Saturday, May 3, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Ad:

Insider source: How the US and Norway carried out the attack on Nord Stream

The new cold war

  • Citing a source with insight into the Nord Stream attack, award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has given a harrowing account of how the attack on the gas pipelines is alleged to have taken place.
  • At the initiative of the United States, Norway was reportedly chosen as a partner for the operation for a number of reasons, including NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's transparency and contacts following his time as Prime Minister of the country.
  • After months of careful planning, the NATO exercise Baltops in June was allegedly used as a cover for Norwegian and US dive teams to place the bombs just off Bornholm.
  • The final order to detonate the charges on 27 September is said to have come directly from Washington.
Published 13 February 2023
– By Editorial Staff
US President Joe Biden with NATO Secretary General, former Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, at a NATO meeting in Madrid in June, a few weeks before the NATO exercise in the Baltic Sea where the bombs were allegedly placed on the gas pipelines by Norwegian and US divers.

Seymour Hersh, previously celebrated for his revelations of US war crimes against civilians in Vietnam and against prisoners of war in Iraq, is in the news with the extraordinary details of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 blasts. His accounts are referred to, in particular, to a source with a good insight into the details of how the US and Norway, working closely together under the NATO umbrella, blew up the gas pipelines with the result that large parts of Europe are now being dragged into an energy crisis and increasingly severe economic depression.


Don’t miss our exclusive series about the mysterious runes of the old Norse!


In December 2021, White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan is said to have arranged a meeting with a newly formed task force of men and representatives from the CIA, State Department, Treasury Department and US Department of Defense to discuss and ask for recommendations on how best to respond to a supposed invasion by Russia of Ukraine.

According to the source, the secret meeting was followed by further meetings and, on Sullivan’s initiative, a plan was eventually agreed for the destruction of the two Nord Stream gas pipelines – and that it was President Joe Biden who personally asked for this.

After discussing options for the attack, it was suggested, among other things, that the gas pipelines be attacked with submarines or bombs that could be remotely detonated afterwards. The CIA argued that the operation had to be carried out in secret whichever route was chosen – because an attack of this magnitude would be considered an act of war if it could be traced back to the US.

The CIA, headed by former Russian ambassador William Burns, who was also deputy secretary of state during the Obama administration, in turn commissioned a task force to draw up a plan for the covert operation, using deep-sea divers to trigger an explosion along the gas pipelines.

Biden’s security advisor Jake Sullivan and CIA Director William Burns.

Experience in similar operations

It is noteworthy that similar operations have been carried out in the past by American intelligence. In 1971, with the help of divers and submarines, it succeeded in deploying advanced interception equipment at an underwater cable in the Sea of Okhotsk used for communications by the Russian Navy.

The Russians were convinced that their communications were secure and covert and used no other encryption, the US interception was able to continue for a decade before an American civilian NSA employee exposed the whole thing. The interception allegedly provided the Americans with “invaluable intelligence information about the Russian Navy’s intentions and planning“.

One problem seen with this secret deep-sea attack in the Baltic is that the sea is patrolled by the Russian Navy and there are no oil rigs to use as cover for a diving operation.

Biden couldn’t keep quiet

On February 7 – just a few weeks before Russia entered Ukraine, President Joe Biden declared, after a meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, that the US will “end” Nord Stream 2 if Russia invades.

 

Less than three weeks earlier, the Foreign Ministry’s Victoria Nuland had conveyed the same message at a press briefing.

– I’ll be very clear with you. If Russia invades Ukraine, Nord Stream 2 will one way or another not be able to go ahead,’ she said at the time

 It was like putting a nuclear bomb on the ground in Tokyo and telling the Japanese that we are going to detonate it, the source says, adding that several people involved in the upcoming attack were upset by the politicians’ public references to the same.

– The plan was that the various options would be implemented after the invasion and not announced publicly. Biden simply didn’t get it or he just ignored it.

According to the source, Biden and Nuland’s “thoughtlessness” also created an opportunity at the same time. Several CIA directors argued that after Biden’s statement, blowing up the gas pipelines could no longer be considered a covert operation – and therefore did not need to be reported to Congress. Shortly thereafter, the President, through CIA Director Bill Burns, gave the go-ahead.

– There was no longer a legal requirement to report the operation to Congress. All they had to do now was just carry it out – but it still had to be secret, he says.

