Recommended Posts

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/09/23/what-russia-doesnt-get-about-germany-a71527

 

What Russia Doesn’t Get About Germany

Moscow has repeatedly rejected any responsibility for its most contentious actions. As a result, Berlin’s trust and willingness to invest in the relationship with Russia has been wearing down for years.

Community consensus has always been for Germany to do what is best for Germany and buy Russian piped natural gas because it is a little cheaper. I have always disagreed since there are so many other sellers and the price is low for LNG. They already have one line from Russia, Nord Stream 1. 

TASS41374989-2.jpg

 

I have another shorter story on the same issue. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/10/business/nord-stream-2-navalny/index.html

Why Europe still can't take risks with its supply of Russian gas

By Hanna Ziady, CNN Business

 

Updated 12:25 PM ET, Thu September 10, 2020

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Why do trump people hate appropriate font size?

Smart people tend to write in the smallest size to deceive you.

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Why Europe still can't take risks with its supply of Russian gas

By Hanna Ziady, CNN Business

 

Updated 12:25 PM ET, Thu September 10, 2020

EXCERPTS from that September 10th article

...While Europe has several other sources of gas supply, including liquified natural gas (LNG) from the United States, "Russia is a very big one and a very competitive one, which is why people buy it," said James Henderson, director of the natural gas research program at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
 
Europe could decide to stop buying gas from Russia altogether, as Poland and Lithuania are trying to do, but prices would increase, Henderson added. Nord Stream 2 coming online next year as planned could reduce the cost of gas in Europe by about 25%, compared to a scenario where the project is abandoned, according to a Wood Mackenzie estimate.
"That would be good news for European gas consumers, obviously, but less welcome for companies seeking to export LNG from the US," said Wood Mackenzie's Americas vice chair, Ed Crooks.

Commercial interests at stake

The United States has already imposed sanctions on entities involved with Nord Stream 2, which it says is detrimental to the European Union's energy security.
It is concerned that the pipeline will bolster Russia's dominance in the European gas market, giving it undue influence in the region and squeezing out American LNG exporters.
Ukraine is also a key US ally and collects gas transit fees from Russia, leading to worries that the pipeline could destabilize the country and undermine the development of the gas market in Central and Eastern Europe.
A bipartisan bill introduced in the US Congress in June aims to expand sanctions on companies involved in the project, which is about 90% complete.
Germany, which has historically argued against the US position, could threaten sanctions on companies involved in Nord Stream 2 as a bargaining chip in the Navalny investigation, Henderson said, but doing so would have negative consequences for many European businesses...
 
...
According to the German Eastern Business Association, European companies have already invested €5 billion ($5.9 billion) in the project and substantial damages claims could arise if there were any attempts to prevent it from being completed.
"Commercial interests may prove to be stronger than political interests on this particular front," said Carole Nakhle, CEO of London energy consultancy Crystol Energy.
It would also be politically difficult to sanction the pipeline, given that its backers have invested alongside Gazprom in an earlier pipeline project, Nord Stream, which is chaired by Germany's former chancellor Gerhard Schröder.
Russia would be hurt if Europe targets its energy trade. The European Union is its most important market and Gazprom has acted to retain market share by offering price discounts and more flexible contracts to many of its customers, Nakhle added....
 
 
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the poisoning of opposition leader Alexey Navalny was a FALSE FLAG EVENT.

Without a doubt.  The U.S. and western powers do it all the time in order to maintain dominance.

Ron, Your THREAD really covered a lot of the backstory. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, do you think that the Germans are totally naive? I am sure they have an excellent intelligence service and Merkel knows Putin very well. She also speaks Russian. I am content to let the Germans do their own fact finding, which they have been doing. 

As explained in the article, there are many factors that have led Germany to doubt that Putin will ever change. He has a history of aggressive moves against neighboring countries and domestically against any who oppose him. Navalny is just the latest to be attacked. The Russian people are tiring of him and his shenanigans. There have been massive protests leading up to this latest incident. Now Russia is helping to subdue the opposition to the dictator of Byelorussia. 

I encourage everyone to read both articles. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Navalny

Personally, I think Navalny was a False Flag Event.  The data points to it and according to even German officials, they lean in that direction, although quietly...they don't want to upset the U.S. relations.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When False Flags Go Viral

by James Corbett
corbettreport.com
September 26, 2020

If you're reading this column, it's highly likely you're familiar with "false flag" terrorism. You've at least heard the term before, right?

As I've had cause to note in my work in the past, the 2013 Atlantic Wire article, republished by Yahoo! News under the headline "What is a 'False Flag' Attack — and Was Boston One?" was, for me, a clear sign that the 9/11 Truth movement had accomplished at least one extremely important thing. Namely, it inserted the term "false flag" into the public conversation about terrorism so effectively that the mainstream was forced to address it.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, The Atlantic Wire's answer to that headline question was a resounding "No." But that's not important. What matters is that they had to address the topic at all. No longer could the establishment press feign ignorance of the very concept ("buT wHy wOuLd thE goVernMEnt AttAcK iTseLf?"), nor could they pretend that the idea of false flag terrorism was so outlandish and so confined to the fringes of mainstream discourse that it could be safely ignored. No, by 2013 any spectacular terrorist incident was quickly followed by an establishment denial that the event had been staged.

That is a major step. An important tool of control, used to pull the wool over the eyes of the public for centuries, had gone from a laughable fringe "conspiracy theory" to an openly acknowledged (and vigorously denied) conspiracy reality within the space of a decade.

But have we really learnt the lessons of history about false flag terrorism? Do we even really know what that term means? And would we recognize it if that trick was employed again in a different context?

Let's explore these questions with a quick overview of the history of false flag terrorism, its use in the present day, and what we can expect to see as we move into the age of biosecurity.

What is a false flag attack?

Although it's a welcome development overall, the mainstreaming of any important concept inevitably leads to its dumbing down. The mainstreaming of "false flag terrorism" is no exception. Even some followers of the independent media have become so used to bandying the term around that it is often used for any incident of any sort—whether real or fake, staged or manipulated—Theywhere the officially accepted narrative explanation differs from the truth.

Although the term "false flag" has been used in a figurative sense since the 16th century to refer to some person or group disguising their true nature or intentions, its use in an adjectival sense ("false flag operation") derives from the annals of naval warfare, where ships would literally fly the flag of a different nation, pretending to be allies in order to slip past enemy defenses.

The ruse was successful enough that it was adopted for land and air warfare. No longer were literal flags necessary in order to carry out these "false flag" operations. Any use of deception in order to conceal the true origins and perpetrators of an attack could, by extension, be counted as a false flag operation.

It's a childishly simple tactic. But it works.

Take the case of Swedish King Gustav III. In 1788 he found himself hankering for a war with Russia. He had only one problem: the public didn't want to go to war with Russia. So he did what any great leader would do in that situation: he dressed his own soldiers up as Russian troops (complete with Russian coins in their pockets) and ordered them to attack Swedish forces in Finland. The public were enraged by the attack, and Gustav got to declare his "defensive" war on the dastardly Russians.

Or take the case of Seishirō Itagaki, a general in the Imperial Japanese Army who, by 1931, had risen through the ranks to become the Chief of Intelligence in the Kwantung Army, Japan's largest army group. Itagaki had a problem: he wanted to invade Manchuria, but the Japanese Minister of War wouldn't allow it. So Itagaki and a small cadre of rebels within the Japanese Army did what any brave, patriotic soldiers would do: they detonated some explosives on a railway track near a Chinese garrison and blamed the incident on the Chinese themselves. The next day, the Japanese began their attack in response to the "Chinese" provocation and Itagaki got his Manchurian invasion.

Or take the case of the Manning memo. This document records the discussions that took place between US President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair at the White House on January 31, 2003. They were themselves hankering for a war with Iraq, but they had a problem: they didn't have any actual reason for invading Iraq. So, Bush did what any brave Decider-in-Chief would do in such a situation: he proposed painting a U2 spy plane up in United Nations colours and flying it low over Iraqi airspace in the hopes that it would be shot down by Iraqi air defense. Blair reportedly balked at the idea, but the pair did agree that the invasion would go ahead regardless of whether or not any weapons of mass destruction were ever found, war crimes be damned.

