has a sterling professional reputation. Without evidence you are just driving in a wall of concrete.
Read the linked article I have provided in a reply to you less than an hour ago that is my evidence that there is more to the story – as I repeatedly say why were there Russian ships at the site of the explosions mere days before the action and why were they switching their AIS senders off.
So I have evidence that there is more to the issue, all you have is Hersh with an anonymous source and no trace of physical evidence.
There are Russian ships all the time, what is so special about that? There were other European Navy vessels too. There were NATO NAVY military exercises. The Swedes claim they investigated, then why don’t they tell what they found? What is the point to investigate and then keep it secret? The obvious is held secret, that alone raises questions you refuse to ask. Why don’t you ask?
No they are not anchored at these sites not even regularly, if that had been the case the Danes and the Swedes would have had the capacity to get there faster – and for the record the explosions took place in international waters (not part of any nation’s territorial sea), but within the economic zones of Denmark and Sweden.
No not anchored there for hours and not in the days leading up to the explosions and not with their AIS systems switched off – if you have sources proving otherwise just link them.
Again not in the specific locations.
The results are not being kept secret as just shown, but they also do not prove conclusively who did it, which is probably why you have not heard about it.
The NATO alliance has the same MSM propaganda as we have here. They just repeat talking points.
These are not talking points but Russian ships showing up at the location of the explosions days before they happened – If you can then please reference when this has been a talking point, otherwise as with the Danish invitation to take part in the investigation (which you claimed was not happening) accept that you are just flat out wrong.
Can you provide any credible evidence to prove him wrong?
Can he prove me wrong? He is a true believer and needs no evidence to believe.
I cannot prove a negative, nor am I indeed trying to, as I’m, unlike you, keeping an open mind and just claiming that there is still a lot of unanswered questions.
One could also stick with the sailboat story… You know, the sailboat with traces of explosives and the miraculous fake Ukrainian passport. As for this latest story: last week, it was one boat. Then the Norwegians said, ‘we already knew about this ship, and it can’t be them. Today, miraculously, two more ships appear out of nowhere.
Not everyone is as naïve (and I’m being nice here) as you, maybe you are simply blinded by that 1930’s German ideology embraced by post-Maidan Ukraine, but that does not make you any less naïve (I’m still being nice here).
You could but most of us never believed this story – the sail boat may have been there but there is about 0% chance that it was used to transport the amount of explosives to the location.
Yes it is strange that investigations turns up new leads – it is almost as if someone is actually working slowly through all the leads.
Or maybe it is you who appears to have made up your mind and project certainty who is blinded by what you want to see – I’m not saying it is not the US or it is the Russians, I’m only saying that there are still several unanswered questions.
The event happened over 6 months ago. And several countries have launched thorough investigations. 6 months later, someone pulls out 2 Russian boats that independent teams from Norway, Sweden, the US, Germany, and Holland could not find, from the very same surveillance equipment, in one of the most watched sea passages in the world. As a reminder, Sweden announced that they had closed their investigations, and knew who the culprit was, but would not say anything for fear it would hurt foreign relations with their allies. Germany also closed its investigation months ago, and said that they would not divulge its result, from fear it would create troubles within its own borders, from a angry mobs of German citizens. Do at least _some_ research, you idi*t.
>The Danes and the Swedes are monitoring the specific waters in question and it is their findings which are quoted.
No they did not, if you have a Swedish source documenting this fantasy provide it.
Finally Michael; here is Hersh story.
Just read it. If you have congrats. You don’t have to take his word for it. Evaluate past information. Hersh has been credible and he was IN FACT right about US undercover beliefs of war. On You Tube Democracy Now: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d4BuMaGlKp0&t=1569s&pp=ygUXZGVtb2NyYWN5IG5vdyBhbmQgaGVyc2g%3D
Check the date. 2 months ago. Listen to interview. Hersh tells us US does not think war going as well as they claim publicly. How does he know? Anonymous sources. Hersh slips in interview and acknowledges “sources.” “One source” is an idea used to prevent a purge. 1 lone wolf not total disloyalty.
Anyway, Hersh’s statements about US understanding of war confirmed by leaks. Those are FACTS. So Hersh credibility is high.
Also, I WOULD RATHER YOU BE RIGHT. I wish my government was not pushing us toward WWIII. I do not excuse Russia’s idiotic invasion. I do not condone viole
The only people who really wanted this war were the Americans, Biden and his neocons and the corrupt neo-Nazis in Kiev. Russians did not want this war, they fight a defensive war. NATO troops were first in Ukraine, starting immediately after the illegal regime change.
This is Biden’s and Nuland’s and the PNAC people’s war. They are war criminals, the real killers.
Strange isn`t the US with it`s NATO LACKEYS invaded Iraq on a pack of lies and without UN approval then every one gets selective memory lose and it`s all about Russia invading Ukraine illegally.
The issue many have with the Russian invasion is less the fact that it was illegal or unprovoked, but more that it was and is a land grab – Russia has already annexed parts of Ukraine so reminds Europeans of a very bad past.
It was legal because it was provoked.
All wars were always provoked if you ask the aggressors – if you read what I write you might however have picked up on the notion that I do not argue against Putin’s war of territorial conquest because it is illegal.
If you read what I write, you would likely have picked up on the fact that I do not claim that Hersh is wrong, just that it is not proven that he is right – there are as I point out several questions e.g. regarding the ‘black’ Russian ships at the location of the later explosions, days before these happened anchored there for hours – there may be an explanation for them being there´, but so far I have not heard the Russians providing it.
Here is a You Tube video I would encourage you to watch. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d4BuMaGlKp0&t=1569s&pp=ygUXZGVtb2NyYWN5IG5vdyBhbmQgaGVyc2g%3D
2 months old. Ignore Nordstream stuff. Listen to Hersh on war: he claims his sources stated war was not going as US stating publicly.
2 weeks ago LEAKS confirmed this. So his sources seem to know something.
We will never have a 100% argument because US cannot admit to a war crime.
Hersh actually makes very good arguments why the risk for the US to blow up the pipeline were so great, while providing no positive incentives – remember that the pipeline was not in use and the Germans had already invested in the equipment to replace Russian gas with LNG.
Leaks do not confirm the story line you claim nor does Hersh provide any evidence that his story is true or even good incentives for the US to have done it, quite the contrary – as he says repeatedly they would have to be very stupid to do it.
This is not proof that the US did not do it, only evidence that Hersh’s story is not well supported even in the way he presents it himself.
You are obtuse.
Yes indeed you are 🙂
Clearly you have absolutely no idea who Hersh is.
I don’t know where you live but here we judge people by performance and not position.
I live where people get judged on their evidence not on past achievements.
Show us the evidence that the Danes invited the Russians to take part in the investigation of the destruction of Nordstream.