Norway “the perfect partner”

It was decided that Norway was the perfect base for the mission – a country where the US military has greatly expanded its presence in recent years and where it has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in facilities for its air force and navy – including advanced radar equipment. A US submarine base in Norway had also recently been completed and, according to the source, the US was already working full-time with its Norwegian counterparts to spy on Russia in the East.

Military cooperation between the countries is also said to have been facilitated by Norway’s former prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, who is now secretary-general of the US-led NATO military alliance – and for many years also an outspoken opponent of Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

He is the glove that fits the American hand, says the source.

Joe Biden and Jens Stoltenberg meet in Madrid in June. Photo: NATO/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The Americans were also convinced that the Norwegians would keep the attack secret – not only because of loyalty to the US, but also because they had a vested interest in the disappearance of Nord Stream because it would allow them to sell more of their own natural gas.

Sometime in March, some members of the team flew to Norway to meet with Norwegian intelligence and the navy,” writes Seymour Hersh, referring to the source who says that one of the key issues to be discussed was exactly where in the Baltic Sea was the best place to plant the explosive devices.

Soon enough, the Norwegian navy found the best place in shallow waters, a few kilometres off Danish Bornholm, where divers operating from a Norwegian minesweeper would most likely be able to dive down and rig bombs on four gas pipelines.

NATO exercise used as cover

Before US military divers, from a base in Panama City, could be flown in and get to work with their Norwegian colleagues, there was another problem to be solved. The underwater activities could possibly be detected by the Swedish and Danish navies, which risked reporting the matter further.

It was concluded that it was necessary that “certain” high-ranking Danish and Swedish officials were informed before the operation “in general terms”.

What they were told and what they knew was deliberately different, the source explains.

To carry out the attack, it was also necessary to camouflage the bombs so that they would not be detected by Russian surveillance technology – and make them look like part of the natural background in the water.

As for the timing of the operation, the suggestion is said to have come from the Norwegian side. Every June for the past 21 years, the US Navy had sponsored a major NATO exercise in the Baltic involving a large number of allied ships.

The Norwegians suggested that this would be the perfect cover for deploying the mines,” the source further explains.

Ship during NATO exercise Baltops 22. Photo: US Navy/CC BY 2.0

The Americans, in turn, persuaded those in charge of the exercise to add a “research and development exercise” to the programme – which was also made public. This was to be conducted off the coast of Bornholm and was said to involve various NATO groups planting mines – as well as competing groups finding and destroying them.

It was both a useful exercise and an ingenious cover-up. The Panama City boys would do their thing and the C4 explosives would be in place by the end of Baltops 22, with a 48-hour timer attached. All the Americans and Norwegians would be long gone by the first explosion.

Biden demanded changes to the plan

Shortly before everything was ready to go, the political leadership in Washington had second thoughts. The bombs would still be planted during the NATO exercise, but the White House worried that only two days between the exercise and the detonations was far too short a time – and that it would be all too obvious that the US was directly involved. Instead, it demanded that the operators find a way to remotely detonate the gas lines at a later stage.

Once again, President Biden’s “indecision” and last-minute changes are said to have caused outrage and frustration within his own ranks – but they had no choice but to go ahead with the specific requests. The C4 bombs attached to the gas pipelines were to be triggered by a sonar buoy dropped by an aircraft at very short notice in a procedure which, according to the source, involved “the most advanced signal processing technology”.

There was also concern that the bombs would be accidentally and pre-emptively triggered by the sound of various ships on the heavily trafficked Baltic Sea – or by underwater drilling, waves or by disturbances from animals in the sea.

To avoid this, the sonar buoy, once in place, would emit a sequence of unique low-frequency sounds – much like those produced by a flute or piano – that would be recognized by the timing device and, after a preset one-hour delay, trigger the explosives.

On 26 September 2022, the Norwegian Navy’s surveillance plan carried out what appeared to be a routine flight and dropped a sonar buoy. A few hours later, the bombs exploded and three of the four gas lines were immediately rendered inoperable, and the signal was transmitted underwater – first to Nord Stream 1 and later to Nord Stream 2.