There are many such examples of this tactic throughout history. But the tactic isn't an old, dusty relic of the distant past. It very much pertains to the world of the 21st century . .

False flag terrorism

It seems inevitable, in hindsight, that the idea of a "false flag" attack would be adapted from its literal use in naval warfare to a more general tactic of deception in military engagements. After all, why bother inventing new tricks when the old ones work so well?

So it's not surprising at all, then, that the concept was further abstracted from a stratagem of warfare to a tool of spycraft. With the rise of the age of terror came the rise of false flag terrorism: spectacular acts of violence designed to look like they were acts of one's political enemy. Once again, the trick is simple but effective.

In the early 1950s, the Israelis were concerned that the British would withdraw their forces from the Suez Canal zone, strengthening Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and, by extension, Pan-Arab nationalism. Realizing that the only thing that would keep Britain committed to the region was an ongoing state of emergency, they hit upon a simple solution: a false flag terror operation.

Officially codenamed Operation Susannah (but today known as the Lavon Affair), Israeli military intelligence staged a number of bombings around Egypt, hoping to blame the acts on communists, the Muslim Brotherhood, malcontents, or other convenient scapegoats. The plan was foiled by Egyptian authorities, several members of the Israeli cell were captured and the Israeli defence minister was forced to resign over the incident. It was never officially admitted until 2005, when Israel officially honoured nine of the spies that had helped carry out the bombings.

But the era of false flag terrorism kicked off in earnest on September 11, 2001, when the neocons in the Bush administration and their accomplices in the military-industrial complex and the intelligence services of multiple countries found an excuse for their longed-for invasion of Afghanistan. Prized as a pipeline corridor, Afghanistan was also the linch pin of the global heroin trade and an important base of operations for the forthcoming War on Terror. In fact, so important was the country to the Bush administration that it made the full-scale plan for invading Afghanistan the subject of its first national security directive, NSPD-9. The plan was ready and delivered for presidential approval on September 4, 2001, one week before the events that would supposedly justify such an invasion . . . a justification that has since been exposed as a complete lie.

I hardly need to explain everything that unfolded from the foundational false flag event of 9/11. The creation of the homeland security state. The murderous wars of aggression to reshape the middle east. The expansion of the military-industrial complex even beyond its Cold War excesses. The formation of the information-industrial complex. We have all watched that nightmare unfolding over the course of the past two decades.

And just as the 9/11 myth seemed to finally be relinquishing its grasp on the public psyche, another event has come along to send the public back into a state of irrational fear. This time, the emergency is predicated not on the Muslim bogeyman, but the invisible bogeyman: SARS-CoV-2.

But, as we have already seen, the advent of new forms of warfare inevitably bring new opportunities for war planners to adapt the false flag strategy fore new battlegrounds. And so it is that we find ourselves on the cusp of a new era of false flag operations.

False flag bioterrorism

As it turns out, 9/11 may not prove to be the most long-lasting and world-changing false flag event to take place in the fall of 2001. The anthrax attacks that followed on the heels of "the day that changed everything" may in fact have more to say about the COVID-1984 world in which we find ourselves.

Viewers of my recent work on COVID-911 will already know about one of the remarkable "coincidences" linking the anthrax attacks of 2001 with the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2. Namely, that both events were preceded by a "simulation" that mirrored the real-life incident—Dark Winter in the case of the anthrax attacks and Event 201 in the case of the current scamdemic—complete with fake news segments dramatizing the real-life emergencies that would unfold on our tv screens months later. As you will also know, those events weren't just co-hosted by the same organization (the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security), but actually featured some of the same players who would go on to lay the groundwork for and participate in the US government's COVID-19 response.

But those "coincidences" really only scratch the surface of the anthrax false flag. The real story of the anthrax attacks is much bigger than we can do justice to here, but it includes:

  • The revelation in the pages of the New York Times that the US government was running an illegal biological weapons program that was working to—among other things—genetically engineer weaponized anthrax (a revelation that was published on September 4, 2001, but quickly overshadowed by other events).
  • The death of Vladimir Pasechnik, a microbiologist who had worked on the Soviet germ warfare program weaponizing anthrax and other biological agents before defecting to Britain in 1989, who was hired by Britain to conduct his own research into anthrax antidotes at the UK's secretive Porton Down bioweapon laboratory, and who died just weeks after the anthrax attacks took place.
  • The murder of Dr. David Kelly, who debriefed Pasechnik after his defection and offered him the job at Porton Down, and who had told his friend that he was going to write a book exposing what he knew about the bioweapons program before "killing himself" on Harrowdown Hill.

. . . and much, much else besides.

But for today, it serves merely to note that the anthrax attacks were indeed a false flag attack. In those first chaotic days of the attack, ABC's Brian Ross began reporting from his "anonymous well-placed sources" that the anthrax spores contained traces of bentonite, a "troubling chemical additive" that just happened to be a " a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program." Of course, this turned out to be a complete lie (a lie that Ross has never clarified or retracted to this day).

As was later confirmed, the spores in question were actually derived from the Ames strain, a strain of anthrax whose virulence makes it the "gold standard" for research into the bacterium by the biological warriors at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. This made the attack almost certainly an inside job (although, it should be noted, the Ames strain is available to researchers in a number of laboratories around the world, including Porton Down).

Inevitably, the FBI "Amerithrax" investigation into the deadly anthrax letters—the largest investigation in the history of the Bureau—set its sights on a series of "lone wolves." After failing to even bring charges against "person of interest" Steven Hatfill—a bioweapons expert who was awarded nearly $6 million in taxpayer money after years of harassment—and ultimately landed on Bruce Ivins, a patsy who conveniently killed himself before ever even being charged for the monumental crime that was ultimately blamed on him.

The anthrax false flag killed multiple birds with one stone:

  • It associated the terror attack of 9/11 with a subsequent bioterror attack that was quickly connected to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. That association was still strong in the minds of many Americans (some who may still have erroneously blamed Iraq for the attack) during the build up to the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003.
  • As Whitney Webb points out in her exhaustive report on the event, the anthrax attack also saved Bioport, the crony-connected DoD contractor that supplied the US military with the highly controversial Anthrax vaccine. Facing growing concerns about the safety and efficacy of their vaccine, Bioport faced financial ruin . . . until the anthrax attacks happened and demand for their questionable product skyrocketed. Later rebranding as Emergent Biosolutions, the company benefited from the largesse of the Gates-backed Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness, and, as Webb notes, the company "is now set to profit from the Coronavirus (Covid-19) crisis."
  • And, it also gave a gigantic shot in the arm to another major wing of the military-industrial complex: the "biodefense" sector. With the signing of the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972, biological weapons development was forced underground. Of course, it still went on, but now it was carried out under the mantle of "defense." After all, one could never trust that those damn *Insert Bogeyman Here* would really get rid of their bioweapon stockpiles, and one needed to create bioweapons in order to understand how to protect against them. But such research was necessarily sidelined and shrouded in secrecy.

Before the anthrax attacks, bioweapons research had been sidelined and shrouded in secrecy. After the attacks, however, the US government—and indeed every government in the world—had a perfect excuse to vastly expand its biological weapons programs in the name of "biological security." As Jonathan King, a professor of microbiology at MIT, explains:

"[The] response to the anthrax attacks and the bioterrorism initiative has been to launch a nationwide, billion-dollar campaign to 'defend us' from unknown terrorists. But the character of this program is roughly as follows: You say, 'Well, what would the terrorists come up with? What's the nastiest, most dangerous, most difficult-to-diagnose, difficult-to-treat microorganisms that we can think of. Well, let's go bring that organism into existence so that we can figure out how to defend against it.' The fact of the matter is, it's indistinguishable from an offensive program in which you would do the same thing."

Thus we get such innovations as the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology's reconstruction of the 1918 Spanish flu from the tissue of a victim buried in the Alaska permafrost. Or the USAID-funded 2015 research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that weaponized bat-derived coronavirus in experiments that even other molecular biologists warned was presenting the world with a "clear and present danger." (Oh, and the USAID funding for the research was technically illegal at the time, but who's keeping track, hey?)