This is the story of Putin initially declining the invitation:
Because it was a dishonest offer from the Danes, if it ever happened.
Your proof that it was dishonest being exactly what? And to top this off you even doubt it ever happened.
As it happens I can prove you wrong on both accounts – not only did it happen but the Russians accepted the invitation – and that is according to TASS – perhaps do a bit of research before trying to reject my comments just because they do not fit your narrative.
It is public knowledge that there was no honest investigations to be had. The Swedes cleaned up and investigated nothing. If they know and Scholz know who did it, why not clean Biden’s name and say who did it?
Scholz is a traitor of his nation as it stands. Why does he not clean his name? He refuses to tell the Bundestag what he knows, why? He is guilty, why else?
The very definition of a closed mind – you cast doubt on the notion that the Danes invited the Russians to take part in the investigation and if that invitation (if it existed) was in earnest – I showed you that not only did it happen but the Russians accepted and that according to TASS – and now you conclude that the Swedes cleaned up (in Danish territorial waters mid you) and investigated nothing, in spite of me just today linking some of the evidence the investigations have linked as-well as the Danish invitation to the Russians.
If we are to reject all sources other than the ones that support your narrative why even bother to debate?
How about because they do not have conclusive evidence as to who did it – as I keep saying???
Scholz is trying his very best to keep Germany as uninvolved in the Ukrainian war as he can, there is considerable pressure from the electorate and his coalition partners to get deeper involved – I think you are accusing him of the opposite. If he was replaced in an election tomorrow Germany would do more for Ukraine not less.
When you intent to keep the results of the investigation secret you are not about to invite the Russians to investigate.
Nothing new about that.
But we did invite the Russians as just proven!
LOL! While I am half Danish, I don’t read or speak Danish.
You can use one of the many translation services on the web the AI like e.g. chatbot is quite good.
Hersh has outstanding achievements, by all means, judge him by his achievements.
As I said I do not let sources coast on prior excellence, it makes them more credible, but it does not remove the burden of proof or in this case the need to provide evidence to support their claims.
That credibility and the past actual accomplishments add up to 95 % of credibility of his reporting, the quality of his credibility is good enough to go to court with.
A source may be credible on some issues and yet completely unreliable on other issues – as I said I took his story seriously as it was him, but when nothing he stated was traceable or provable I started doubting it.
When he started arguing why there were no win in it for the US and much of a risk, his case became even weaker.
It may still turn out to be the US, but his article does not prove it, and as stated the Russian ‘black’ ships at the location of the action mere days before the explosions requires an explanation.
Hersh is credible and plausible, he has integrity and our government officials have none of that, no credibility, no integrity and no dignity and that includes the president. Whatever he is Biden is no statesman. He did not even appoint competent people with integrity and decency to advise him. He picked neocons failures going back to Clinton. Biden learned nothing.
Do you have any viable piece of evidence of any other possibility to touch the logic, plausibility, and integrity of Mr. Hersh’s work??
You can’t touch Seymore Hersh’s credibility, it is impeccable.
I cannot speak to your government, but while the Russians have not answered as to what their ships were doing at the site of the later explosions mere days ahead of these, with their identification systems turned off, I find Mr. Hersh’s story less than evidence enough to conclude that it was the US who did it.
I have repeatedly quoted it here – it is a story from the Danish/Swedish investigation of the incident which has turned up evidence of Russian ships at the location of the explosions for hours mere days before the action.
As I believe I’ve told you, I do not find this proof that the Russians did it – I require a higher standard of proof, but until the Russians explain what they were doing there I find it very hard to ignore that this is a very unlikely coincidence – at the very least they were searching for evidence of the presence of others or explosive devices, and if so why have they kept it a secret.
Your narrative shapes your opinion, which is supported by a MSM without any credibility left.
unlike you I have no narrative – all I say is that it is not proven to my satisfaction and I highly doubt to the satisfaction of any court – you seem willing to disregard any evidence (which is something that can be tracked in this case) as soon as it conflicts with your narrative that it is the US wo did it.
Biden appointed neocons with a chain of failures, and reputations stretched over decades. Experience and competence are not needed.
A competent leader would know better. It certifies Biden’s real incompetence.
Would you call that good judgement?
Take a good look at Putin’s team and compare.
I do not care the least a bit for the Biden administration – but then I do not care more for Putin’s – with the possible exception of Lavrov they are as far as I can judge no better, but then they play less of a role.
President Putin is the president of Russia.
He has gigantic accomplishments, he picked up Russia after the Clinton/Yeltsin disaster. He put food on the table of the starving Russian people, gave them back their national self-esteem. That is why they support him and reelected him. You don’t have to like him, the people that count do like and support him.
All the demonizing of Russia will not change that.
Biden/Blinken both are zeros, people without integrity and dignity, just politicians without a conscience.
Unlike you, I know how Putin achieved this, and I can only say that he is what prevented Russia from doing so much better – that said I have no problem agreeing with the notion that Putin had skills and that he mastered the art of turning Russia into a kleptocracy – but make no mistake, selling oil from 2000 to 2008 would have allowed any country that got some control of corruption the kind of success that Russia had and better.
But I thought we were talking about the administration not about Biden VS Putin.
I’m not demonizing Russia – I leave that part to the Russians.
I cannot say that I care for them, but that does not make me blind to what Putin is doing – you seem to be living in a world where if Biden is bad then Putin must be good – I live in a world where both being bad is a distinct option if perhaps not a fact.
And how do you know how Putin achieved what? My sources are public knowledge, what other kind of sources do you have?
Are you not aware how Putin achieved what he did??? It is public knowledge – the present day oligarchs in Russia is the direct legacy of his policies – I guess I can find you some articles on it, but fundamentally what they did was to give certain industries and certain roles to different ‘pals’ of Putin and other powerful people in Russia at the time.
In most ways this looked like mob ways to handle the privatization – the consequence is that Russia never achieved market like benefits from the privatization.
Get real, public knowledge, relying on government info? That is BS. We went to war in Iraq based on public knowledge of the WMDs Saddam had, as of today they are nowhere to be found. We destroyed a nation based on lies. Biden is repeating the
same thing, he was a liar then and still is.
Not even the Russians are denying that the government got involved in governing the private sector in what they deemed important strategic areas as oil, aviation, power generation equipment, machine-building and finance – It get rather tiresome if you are going to dispute even the things Putin takes credit for doing!
You rely on others too, you have no way to know if they tell you the truth. Fact is our government officials are trained liars, people without conscience. That we do know.
Yes indeed we all rely upon others, however there are few if any who claim that the privatization was handled in a much different way after initially trying to go the market way (Anatoly Chubais) the Russian state started massively intervening in the economy taking over many ‘important’ sectors. This is public knowledge and very few disputes it, including Putin!
