Anonymous US intelligence officials, in a ‘leak’ to the New York Times (NYT) today, pretend to place themselves at the front of the investigation into the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines last September. Their laughably transparent performance begins with a reference to “new intelligence,” which, of course, can’t be mentioned or described. And, fortuitously, just as the Seymour Hersh investigation gains traction internationally, the “officials who have reviewed the intelligence” just happen to get to work.
The ‘meatiest’ part of the NYT “Nothing Burger” reads:
“Officials who have reviewed the intelligence said they believed the saboteurs were most likely Ukrainian or Russian nationals, or some combination of the two. U.S. officials said no American or British nationals were involved. The explosives were most likely planted with the help of experienced divers who did not appear to be working for military or intelligence services, U.S. officials who have reviewed the new intelligence said. But it is possible that the perpetrators received specialized government training in the past.”
That’s it. Nothing is backed. The officials believe several things are “most likely.” However, the NYT states that the anonymous “officials said it might constitute the first significant lead to emerge from several closely guarded investigations.” One might wonder how that “first significant lead” was missed in the first reading, but that’s what happens when one bites into a nothing-burger.
A version of this NYT-intel game was played months ago, with the non-story that Western intelligence agencies had nothing to do with the car-bombing of Russia’s Darya Dugina, but they were able to point to unspecified evidence of suspicious, irregular operations around Kiev that perhaps had gone rogue. Here again the implication is that Kiev is a “wild West,” answers won’t be forthcoming, and, anyhow, it is impolite to question our courageous Kiev regime.
Later, this new article adds that the officials “said that there are no firm conclusions about it” — assumedly, their investigation — “leaving open the possibility that the operation might have been conducted off the books by a proxy force with connections to the Ukrainian government or its security services….”
Otherwise, the article is conspicuous for its inability to mention the existence of Seymour Hersh’s investigation, one with more than enough details that could easily be refuted, were it off the mark. Instead, the NYT-intel message is: We’re on the case, no solutions are on the horizon… and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.