The long story short is that we have indeed arrived at another, potentially even more dangerous era of false flag attack. At this point it isn't the scary bearded Muslim suicide bombers who we are supposed to be afraid of, though. It's scary bearded Muslim biologists. Or something like that. Maybe it'll be the Russkies. Or the ChiComs. Or some shadowy terror group that arises from nowhere and starts claiming responsibility for Bill Gates' threatened "Pandemic II."

The point is that bioterrorism is now very much on the table and don't think for a second that the globalists won't resort to more spectacular bioterror attacks to keep the current biosecurity hysteria going.

The ridiculous Skripal affair and its even more absurd low-budget sequel (the Navalny hoax) are just a taste of what we are likely to see in the near future. We may scoff at the amateur theatrics of these false flag test runs, but it would be the same as someone in 1993 dismissing the first World Trade Center bombing as a ridiculous, bungled FBI op, instead of the first taste of much bigger attacks to come.

Conclusion

They say forewarned is forearmed, and I think that adage is especially apt when it comes to the subject of false flag attacks. The entire reason that these operations have been used by country after country for centuries is that they are so effective. And they are only effective because throughout those centuries the general public was unable to wrap their minds around a trick so devious and downright evil.

"But why would the government attack itself?" is not just the question of a brainwashed simpleton; it's the question of an innocent and trusting soul who could never in a million years imagine doing something so underhanded.

But this is not 1800. It's not even 2000. It's 2020. The world has cottoned on to the trick.

Now we have to completely break the spell that governments have cast over the public. In the event of every spectacular terror attack (biological or otherwise), we have to take the history of false flag operations into account and put the government at the top of the list of suspects. When enough of the population has adjusted their thinking in this way, the trick will have lost its effectiveness and the globalists will have to abandon it altogether.

The only question is: Can we wake enough of the public up to these false flag tricks before Gates and his ilk get their "Pandemic II?"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXCERPTS from the link in the large paragraph above.

https://hive.blog/news/@corbettreport/how-to-read-the-news

...In the interest of learning how to really read the news, then, let's look at an example of a news story where the media is hiding key information from the public and see what that news story looks like when we add the relevant context.

Hopefully you'll remember the Novichok nonsense that took place in Salisbury in 2018. If not, you'll definitely want to go back and re-read my article on how "The Russian Poison Story is WMD 2.0" and follow that up with a deep dive into the archive of Craig Murray's coverage of the subject and The Blogmire's excellent summary of the story.

In case you need a refresher, you can do what the normies do: turn to Wikipedia! Here's the first paragraph of the wiki summary of the story:

On 4 March 2018, Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military officer and double agent for the UK's intelligence services, and his daughter, Yulia Skripal, were poisoned in the city of Salisbury, England with a Novichok nerve agent, according to UK sources and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). After three weeks in a critical condition, Yulia regained consciousness and was able to speak; she was discharged from hospital on 9 April. Sergei was also in a critical condition until he regained consciousness one month after the attack; he was discharged on 18 May. A police officer was also taken into intensive care after attending the incident. By 22 March he had recovered enough to leave the hospital.

While everyone who was following the news at the time has likely heard various pieces of this narrative as it was being reported, only those obsessives who were really following all of the twists and turns in the case will know the incredible absurdities that were casually revealed and quickly buried in the weeks and months after the story fell out of the limelight. Those absurdities include:

  • That the military just happened to be running a military exercise—dubbed "Toxic Dagger"—involving responding to chemical, biological and neurological weapons attacks at the exact time of the Skripal poisoning and in the exact same city.
  • That the first responder at the scene just happened to be the Chief Nursing Officer for the British Army.
  • That the poisonings took place just miles down the road from Porton Down, the site of the UK military's biological and chemical weapons lab that would itself identify the nerve agent as "novichok."
  • That this "novichok" poison that the crack Russian spies used—allegedly the deadliest nerve agent ever developed—somehow failed to kill either Sergei or Julia.
  • That government officials and the dutiful stenographers in the corporate press immediately began using the phrase "of a type developed by Russia" to associate the chemical with the Russian government in the popular imagination, despite the fact that novichok was originally developed in Uzbekistan and is capable of being created and deployed by any chemist in any country anywhere in the world.
  • That Trump was prompted to blame the Russians and kick out a raft of Russian diplomats in response to the incident because he was shown some (fake) photos of dead ducks.

I could go on. And on and on. (Trust me, we've only scratched the surface of the absurdity here.) But if you're reading this article in the first place, you likely know the drill by now: a spectacular event takes place, it's shoved down the public's throat as part of a campaign to demonize the bogeyman du jour, and it's promptly dropped as soon as contradictions or uncomfortable questions start to arise about what really happened.

In this case, the propagandistic value of the Skripal case is hardly difficult to divine. It was those dastardly Russians, sending their spies into the heart of enemy territory to kill an old retired double agent who hadn't been relevant to them in years because . . . reasons? And they did it in the most incredibly complicated (and ultimately ineffectual) way possible because . . . Putin wanted everyone to know that he was capable of (not quite) poisoning people in foreign countries?

. . . Or something like that. Just don't think too deeply about it.

But just when you thought that particular piece of absurdity had played itself out, it's back! That's right, there's been another high-profile novichok poisoning! This time the target was a person that the corporate lapdog press is referring to as the "leader" of the Russian "opposition," Alexei Navalny. Apparently, Putin didn't think he made his point well enough with the Skripals so he has once again resorted to using an arcane, elaborate, and ultimately ineffective poison to (not quite) kill his enemy in a way that would inevitably be immediately tied directly back to himself. The fiend!

. . . Or so the MSM would want you to believe. The truth, as always, is a little more complicated. Kit Knightly over at Off-Guardian breaks it down expertly in his article on the story:

  • Alexei Navalny has never held any elected office, his political party doesn’t have a single MP in the Duma, and he polls at roughly 2% support with the Russian people.
  • Despite this, and in the middle of an alleged “pandemic”, Vladimir Putin deems the man a threat and orders him killed.
  • The State apparatus responsible for unnecessary and seemingly arbitrary acts of political murder decide to use novichok to poison him.
  • This decision is taken in spite of the facts that a) Novichok totally and utterly failed to work in their alleged murder of the Skripals and b) It has already been widely publicly associated with Russia.
  • Rather unsurprisingly, the novichok which didn’t kill its alleged target last time, doesn’t kill its alleged target this time either.
  • Compounding their poor decision making, the Russians perform an emergency landing and take Navalny straight to a hospital for medical care.
  • Despite Navalny being helpless and comatose in a Russian hospital, the powerful state-backed assassination team make no further attempts on his life.
  • In fact, seemingly determined to under no circumstances successfully kill their intended victim, the Russian government allow him to leave the country and get medical help from one of the countries which previously accused them of using novichok.
  • To absolutely no one’s surprise, the Germans claim to have detected novichok in Navalny’s system.
  • Vladimir Putin and the Russian government are immediately blamed for the attempted murder.

Sigh. Here we go again. An incredibly unlikely narrative is being shoved down the public's throat in order to blame that arch-bogeyman, Vladimir Putin.

Never mind that the story makes no sense on its face.

Never mind that Moscow granted permission for Navalny (who is barely a blip on the Russian political radar) to leave the country for medical treatment, thus ensuring that their super secret plan to poison him with novichok would be uncovered and publicized to the world. (As Luke Harding helpfully explains in The Guardian: "The logical conclusion: Moscow wants the world to know.")

Never mind that it would make no sense for Putin to kill his opponent in such a way (namely, using a mysterious nerve agent that he had been blamed for using in the past and would inevitably implicate himself).

Never mind that this super deadly nerve agent failed to kill the last opponents that he supposedltried to use it on (and never mind that it has apparently failed once again).

Never mind any of this. The answer to any and all questions about the logic of this story is the same answer that the MSM offers to anyone who dares question why Assad would use messy and horribly ineffective chemical weapons on his own people when his military is on the brink of complete victory over the CIA-supported terrorists in his country. The answer is that Putin, just like Assad, is an insane, bloodthirsty, suicidal monster.

