Seymour Hersh, a former Pulitzer Prize winner, goes public with very startling information, citing a source with insight into the blowing up of the Nord Stream gas pipeline on 26 September last year, which stopped the direct entry of Russian gas into Europe via Germany.
According to reports, C4 explosives were deployed by Norwegian and US dive teams from Bornholm during the NATO military exercise Baltops 2022 in the Baltic Sea from 5-17 June.
The bombs were later detonated on direct orders from the US using so-called sonar buoys dropped in the area by the Norwegian Air Force.
Last June, under the cover of a much-publicized NATO exercise in the middle of summer, Baltic Operations 22, divers planted remotely detonated explosive devices which, three months later, were triggered on direct orders from the US, destroying three of the four Nord Stream pipelines. This according to a source who, according to Seymour Hersh, has direct insight into the operational planning of the attack.
Norway is said to have been the main partner in the operation alongside the US, which according to the new information was partly due to the highly integrated cooperation between US and Norwegian forces through NATO, as well as the fact that NATO is also led by Norway’s former prime minister Jens Stoltenberg.
The person responsible for the planning is said to be security adviser Jake Sullivan, who is said to have assembled a group of US agencies to develop a coordinated plan to carry out the attacks without being able to trace them directly to the US. Key members of the group include Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and the State Department’s Victoria Nuland.
P-8 Poseidon aircraft being refueled in flight over sea areas. Photo: New Jersey National Guard/CC BY-ND 2.0.
Sweden and Denmark are also said to have been informed superficially in advance that diving activity would take place in the area, but without being given any details about the purpose of the activity. This was after the Norwegian side insisted on the matter on the grounds that it considered there was a high risk that the Swedish navy in particular would be able to detect unusual activity on its own, given its previous record in underwater detection.
The motive given for the blasts is a fear on the part of Washington that European countries such as Germany might otherwise be unwilling to provide Ukraine with the money and weapons needed to defeat Russia in an expected future war in Ukraine.
Seymour Hersh is an American journalist who has worked for many years for The New Yorker magazine.
In November 1969, Hersh exposed the Hersh Son My massacre in Vietnam, which occurred in 1968, for which Hersh was later awarded the Pulitzer Prize. Hersh was also behind the revelations about the torture of Iraqi prisoners by US military personnel at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad. These two reports are among Hersh's most high-profile earlier efforts.
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…
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.
Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Estonia have announced their withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines. pic.twitter.com/cwrgTYZRTl
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.
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.
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.
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.
