03 октября / 2022
On briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova
"Accidents were reported on three lines of the Nord Stream undersea pipelines on September 27, 2022. Before that, a gas leak was registered near Bornholm island. Because of a hole in the pipe (its causes will be investigated), pressure in the pipeline dropped from 105 to 7 bar. The pipeline’s operator, Nord Stream AG, has described the damage as unprecedented. Experts say it is impossible to predict how long it will take to repair the infrastructure.
The Western mainstream media immediately, as if on cue, wrote, citing leaks, unidentified sources and European officials, that the guilty party is Russia, that it is allegedly interested in damaging the pipelines because it doesn’t want to supply gas. It appears that Europe can’t stand the thought that those it sees as its “allies” might be behind this incident, this provocation, this act of sabotage. The idea seems abominable to them and would mark the point of no return, which is why they cannot allow any other supposition than the time-worn “Russian factor.” They can only follow a certain “scenario,” because their ideology would collapse otherwise, revealing the uncomfortable truth. But they will have to begin anyway. Brussels will have to tell the EU citizens what they have done to their – our – continent. It is our continent as well. You don’t let us live calmly and normally. Numerous EU “experts” and “political analysts” are speaking about Russia’s direct or indirect “involvement” (they have upped the stakes and are talking about “sabotage” now and using even harsher terms), and the Americans have joined in. The keynote is that Russia did it because it no longer wants to supply gas to the EU.
Similar statements have been made by Western officials. Vice-President of the government of Spain and Minister for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge Teresa Ribera has put the blame on Russia. An EU official has said this openly. I think we’ll soon see a tsunami of “revelations.” I presume that the Minister for the Ecological Transition knows everything and holds all the cards.
May I ask a question? When exactly did Russia decide that it no longer wants to supply energy to Europe? According to this logic, there should be a date, a turning point. So, when did we decide that we didn’t want to supply energy to our “Western partners?” Did it happen in the 1960s, when we built the Druzhba pipeline? I would like to remind you that it was a period when the Cold War was gathering momentum, when there was the Iron Curtain and dividing walls, when people didn’t communicate and there was no contact between our civil societies. Nothing was left of our WWII alliance. Was it at that time that we decided not to supply energy to our “Western partners?” Maybe it happened during the Cuban missile crisis, when NATO weapons systems started encircling us? Was it then that the idea dawned on us because we wanted to reciprocate to NATO’s actions against us? No? Did it happen when the Soviet Union fell apart? Or was it in 2014, when large-scale sanctions were adopted against us for the first time? Did we do it in response to these sanctions? It was then that sanctions were for the first time adopted against Russia in such a blatant and frenzied manner. Or did it happen when we started building Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2? Did we build the pipelines, invested in them and provided political and other forms of support to that project only to stop supplying energy to Europe? Is this your logic?
Over the past decades, despite the Cold War and outbursts of seething hot hatred towards us, despite the sanctions, the hybrid war and other dirty tricks used against our country, nobody here said at any level that we wouldn’t supply energy to the citizens of Europe. Never. We have always been a reliable supplier of energy to Europe. And who was it that has really decided to cut short the deliveries of Russian energy and rule out the very possibility of such supplies to Europe? I will tell you.
Since the start of the Nord Stream 2 project, all its participants in Russia and other countries have been subjected to unprecedented US economic and political pressure. Is this a revelation to any of you? Can any of you provide facts that would tear my arguments to shreds? Ready to do anything to hinder the construction of the pipeline and its commissioning, the United States passed legislation in 2020 on punishment for companies that took part in the construction or provided relevant services. These open threats of unilateral sanctions over a purely commercial project, which was designed to reinforce Europe’s energy security showed that Washington doesn’t care one bit for Europe’s real economic interests. Russia has begun its own investigation of the Nord Stream accident. Our law enforcement and security agencies announced this yesterday.
I would like to believe that the international investigation into the underwater Baltic Sea pipeline incidents will be objective. A major role in exposing the reasons could be played by an explanation, by the American side (a detailed one, not the White House spokesperson style one) regarding US President Joe Biden’s statements made at a news conference on February 7. “If Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine — then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it,” he said. Shocked, American journalists tried to ask clarifying questions, gasping and stuttering – how will you do that, exactly? And the President of the United States gave them a clear and unequivocal answer: “I promise you we will be able to do it.”