. . . And yet, that hardly seems like a satisfying answer to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, does it? It's almost like there's another part to this story, a missing puzzle piece that would help us to understand what's really happening here. And there is:

"Germany pressed to rethink Nord Stream 2 pipeline after Navalny poisoning"

Surprise, surprise. It looks like the Navalny case is giving all the opponents of Nord Stream 2 another excuse to derail the project.

If you've been following the pipeline politics that are reshaping diplomatic relations in Eurasia, you'll know that the US has used every trick in the book to halt the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. And if you haven't been following those pipeline politics, you'll want to re-read my 2017 article on "US Battles Russia for Heart of the EU," in which I noted:

Nord Stream 2 is, as the name suggests, an extension of Nord Stream, the natural gas pipeline connecting the Russian port town of Vyborg to the German university city of Greifswald. Nord Stream currently consists of two parallel lines with a capacity of 1.9 trillion cubic feet, but the Nord Stream 2 expansion is expected to increase that capacity to 3.9 trillion cubic feet.

As I reported at the time, the US imposed a new round of sanctions against Russia in 2017 and, surprisingly, the EU actually pushed back on those sanctions. Of course, they only pushed back because the sanctions were targeting European business interests, specifically any and all companies working with Russia in developing the Nord Stream 2 project. But however self-serving that pushback may have been, the incident did demonstrate there is a significant and rising faction in the EUreaucracy who favour building EU independence from the US and pursuing EU business interests, even if those interests are linked to Russia and/or China.

But now the latest dirty trick is being played to scuttle the pipeline project: the poisoning of Navalny with novichok, the nerve agent Absolutely 100% Guaranteed to Be Used Exclusively by the Russian Government or Your Money Back.

And it appears this ploy is working. As Rothschild Reuters reports:

Pressure mounted on German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday to reconsider the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will take gas from Russia to Germany, after she said Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny had been poisoned with a Soviet-style nerve agent.

But even here we can detect the "lie by omission" strategy that is skewing our perception of this event. The only two people cited in the article as "pressuring" Merkel to end the pipeline deal are Norbert Roettgen, descirbed as "the conservative head of Germany’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee," and Wolfgang Ischinger, described as "chairman of the Munich Security Conference and a former ambassador to Washington."

What Reuters fails to inform its readers is that Norbert Roettgen is a co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations and a committed Russophobe who has been calling for a more aggressive German foreign policy against the Russians for years. Also missing from the Reuters report is that Wolfgang Ischinger is also a consummate globalist insider, sitting on the board of the Atlantic Council, the World Economic Forum's Global Future Council on the Future of International Security and a raft of other globalist bodies.

So, to summarize: Merkel is under "mounting pressure" to scuttle Nord Stream 2 because of the phony-as-a-three-euro-bill Navalny novichok incident. This "pressure" is coming from precisely two men, both well-connected globalist insiders, and neither particularly influential in German politics. Merkel herself, as Reuters admits "has been unwavering in her support for the [Nord Stream] project" and has shown no sign whatsoever that she is even thinking of stopping the pipeline over the incident. But Reuters makes it a headline story and implies that her government is on the brink of succumbing to the pressure.

This is how the news is really reported. In bits and pieces, like a puzzle with only enough pieces there to give the audience an (often mistaken) impression of the events in question. Other pieces of the puzzle may be provided later as the story unfolds, but only for the purpose of further misleading the public with even more poorly reported information lacking in key details.

Sadly, this is the status quo of modern corporate mainstream dinosaur media. And the fact that this context-poor, misleading reporting is the norm these days means it falls on the readers of the news to fill in the gaps in these stories themselves. This often involves independent research and the ability to fit together disparate pieces of information reported in bits and pieces over many months and even years....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

September 28

Commodity Tracker: 5 charts to watch this week

https://blogs.platts.com/2020/09/28/saudi-crude-nord-stream-pipeline-us-lng/

2. Nord Stream 2: Crawling to the finish

What’s happening? The completion and future operation of the 55 Bcm/year Nord Stream 2 pipeline has turned into a political saga that stretches well beyond its role of transporting gas from Russia to Germany. The threat of extra-territorial sanctions by members of the US Congress against a bevy of participants has left the project stuck at 95% complete since the end of 2019. The pipeline has become intertwined with potential sanctions tied to the poisoning of Russian politician Alexei Navalny, who is currently recovering in Germany.

What’s next? Platts Analytics has recently pushed back the commissioning date by one quarter to the second quarter of 2021. The pipeline delay will not limit Russia’s ability to export gas to Europe, although it may increase the cost to do so. Russia will potentially have to rely more heavily on Ukrainian transit, where its current contract limits its use to 40 Bcm/year. Additional volumes will trigger higher transit fees, which is why Russia will draw on its European storage prior to exceeding its Ukrainian contract volumes in 2021.

Go deeper: Infographic: Political debate over Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline enters overdrive

20200923_nordstream.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Gazprom already generates a profit from exports at a gas price of USD 90-100 per 1,000 m3.

American LNG

NG shale cost - $ 2.25

Export price 115% HH price

Gasification cost $ 2.5

Shipping cost is $ 1.2

Regasification cost 0,5 $

Together, this gives us the profitability threshold for LNG export to Europe of $ 6.78 per mbbtu, or $ 250 per 1,000 m3. And this is what the game is at when comparing the profitability level of Russian Gazprom and the minimal cost of LNG profitability.

Edited by Tomasz
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tomasz said:

Gazprom already generates a profit from exports at a gas price of USD 90-100 per 1,000 m3.

American LNG

NG shale cost - $ 2.25

Export price 115% HH price

Gasification cost $ 2.5

Shipping cost is $ 1.2

Regasification cost 0,5 $

Together, this gives us the profitability threshold for LNG export to Europe of $ 6.78 per mbbtu, or $ 250 per 1,000 m3. And this is what the game is at when comparing the profitability level of Russian Gazprom and the minimal cost of LNG profitability.

Thanks Tomaz.  I like seeing comparative cost figures.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Quote

 

From the start I refrained from speculating too much about what precisely happened to Navalny. Thing is, several weeks on, we are collectively none the wiser.

Though Novichok seems to have done him good in the looksmaxxing department:

ImageImage

But reality is rarely as important as the narratives around it, and so far as narratives are concerned, there are two big ones.

  • The effects of Navalny’s novichok treatment on domestic Russian politics.
  • On international relations, esp. the fate of Nord Stream.

Let’s consider each of these in turn.

***

Russian domestic politics – as I wrote:

Navalny’s big problem is that his entire image is built on him being a “man of the people” revealing how Russia’s oligarchs and regime insiders preach solidarity and “spiritual values” (духовные скрепы) within while maintaining Italian villas and holidaying in Courchevel and getting treated at elite European clinics without. … But here’s the problem. No ordinary Russian is ever going to be airlifted out of a run down hospital in a Siberian rustbelt city into one of Germany’s top clinics, paid for by a tycoon telecoms family (the Zimins) and at the personal invitation of Chancellor Merkel herself. And not just any ordinary Russian – not even any Russian high official. The closest example from amongst the Russian “elites” that would come to mind is… the DNR supporter and washed out Soviet-era crooner Kobzon. Hilariously, Navalny has de facto ended up far more “apatride” than any of the big targets of his political invective in the past decade.

… and, indeed, there has been no discernible effect on Putin’s ratings.

This Levada poll was conducted on Aug 20-26 (Navalny was poisoned on Aug 20). If Russian Presidential elections were to be held next Sunday, of those who’d vote, 56% of Russians would vote Putin & 2% for Navalny (Zhirik #2 with 5%).

Ранг   апр.
14
янв.
16
апр.
17
янв.
18
мар.
19
июл.
19
дек.
19
авг.
20
1 Владимир Putin 60 66 62 70 55 54 53 56
2 Владимир Zhirinovsky 5 3 4 5 6 4 6 5
3 Алексей Navalny <1 1 1 <1 1 1 2 2
4-5. Геннадий Zyuganov 5 5 3 1 2 1 3 2
4-5. Михаил Мишустин 2
6 Павел Грудинин 6 5 4 4 2
7-8. Сергей Фургал 1
7-8. Сергей Шойгу 1 2 1 <1 1 1 1 1
9. Николай Платошкин 1
  Other 3 2 3 2 4 2 3 3
Don’t know 26 21 25 15 25 31 27 27

Sidenote: Indeed, the one notable result I would point out – already strongly in evidence during 2020 Constitution referendum, which I blogged about – is the collapse of support for Putin amongst youth. 64% of participating 55+ y/o’s would vote for Putin, while only 36% of 18-24 y/o’s say they would. There are otherwise no significant class or regional differences, though women (60%) are more likely to support Putin than men (50%).