Gas leak after the blast. Photo: Coast Guard

The media were uninterested in the truth

In the immediate aftermath of the pipeline bombing, American media treated the whole thing as an unsolved mystery. Russia was repeatedly singled out as the likely culprit, spurred by leaks from the White House but without ever establishing a clear motive for such an act of self-sabotage, other than simple retaliation.

He points out that no US news media seemed interested in delving into the issue or the earlier threats by Joe Biden and Victoria Nuland that Nord Stream would be “stopped”.

No clarification on why Russia would bomb its own lucrative gas pipelines, rather than just temporarily turning off the tap, ever came. However, Foreign Secretary Anthony Blinken was clear that it was the US that benefited from the whole thing.

– It is a huge opportunity to remove once and for all dependence on Russian energy and thus take away from Vladimir Putin the use of energy as a weapon, Blinken declared, arguing that the blasts offered “enormous strategic opportunities for years to come”.

Victoria Nuland has also openly expressed delight at the attack, saying she is “very pleased” that Nord Stream 2 is now “a pile of metal at the bottom of the sea“.

The source notes that Joe Biden “said he would do it – and he did it” and he describes the extensive planning and cover-up as “beautiful“.

The only flaw was the decision to actually go through with it.

Seymour Hersh, born in 1937, is an American-Jewish investigative journalist who was awarded the prestigious Pulitzer Prize after revealing how American soldiers during the Vietnam War executed hundreds of South Vietnamese civilians - the majority of them women and children.

Considered one of the world's most prominent investigative journalists, Hersh has also revealed how the US tortured Iraqi prisoners at the now infamous Abu Ghraib prison and covered the Watergate scandal for the New York Times.

In recent years, he has attracted attention and criticism for questioning the US history of Osama Bin Laden's death, reporting on US plans to assassinate political opponents in Iran and rejecting US claims that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians.

Among the many awards Hersh has received for his journalistic work, in addition to the Pulitzer Prize, is the George Polk Award - an American journalism prize he has received no less than five times, which is also more than any other person.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

Survivors warn: Civilians will die as Europe reintroduces anti-personnel mines

The new cold war

Published 28 April 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Millions of anti-personnel mines remain in the ground around the world after wars and conflicts - killing or maiming thousands every year.

Five European countries – Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – have announced plans to withdraw from the 1997 Ottawa Convention, which bans anti-personnel mines.

However, the decisions have been met with strong criticism from human rights organizations and survivors, who warn that it is civilians who will suffer the most.

In mid-April, Latvia became the first country to formally vote to leave the treaty, which has over 165 signatories. The decision is described as a historic step backwards by those working to combat the use of mines.

– It feels like a punch to the face, said Zoran Ješić in an interview with The Guardian. He lost his right leg to a mine during the Bosnian War and now heads UDAS, an organization for landmine survivors.

– Antipersonnel landmines do horrible things to innocent people. They belong to a small group of weapons, including chemical and biological weapons, that are so abhorrent they must never be used again, he continues.

Ješić was 21 years old and a soldier in the Bosnian army when he stepped on a mine in a forest.

– As I later heard, it was our mine. The point is that when you put a mine in the ground, you never know what will happen. Will it wait for your soldiers, your civilians or the enemies? Usually, it hurts your people.

“It’s about the norms of war”

And the statistics confirm his claims. Every year, 70-85% of all those killed or injured by mines are civilians. Almost half of the victims are children – a reminder of the weapons’ inability to distinguish between combatants and innocent people.

Alma Taslidžan from Humanity & Inclusion, an organization working with disabled and vulnerable groups, expresses concern that the decisions could create a dangerous domino effect:

– This is really a tipping point for us. It’s not only about landmines. It is about the norms that are written for the situation of wartimes – we’re afraid this is going to create a wave of weakening the international humanitarian law that has the first obligation to protect civilians.

In March, the defense ministers of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland published a joint declaration referring to the war in Ukraine and increased security threats.

– With this decision, we are sending a clear message: our countries are prepared and can use every necessary measure to defend our security needs, the statement read.

Warning against myths about “smart mines”

Finland, which shares a border with Russia stretching over 1,300 kilometers, later joined the group, with Prime Minister Petteri Orpo saying that withdrawal would give the country “the opportunity to prepare for changes in the security situation in a more versatile way”.

However, Taslidžan emphasizes that even if the threat were real, the choice of weapon is still wrong precisely because it is civilians who will suffer the most.