US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland pulled the same stunt on January 27, making an official statement at the US State Department: “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward... It is a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.” That was more than six months ago. But this “hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea” kept bothering them. They were ever so concerned about its turbines, they were endlessly going back to intimidating the European consumer, they were quite aggressive in offering their services instead. No. It wasn't a “hunk of metal” or a “dead project.” European countries were doing a lot of work around it. They were aware of how much they needed it. Just as the Russian Federation has always remained a conscientious party to all its contracts and obligations. The United States has already denied its involvement through a Pentagon representative. But we know what they are capable of. We remember how they weren’t responsible for a huge number of acts of sabotage and extremism in various corners of the world, for murders and kidnappings. The truth came to light later. So is the Pentagon refuting its president's promises now?
In any case, Washington owes an explanation and a confession now. Why have they delegated this to Mr Sikorski? As an EU Parliament member, he wholeheartedly (that showed what kind of heart he has) thanked the United States for the Russian gas pipeline explosion. Sikorski tweeted “Thank you USA,” adding it was his working theory as to who could have had the “motive and the ability” to sabotage the pipelines. He didn’t have to guess, really. Washington had been airing its motives for years through the mouths of both Democrats and Republicans. Both administrations said the same thing: Nord Stream 2 needed to be removed as a factor of global energy cooperation. They said they would spare no effort to prevent the project from being implemented. Opportunities were to be found, schemes and methods to be invented to thwart it once and for all. What other motives do you need? As to their ability, what was he even talking about? Wasn’t it in NATO's area of responsibility? Weren’t NATO forces conducting exercises in the area? Were there no US soldiers deployed in nearby countries? Is none of this true?
Radoslaw Sikorski (a vocal Americanophile, although still a Polish citizen) actually said Poland had had motives for years to disable those pipelines. The former foreign minister, now a European Parliament member, said: “I am glad that Nord Stream, against which all Polish governments have been fighting for 20 years, is three-quarters paralysed. It's good for Poland.” And here he is, asking who could have had a motive. Who could that be? Really.
We have to point out that NATO held exercises in the vicinity of the island of Bornholm (owned by Denmark) in July of this year, using deep-sea equipment. An interesting opportunity, from the Western politicians’ perspective. That region is actually stuffed with NATO military infrastructure. Is this not a factor either? Or will no one notice it? Maybe it was Russia that deployed its naval forces there? Was Russia or another organisation conducting manoeuvres in the area? Is there any evidence? Please, Western partners, share this information if you have it. No one saw anyone there except you. You are constantly engaged in provocations and sham incidents. Only they aren’t harmless anymore. They have devolved from intrigues to acts of sabotage and everything that has to do with that.
It is interesting that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines would be “in no-one’s interest.” Really? It wouldn’t be in the interest of Western and Central Europe, the European regions that are part of the Eurasian link between Europe and Asia. No, it wouldn’t be in the interest of that group of countries. Neither would it be in the interest of the world as a whole, because it demonstrates total disregard for morality and the law in many Western countries. Washington is the clear beneficiary of this situation. I suggest that Mr Blinken reread his own words and what US presidents said on this issue. He may not see Donald Trump as his president, but what about Joe Biden and Mr Blinken’s predecessors? They said a great deal about destroying, shutting down and removing Nord Stream from the agenda and why this would be in the US’s interest. You often explained to the Americans why Nord Stream is not in the US’s interest. Read those statements again, and you will see who will benefit from the explosions on the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 pipelines.
To summarise what US officials have said over the past years, disabling the pipelines would allow the United States to increase LNG deliveries to the EU. This is not my assessment. It is the essence of the slogans, calls and theses of US officials, both Republicans and Democrats, which they have been working for the past years to implement. The United States never made it a secret that its main goal was to cut Europe off from Russian energy resources. And now Mr Blinken says he doesn’t know in whose interest that would be? It would be in your interest! Until September 25, 26 and 27, 2022, Washington didn’t succeed. Its threats, blackmail and promises all failed, possibly because the EU has learned to separate lies from the truth. They didn’t believe Washington. They decided to implement the project despite the provocations and the bloodbath Washington initiated in the region. They repaired the turbines and did everything else necessary to ensure gas supplies to Europe. The attempts to suspend the project to destroy it economically and politically have failed. And then a series of explosions took place on the pipelines on September 25, 26 and 27, 2022.
