The US knew of a Ukrainian plan to attack the Nord Stream pipelines as early as three months before underwater explosions damaged them, claimed the Washington Post in a report. The news outlet cited leaked information posted online. The report said that America's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) learned in June last year that a Ukrainian special operations force consisting of six people intended to blow up the pipelines.
Assuming the report is accurate, why do you think the Central Intelligence Agency didn't take any preventive action or inform the relevant authorities to avert the potential attack? How would such an attack impact the energy supply in Europe and the geopolitical dynamics in the region? Are there any international protocols or agreements in place to address the security of critical energy infrastructure like the Nord How does the potential attack on the Nord Stream gas pipeline fit into the broader context of the ongoing tensions between Ukraine and Russia? What steps can be taken to enhance the security and protection of critical energy infrastructure against potential attacks in the future?
Historian and political analyst, author of books on Britain, Turkiye, and South Caucasus, Dr. Patrick Walsh told to the Ednews that the US has been signalling for years that it wanted Nord Stream stopped, one way or another:
“It was certainly in the interests of Washington that energy supplies from Russia to Europe should be prevented. However, state terrorism is an activity which most governments do not wish to be associated with, for obvious reasons. Whether it was Ukraine or US Navy Special forces or one of the European states who blew the pipeline is an open question. Seymour Hersch put forward the explanation that it was the US itself. But there has been little interest from the Western media to find out the truth. That is very suspicious.”
According to him, it does not really impact the supply so much because Europe was already reducing its dependence on Russian gas:
“But it meant there would be no return to the cheap supplies before 2022. US LNG would largely replace the Russian piped supply.”
P. Walsh added that obviously the destruction of energy infrastructure belonging to another state is a serious matter and would be normally seen as an act of war, whatever international law exists:
“Geopolitically the US is determined to restrict Europe's room for future action by putting it under Washington's hegemony as much as possible. The objective is to isolate Russia and deprive it of revenue. While the US objective has been tremendously successful in relation to Europe it has been much less effective in bringing Russia to its knees. Russia has proved remarkably resilient against the West's economic warfare.”
“Unfortunately these matters are usually settled by force or the threat of force. The conflict in Ukraine has resulted in a general breakdown of international norms on every side. International Law is merely of propaganda value today”, expert concluded in the end.