– Choosing the most indiscriminate weapon amongst all to say that you are going to defend your country, that is wrong. Security cannot be built on a weapon that kills indiscriminately, that remains in the ground long after the conflict has ended and that specifically maims civilians.

She also warns against myths about “smart mines” with self-destruction mechanisms and claims that these are safe for the civilian population.

– That’s bizarre information. There is no smart mine that can think for itself and say, ‘Oh, civilians, we won’t explode now’.

American soldiers with mines in Iraq. Photo: U.S. Army/SPC Derek Gaines

Red Cross: “Extremely alarming”

Maya Brehm, legal advisor at the International Red Cross, describes the development as “extremely alarming”.

– From our perspective – and this is also a perspective shared by military authorities – whatever limited military value anti-personnel mines may still have in today’s conflicts, it is vastly outweighed by the appalling and long-lasting humanitarian consequences, she emphasizes.

Norway, which also borders Russia, has chosen to remain in the treaty, and Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide has expressed regret over Finland’s decision:

– This particular decision (by Finland) is something we regret. If we start weakening our commitment, it makes it easier for warring factions around the world to use these weapons again, because it reduces the stigma, he commented.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, an estimated 3 million mines remain in the ground since the 1990s war and continue to kill and maim men, women, and children.

– This is not something you can just put in the ground and then pick up again when the war is over, Zoran Ješić explains grimly.

Swedish Major General: “Leave the Ottawa Treaty and buy anti-personnel mines”

The new cold war

Published 16 April 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Karlis Neretnieks argues that today's anti-personnel mines cannot be compared to those that kill thousands of civilians every year.

Recently The Nordic Times highlighted how the defense ministers of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia announced that they intend to withdraw from the international convention banning the use of anti-personnel mines.

In early April, Finnish officials also confirmed that they are also preparing to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty. Retired Swedish-Latvian Major General Karlis Neretnieks now wants Sweden to do the same and start buying “smart” anti-personnel mines.

– My opinion is clear. We should do what the Finns did, leave the Ottawa Agreement, and acquire anti-personnel mines, declares Neretnieks, who has also previously served as President of the Swedish National Defense College.

He explains that within the NATO military pact, there is a plan for the Swedish army to be able to move quickly to Finland and form joint defense forces with Finnish soldiers in the event of a possible Russian attack. In such a scenario, he argues, the armies of both countries must have similar rules of engagement.

– What should we do when Swedish commanders have to command Finnish units? Should a Swedish commander tell a Finnish commander that you are not allowed to use anti-personnel mines because you are under Swedish command? That’s not how it works in reality.

Kills thousands annually

Finland’s defense minister, Antti Häkkänen, insists that “mines are only for war” and “will not be scattered in the countryside“. However, over the years, anti-personnel mines have caused enormous civilian suffering and in 2021 alone, an estimated 5,500 people were killed by them many of them children.

Millions of undestroyed anti-personnel mines remain in former war zones around the world and can detonate at any time when someone accidentally steps on them. This is also one of the primary reasons why some 160 countries around the world have committed to stop stockpiling, producing or using them.

However, Neretnieks argues that today’s modern anti-personnel mines can be turned on and off by remote control and he emphasizes that some models stop working after a certain amount of time.

– The reason for removing the mines was that they were often left behind after the fighting was over. Then they were dangerous for children, farmers and anyone walking around the terrain… I’m advocating that we abandon the Ottawa agreement and get these anti-personnel mines with self-destruction, he continues.

“Were far too enthusiastic”

Sweden signed the convention in 1998, the year after it was drafted, but the major general says it was a big mistake.

– I think we were far too enthusiastic about a ban at the height of the discussions in 1996-1997. It was quite obvious that the Russians had no intention of signing anything like that, he states.

It should be noted that it is not only Russia that has chosen not to sign the convention. Major military powers such as the US and China have so far also refused to sign the Ottawa Treaty, as have Israel, India, Iran and both North and South Korea.

Moderate Youth League: Raise the retirement age to finance Sweden’s rearmament

The new cold war

Published 15 April 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Raising the retirement age to fund the Swedish defense effort is not expected to be well received by the electorate.