Following that was a VCIOM poll, conducted Aug 24-30 – former date is four days after Navaly poisoning – shows no change in Putin’s ratings either. An indeed a marginal increase a week after that.

poll-vciom-president-approval.png

In the meantime, there is talk in the EU of “Navalny Sanctions.” If they do actually go ahead with that, that would constitute the final nail in Navalny’s political coffin. Imagine normies voting for sanctions person.

***

Nord Stream. And while there has been a boycott of insurers due to US pressure, and opposition to it in the European Parliament, it looks like Germany is not willing to torpedo it.

However, one thing this affair has helpfully clarified is precisely why the Germans are in no rush to cancel NS2. It’s not because Merkel particularly values a “special relationship” with Russia, or can’t do with a more diversified energy supply (as I pointed out, Germany is much less dependent on Russian gas than is much of East-Central Europe – which doesn’t stop it from being much more hardline towards Russia), or that it threatens Siemens contracts in Russia, or whatever.

But because of two rather concrete political and energy realities (as explained in this article by Dmitry Lekukh):

(1) Half of the financing for NS2 is provided for by European (primarily German) companies, not Russian ones. And the insurers are European companies. The bulk of the losses from this $10 billion project will be swallowed by them.

(2) Even more to the point, Germany would still be buying Russian gas, just as LNG sourced from the Yamal field and liquified in Saint-Petersburg. A pipeline would just make it less expensive, but Russian LNG would still be cheaper than American (distance from SPB to to Hamburg is 2,000 km; from the US East Coast to Hamburg it is 5,500 km). Short of banning German companies from sourcing Russian gas period, the market choice would still be to buy Russian, just at a higher price than if delivered from a pipeline much of which has already been built anyway.

So we can expect NS2 to be completed and go into exploitation, short of much more serious crises that threaten to derail EU-Russia trade in general, something that never happened even during the Cold War.

 

The strangest thing is this farce? For actions by the US/west on NS2/South Stream , superficially, supposed to stop Russia from eliminating Ukraine as a gas transit route and depriving it of billions of dollars in gas transit income, after all this………..Ukraine’s gas transit to Europe will be less than 25% of what it was in 1991!

Gas transit was just over half of it’s true capability before Maidan, since 2014 western governments could easily have shown some strategic thinking and already started and finished by now organising the urgent and essential upgrading of Ukrops dilapidated Gas-transit infrastructure, they have done absolutely nothing. In a market of increased demand for natural gas, this would have given Ukrop a much better negotiating position with Russia

Of course you can understand the west doing f**k all- Ukraine is the dumbest creature for them to exploit, these western governments suffer zero direct electoral consequences from decisions on gas policy and the economics are relatively irrelevant in scale for the GDP of western states, although the difference between revenues from reduced and maximum gas transit for Ukraine is life-changing for the population, even accounting for mass corruption.

For Russia government, it would be impossible to wish for a better freakshow.

Ironically, Russian government is the type that is capable of tolerating ukraine nationalism, AND sending the maximum volume of gas to give maximum revenue to Ukrop government ( effectively funding even more ukraine nationalism) …if the Ukrainian l government at least shows the ability for some practical considerations that even the Baltic states and Gruzia have shown the aptitude for.

Edited by Tomasz
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Quote

 

In Germany, they called to stop Nord Stream 2 because of the incident with Alexei Navalny. Angela Merkel shifted the decision on the fate of the project to Europe. According to her, a pan-European reaction is needed, since the situation is not related to bilateral relations between Berlin and Moscow. At the same time, some of the German business spoke out categorically against the freeze, pointing out the losses. Dmitry Lekukh thinks who will lose how much if the project is affected by sanctions.  

To begin with: I am absolutely in solidarity with the official position presented by the presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov - at the moment, there are no risks of blocking the completion of the construction of Nord Stream 2. I'll try to explain why.

I have had to talk and write about this more than once, but "the chorus never stops." It is surprising why everyone still treats Nord Stream 2 exclusively as a Russian project: in fact, it has long been called a "predominantly European project with Russian participation." Moreover, the priority of Russian participation there is only one: as the only available supplier ready to supply gas to European markets on terms that suit European industry. And if for the Europeans the search for another supplier is very difficult and problematic, this does not mean at all that in the medium term Russian Gazprom will not be able to provide itself with other options for selling its products.

Let's take the worst option for Nord Stream 2: it comes under sanctions, the construction of the gas pipeline is stopped, the infrastructure of the offshore section is forced to be preserved. How does this threaten Gazprom, apart from reputational losses, which will certainly be extremely unpleasant, but far from fatal? Even the financial investments that Gazprom operated during the construction are far from only, to put it mildly, Russian. Well, then what is this Gazprom risking?

If you look at it, then, as strange as it may sound, in fact, nothing. For the execution of current contracts in connection with the COVID-19 crisis and obviously not soon reaching the pre-crisis consumption of "blue fuel" by European economies, the existing pumping routes are quite enough, even without filling the problematic Ukrainian pipe to the limit.

And for the future, you can calmly focus on Power of Siberia-2 - as the only significant pipeline project - and expansion into European markets through our own capacity to produce not pipeline gas, but LNG. From the point of view of direct sales growth, this is much more promising.

Even a "coastal section" built across the territory of the Russian Federation from Yamal to the Leningrad Region will not be lost. For the received European compensations (this payment, they say, greatly embarrasses Frau Merkel) in the form of billions - according to a similar scheme, if you remember, with French compensations for the non-delivery of Mistral helicopter carriers - next to the already under construction PJSC Gazprom and JSC RusGazDobycha a large complex for the processing of ethane-containing gas and the production of liquefied natural gas in the area of the city of Ust-Luga, it will be possible, for example, to build something else similar with an increase in the capacity for the production of LNG.

And this gas, which did not go to the "blocked" Nord Stream 2 and turned into LNG, will then be forced to buy by the same Germans, only at a much higher price. It's just that no other gas is expected at least in the coming years, or even in European markets, given the catastrophic drop in shale production in the United States and the actual refusal to build colossal LNG production facilities on the East Coast, which are necessary for massive supplies to European markets. markets. Well, we shouldn't forget about the fall of our own European production either.

Scheme of the "Nord Streams". Illustration: Gazprom

And if we talk about the real state of affairs, then there is no need to talk about anything specific in connection with what is happening at all: there is not even talk of anything like that in Germany at the official level, despite the frenzied attack through the media. In the situation with the pipeline project, it is not about the immediate execution of contracts, but - and even then in theory - about "possible loss of profits." Yes, it is clear that the European economy, taking into account the reduction in its own production and the refusal of Germany from coal and nuclear generation, will need a lot of additional gas volumes, obviously more than even the declared 55 billion cubic meters per year from Nord Stream 2. But this is a conversation about the future, about the mid-term historical perspective , and not about today, no matter what patriotic, democratic journalists or, Lord, forgive me, economists about it.

In particular, we probably will not seriously discuss the Polish offer of our Polish services to Germany on the gas market, which made everyone laugh: just because we are serious people, and we don't need such geographic anecdotes. Although, of course, it is curious why Poland decided that Germany needed it as an intermediary for the purchase of not only Russian, but also Norwegian gas. The ordinary mind cannot understand this.

And even the most stubborn Pole will hardly be able to answer the question how the Polish 5 billion cubic meters can "replace" the 55 billion cubic meters of Gazprom's "blue fuel" from the potentially blocked Nord Stream 2.

