Tag Archives: Ukraine

The EU Is Willing to Go to War Over Lithium?

From The  New Eastern Outlook

By Phil Butler

The riddle of unhinged EU support for the Zelensky regime in Kyiv is now solved. Anyone inclined can unravel why the Germans, in particular, backstabbed Russia in the Minsk peace boondoggle. Lithium.

Energy Monitor’s parent company, GlobalData, recently released a report showing that Europe’s biggest lithium reserves lie in the Donbass region of Russia. The former Ukrainian Shevchenkivske field in the Donetsk region and the Kruta Balka block in the Zaporizhzhia region are now part of Russia. These reserves add tremendously to Russia’s humongous Lithium deposits (now 1.5M metric tons) and solidify the country’s top ten position globally. If we consider other BRICS nations’ reserves, including China (2M metric tons), EU industry is at a leverage point.

What’s most significant about this is that the EU, and Germany in particular, desperately need the rare mineral to manufacture green energy technologies such as wind turbines, electric vehicles, and a wide variety of electronic devices. This text from the Critical Minerals Thematic Intelligence Report overview is telling:

“Critical minerals are key to transitioning to a low-carbon world. There are over 70 countries globally that have set net-zero targets and pledged to lower their emissions. However, these widespread measures for a greener future are straining natural resources, especially the minerals required to produce energy transition technologies such as electric vehicles (EVs) and solar panels…”

The report goes on to reveal how these rare minerals are monopolized by just a few regions and how supply chain problems affect their recovery and distribution. In short, if Europe does not procure more Lithium, the energy transition EU President Ursula von der Leyen toots her horn about every other day will either be delayed or made unfeasible because of demand shortages.

While the United States, Australia, and a few Latin American countries hold the lion’s share of Lithium reserves, EU access to these supplies will be expensive. In addition, the U.S. and these emerging nations will surely use the biggest part of their reserves for domestic needs.

The demand (need) for European Lithium supply is so intense, German CDU MP Roderich Kiesewetter came right out and admitted the Russia-Ukraine conflict is all about the 500,000 tons or more of the mineral under the ground of the Donbass region. Kiesewetter said, “The European Union supports Ukraine because of lithium deposits in the Donbass.” The politician also took note of the Donbass being part of Russia now, means Berlin’s dependence on Moscow.

Kiesewetter, a retired colonel, is also suggesting that Germany provide Zelensky’s regime with the highly accurate Taurus cruise missiles, which have a 500km range. The Swedish/German air-launched missile carries a 1,100-pound warhead and is essentially a bunker-buster type weapon. The missiles would be far more useful for Zelensky’s remaining Nazi battalions than a few rusty old Leopard tanks. What the MP’s statements mean, however, is that Germany and the EU intend on taking Ukraine’s vast resources by force now. The Euromaidan Coup only got the Western elites’ feet in the door, and now the singular order has few options left since the failed Ukraine offensive.

The EU commissars are in the process of slitting their own throats. Just the other day, the commission passed another round of sanctions aimed at Russia’s luxury diamond exports to the bloc. This will not affect the average EU citizen, but the upper-middle class and the wealthy will have to fork over more Euros to get pretty round diamonds. The Americans (or British) blowing up the gas pipelines, the potential for grain shortages in the EU, and other key minerals Russia and nations friendly to her export begin to take their toll on an already shaky confederation of member states.

Consider what EU member states manufacture and export to elevate their GNP. In the lists here, you’ll click on two vital exports. Cars and/or refined petroleum are vital to every country. Cars are, by far, the biggest import and export commodities. So, when these autos finally go electric, just imagine how desperate EU industry and consumers will be for Lithium! The Europeans will flounder if forced to import quantities of this strategic mineral from distant sources that have their own batteries to make. If there is a WWIII over the Russia/Ukraine situation, I am sure we’ll be able to name it “The Great Lithium War.”

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Nord Stream attack: Escape route leads to Ukraine

A year ago, a secret commando blew up the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea. Who is behind the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines?

In the dispute over Russian gas supplies, many believe that the Kremlin is the mastermind after the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline. Several intelligence agencies are investigating the case. Now investigators can largely rule out Russian involvement.