Our government consists of millionaires, they hang around with other millionaire criminals like Clinton and Epstein. I don’t think they invite you for dinner to tell you some top secret business. Come down to earth, stop fooling yourself. They don’t give you some insider trading info to make some fast money, do they?
You claim to be well educated, yet you dispute what even Putin wants to claim responsibility for as western propaganda, now it seems that you do not understand how a capitalist economy works – it gets increasingly hard to maintain a debate if you fail to recognize the difference between what is ‘good’ and what is efficient.
Is the US economy corrupt and ineffective – yes, most economies are, is the US economy as inefficient as the Russian economy – no the difference is in the order of magnitudes. Does that mean that the US economy is run by nice people who do not engage in insider trading and all other manners of shady business – no of cause it does not.
I do not want to offend you, but your grasp of how economies work seems taken out of a picture book for kids – there are huge differences between an economy with laws against such behavior and an economy where this behavior is part of how things are supposed to work (which is almost how it is in Russia – and that is according to the Russians).
How do you know? You, like all of us, rely on secondhand information, you are no exception. What makes you unlike me or us?
Try keeping an open mind and read Russian sources on the privatization – if you do not believe the scores of other sources available – it is not exactly as if the Russians claim that it was handles according to market forces.
You may not believe it, but I am well educated and able to pick my sources.
You appear not to know what keeping an open mind means.
Your insults to people here makes me believe you are a phony.
Have you looked at the insults thrown at me? Look to this commenter first accusing me of not keeping an open mind – if you think the reply here is an undeserved insult, perhaps you should find a safe space to be on?
You are grotesquely ignorant of basic facts surrounding the goings on immediately following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. You live in a bubble.
Now who is throwing insults at others? I’m sure you can put me right and tell us how Putin didn’t intervene in what they deemed strategic industries.
So more of the plain insults without even trying to make a point – perhaps you should go back to blocking me – you are clearly not able to argue most/any of your points.
Hersh is credible Biden is not.
Beware of believing anything that comes from the WH and all the American intelligence teams, they are professional liars. Mr. Hersh has integrity, and is an outstanding journalist. Polticians like Biden lied to us and started the war against Iraq, they annihilated the nation state of Iraq. And the very same people gave us Ukraine. It goes back to Clinton.
I would not speak to Biden’s credibility, but Scandinavian intelligence and AIS sources have Russian ships at the location of the explosions just days prior to the sabotage, with their tracking (AIS) equipment silenced – they were staying at these locations for hours. Hersh has kept his source secret and not provided any verifiable evidence that it was the US. So here we have the Russians visiting the exact sites of the explosions days prior to the action and a good story from Hersh.
Note that I do not claim it is proven that the Russians did it – only that they have some explaining to do maybe they were there because they anticipated the action, but just silenced the tracking equipment out of old habit and were unable to locate the explosives – I do not know, but I do know that it is not the open and shut case so many want’s it to be.
I do not even bother to read what comes from the Whitehouse but then I also do not allow any other source to coast by on prior excellence if the story they tell has no verifiable trace.
Correction: it goes back to Georg Bush Sr. – and that is if you only want to talk about the post Cold war stuff.
The Russians had more to gain than the US ? Are you serious , Biden said if Russia invaded Ukraine he would end NS2 and once it was no more who stepped in to supply Europe with LNG tens of millions of cubic feet ect ect ect . now Europe is dependent on the US some thing they will come to regret .
What did the US have to win:
1) additional sales of LNG for a while to Europe – EU is set on a course to end usage of fossil fuels and energy can be bought from other suppliers.
What did the US risk:
a) the breakup of the coalition supporting Ukraine
b) damages claims from European countries
c) the breakup of NATO
What did Russia stand to gain:
d) the three points mentioned as risks to the US
e) freed from obligations to pay for failed deliveries
f) obligation to deliver more gas
g) much higher prices of energy in international markets¨
h) uncertainty about other undersea connections
So yes clearly the Russians had a higher potential payoff and the only thing they risked was an unused pipeline and the humiliation of being caught blowing up their own pipeline.
Now if you think I have left out important points feel free to suggest additional ones.
The Putin team is rational, the Biden cabal is not. If they were normal, they would have started an investigation immediately.
They have admitted, there is not a shred of evidence that the Russians did it. And evidence galore that the Biden people did it.
Only Biden and neocon idiots could be so crazy to attack their own allies. Just look at Biden the senile old man and his hand puppet the clown Zelensky and Blinken.
Then compare with the statesmen, Putin and Lavrov.
Regime change in Russia has been a US plan since the end of WW2 .
Russia has not enough the hypersonic missiles for starting and winning quick a big nuclear war against US. To manufacture a sufficient number of such missiles might take, at least, a couple of years. So, we may relax for a while.
Hypersonic missiles cannot take out Trident subs, even if the Russians knew where the subs were. No one can win a nuclear war. You are talking infantile nonsense.
Don’t tell Mikhail, tell it to Biden… He’s the one responsible for this mess.
And Mikhail is the one talking about “winning quick a big nuclear war”.
Biden is just the man for the job.
Russia will not nuclear strike the US, it will use hypersonic conventional weapons. It will be the US that responds with nuclear weapons as they have no other option, US could not develop hypersonic weapons.
At some point the US people are going to have to remove the oligarchic structure or be destroyed. Its class warfare on steroids.
Which is why the neither the Russians nor the US will use conventional weapons to strike the other – the outcome is the same, so if any party decided to strike it will be with all weapons committed – which is why it has not happened yet, as the logic of MAD prevails.
I only foresee two scenarios for a nuclear strike
1: Mysterious nuclear blast in a city by a smuggled device. Makes investigation very difficult due to fallout and the top secret classification of every country’s nuclear program.
2: Israel exercises the “Samson option” against Iran or someone else they don’t like and hope that Epstein got enough footage of American political elite ****ing little kids to keep Uncle Sam in their corner.
“US could not develop hypersonic weapons” – of course US will make them too. The right moment for Russian disarming strike is when Russia has sufficient number of the hypersonic missiles and US is just about to begin to make them.
What is it that you imagine hypersonic missiles can achieve which would prevent the US from retaliating?
US Air Force has abandoned the Lockheed Hypersonic Weapon Program. Kind of the opposite of making them?
Russia made it, China made it and I am sure, US, one way or other, is also capable of making it. It is matter of time.
Maybe the reason why US is provoking a big war now, is because the gap between US and Russia in capacity of delivering the nukes, is growing fast. Among other things, Russian antimissile systems are also improving drastically. US leadership is desperately trying to destabilize Russia and change this situation.
A similar situation in the arm race is between US and China. At the moment China is much weaker than US but the gap is narrowing fast and in certain types of armaments China is already ahead of US.
China is not trying to close the gap between China and US nuclear capabilities. China is content to have about 350 nukes (they might increase that to 500 to modernize). A few hundred nukes gives China the ability to destroy any nation or alliance that attacks it. China does not waste money on overkill, like the US and Russia.
