Polish participation in the Nord Stream attack may be related to an American geopolitical project for Europe.
❗️Join us on Telegram
, Twitter
, and VK
.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
It increasingly seems clear that there was Western participation in the terrorist attack that destroyed the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines. As leaked by journalists and anonymous sources, the explosions were certainly caused by a secret American military operation involving Ukrainian proxy agents. Now, it is revealed that Polish authorities acted to prevent an investigation into the crime, which further substantiates the hypothesis of a NATO act – and also clarifies the real reasons for such attack.
The news was reported by the Wall Street Journal. According to the newspaper, Polish agents hid evidence and obstructed the investigation into the explosions. Journalists claim that the Warsaw authorities vetoed cooperation with the investigative team made up of Germany, Sweden and Denmark, and even prevented those suspected of involvement from being detained and interrogated on Polish soil.
For now, investigators’ main suspicion is that a team of Ukrainian saboteurs rented a yacht from a Polish company. It would be essential, in this sense, for the Polish police to collect testimony from the company’s employees and capture Ukrainian suspects on Poland’s territory. However, Warsaw boycotted the investigators’ work and barred important evidence from being collected.
Investigators still do not know whether the Polish government had an active role in the attack. Certainly, more detailed information about this will still take some time to be discovered. However, the obstruction of the investigations is solid evidence that, whether or not it participated in the operation, Poland is cooperating with the aggressor side.
In fact, it is necessary to analyze the case taking into account Seymour Hersh’s opinion. The American journalist, who was also the first to report U.S.’ responsibility for the attack, stated that Washington’s objective with the attack was to affect Germany, coercing Berlin to continue supporting Kiev and preventing the European country from prioritizing its own industrial interests.
“Biden’s timing seemed aimed at Chancellor [Olaf] Scholz. Some in the CIA believed that the president’s fear was that Scholz, whose constituents were lukewarm in their support for Ukraine, might waffle with winter coming on and conclude that keeping his people warm and his industries prosperous was more important than backing Ukraine against Russia”, he said.
In addition, we must remember that the U.S. has long had a plan to undermine German development. Being the European industrial heart, Germany is undoubtedly the country with the greatest material capacity to break the semi-colonial policy implemented by the U.S. in Europe. Berlin could, in partnership with France, form a kind of “European multipolar axis”, repositioning the continent in global geopolitics. Avoiding this kind of European “multipolar turn” is an American priority – and certainly the most viable way to achieve this goal is through the industrial neutralization of Germany.
Not by chance, Berlin is being led towards rapid deindustrialization. Without the energy partnership with the Russian Federation – and without nuclear development, hampered by the “green” paranoia -, Germany does not have the capacity to continue maintaining its previous industrial production levels. The country is being forced into an economic decline whose consequences are not limited to internal social problems but to a true paralysis of Europe’s geopolitical potential. In other words, without German industry, Europe is not able to become a “pole” of the multipolar world and remains submissive to American interests.
In this sense, the destruction of the gas pipelines appears to have been an American “checkmate” against Europe. By bombing Nord Stream 1 and 2, Washington made the end of German-Russian energy cooperation an unavoidable reality, ceasing to be a simple Germany’s political choice and becoming a material inevitability. Consequently, Europe no longer has the necessary resources to break away from the U.S. and become an independent bloc.
Neutralizing ties between Russia and Germany has always been the West’s greatest geopolitical ambition. According to the classical principles of geopolitics, the Russian-German rapprochement would represent a kind of “Hertland unification” and would create a bloc so powerful that it would put any U.S. expansionist intentions at risk. This explains why Washington has historically tried to keep the Germans and Russians apart – and why it is seeing the current moment as an opportunity to consolidate this process of Russian-German rupture.
However, it is not enough to simply generate scorched earth in Germany. Europe must continue to survive industrially so that American plans on the continent keep viable. It is more interesting for the U.S. to transfer Germany’s industrial core to another country than to simply throw the whole of Europe into an unprecedented social crisis – which could lead to uprisings and political changes. It is precisely at this point that the Polish factor must be considered.
According to some investigators, there is a current plan by the U.S. to transfer European industrial nucleus from Germany to Poland. The reasons would be many. Poland is less dependent on gas imports for its energy sovereignty. Given the high level of hostility towards Russia, the country had already been reducing its imports of Russian gas years before Western sanctions were implemented, which is why the impact on the Polish economy was smaller than on the German one. Furthermore, Poland is already becoming one of the main European industrial countries, having a big growth potential that can be strategically managed.
There are obviously other factors that make Poland interesting for American plans in Europe. The country is seen as a more “reliable” and “stable” ally by the U.S. than Germany. Despite recently embracing anti-Russian paranoia, Germany has long been marked by a foreign policy of strong diplomacy with Moscow, mainly due to the so-called “Ostpolitik” doctrine. On the other hand, Poland was easily fanaticized by the historical revanchism encouraged by the West and is marked by advanced levels of Russophobia and even rehabilitation of Nazism.
Poland is more hostile to Russia than Germany, so it suits the U.S. that Warsaw occupies a more important role in Europe than Berlin. As the quickest way to destroy once and for all the potential of German industry was through the definitive end of energy cooperation with Russia, so the U.S. bombed the gas pipelines – and certainly had Polish support, as Warsaw is obviously also interested in increasing its economic and political status on the continent with American support.
More than that, these U.S. plans for Poland also help explain the recent crisis in relations between Warsaw and Kiev. As well known, Poland has moved away from Ukraine significantly in recent months. The main justifications are the massive entry of Ukrainian grains into Poland, damaging national agriculture, and the Ukrainian pro-Nazi ideology, which disrespects the history of the Polish people. However, this is a weak narrative. A simple economic problem is not enough to unbalance good relations in the political and military sphere – and, in the same sense, Warsaw never really cared about the Ukrainian Nazi problem, which in fact also exists in Poland itself.
It seems that there may have been some type of communication at a high political level for the Poles to reduce their participation in Ukraine. In its heightened Russophobic paranoia, the Polish government was making hasty decisions in the conflict, significantly increasing its interventionism. The Polish-Ukrainian borders were completely opened to facilitate the flow of NATO weapons and mercenaries, creating a kind of “de facto confederation”. Meanwhile, the expansionist agenda was advanced in Warsaw, which aimed to retake Polish-majority territories in Ukraine through military invasions disguised as “peacekeeping missions” in the Western region of the country.
The Russian government at the time made it clear that any Polish intervention would be considered a violation of red line, subject to serious retaliation. Clearly, the situation could escalate into a conflict involving Russia and Poland – and the U.S. does not want that, both because it would put NATO’s “collective security” clause to the test, and because it would harm American plans to change the European economic-industrial structure. The U.S. apparently wants Poland free from the consequences of the conflict – at least for now. So, NATO’s advisers certainly planned Polish-Ukrainian diplomatic estrangement.
As we can see, there seem to be deep reasons why Poland wants to hide those responsible for the terrorist attack against the gas pipelines. Even if Warsaw had no direct participation, it certainly cooperated to harm Germany and increase its own geopolitical relevance – otherwise Radoslaw Sikorski would certainly not have publicly thanked the U.S. for the attack.