Nord Stream attack in the Baltic Sea: The clues lead in one direction – to Ukraine – DER SPIEGEL

In Ukraine itself, it is difficult for the Germans to investigate. The German government has so far shied away from a request for legal assistance to Ukraine, probably because the German investigators would then have to reveal what they know. Officially, the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky has denied that Ukraine is involved in the attack. But Berlin does not trust Kiev.

Nord Stream: Saboteurs probably used stolen identity – ZDFheute

The Dutch military intelligence service and the CIA had already warned months before the attack of a Ukrainian sabotage squad and exactly the scenario. In Berlin, the warnings had been assessed as irrelevant after the originally suspected time for an attack had passed.

Keine “False Flag”-Operation: Bericht: Nord-Stream-Saboteure flohen in die Ukraine – n-tv.de

After the attack on the Baltic Sea pipelines, Western politicians had also brought a so-called “false flag” operation by Russia into play as a possible explanation. Moscow could have caused the explosion and deliberately laid the wrong trail in Ukraine, according to the considerations. However, according to the report, there is no evidence of this.

German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) is confident that there will be an indictment against the saboteurs of the Nord Stream pipeline. “I hope that the Federal Prosecutor General will find enough evidence to indict the perpetrators,” Faeser told the magazine “Spiegel”.

 “We have to bring such crimes to justice,” the SPD politician told Der Spiegel on Friday. “This also strengthens citizens’ trust in the rule of law if we succeed in clarifying such complex issues.”

Europe Has Spent More Than $1 Trillion on Gas Since 2021

From The Daily Sceptic

By NOAH CARL

The wholesale price of natural gas in Europe started rising above its historical average in the summer of 2021, around the time that Russia began reducing gas pipeline exports. After reaching a level 2000% higher than its historical average in the summer of 2022, it then fell dramatically. The price is now only 30–60% higher.

Yet bills for households remain well above pre-crisis levels. As of July 2023, the typical U.K. household will pay around £2,074 per year for energy ­– almost double what they were paying in April of 2021. What’s more, the thinktank Cornwall Insights predicts that household energy bills will not return to their pre-crisis levels until the end of the decade “at the earliest”.

How can this be? Wholesale prices of natural gas are way down from their peak, and are now only slightly above the historical average. Why are energy bills set to remain elevated until at least 2030?

The main reason is that energy bills aren’t determined by current prices; they’re determined by the prices wholesalers paid in the recent past. And over the last two years, wholesalers have paid an absolutely huge amount for gas. Just how much?

Seb Kennedy of Energy Flux estimates that since 2021, European energy firms have spent around $1.1 trillion on gas. This is about equal to the amount they spent over the ten years between 2010 and 2020. What’s more, gas consumption has actually fallen since 2021 (which helps to explain why the wholesale price has come down) so the rise in expenditure comes entirely from an increase in price.

Kennedy admits the figure is based on a “simple calculation” and therefore has a “high margin of error”. But he believes it’s “in the right ball park”. (Note that he includes the UK, Turkey and Ukraine as part of Europe.)

Here’s more or less what happened. When gas prices spiked in the summer of 2022, European policymakers panicked. Fearing there would be shortages in the upcoming winter, they told energy firms to buy up huge quantities of LNG – with the goal of refilling gas storage. And while they succeeded in refilling gas storage, the cost of doing so was enormous.

Chart taken from ‘Europe’s pyrrhic gas victory’.

The chart above puts the figure of $1.1 trillion into perspective. As you can see: it’s bigger than the GDP of Saudi Arabia, more than twice as big as the estimated reconstruction costs for Ukraine, and more than 44 times bigger than the cost of Hinkley Point C – the world’s most expensive nuclear power plant.

“The rush to fill underground gas storage facilities at the height of the market was understandable,” he notes, “but the costs were apparent at the time, and governments put consumers on the hook”.

Since the winter of 2022/23 passed largely without incident, it might appear that European policymakers “solved” the energy crisis. But what they really did was hide the costs. You can’t a spent a trillion dollars in two-and-a-half years and expect there not to be consequences. European citizens will be paying off the debt for years into the future.