China has plenty of money. How do you know how many nukes they have, 350 or 3500?
DoD says Chna has over 400 nukes. If China had more, the Pentagon would say so to justify a bigger budget.
The US is already in the process of making them (the HACM and OpFires), having successfully tested them over the last year, after 30 years of hypersonic weapon research starting with railgun stuff in the 1990s.
Whether they’re as good as, not as good as, or better than, their Russian equivalents might be interesting. But they’d be irrelevant in the event of nuclear war. It doesn’t matter how fast the initial salvo reaches the opponent’s territory — the opponent’s ballistic missile submarines will deliver a return salvo.
You sure about that? US still can’t make supercavitating torpedoes. These things have been in service since the 70s in USSR. India is ahead of US. They have these torpedoes.
Did Mikhailovich mention Trident subs? … Nope. That would be you, and so like you 😉
He didn’t seem to acknowledge their existence in his claim that Russia could have enough supersonic nukes in a couple of years ” for starting and winning quick a big nuclear war against US.”
Yeah, ya know. Trident subs. They are right next to supersonic, Tomahawk jets.
No, that is you. There is no such thing as a ‘Trident sub’ There are Trident SLBMs and these conventional missiles are launched from old and technologically inferior submarines like Ohio class and whatever rust buckets the English have. Russians have total supremacy in submarine warfare.
Hypersonic missiles give a game-changing edge in warfare, including nuclear warfare. This is because a hypersonic missile can defeat any conventional missile defense and nullify any incoming missile when used within missile defense configuration.
In short, everything that Pentagon have is useless.
Fortunately, Russian decison-makers are almost certainly not as ignorant of reality as you clearly are.
Thomas, I understand your position. You feel inferior and you feel the need to project in order to defend your military pride. Totally understandable. The painful reality that you cannot accept is your military, the military you served, is a showcase paper tiger that isn’t capable of actual warfare. In all aspects. You cannot factually dispute anything I said so you throw out impotent one-liners.
I don’t really care that much whether US military forces are “inferior” or “superior” to Russian military forces, although the fiasco in Ukraine makes the Russian forces look pretty l0w-quality.
You can yammer all you like about hypersonic missiles — they don’t change the fact thata nuclear first strike by Russia on the US, or vice versa, would not be unanswerable; it would be responded to, and quite possibly end humankind.
You don’t have to like the fact that that’s a fact. It’s a fact whether you like the fact that it’s a fact or not. And it’s a fact that Russian decision-makers, being on the whole neither idiots nor lunatics, presumably understand.
Let’s make this real simple. If you have a gun that can shoot me dead and I develop a weapon that can, not only shoot you dead but also stop your bullet, not moments before it hits me, but right after it exit the barrel of your gun. Wouldn’t that give me a significant advantage? That is the kind of power the hypersonic missiles give RF and PRC. It nullify cold war idea of MAD.
That’s a very long way of saying that you understand neither the actual nor potential power of hypersonic missiles.
HAHAHAHAHA! Your trolling is just exceptional!
Stop coming in your pants about Russia’s super duper hypersonic missiles. They can’t take out submarines. Neither US or Russia can take out the other’s second strike capability. Wipe off your crotch, zip up your pants and grow up or get back to your video games. But stop spreading infantile fantasies about nuclear war.
Wow. I didn’t expect that kind sexually psychotic reaction. Whatever issues you may have, I don’t want to know about it. However, I will correct your ignorant musings about “Trident subs” and your hopelessly outdated, cold war era idea about mutually assured destruction. There is no such thing today.
If nuclear weapons are to be used, they will be used by the side that is in a panic, meaning the collective west. When all is said and done, NATO and affiliated wind bags, have no defense against a country with a real army, such as Russia. Russia was almost certainly unaware of this incredible reality and acted rationally in Feb 2022, based on factors such as the refusal of the west to discuss their security concerns. They were persuaded that the west’s “defense spending” and new technological weaponry put Russia in mortal danger. They were unaware that the collective west have been lulled into a vision of modern war as a computer game fought at long distance. This works in countries such as Somalia and other defenseless middle east countries. But not against Russia. The only non-nuclear “weapon” left for the west was sanctions and proxies, and we know what that has led to. So that leaves nukes. When Sleepy Joe shows signs of yet more advanced dementia he will be handed the nuclear codes and told what to do. And then: Boom!
“If nuclear weapons are to be used, they will be used by the side that is in a panic” – not necessarily. The nukes might be used quite rationally. Many years US was trying to create an anti-missile shield in East Europe for the interception of Russian missiles which could survive the first disarming nuclear strike against Russia. That was the reason why Russia developed the hypersonic missiles which devaluated that shield. So, now we are getting in a situation where Russia is developing the antimissile shield for the interception of those US missiles which will survive the first disarming Russian strike against US and NATO. If, for example, in Kremlin, they decide that the situation is changing not in their favor, they may strike first. It gives them better chance to survive the nuclear war than in case they just sit, wait and do nothing. First massive nuclear strike can annihilate most of the enemy’s nukes before they launched. Then much of what is left can be intercepted. The leadership of the country by the time will hide somewhere in a safe bunker. If a couple of megapolises disappear, it is still much better than allow the enemy to strike first with all his might.
There is nothing rational about using nukes.
There are different opinions about that.
Yes, there are. Some people are insane enough to think a nuclear war is winnable.
“If nuclear weapons are to be used, they will be used by the side that is in a panic, meaning the collective west.”
The only one in panic is the Kremlin. They are the ones making talking nukes since the war started.
“When all is said and done, NATO and affiliated wind bags, have no defense against a country with a real army, such as Russia.”
Real army? You mean the paper tiger with Nukes that cannot even take Bakhmut against a so called already annihilated Ukrainian Army?
Please, try to be more realistic.
Face it: the only countries willing to fight for Ukraine are Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine because those in power hate the Russians; the Russians because they do not fancy a military alliance next door.
Im facing the reality that Ukraine is fighting for their nation’s freedom, sovereignty and identity.
Russia is in deep sh!t right now. I’ll mark your comment to get back at you later and tell you a story about a little train that could.
You do sound like you are panicking.
Im far for panicking because i dont need to panic.
But again, Russia is the one who will show real panic soon. Try telling me your same statement in July. 🤷🏽♂️
Russia has twice as many ICBMs as the US, the UK and France combined. They also do have a higher payload, on average.
Yeah, if I kill you fifteen times you are also fifteen times more dead.
The difference between the old ICBM and the hypersonic is that when old ICBM launched, the other side see them and launch the counter strike, so the ICBM which were launched first, hit the empty sites because the ICBM of the enemy are gone already and flying toward their targets. The hypersonic missiles can destroy the enemy’s missiles before they launched. Also, it is much more difficult to intercept the hypersonic missiles than those which are flying slower. At the moment, NATO has no defense against the hypersonic missiles.