But for the German side, if it abandons Nord Stream 2 on its own, alas, rather unpleasant times will begin soon enough. Thanks to the "wise" energy policy of its political authorities, Germany has already abandoned nuclear power generation and should finally abandon coal generation in the coming years. And the industry of the northwestern (predominantly German) cluster, which is the basis of the foundations of the European economy, - mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemistry - is extremely energy-intensive, because it is as automated as possible. And here is an obvious point of vulnerability: it is worth not even seriously increasing the price of energy due to external factors, as it will begin to increase the price of products at each level of production along the chain. Up to its obvious non-competitiveness in global markets precisely because of the high cost. And for this, competitors just need to force the Germans to switch, albeit partially, from pipeline gas to much more expensive LNG. Not necessarily, by the way, American, you can also Russian - here the Americans do not care. The main result for them will still not be sold volumes of LNG, but new plants built in the US "rust belt". And the fact that the old ones will be closed in the German industrial cluster is the same "fair competition", only in the American way. The main result for them will still not be sold volumes of LNG, but new plants built in the US "rust belt". And the fact that the old ones will be closed in the German industrial cluster is the same "fair competition", only in the American way. The main result for them will still not be sold volumes of LNG, but new plants built in the US "rust belt". And the fact that the old ones will be closed in the German industrial cluster is the same "fair competition", only in the American way.

I’ll just give a couple of estimates from German business: for example, the chairman of the Eastern Committee of the German Economy (OAOEV) Oliver Hermes believes that European companies will lose "billions of euros", thousands of people in East Germany will lose jobs. And this is not counting the fact that a possible refusal to implement the project will end, according to Hermes, litigation, since all construction permits have been obtained. And the chairman of the German gas industry association Future. Natural Gas, Timm Koehler, noted that if we talk only about direct losses, then "if construction stops, investments in the amount of € 8 billion will have to be written off." In addition, costs of € 4 billion will have to be paid for the construction of connecting pipelines.

In addition, in the event of a shutdown, gas prices in the EU will rise significantly, as the lack of supply will lead to higher prices. What consequences this will lead to in detail, down to numbers, is quite difficult to count. But the big picture can be imagined right now.

That is why I am so sure that at the moment there are no risks of blocking the completion of the construction of Nord Stream-2. Otherwise, it will be the first case in the history of mankind when a civilized state punishes itself with sanctions. Although, of course, in this shaky world, everything is probably already possible.

 

https://ruposters.ru/news/10-09-2020/endshpil-ostanovka-sevpotoka - article from runet cited by Anatoly Karlin 

Edited by Tomasz
  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany put itself on this path when it and other E.U. countries refused to frack their own countries. I am sure the Russians were quite active in fomenting the forces against it. Putin himself demonized fracking. There are many Russophiles in Germany and other parts of Europe that were happy to depend on Russia for their energy. Germany has had a weak foreign policy, a weak energy policy and a weak military. Merkel has allowed Muslims to weaken the fabric of German society also. She would like to continue that policy. I am unable to find a balanced view from German news sources, so it is hard for me to really know what is going on. I get dribbles of news when the people protest policies as when they recently protested having to wear masks and have strict restrictions for COVID 19. Anyone who is not as far left as Merkel is considered far right. Especially the AFD, which I see nothing wrong with. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tomasz said:

The strangest thing is this farce? For actions by the US/west on NS2/South Stream , superficially, supposed to stop Russia from eliminating Ukraine as a gas transit route and depriving it of billions of dollars in gas transit income, after all this………..Ukraine’s gas transit to Europe will be less than 25% of what it was in 1991!

Gas transit was just over half of it’s true capability before Maidan, since 2014 western governments could easily have shown some strategic thinking and already started and finished by now organising the urgent and essential upgrading of Ukrops dilapidated Gas-transit infrastructure, they have done absolutely nothing. In a market of increased demand for natural gas, this would have given Ukrop a much better negotiating position with Russia

Of course you can understand the west doing f**k all- Ukraine is the dumbest creature for them to exploit, these western governments suffer zero direct electoral consequences from decisions on gas policy and the economics are relatively irrelevant in scale for the GDP of western states, although the difference between revenues from reduced and maximum gas transit for Ukraine is life-changing for the population, even accounting for mass corruption.

For Russia government, it would be impossible to wish for a better freakshow.

Ironically, Russian government is the type that is capable of tolerating ukraine nationalism, AND sending the maximum volume of gas to give maximum revenue to Ukrop government ( effectively funding even more ukraine nationalism) …if the Ukrainian l government at least shows the ability for some practical considerations that even the Baltic states and Gruzia have shown the aptitude for.

Thanks, Tomasz.  Very enlightening indeed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2020 at 4:05 AM, Tom Nolan said:

EXCERPTS from the link in the large paragraph above.

https://hive.blog/news/@corbettreport/how-to-read-the-news

...In the interest of learning how to really read the news, then, let's look at an example of a news story where the media is hiding key information from the public and see what that news story looks like when we add the relevant context.

Hopefully you'll remember the Novichok nonsense that took place in Salisbury in 2018. If not, you'll definitely want to go back and re-read my article on how "The Russian Poison Story is WMD 2.0" and follow that up with a deep dive into the archive of Craig Murray's coverage of the subject and The Blogmire's excellent summary of the story.

In case you need a refresher, you can do what the normies do: turn to Wikipedia! Here's the first paragraph of the wiki summary of the story:

On 4 March 2018, Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military officer and double agent for the UK's intelligence services, and his daughter, Yulia Skripal, were poisoned in the city of Salisbury, England with a Novichok nerve agent, according to UK sources and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). After three weeks in a critical condition, Yulia regained consciousness and was able to speak; she was discharged from hospital on 9 April. Sergei was also in a critical condition until he regained consciousness one month after the attack; he was discharged on 18 May. A police officer was also taken into intensive care after attending the incident. By 22 March he had recovered enough to leave the hospital.

While everyone who was following the news at the time has likely heard various pieces of this narrative as it was being reported, only those obsessives who were really following all of the twists and turns in the case will know the incredible absurdities that were casually revealed and quickly buried in the weeks and months after the story fell out of the limelight. Those absurdities include:

  • That the military just happened to be running a military exercise—dubbed "Toxic Dagger"—involving responding to chemical, biological and neurological weapons attacks at the exact time of the Skripal poisoning and in the exact same city.
  • That the first responder at the scene just happened to be the Chief Nursing Officer for the British Army.
  • That the poisonings took place just miles down the road from Porton Down, the site of the UK military's biological and chemical weapons lab that would itself identify the nerve agent as "novichok."
  • That this "novichok" poison that the crack Russian spies used—allegedly the deadliest nerve agent ever developed—somehow failed to kill either Sergei or Julia.
  • That government officials and the dutiful stenographers in the corporate press immediately began using the phrase "of a type developed by Russia" to associate the chemical with the Russian government in the popular imagination, despite the fact that novichok was originally developed in Uzbekistan and is capable of being created and deployed by any chemist in any country anywhere in the world.
  • That Trump was prompted to blame the Russians and kick out a raft of Russian diplomats in response to the incident because he was shown some (fake) photos of dead ducks.

I could go on. And on and on. (Trust me, we've only scratched the surface of the absurdity here.) But if you're reading this article in the first place, you likely know the drill by now: a spectacular event takes place, it's shoved down the public's throat as part of a campaign to demonize the bogeyman du jour, and it's promptly dropped as soon as contradictions or uncomfortable questions start to arise about what really happened.

In this case, the propagandistic value of the Skripal case is hardly difficult to divine. It was those dastardly Russians, sending their spies into the heart of enemy territory to kill an old retired double agent who hadn't been relevant to them in years because . . . reasons? And they did it in the most incredibly complicated (and ultimately ineffectual) way possible because . . . Putin wanted everyone to know that he was capable of (not quite) poisoning people in foreign countries?

. . . Or something like that. Just don't think too deeply about it.

But just when you thought that particular piece of absurdity had played itself out, it's back! That's right, there's been another high-profile novichok poisoning! This time the target was a person that the corporate lapdog press is referring to as the "leader" of the Russian "opposition," Alexei Navalny. Apparently, Putin didn't think he made his point well enough with the Skripals so he has once again resorted to using an arcane, elaborate, and ultimately ineffective poison to (not quite) kill his enemy in a way that would inevitably be immediately tied directly back to himself. The fiend!