Will “Climate Denial” Become an International War Crime?

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine. By President Of Ukraine link

Greta Thunberg recently dropped into Kyiv to Help Ukraine Push the UN Ecocide Narrative – the push to treat environmental crimes on a par with war crimes. But “Ecocide” goes a lot further than acts of war.

https://twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/status/1674475847225319433?s=20

Russia is accused of ‘ecocide’ in Ukraine. But what does that mean?

By Radina Gigova, CNN
Updated 3:55 AM EDT, Mon July 3, 2023

CNN — 

On June 6, Ukraine suffered an environmental catastrophe. The collapse of the Kakhovka dam in the south of the country sent water thundering downstream, killing more than 100 people according to Ukrainian officials. It wiped out villages, flooded farmland and nature reserves, and swept up pollutants like oil and agricultural chemicals as it made its destructive path towards the Black Sea. 

The causes of the collapse have yet to be established – whether it was targeted as part of Russia’s war in Ukraine, or whether it was a structural failure – but what is certain is that it is one of the biggest ecological disasters Europe has seen in the last few decades. 

And Ukraine is calling it “ecocide.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky described the collapse as “an environmental bomb of mass destruction.” High profile figures outside the country have agreed. The Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, on a visit to Kyiv on Thursday, told reporters that “ecocide and environmental destruction is a form of warfare as Ukrainians by this point know all too well, and so does Russia.”

…

As the world continues to witness ecological disasters that span national borders, criminal accountability is rare, due in part to a lack of proper legislation and investigative process, experts say.

…

The fact that ecocide would not just apply in conflicts could be an obstacle, Weir said. “It also applies in peacetime, and it’s also potentially targeting corporations, like big oil companies, who may well be committing ecocide through their actions,” said Weir. There are a number of countries that may fear “how far it could go, or what it could constrain,” he added.

…Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/02/world/ukraine-ecocide-dam-collapse-crime-climate-intl-cmd/index.html

Assuming it was actually Russia which blew the dam, punishing people for ecologically damaging attacks on civilian infrastructure seems reasonable right? Deliberate acts of war which lead to large scale environmental disasters and widespread suffering should be prosecutable at the Hague.

The problem is the target of proposed Ecocide laws is a little broader than prosecuting physical war crimes.

British campaigner urges UN to accept ‘ecocide’ as international crime

Juliette Jowit
Sat 10 Apr 2010 01.37 AEST

Proposal to declare mass destruction of ecosystems a crime on a par with genocide launched by lawyer

A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace – alongside genocide and crimes against humanity – is being launched in the UK.

The proposal for the United Nations to accept “ecocide” as a fifth “crime against peace”, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.

The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.

Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute “climate deniers” who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/09/ecocide-crime-genocide-un-environmental-damage

Note the article above was written over 10 years ago – but I doubt the plan to use UN ecocide laws to attack climate skeptics has changed, given there is still an intent to apply the laws during peacetime, against individual companies, and possibly against individuals.

Make no mistake, climate activists are finding lots of ways to take advantage of public sympathy for Ukraine.

Back in March George Soros explained how resources liberated by the breakup of the Russian Federation, following a Russian defeat, would help fund his green energy ambitions. I’m not sure if Soros has asked Russians how they would feel about Soros using resources liberated by the chaotic breakup of the Russian Federation to fund his personal green ambitions.

And now it looks like Ukraine may be helping their UN backers to attack our freedom to even criticise these green plans, with their push for “ecocide” crimes like “climate denial” to be recognised as crimes against humanity, on a par with wartime mass murder of civilians.

Nord Stream Sabotage: More Evidence Points to Ukraine

From The Daily Sceptic

BY NOAH CARL

In just the last few weeks, more evidence has come to light suggesting that Ukraine – and not Russia or the U.S. – was behind the Nord Stream sabotage.

We already knew that in the summer of 2022 the CIA warned Germany about a possible Ukrainian attack on the pipelines, following a tip-off from a U.S. ally. We now know that the attack itself “bears striking similarities” to what the U.S. ally (which turns out to be the Netherlands) said Ukraine was planning.