In general the missiles are not launched towards known missiles sites but towards cities and know sites of troop congestion – if that was not the case their targeting would be useless if the other side fired first.
As the Russians (correctly) point out the US ability to stop even the Russian ICBM’s is utterly unsatisfactory – as in useless to prevent catastrophic loss of lives. Finally hypersonic missiles have low carrying capacity and short range – but otherwise – yes they are great in the sense that launching them is likely to start an all out nuclear exchange – even before they arrive.
Back in the 1960’s and 1970’s the US and USSR had “city buster” bombs with yields of 25 megatons or more. A city buster bomb could land in Trenton and take out most of the
New York and Philadelphia metropolitan areas. The fatal radiation zone was anything within about 35 miles from the detonation. The Soviets even tested a super bomb in 1961 (the “Tsar Bomba”) that had a yield estimated at 65 megatons. By the early 1980′ s the US had over 20,000 warheads and the Soviets had over 37,000. Today Russia has about 6,000 warheads and the US has about 5,000. But the yields are much lover – 300 kilotons or less. Cities are not the primary targets anymore. Modern nukes target the opponents’ nuclear striking installations. But if the nukes are launched the fallout would end civilization and possibly the human race.
The other point about nuclear war is that no one can know how effective their first strike or ABM systems are until they are tested under combat conditions.
Other sites making much the same claim.
The issue I have with your notion that “Cities are not the primary targets anymore. Modern nukes target the opponents’ nuclear striking installations.” is that it only/mostly works for the party which gets to strike first US nuclear striking installations are paced far from population centers so it would take quite a while for the fallout to kill a lot of people.
NATO have no defense, but have time to see them coming. Hypersonic is not the speed of light. even at 7 times the speed of sound, a missile would take some minutes to arrive on target. A nuclear-capable Khinzal missile still takes about 9 minutes to cross Ukraine at 12,000 km/h.
To launch ICBM also takes few minutes. It is possible to launch hypersonic missiles even from cargo ships. Russia has different types of hypersonic missiles.
American planned a massive Tomahawk missile attack from the sea against Russia as the first disarming strike. The modern missiles are much faster than Tomahawk and definitely they are more likely to succeed.
I don’t see anything I disagree with there.
But if they succeed, Russia (and the rest of the world) gets destroyed in nuclear holocaust.
Which, in addition to being insane, is a piss-poor military strategy.
Nothing insane about that. Everyone agrees that the nuclear war is bad. However, if the choice is between bad and very bad, the rational person will opt of the bad. The very bad scenario for Russians is to wait until US modernize their nukes and hit first. There are no doubt that if Washington strategists see their opportunity to start a big war and win it, they will do it.
We need not worry too much about that. It is just one of the possibilities.
The Russians are quite right when the claim that the US does not have the technology to stop the Russian ICBM’s not now and not likely to have this capacity any time in the near future (10+years). The US cannot modernize their nukes to a level where they can take out the Russian nuclear forces – especially not the ones on Subs’ which they cannot locate.
Look into a recent report of Ukraine taking out with a Patriot (?) a hypersonic missile as it was approaching its target which is when they have to slow down to adjust accuracy. Ukrainians showed a picture of an almost intact system but then changed that claim to ‘no comment.’ You know if it’s true, it’s getting reverse engineered as we speak by the West.
Modern missiles can’t succeed in delivering an effective first strike. Suppose Russia had warp speed missiles that could go faster than light and wiped out the US in a surprise first strike.
The Trident submarines would still survive and retaliate. Same thing would happen if US attacked Russia. There is no such thing as nuclear war. Only species suicide.
You are either really stupid or immature to believe anyone could win a nuclear war.
Tic toc, tic toc, where are the hands on the nuclear clock?
90 Seconds to Midnight.
Time to smoke a bowl………………………………………………….
And indulge in a Black Russian 😉
If the attack was sponsored by an NED funded group in Russia, such as the supporters of Navalny, then the official version would be correct. But more proof is needed for the general public to know for sure. Otherwise the incident has something of a “false flag” flavor, which could be a form of Russian trolling of the Collective West. Who knows?
Good luck with the general public’s need to know, our only reliable source has been placed under arrest.
I do not think it’s a false flag operation the Russians are not reacting as they ‘usually’ do, but then I also doubt that it was a Ukrainian attack.
It is understood in international diplomacy that an assassination attempt on a country’s leader gives that country the right to assassinate the attackers leaders.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov blames US for the attempt on Putin’s life.
Zelenski made sure he was out of Ukraine and somewhere safe when the attack went down, so he knew it was going down but that does not necessarily mean he was responsible. The Nazi’s in Ukraine deny the attack. Russia will complete an investigation into who actually was responsible and then act against the culprits.
If it turns out that Biden, Blinken and Nuland were responsible they are dead people walking. Russia has prepared for war with the US and NATO hence they are currently destroying NATO equipment, soldiers and gold.
It would be an incredible military blunder to take out Biden and Co. at this stage of the conflict. Russian victory absolutely depends on the Washington regime remaining in power.
Russian victory and unconditional American surrender?
Biden and Co. are set to fight until the last Ukrainian soldier, Ukrainian unconditional surrender, they don’t think it could happen to them. They get ready to add China to their list of lost military adventures.
Maybe I’m being stupid, but I just do not see how keeping the senile madman at the helm assures Russian victory. The Neocons have gambled starting WWIII to hang on to their Full Spectrum Dominance way long after it was a distant memory from pre GWOT days, before hypersonic and other innovations like nukes 4000 times the blast of anything the West has and stealthy and able to obliterate whole countries in NATO. Putin is not going to let up until he has defanged the monster.
A clever leader would have sued for peace and salvaged what he could in the hopes of fighting another day but oh no, Biden’s clan in a fit of pique decided to make this a world war betting the farm that sanctions would bring Russia to it’s knees.
Now the stakes have been raised to the point where the EU and NATO – or do I repeat myself – are on the table.
Putin is the nan who broke the bank in Montecarlo.
Works for me.
The neocons have a record of assassinating diplomats, scientists, generals and heads of state.
it is about 500 miles from the uke border to the kremlin
LOL, Russian SAY a lot of things that are untrue, and this is another one. I’m sure they could easily provide evidence that the parts are from a US drone? Right? Right?
It virtually shouts “Washington!”, “Provocation is her middle name, her MO!” But, … by the same token, it’s not in Russia’s interest to escalate. So don’t expect any ham opera (like W’s 9/11).
You speak in platitudes, I’m speaking in factual based evidence, of which there has been zero provided.
Logical deductions. “Platitudes”, huh? Neither are there any facts in yours, just parroting.