As reported by The Nordic Times, Swedish politicians have decided to borrow at least SEK 300 billion (€26 billion) for what is described as the “biggest rearmament since the Cold War”.

Douglas Thor, chair of The Moderate Youth League (MUF), fully supports the military investment – but emphasizes that it should be paid for by older Swedes through a higher retirement age.

The governing politicians agree that it is reasonable to borrow the equivalent of €4,400 for each Swede of working age for the military project, and analysts have noted that it will largely be future generations of Swedes who will have to pay for the decisions made today.

– It’s clear that future generations will have to take a bigger hit than if we were to just go on this year’s budget. But it also seems reasonable that future generations should help finance reconstruction because it will also benefit them, commented, for example, Daniel Waldenström, professor of economics, and continued:

– It’s simply that they will have to pay a bit more tax as a result of this. They will have to pay taxes to finance our repayment of these loans.

“In the long run, everyone will pay”

Just like the other establishment parties’ youth wings, MUF applauds the military investment, but believes older Swedes must bear a greater share of the cost – not just the younger generation.

– Borrowing money is not free. The costs are postponed to the future, which means that the younger generation has to pay. We are happy to contribute, but it is unreasonable that we alone should bear the cost, they say.

Thor’s solution is to raise the age at which older people can start drawing their pension from the current 63 to 67.

– Today, people can start drawing their income and premium pensions at the age of 63. We believe it is reasonable to raise it. One possible age is 67, confirms the Muf leader, who states that raising the retirement age is a much better option than raising taxes.

– In the long run, everyone will pay because we are all getting older. When our country has faced difficult challenges in the past, we have coped by working more, Thor argues.

Unpopular measure

Raising the retirement age to fund military spending is not expected to be a particularly popular message with voters but Thor says this does not matter much.

– There are many issues that were previously unthinkable, but which have been reconsidered in this serious international situation. For example, loan financing has been reconsidered. It should be possible to do the same with regard to this issue.

According to Muf’s calculations, if older Swedes worked two years longer than they do today, this would mean around SEK 30 billion (€2.6 billion) extra to the public purse annually about half the contribution needed to meet the government’s target of spending 3.5% of GDP on defense.

International law expert on the Swedish suicide drones: “Risk that civilians are affected”

The new cold war

Published 10 April 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Ove Bring points out that commanders who accidentally injure or kill civilians can be prosecuted for this - but that it usually requires that the deaths are extensive.

The Swedish military plans to acquire several million military drones. This includes so-called “suicide drones” – and in two years’ time, Swedish kamikaze drone systems could be in operation.

Ove Bring, an expert in international law, notes that the type of drone is certainly not prohibited under international law – but that there is always a risk of civilians being killed.

The drones are equipped with explosive charges and, with the help of artificial intelligence, can fly around until they find their target – whereupon they fly into it and explode.

– A human operator sets them off and then they can fly on their own, find targets and attack targets on their own, explained AI and weapons scientist Arash Heydarian Pashakhanlou in 2022, clarifying that the suicide drones “can fly into the target on their own, explode and destroy the target”.

Many observers are critical of the technology development. The ability of unmanned aerial vehicles to kill and destroy on their own risks blurring the lines of responsibility, increasing the risk of civilian casualties and wrong decisions being made.

Others have warned that warfare is being dehumanized and that we are moving towards a development where autonomous weapon systems make lethal decisions without human intervention.

– A machine should not be allowed to decide on the life and death of a human being, says Deborah Solomon of the Swedish Peace Society.

“There is the risk that civilians are affected”

Ove Bring, professor emeritus of international law and former advisor to the Swedish Foreign Ministry on international law, admits that the use of drones can result in civilian deaths – but also emphasizes that suicide drones do not violate international law.

– This type of drone is not prohibited by international law as it is designed to hit military targets, but there is always the risk that civilians are affected, he says to The Nordic Times.

He notes that commanders who, in violation of the humanitarian law principles of precaution and proportionality, happen to harm civilians can also be prosecuted for this – at least in theory. However, this usually presupposes that the injuries or deaths are extensive.

If, on the other hand, a military target is hit by the drones – but civilians are also killed during the same attack, this does not violate any laws or conventions, the professor says.

– If the military target is hit and civilians are exposed to minor collateral damage, it must be accepted as an inevitable part of warfare. It is not considered a war crime, he concludes.