. . . Or so the MSM would want you to believe. The truth, as always, is a little more complicated. Kit Knightly over at Off-Guardian breaks it down expertly in his article on the story:

  • Alexei Navalny has never held any elected office, his political party doesn’t have a single MP in the Duma, and he polls at roughly 2% support with the Russian people.
  • Despite this, and in the middle of an alleged “pandemic”, Vladimir Putin deems the man a threat and orders him killed.
  • The State apparatus responsible for unnecessary and seemingly arbitrary acts of political murder decide to use novichok to poison him.
  • This decision is taken in spite of the facts that a) Novichok totally and utterly failed to work in their alleged murder of the Skripals and b) It has already been widely publicly associated with Russia.
  • Rather unsurprisingly, the novichok which didn’t kill its alleged target last time, doesn’t kill its alleged target this time either.
  • Compounding their poor decision making, the Russians perform an emergency landing and take Navalny straight to a hospital for medical care.
  • Despite Navalny being helpless and comatose in a Russian hospital, the powerful state-backed assassination team make no further attempts on his life.
  • In fact, seemingly determined to under no circumstances successfully kill their intended victim, the Russian government allow him to leave the country and get medical help from one of the countries which previously accused them of using novichok.
  • To absolutely no one’s surprise, the Germans claim to have detected novichok in Navalny’s system.
  • Vladimir Putin and the Russian government are immediately blamed for the attempted murder.

Sigh. Here we go again. An incredibly unlikely narrative is being shoved down the public's throat in order to blame that arch-bogeyman, Vladimir Putin.

Never mind that the story makes no sense on its face.

Never mind that Moscow granted permission for Navalny (who is barely a blip on the Russian political radar) to leave the country for medical treatment, thus ensuring that their super secret plan to poison him with novichok would be uncovered and publicized to the world. (As Luke Harding helpfully explains in The Guardian: "The logical conclusion: Moscow wants the world to know.")

Never mind that it would make no sense for Putin to kill his opponent in such a way (namely, using a mysterious nerve agent that he had been blamed for using in the past and would inevitably implicate himself).

Never mind that this super deadly nerve agent failed to kill the last opponents that he supposedltried to use it on (and never mind that it has apparently failed once again).

Never mind any of this. The answer to any and all questions about the logic of this story is the same answer that the MSM offers to anyone who dares question why Assad would use messy and horribly ineffective chemical weapons on his own people when his military is on the brink of complete victory over the CIA-supported terrorists in his country. The answer is that Putin, just like Assad, is an insane, bloodthirsty, suicidal monster.

. . . And yet, that hardly seems like a satisfying answer to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, does it? It's almost like there's another part to this story, a missing puzzle piece that would help us to understand what's really happening here. And there is:

"Germany pressed to rethink Nord Stream 2 pipeline after Navalny poisoning"

Surprise, surprise. It looks like the Navalny case is giving all the opponents of Nord Stream 2 another excuse to derail the project.

If you've been following the pipeline politics that are reshaping diplomatic relations in Eurasia, you'll know that the US has used every trick in the book to halt the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. And if you haven't been following those pipeline politics, you'll want to re-read my 2017 article on "US Battles Russia for Heart of the EU," in which I noted:

Nord Stream 2 is, as the name suggests, an extension of Nord Stream, the natural gas pipeline connecting the Russian port town of Vyborg to the German university city of Greifswald. Nord Stream currently consists of two parallel lines with a capacity of 1.9 trillion cubic feet, but the Nord Stream 2 expansion is expected to increase that capacity to 3.9 trillion cubic feet.

As I reported at the time, the US imposed a new round of sanctions against Russia in 2017 and, surprisingly, the EU actually pushed back on those sanctions. Of course, they only pushed back because the sanctions were targeting European business interests, specifically any and all companies working with Russia in developing the Nord Stream 2 project. But however self-serving that pushback may have been, the incident did demonstrate there is a significant and rising faction in the EUreaucracy who favour building EU independence from the US and pursuing EU business interests, even if those interests are linked to Russia and/or China.

But now the latest dirty trick is being played to scuttle the pipeline project: the poisoning of Navalny with novichok, the nerve agent Absolutely 100% Guaranteed to Be Used Exclusively by the Russian Government or Your Money Back.

And it appears this ploy is working. As Rothschild Reuters reports:

Pressure mounted on German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday to reconsider the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will take gas from Russia to Germany, after she said Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny had been poisoned with a Soviet-style nerve agent.

But even here we can detect the "lie by omission" strategy that is skewing our perception of this event. The only two people cited in the article as "pressuring" Merkel to end the pipeline deal are Norbert Roettgen, descirbed as "the conservative head of Germany’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee," and Wolfgang Ischinger, described as "chairman of the Munich Security Conference and a former ambassador to Washington."

What Reuters fails to inform its readers is that Norbert Roettgen is a co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations and a committed Russophobe who has been calling for a more aggressive German foreign policy against the Russians for years. Also missing from the Reuters report is that Wolfgang Ischinger is also a consummate globalist insider, sitting on the board of the Atlantic Council, the World Economic Forum's Global Future Council on the Future of International Security and a raft of other globalist bodies.

So, to summarize: Merkel is under "mounting pressure" to scuttle Nord Stream 2 because of the phony-as-a-three-euro-bill Navalny novichok incident. This "pressure" is coming from precisely two men, both well-connected globalist insiders, and neither particularly influential in German politics. Merkel herself, as Reuters admits "has been unwavering in her support for the [Nord Stream] project" and has shown no sign whatsoever that she is even thinking of stopping the pipeline over the incident. But Reuters makes it a headline story and implies that her government is on the brink of succumbing to the pressure.

This is how the news is really reported. In bits and pieces, like a puzzle with only enough pieces there to give the audience an (often mistaken) impression of the events in question. Other pieces of the puzzle may be provided later as the story unfolds, but only for the purpose of further misleading the public with even more poorly reported information lacking in key details.

Sadly, this is the status quo of modern corporate mainstream dinosaur media. And the fact that this context-poor, misleading reporting is the norm these days means it falls on the readers of the news to fill in the gaps in these stories themselves. This often involves independent research and the ability to fit together disparate pieces of information reported in bits and pieces over many months and even years....

Indeed, but when Putin so brazenly uses Novichok on British soil, and silences all of his critics, what are people meant to believe? True, I would not put it past the deep state to create massive false flags, but I think you are very brave to point out the possibilities. Another good reason to pursue renewable energy, given that all geo-politics turns around fossil fuels? My understanding is that Germany plans to pursue blue H2, which cheap, un-liquified gas is essential for. US LNG is not only expensive, it is also hideously environmentally expensive. On the other hand, the same would be true of a nuclear war. Apart from LNG, I do not see what the US has to offer China, and now China does not want that either. This is why I support the bifurcation strategy of Trump. I hope he wins and places real tariffs on China. Biden is kidding himself if he thinks he can convince China to buy large amounts of US oil & gas when they can get it cheaply from the ME. I think America's dreams of dominating the global oil & LNG markets are just that. I think Trump realises this, hence the wise decision to ban drilling off Florida. Also banned windmills off the coast, but that is smart too given the current glut of US NG. I think Trump would be equally disgusted as the rest of us with any major false flag event, and if someone could prove your hypothesis, I think he would be even more upset with the deep state for hurting the US economy so badly and threatening his election prospects. Indeed, that could be the potential motive? I have heard Trump on several occasions mention that he is aware of some of their more nefarious actions, and they are clearly not used to having to deal with an honest President? What could be more threatening to their globalist ambitions?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wombat said:

I think America's dreams of dominating the global oil & LNG markets are just that.

Bingo.  I agree.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nord Stream 2 Nears Completion After Clearing Another Hurdle

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Oct 01, 2020, 2:30 PM CDT

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Nord-Stream-2-Nears-Completion-After-Clearing-Another-Hurdle.html

Denmark cleared on Thursday the final hurdle to Nord Stream 2 potentially starting operations in Danish waters, while the U.S. continues its attempt to stop the Russia-led natural gas pipeline project.