My logical deduction is you don’t know anything.
Why are you in such a hurray…? I am sure they are working on evidence now…!
Because it’s a politically motivated accusation that has no grounds in reality and I’m calling BullSH!t
Spurting straight out, as you do, that Russia will fabricate evidence is also a politically motivated accusation. What do you call that, again?
You can call all you want all day, every day. You know nothing, and from the looks of it not smart enough to realize it. You matter not. What matters is sentences like these “Russia retains the right to take retaliatory measures when and how it sees fit.”
It doesn’t say anything about convincing couple of Dunning Krugers on internet. Now go make yourself a nice big excel sheet with lots of arrows in it.
LOL, Oh I see, so do they and China understand what is going to happen to the planet and everyone on it the second these morons use their “superior hypersonic nuclear weapons”? It’s game over for them and for us, nobody wins. And the mere fact they are threatening the earth with this type of aggression shows who to beleive quite clearly. I understand full well that the US started the war in Ukraine and that NATO has over expanded. It does’t give you the right to threaten the rest of humanity with nuclear armageddon for your political gain and it doesn’t give you the right to start launching attacks on countries that you beleive should speak your language.
I see, you choose your facts on basis of the desirability of consequences. Many people do. You are right about the consequences though. No one wants a nuclear war to happen because everybody understands the outcome is going to be disastrous for everybody. Yet, these things do happen because the game theoretical concept of the collective action problem, narrowly applied here to the mechanisms of conflict escalation.
This is one of many reasons why this assassination attempt really was such an idiotic idea. Because quite a long while ago we passed the threshold of plausible deniability of US involvement in these sorts of ill-considered actions and there really was no way for this to not end either extremely bad or catastrophic. We lucked out having the extremely bad outcome this time. But as you may have found out in personal life, luck never is in infinite supply.
‘This is one of many reasons why this assassination attempt really was such an idiotic idea.’
Why are you embracing Russia’s conclusion that this was an assassination attempt? It was not, at the very least it was a symbolic attack. You don’t kill Putin with a tiny drone hitting the flag of the building in which he never sleeps in.
Like I explained before, or at least I thought I was clear enough: the Russians are not going to base their actions on whether they are able to convince you. What would be the point of that anyway? Like you would change your mind simply because of facts? Don’t be ridiculous!
I don’t buy your point. You like to speak like you work in the Kremlin. You are the ridiculous one here.
BTW, you told me you were objective on this war but about 90% of your comments are either defending Russia. Hmm.
The Russians speak on behalf of the Russians was exactly the point you give strong indications to be unable to grasp. So, what is the seemingly insurmountable difficulty that makes you so helplessly incapable to see the importance of your opinion missing from the statement “Russia retains the right to take retaliatory measures when and how it sees fit.”
Let me inform you up front that the correct answer is not going to be that I work for the Kremlin and speak on behalf of Russians.
Perhaps it is the part where Russia seems anxious to convince opinions also outside Russia that they indeed can retain any right to take retaliatory measures
You even yourself use language that implies that some sort of justification is necessary:
So which is it? Don Julio’s personal opinion may matter very little but even you seem to believe that the opinion of some outside Russia matters, otherwise why would there be a need for plausible deniability – if the opinion of anyone outside Russia is immaterial?
The US doesn’t and won’t have to convince the Russians, they do have an interest in and desire to convince Western audiences, they are the target and this is the arena where the US will continue to strive to be plausible and try to justify their actions, even though with limited and decreasing success.
Denial still works well enough, as you can see with the Northstream terrorist attack, the decision to carry that out wasn’t influenced much by public opinion either.
Rather, as you’d expect when the Propaganda works, public opinion is influenced by the belief who did it. It was pure evil when the story was propagated that Russia did it. Today when the choice is between a bunch of chimerical Ukrainian hobbyists and a US-Norway collaboration it’s the most wonderful thing since the invention of sliced bread. And then, when sufficiently indoctrinated, nevertheless continue to argue that Russia did it.
The US is not even trying to convince anyone that it was not them, beyond a flat denial of any involvement – Western audiences do not think it was a US backed plan and there is no need to convince them – as for the Russian, I’m not sure the US much cares what they think.
There is not a general consensus in the west that it was the US who blew up Nordstream – indeed it is still being treated very much as an open question.
It is the Russians who have to demonstrate that it was the US who did it if they want as you put it retain their right to retaliate The US does not have to prove their innocence.
Perhaps many think it might be the Russians who blew up Nordstream as their ships were over the explosion sites mere days before the action, while there has been no similar evidence for US presence – as for the drone attacks on the Kremlin, what would the US get out of flying two fairly small drones to a place where Putin is known not to be?
This is just Russian paranoia – I do not think it was necessarily a false flag operation, but perhaps some local Russian group – the drones were not large so not likely to come from very far away especially not at the speed hey were going.
It is not how I put it. That is a statement from the Kremlin. Contrary to popular belief I do not work at the Kremlin. I have no affiliation with anyone working in the Kremlin. I was not involved in the drafting of that statement. I was not consulted by the Kremlin. The Kremlin doesn’t care about who I am and what I think of things they do at the Kremlin.
And so no not really do they feel they have to prove a right to retaliate. It says explicitly so. You might not like it. But that’s now reality.
So, what’s your take? Did the Russians do us all a service blowing up Northstream? The Americans think so. The Norwegians think so. The Ukrainians think so. The Polish think so. Maybe not so much the Germans. But basically, all the people claiming the Russians did it think so. So, here’s your chance to say something original.
Not sure who ever did it ran a very high chance of causing severe price fluctuations and with the following debate had a very good chance of splitting the coalition working to resist Russian aggression in Ukraine – while not changing the amount of gas that was actually going to be delivered through the pipeline in any significant way.
Well they are not going to be making a lot of additional profits, as the contracts to buy US and Norwegian LAN and gas were already agreed – did you not know this EU had already decided upon ending dependence on Russian gas and none was being delivered via the NS at the time of the explosions.
Yes I think you are right that these nations were quite happy that the pipeline was exploded, but then why would they not.
Actually as far as I know the Germans too are not too unhappy as it removed a rather difficult subject from their political agenda – one that was hard to agree upon as it was costly but also necessary to agree upon as the EU collaboration would otherwise be severely endangered.
So long winded answer to say yes you think the Russians did everyone but themselves (and the Germans) a favor blowing up Nordstream. So that is original, if a bit unhinged, but that doesn’t matter. I’d say if it makes you happy, go with it.
If you insist on an oversimplified interpretation – the correct way to put it simple was that the Russian (if it was them) gambled that doing it could lead to the western nations splitting up on their support for Ukraine and possibly even NATO – but the gamble (so far) has failed.
Holy sh!t, You sound just like Red Douglas. You are right, everyone else is stupid.
Same person, perhaps.