The Dutch intelligence, which was among the materials released in the Discord leaks, was obtained and corroborated by the Washington Post.

It revealed that “six members of Ukraine’s special operations forces using false identities intended to rent a boat and, using a submersible vehicle, dive to the floor of the Baltic Sea then damage or destroy the pipeline and escape undetected”. This of course lines up closely with the story German investigators have pieced together so far.

The intelligence also revealed that the would-be attackers “were not rogue operatives” but reported directly to General Zaluzhnyi, the commander in chief of Ukraine’s armed forces.

German investigators have identified the Andromeda, a 50ft pleasure boat, as the vessel used to carry out the sabotage – which we already knew had been rented by a Polish company that was allegedly founded by two Ukrainians. As Der Spiegel reported recently, an email sent to the vessel at the time it was rented also leads back to Ukraine.

According to the Wall Street Journal, investigators have now “fully reconstructed” the boat’s “entire two-week long voyage”, establishing that it sailed “around each of the locations where the blasts later took place”. They have also confirmed that traces of explosives found on board match explosive residue found on the pipelines themselves.

One of the explosives used in the sabotage was HMX, which is apparently “well-suited for demolishing underwater infrastructure”. What’s more, the quantity required to blow up the pipelines “would have easily fit on the Andromeda”, according to a European official.

In the latest development, various outlets reported yesterday that the CIA actually told Ukraine not to attack the pipelines, though it is “not clear how the Ukrainians responded”.

Some sceptics insist this is all an elaborate cover-up to disguise the true perpetrators of the sabotage – the U.S. government. I’m not convinced. That theory made a certain amount of sense back when it was being alleged that “pro-Ukraine saboteurs” were responsible. But the latest reports directly implicate Ukraine’s government.

Why would the U.S. want its European allies to believe the country they’ve been arming, training and supporting destroyed a major piece of European infrastructure? ‘To stop them blaming the U.S.,’ is one answer. But if the U.S. is trying to deflect blame from itself, why not devise a cover-up in which, say, Russia was responsible? Or at the very least, stick with “pro-Ukraine saboteurs”? It doesn’t make sense.

Germany’s Costly Energy Conundrum: Poor Planning and Bad Choices, 1 Trillion Dollars Needed.

From Watts Up With That?

Germany finds itself facing an astronomical challenge of plugging a massive power gap, one according to BloombergNEF that could cost the country over $1 trillion by 2030 . The urgency to address this energy crisis stems from a combination of factors, including the aftermath of the war in Ukraine and the dubious choice to transition away from nuclear and coal power plants. However, the predicament Germany now faces is largely a consequence of poor planning and inadequate foresight in the energy sector. As the nation scrambles to find solutions, it becomes evident that crucial opportunities were missed, poor decisions were made, and the costs of this oversight are now mounting.

Underestimating the Scope of the Challenge:

One of the fundamental failures in Germany’s planning was underestimating the scale of the energy transition required. The political decision to phase out nuclear and coal power plants, coupled with increased demand from electric vehicles, heating systems, and economically suicidal climate commitments, has created an overwhelming demand for new generation and upgraded power grids. The sheer magnitude of the undertaking, requiring the installation of solar panels equivalent to 43 soccer fields and 1,600 heat pumps daily, indicates a severe lack of anticipation and preparedness.

Germany has set aside more than €260 billion ($275 billion) to deal with the immediate risks of an energy crisis triggered by Russia’s war in Ukraine, but the ultimate fix will be much costlier — if the country can pull it off at all.

https://www.tbsnews.net/bloomberg-special/germany-faces-1-trillion-challenge-plug-massive-power-gap-590590

BASF SE‘s plans to cut 2,600 jobs as it faces strains from the energy crisis is a sign of the urgency. The chemical giant’s operations in Germany swung to a loss during the second half, and it’s now closing a number of energy-intensive factories, including two ammonia plants and related fertilizer facilities, resulting in 700 job cuts at its main Ludwigshafen site.https://www.tbsnews.net/bloomberg-special/germany-faces-1-trillion-challenge-plug-massive-power-gap-590590

Lack of Clarity in Replacing Energy Sources:

Germany’s dilemma is exacerbated by its unclear path for replacing phased-out energy sources. With nuclear and coal off the table, the country is heavily reliant on importing liquefied natural gas, which comes at a higher cost. The transition to electric cars, heat pumps, and hydrogen production further adds to the energy demand. Yet, there is a lack of concrete plans for generating electricity during periods of low renewable production. The reliance on future gas plants running on hydrogen faces significant hurdles, including a lack of willing investors, the reliance on and nonexistent and potentially never existent technology, and the high costs involved, if those problems were to ever be solved.