On Thursday, the Danish Energy Agency said it had granted Nord Stream 2 AG, the company behind the project, an operations permit for the Nord Stream 2 pipelines on the Danish continental shelf, on a number of conditions. 

“Commissioning can only take place when at least one of the pipelines has been tested, verified and when relevant conditions in the construction permit and the operations permit have been met,’’ the Danish agency said.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said an interview with a German daily last week that the U.S. was building a coalition aimed at preventing the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that will substantially increase the flow of Russian gas into Europe.

“From the US point of view, Nord Stream 2 endangers Europe because it makes it dependent on Russian gas and endangers Ukraine - which in my opinion worries many Germans,” Pompeo told German daily Bild.

Germany, the endpoint of Nord Stream 2, has been looking at the economic benefits of the project, while the United States, including President Donald Trump, has been threatening sanctions on the project and even on Germany over its support for the project.

The United States, several European countries including the Baltic states and Poland, as well as the European Union (EU), have expressed

The United States views Nord Stream 2 as further undermining Europe’s energy security by giving Gazprom another pipeline to ship its natural gas to European markets.

In July, the United States warned companies helping Russia to complete Nord Stream 2 that they should ‘get out now’ or face consequences, as the Trump administration steps up efforts to stop the construction of the controversial Russia-led pipeline in Europe.

In recent weeks, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has come under pressure from some of her coalition partners to drop the German support for Nord Stream 2 after the poisoning of Russian opposition leader and Putin critic, Alexey Navalny.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

concern about Russia using gas sales and its gas monopoly Gazprom as a political tool.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Plenty of options for LNG in Europe. Only Germany does not have enough LNG infrastructure to adequately accept it.

https://www.gecf.org/events/expert-commentary-growing-competition-between-pipeline-gas-and-lng-supplies-in-the-european-union-amid-the-covid-19-outbreak

Expert Commentary: Growing Competition between Pipeline Gas and LNG Supplies in the European Union amid the Covid-19 Outbreak

6 August 2020 Doha, Qatar

They have offered to build those facilities IF America stops trying to block Nord Stream 2. 

Also see: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4318105-competitive-analysis-of-european-gas-market-implications-for-natural-gas-producers

Edited by ronwagn
reference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/10/03/anger-from-moscow-minsk-as-eu-us-sanction-belarus-a71640

America and our allies need to support freedom and democracy around the world. We don't have a lot of money to spend, but sanctions are relatively free. RCW

 

Anger From Moscow, Minsk as EU, US Sanction Belarus

 

By AFP
4 hours ago
    

lukaput1.jpg

Edited by ronwagn
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

Bingo.  I agree.

Thankyou Tom. However, I am a bit concerned that your explosive information only ever relates to the deep state of the USA or the UK. Do you have any similar dirt on Russia or China? What games do they get up to?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Plenty of options for LNG in Europe. Only Germany does not have enough LNG infrastructure to adequately accept it.

https://www.gecf.org/events/expert-commentary-growing-competition-between-pipeline-gas-and-lng-supplies-in-the-european-union-amid-the-covid-19-outbreak

Expert Commentary: Growing Competition between Pipeline Gas and LNG Supplies in the European Union amid the Covid-19 Outbreak

6 August 2020 Doha, Qatar

They have offered to build those facilities IF America stops trying to block Nord Stream 2. 

Also see: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4318105-competitive-analysis-of-european-gas-market-implications-for-natural-gas-producers

I haven't read the first article yet, but thanks very much for the second one, very illuminating.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

 
The US under Trump has lost all confidence in its intentions in the world. In Germany it has been recognized with great regret that only economic self-interest rules and no alleged strategic considerations. Germany's dependence on Russian gas was much higher during the Cold War than it will be after the planned completion of Nordstream 2.! The more sources of supply there are, the smaller the dependencies become, even every stupid person can recognize if he wants to. The same goes for TIKTOK! . Data protection in the USA? how ridiculous is this statement! American companies should take over, that's the point at which the usa no longer shrink from breaking the law and pure state blackmail. In doing so, I would like to make it completely clear that the whole of the West must have grossly underestimated the threat posed by the Chinese authorities, including Germany. Unfortunately, an effective joint response by the West and Japan has become impossible precisely because of the Trumpet machinations, since it has also divided the West. Because of the grotesque conspiracy theories tearing apart the USA itself, they are no longer taken seriously worldwide. One can only regret serious and competent Americans in this situation, because they are caught in the role of laughing stock. Anyone who is still able and willing to think seriously should always keep in mind that the usa has pushed aside its longstanding friends and allies and not the other way around. Europe must certainly become far more independent, but will always help the USA in real need, the other way round one is no longer sure of that.
Finally, the US should also study the current account and not just the trade balance, there they could easily see the enormous economic gain from Europe that is at stake for them. The forced departure from the dollar in all areas will become one of the biggest problems of the usa in the medium term, because if the dollar is no longer the reserve currency, the usa will be at the end due to the indebtedness, then the majority of the problems can no longer be passed on to the creditors . Due to the repressive behavior of the USA, this process is now in full swing!

The US under Trump has lost all confidence in its intentions in the world. In Germany it has been recognized with great regret that only economic self-interest rules and no alleged strategic considerations. Germany's dependence on Russian gas was much higher during the Cold War than it will be after the planned completion of Nordstream 2.! The more sources of supply there are, the smaller the dependencies become, even every stupid person can recognize if he wants to. The same goes for TIKTOK! . Data protection in the USA? how ridiculous is this statement! American companies should take over, that's the point at which the usa no longer shrink from breaking the law and pure state blackmail. In doing so, I would like to make it completely clear that the whole of the West must have grossly underestimated the threat posed by the Chinese authorities, including Germany. Unfortunately, an effective joint response by the West and Japan has become impossible precisely because of the Trumpet machinations, since it has also divided the West. Because of the grotesque conspiracy theories tearing apart the USA itself, they are no longer taken seriously worldwide. One can only regret serious and competent Americans in this situation, because they are caught in the role of laughing stock. Anyone who is still able and willing to think seriously should always keep in mind that the usa has pushed aside its longstanding friends and allies and not the other way around. Europe must certainly become far more independent, but will always help the USA in real need, the other way round one is no longer sure of that. Finally, the US should also study the current account and not just the trade balance, there they could easily see the enormous economic gain from Europe that is at stake for them. The forced departure from the dollar in all areas will become one of the biggest problems of the usa in the medium term, because if the dollar is no longer the reserve currency, the usa will be at the end due to the indebtedness, then the majority of the problems can no longer be passed on to the creditors . Due to the repressive behavior of the USA, this process is now in full swing!

 
Edited by ratatosk
format
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US under Trump has lost all confidence in its intentions in the world. In Germany it has been recognized with great regret that only economic self-interest rules and no alleged strategic considerations. Germany's dependence on Russian gas was much higher during the Cold War than it will be after the planned completion of Nordstream 2.! The more sources of supply there are, the smaller the dependencies become, even every stupid person can recognize if he wants to. The same goes for TIKTOK! . Data protection in the USA? how ridiculous is this statement! American companies should take over, that's the point at which the usa no longer shrink from breaking the law and pure state blackmail. In doing so, I would like to make it completely clear that the whole of the West must have grossly underestimated the threat posed by the Chinese authorities, including Germany. Unfortunately, an effective joint response by the West and Japan has become impossible precisely because of the Trumpet machinations, since it has also divided the West. Because of the grotesque conspiracy theories tearing apart the USA itself, they are no longer taken seriously worldwide. One can only regret serious and competent Americans in this situation, because they are caught in the role of laughing stock. Anyone who is still able and willing to think seriously should always keep in mind that the usa has pushed aside its longstanding friends and allies and not the other way around. Europe must certainly become far more independent, but will always help the USA in real need, the other way round one is no longer sure of that. Finally, the US should also study the current account and not just the trade balance, there they could easily see the enormous economic gain from Europe that is at stake for them. The forced departure from the dollar in all areas will become one of the biggest problems of the usa in the medium term, because if the dollar is no longer the reserve currency, the usa will be at the end due to the indebtedness, then the majority of the problems can no longer be passed on to the creditors . Due to the repressive behavior of the USA, this process is now in full swing!

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.