Same BS, same empty wagon.
If you encounter the situation where multiple people keep telling you a thing you might do better assuming there’s some truth to it than assuming a conspiracy against you. Second advice. Third, I’m going to have to charge you.
“You can call all you want all day, every day. You know nothing, and from the looks of it not smart enough to realize it”
Hmm, i wonder how did you arrive to this assessment on someone you don’t know anything about.
He has just presented his posts of view a few times and probably had more to share with you than with me.
Besides that, he has a name and his avatar photo of an dark color man.
Again, Hmm 🤔
What has his or her avatar or (assumptions about) complexion have to with anything? What are you assuming about my pigmentation?
Doesn’t that strike you as a bit weird?
Just like the pipeline, Russia did it right?
Umm..no, entirely different situation. And yes, I think the US likely did that.
“Russia Says the US Was Behind Drone Attack on the Kremlin The US has denied any involvement”
American liars have no honor and few in the world outside of Washington believe a word spewed from these criminals!
Perhaps America didn’t pull the trigger, but they certainly aimed the weapon for the Nazi Ukrainians.
Perhaps Putin was sunbathing on the roof at night or just smoking so the US decided to strike him with a tiny drone. That’s a kill.
The Kremlin delusional leaders calling it a terrorist attack after being terrorizing Ukranians for over a year. These folks have zero shame.
Washington plans, notably driven by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski and to draw Russia into a conflict go back to the 1990’s and he wrote as much.
But the Russian State is inferior in the face of such exceptional people and so such things may be dismissed.
The Leadership knows it can treat most of the populace as fools who readily commit themselves – “when duty calls”.
It is not a case that many forget the history because you actually must know the history to then forget it.
Interestingly, other of Washington’s many invasions draw little attention or concern, direct or proxy – Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Vietnam and surrounding states. Entirely dispensable people. They know it.
Something of the history and the likely outcomes now . . . https://les7eb.substack.com/
The Ukraine will be worse for The West than failures in Afghanistan.
But it was OK for the USA/NATO/Ukraine to “terrorize” Russian-speaking citizens of the Ukraine? You are being hypocritical!
War has rules as ridiculous as that sounds. Every country would use the same terminology if an assassination attempt was made on their leader. I can only imagine the US reaction if Sadame had been able to do an assassination attempt on Bush. Either Bush.
Assassination attempt? Do you believe that?
If it was, it was probably planned and executed by Simple Jack from Tropic Thunder.
No, I don’t. But that wasn’t my point.
Well Julio, you have a fellow denier in Jackie Chiles, you guys get your talking points together each morning?
Yes, we do. We have synchronization meetings daily before we post here.
Do you have your daily meetings too with the pro russian team?
Just imagine the USA reaction if some nation attacked DC with drones! I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning! The same “spreading freedom and democracy” rules that the USA uses to destroy nations is NOT kosher in the hands of its enemies!
Just rub yer crystal ball and watch the spectacle. There’d also be many people on internet confidently declaring it is clearly a hoax and a false flag and that they let it happen on purpose, because the actually did it themselves. Need proof? Qui bono! And Illuminati too, just for good measure. Same nonsense, different crowd.
I put my money on You being Red Douglas.
Writing forensics. 🤷🏽♂️
Then let me warn you against the dangers of gambling. You have no talent for this thing.
No, it wasn’t US…! It was the same independent Ukrainian mercenary group that did the pipeline bombing…!
You mean the group trained and funded by the US?
The US blew it up and used a NATO war games to do it , Symour Hersh got the inside info on the operation all the MSM did what they where told and buried the story , read it and tell me he isn`r right .
What did Russian ships do at the site of the explosions for hours with their AIS silenced just days before the explosions – is that a remarkable coincidence or was it them trying but failing to locate the explosives that the US had according to Hersh already placed there, and if so why the AIS issue and why no explanation for their actions?
The sabotage happened in Swedish water, no Russian ships were there. Russians were in Russian and international water and did what ships do.
Russian ships were at the explosion sites days prior to the explosion as evidenced by this report:
What they did when the explosion took place is a matter of much less interest. If you have any sources showing that the Russians are denying this just link them!
Now you bit on that lure too?
If you systematically deny/discard or ignore articles which tells a different story than the one you would like to be true, without even bothering to argue why it is false then you live in a perfect bubble and will be victim to your own biases – or in other words easily fooled.
Is that article you cited in Swedish, or something? Don’t you think if it’s as convincing as you say that NYT and all Western MSM would be parroting it by now? Certainly seems less likely to me that Russia would have blown up its own multi-billion dollar infrastructure/major investment in tighter EU economic integration simply to blame it on the US when Putin for the past 20yrs has already been blue in the face blaming the US for painting him into the redline corner of Russia’s key security arguments for finally having to respond militarily to US/NATO aggression/encirclememt/abrogation of nuclear arms treaty architecture. Russia blowing up its own massive investment just doesn’t pass the sniff test. If your story is decisive, why did the US/MSM go with it’s own dubious non-state sponsored but pro-Ukrainian sloppy yacht renters?
It is in Danish, if the NYT or other MSM have not picked up on it, and why they may not have picked up on it, is not for me to judge I don’t read those papers. It is as I point out not clear evidence that the Russian’s did, it but it does raise questions that needs answering.
The pipeline was not in use and was not going to be in use before the war was over and the sanctions lifted – if Putin did not intend to pull out of Ukraine then he would have known that the pipeline was not going to come back in use for the next many years – thus given the annexations it was already of little value to him.
Therefore it could likely have much higher potential value as a way to split the coalition working against him – I should at this point say that I’m not sure the Russians did it only musing over the incentives.
Russia blowing up a never to be used pipeline, trying to blame it in ‘others’ to split the coalition applying sanctions to Russia, however does.
If it had been in those papers then you would have said it was a fake planted by the US administration – as I keep saying, if you just discard the stories that does not fit the theory you favor without looking into what they actually are based on then you are going to live in your own bubble and there is no point even trying to debate.
Mr. Z says don’t blame me. I’m just the piano player.
USA technically started the Ukraine war and so I would say yes Russia is right.
Sure the US started it – even the Indians laughed at Lavrov suggesting this:
That is not exactly what he said that iniated the awkward chuckle, but better to look at the whole anyway. If you like only that part, as the audience there has some more (less mediagenic) reactions to endulge in, that comes at the end:
The audience clearly laughed at the notion that this war was forced upon the Russians – the context does not change that fact, quite the contrary, they may agree that Russia was acting on long existing concerns but still they simply laugh at the notion that this constituted that Russia did not start this war.
What Mardasee is referring to with the adverb ‘technically’ was not addressed by your cherry-picked video fragment. It is slightly more addressed by the entire interview, but specifically it refers to the causes of the war, the chain of events making this outcome inevitable from the Russian point of view, not to that single point in time where the decision to invade was made.