Wind and Solar Park Nordfriesland Germany

Insufficient Investment and Unclear Regulations:

The lack of funding and investment in the energy sector can be attributed to high market uncertainty and unclear regulations, and of course the dubious prospects of profitability of intermittent wind and solar without major subsidies. These issues hamper the development of necessary infrastructure. Investors remain hesitant to commit to costly projects, leaving Germany in a state of flux. The need for clear regulations and financial incentives is essential to attract private sector participation at all.

Conclusion:

Germany’s $1 trillion energy challenge serves as a stark reminder of the consequences that poor planning can have on a nation’s energy future. The failure to accurately anticipate the scope of the transition and the absence of a clear path to replace phased-out energy sources have created a significant hurdle. Addressing this crisis requires a comprehensive reassessment of energy policies, including rethinking some of the politically motivated retirement of nuclear power, enhanced investment in research and development, and the establishment of clear regulations and financial incentives. Germany must learn from its past oversights and rectify them swiftly to ensure a resilient energy future for the country. Time is of the essence.

German Minister of Economic Affairs wants to curtail industry when energy becomes scarce in winter

From blackout-news.de

During the East German Economic Forum in Bad Saarow, the German Minister of Economic Affairs, Robert Habeck, made it clear that Germany could possibly be forced to take drastic measures if an extension of gas transit contracts between Russia and Ukraine is not possible. In particular, Habeck stated that Germany would have to reduce or even shut down its industrial capacities if energy becomes scarce. In doing so, he wants to help other countries such as Austria or Hungary that are dependent on Russian gas supplies (Welt: 12.06.23).

Uncertain future of energy supply in Europe: Gas transit contracts between Russia and Ukraine expire

This statement makes it clear that the future of energy supply in Europe is still uncertain, as gas transit contracts between Russia and Ukraine expire next year. Currently, significant volumes of natural gas from Russia are still coming to Europe through pipelines that pass through Ukrainian territory. If there is no renewal of transit arrangements, there is a possibility that gas transit will be restricted or stopped altogether. This would have a massive impact on the energy supply in.

Expiring gas transit contracts threaten energy supply. Habeck wants to reduce industrial capacities when energy becomes scarce

In view of this uncertainty, Habeck emphasized Germany’s readiness to help its neighboring countries. He declared that Germany would curtail its industry if necessary. This would be necessary to ensure that the supply of other countries such as Austria or Hungary continues to be guaranteed. However, this measure would mean that Germany would have to reduce or even shut down industrial capacities. However, Habeck also stressed that the final decision would depend on how the situation develops.

Transit contracts between Russia and Ukraine expire in 2024

The statements of the Minister of Economy illustrate the complexity and potential impact associated with the expiry of gas transit contracts.

“We should not be distracted by the current good situation and should not disregard the imminent danger,” the minister warned. “It is important to point out that transit contracts between Russia and Ukraine expire in 2024.”

“In addition, we must not forget the ongoing war. There is no definite idea of what will happen in the future,” the minister explained. “If Russian gas no longer flows through Ukraine to Eastern Europe to the same extent as before, we must adhere to the principles agreed upon in Europe: Before the people there freeze, we would have to reduce or even shut down our industry if necessary.”

Expiring gas transit contracts threaten energy supply

These clear words illustrate the serious threat and the possible consequences that the expiry of the gas transit contracts could entail. It is clear that there is an urgent need for action to ensure the energy supply in the region and to mitigate the impact on the population.