The unapologetic phrasing of Lavrov, assuming immediate awareness of the relevant history ultimately leading to the invasion caused this understandable but misguided response, which I suppose was then easy to capitalize upon.
In short its your argument that it was Russia which technically as well as actually started the war, but they claim to have had good reasons to do so – correct?
I try to put my arguments as short as I can. Next project is to make them as few as I can.
Not only technically. The Ukrainian population was groomed for generations leading up to this conflict.
Watch a good documentary by Oliver Stone called Ukraine on Fire
Zelenskyy wouldn’t lift a finger without getting permission from Blinkey who checks with Biden and Bibi.
Other news…..The SBU has arrested Gonzalo Lira in Kharkiv on charges of disseminating Russian propaganda.
Believe nothing until it has been officially denied. The deniers of perpetrating this attack stretched longer than a Soviet bread line.
Prigozhin at it again. Probably staged or just pure defiance, if the latter however, he better be careful with the pull out (no pun intended) as the Russian Army may not let him go or even worse, an encirclement by the Ukrainian Forces may ruin his chances.
I think he simply genuinely cares for the lives of his soldiers.
I don’t think so, he’s got his personal ambitions too. But i give it to him for walking the walk and being a straight shooter when talking. He is in the frontlines while the rest of the talk the talk tough guys of the Kremlin are enjoying their luxurious lives. Even Kadyrov and his Tik Tok Chechen team are nowhere near the fight.
The sound of a defeated army. Reminds me of the finger pointing during the last years of the Vietnam War.
Prigozhin admits that Putin’s invasion went bad by March 2022 and that the Russians are not supplying their troops at the front line with much ammunition.
Putin fired Colonel-General Mikhail Mizintsev, the Russian logistics chief a few weeks ago. Putin had fired Mizintsev’s predecessor as well.
China is watching.
Remember, Russia does not have “-an ammunition” problem.
The counteroffensive has begun in front of our very eyes. First was the announcement to see reactions on the Russian side, the byproduct of the announcement has a psychological effect on the russian side, then the ongoing reconnaissance and preparation of the environment with taking out russian fire support positions, the communication and supply lines from the rear, then the probing of russian defenses and the wait game.
I anticipate a lot of Russian goodwill gestures ceding territories with “ lack strategic value” and threats of nuclear retaliation for Ukrainians wanting to retake the land that was theirs in first place. Finally the excuses and internal fighting.
I heard a bunch of Ukrainians launched it from a leased sailboat.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) has reported that 29% of the worlds GDP is under US sanctions. Sanctions are economic warfare against civilian populations. Biden, Obama et al. must go before the Hague for their many many crimes against humanity.
While Zelenski is applauded in the Hague more and more evidence of Ukrainian war crimes and crimes against humanity are constantly emerging from the testimonies of those who were on the frontlines.
It is well known that the NATO proxy war in Ukraine started with the Nazi/NATO ethnic cleansing campaign in the Donbass. Biden, Obama et al. must go before the Hague for their many many crimes against humanity.
So we now have the nation with the world’s largest amount of nuclear weapons accusing the nation the second largest amount of nuclear weapons of a direct attack to take out its head off state.
What could possibly go wrong from here .
It is understood in international diplomacy that an assassination attempt on a country’s leader gives that country the right to assassinate the attackers leaders.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov blames US for the attempt on Putin’s life.
Zelenski made sure he was out of Ukraine and somewhere safe when the attack went down, so he knew it was going down but that does not necessarily mean he was responsible. The Nazi’s in Ukraine deny the attack. Russia will complete an investigation into who actually was responsible and then act against the culprits.
If it turns out that Biden, Blinken and Nuland were responsible they are dead people walking. Russia knows the history of American war crimes over decades and has prepared for war with the US and NATO. Hence they are currently destroying NATO equipment, soldiers and gold.
Not much because one of those nations is just full of it and it knows it therefore the nuclear rhetoric is just that.
Well to be honest after blowing up the NS2 pipe line nothing will surprise me .
I said the same after Russia invaded Ukraine but a blown out gas pipeline must be a much bigger issue these days.
Yes, and I blamed that invasion on Biden, for refusing to do diplomacy during a major crisis, stonewalling until war broke out.
Of course you do.
You’d blame a meteor strike on Biden if it happens.
He’s right. It took 3 countries for that war to happen.
No wars, it took one, Russia. Putin invaded and no one put a gun to his head. He had many options and he took one. He who invades, owns it.
US invaded Iraq, US invaded Afghanistan, Russia invaded Georgia, Russia invaded Ukraine.
If you don’t pull the trigger, the bullet won’t come out.
There are plenty of things the US did and didn’t do(diplomacy)that could have prevented Putin from even thinking about invading Ukraine. But that would require acknowledging some historical facts.
Remember that time Graham was running his mouth about taking out Putin? Well now that the false flag was prevented from getting carried out, Russia has evidence that US planned this with people like Graham.
The US has a proxy, they are never involved, Blinken said they don’t tell Zelensky what not to do, except when he wants to negotiate an end of the genocide, then he is told to stop it, the US is not ready yet.
Biden will support a war until the last Ukrainian young man is dead and the unconditional surrender gets signed by Zelensky and not Biden, and as long as there are no American star spangled body bags, and Biden gets reelected, no matter how deranged he is.
Of course, Washington bombed palaces in Iraq where they thought President Hussein could be.
But they have criticized Ukraine for what Alexander Mercouris on YouTube calls their “James Bond stunts,” like planning to kill Wagner soldiers hired in Africa, and trying to get the Kurds to attack Russians in Syria. And the terrorist attack on a Russian town, killing some and taking others hostage. The people in Washington know what the result would be if Putin was wounded or killed this way. Russia’s other leaders would flatten every government institute in Kiev. Rightly so, since they could be the next targets otherwise.
Russia could also target American dignitaries, in retaliation for the assassination of the man who saved Russias economy, rid the country of the oligarchs, ended the high crime rate and lowered the one-million prison population, modernized laws and stood up to the color revolutions. And saved pro-Palestinian Syria from Israel- and Saudi- and Qatar-supported Islamist immigrants, for which the Lobby has never forgiven Putin.
what the hell is going on here, has the entire planet gone insane. Everyone needs to take a step back.
Are we really so %$# pathetic as to engage in resource wars whilst the planet is dying – great show .
Killing kids for profit – just sickening what is going on here
The question is: does the White House have any more credibility than the Kremlin?
Has Kirby found those nukes in Iraq, yet?
Little doubt that it wasn’t. The Anglo-American empire is in a war with the Russian Federation. It is only a matter of time before this go nuclear. Kremlin cannot continue to take hits without retaliation.
The Prighozin File: Twilight of the Gods or Maskirovka?
Comments are closed.