In order to maintain the energy supply in East Germany and Eastern Europe, additional capacities are essential. According to Habeck, this also includes the planned LNG terminal off Rügen, which is controversial due to resistance from residents and environmental groups. Although it is as a result of the Russian invasion in February, Ukraine still receives transit fees for the passage of Russian gas to countries such as Austria, Slovakia, Italy and Hungary.

Even if some deliveries continue beyond 2024, it will most likely be under changed conditions. A report by the Center on Global Energy Policy emphasizes that direct negotiations between Ukraine and Russia to extend the transit contract are extremely unlikely in the current situation. The authors of the report, Anne-Sophie Corbeau and Tatiana Mitrova, note that there is a lack of political support for such negotiations.

Germany Believes Ukraine May Be Behind Nord Stream Sabotage

From The Daily Sceptic

By NOAH CARL

Ever since the Nord Stream sabotage took place, I’ve argued that Ukraine is the most likely culprit.

It had a strong motive: eliminating Germany’s incentive to defect from the pro-Ukraine coalition. It would have been much less risky for Ukraine than for either Russia or a NATO country. There’s precedent: Ukraine has carried out numerous sabotage operations during the war. And in the summer of 2022, Germany was actually warned about a possible Ukrainian attack on the pipelines.

Back in March, various Western newspapers reported that “pro-Ukraine saboteurs” may have been responsible. Although there was “no evidence” that Zelensky or his top generals were involved, the saboteurs “might have connections to the Ukrainian Government or its security services”, wrote the New York Times.

In its own reporting, the Times referred to a “suspected private sponsor, a Ukrainian not affiliated with President Zelensky’s government”, and claimed that his name “has been circulating in intelligence circles for months”.

The alleged plot involved “a yacht, elite divers, forged passports and the procurement of shaped explosive charges only available to the gas and oil industry”. The yacht, where it is said investigators found “traces of explosives”, was later identified as the Andromeda – a 50ft pleasure boat.

As to who the “suspect private sponsor” might be, German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that he is a “Ukrainian oligarch” who “used to be active in politics”, and that the sabotage took place on his birthday. All this points to former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, whose birthday is September 26th – the date of the bombing.

In the latest development, the Times reports that Germany’s Federal Office of Criminal Investigation is “exploring fresh leads in a theory implicating Ukraine”. (The theory is the same as before – the one involving the Andromeda.)

Investigators think the attack “could only have been carried out with help from a state security service”, and they have “uncovered evidence that may point to Ukrainian involvement”. Note that until the reports about “pro-Ukraine saboteurs” appeared, European officials had been insisting that a “state actor” must be responsible.

In addition to the two Ukrainians who are said to have founded the company that rented the Andromeda, German authorities have identified two others who may have been part of the ship’s crew – one of whom is believed to have served in the army.

The main reason to doubt the ‘Andromeda theory’ is that it’s difficult to believe such a small team of people, using only a pleasure boat, would have been able to carry out the operation. It’s a “James Bond” theory, as one commentator put it. On the other hand, U.S. national security advisor Fiona Hill has said that “Ukraine could have found a way of doing this: we’ve seen them be extremely inventive”.

Aside from the possibility that Russia is responsible, something of which German investigators are apparently “unconvinced”, the main rival theory is Seymour Hersch’s – which pins the blame on U.S. President Joe Biden. While his story may yet be corroborated, various inaccuracies and inconsistencies have been identified and I don’t find it nearly as plausible as the one implicating Ukraine.

The latest inaccuracy in Hersch’s reporting concerns his article ‘THE UKRAINE REFUGEE QUESTION’, where he includes Hungary in a list of countries that are “allies of Ukraine and declared enemies of Vladimir Putin”. This simply isn’t true: Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been highly critical of Zelensky and is generally considered Europe’s most Russian-friendly leader.

According to leaked documents seen by the Washington Post, Zelensky has expressed “rage” toward Hungary and even suggested blowing up the Druzhba pipeline which transports oil from Russia. So it sounds like the feeling’s mutual. (Incidentally, the Post’s revelation constitutes further circumstantial evidence for Ukrainian involvement in the Nord Stream sabotage.)

If Hersch can’t get basic details right, it’s hard to trust his more audacious claims about the bombing of Nord Stream. I still don’t buy it.