Russia has requested an emergency UN Security Council meeting, which will be held on Friday, September 30, over the provocations against Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2. There is one more interesting fact. We called for holding a meeting on September 29. Do you know who was against it? Who needed more time? Who decided to put off the meeting? It was NATO countries on the UN Security Council. They said they could only meet on September 30. We will demand an honest and objective investigation."
The Western mainstream media immediately, as if on cue, wrote, citing leaks, unidentified sources and European officials, that the guilty party is Russia, that it is allegedly interested in damaging the pipelines because it doesn’t want to supply gas. It appears that Europe can’t stand the thought that those it sees as its “allies” might be behind this incident, this provocation, this act of sabotage. The idea seems abominable to them and would mark the point of no return, which is why they cannot allow any other supposition than the time-worn “Russian factor.” They can only follow a certain “scenario,” because their ideology would collapse otherwise, revealing the uncomfortable truth. But they will have to begin anyway. Brussels will have to tell the EU citizens what they have done to their – our – continent. It is our continent as well. You don’t let us live calmly and normally. Numerous EU “experts” and “political analysts” are speaking about Russia’s direct or indirect “involvement” (they have upped the stakes and are talking about “sabotage” now and using even harsher terms), and the Americans have joined in. The keynote is that Russia did it because it no longer wants to supply gas to the EU.
Similar statements have been made by Western officials. Vice-President of the government of Spain and Minister for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge Teresa Ribera has put the blame on Russia. An EU official has said this openly. I think we’ll soon see a tsunami of “revelations.” I presume that the Minister for the Ecological Transition knows everything and holds all the cards.
May I ask a question? When exactly did Russia decide that it no longer wants to supply energy to Europe? According to this logic, there should be a date, a turning point. So, when did we decide that we didn’t want to supply energy to our “Western partners?” Did it happen in the 1960s, when we built the Druzhba pipeline? I would like to remind you that it was a period when the Cold War was gathering momentum, when there was the Iron Curtain and dividing walls, when people didn’t communicate and there was no contact between our civil societies. Nothing was left of our WWII alliance. Was it at that time that we decided not to supply energy to our “Western partners?” Maybe it happened during the Cuban missile crisis, when NATO weapons systems started encircling us? Was it then that the idea dawned on us because we wanted to reciprocate to NATO’s actions against us? No? Did it happen when the Soviet Union fell apart? Or was it in 2014, when large-scale sanctions were adopted against us for the first time? Did we do it in response to these sanctions? It was then that sanctions were for the first time adopted against Russia in such a blatant and frenzied manner. Or did it happen when we started building Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2? Did we build the pipelines, invested in them and provided political and other forms of support to that project only to stop supplying energy to Europe? Is this your logic?
Over the past decades, despite the Cold War and outbursts of seething hot hatred towards us, despite the sanctions, the hybrid war and other dirty tricks used against our country, nobody here said at any level that we wouldn’t supply energy to the citizens of Europe. Never. We have always been a reliable supplier of energy to Europe. And who was it that has really decided to cut short the deliveries of Russian energy and rule out the very possibility of such supplies to Europe? I will tell you.
Since the start of the Nord Stream 2 project, all its participants in Russia and other countries have been subjected to unprecedented US economic and political pressure. Is this a revelation to any of you? Can any of you provide facts that would tear my arguments to shreds? Ready to do anything to hinder the construction of the pipeline and its commissioning, the United States passed legislation in 2020 on punishment for companies that took part in the construction or provided relevant services. These open threats of unilateral sanctions over a purely commercial project, which was designed to reinforce Europe’s energy security showed that Washington doesn’t care one bit for Europe’s real economic interests. Russia has begun its own investigation of the Nord Stream accident. Our law enforcement and security agencies announced this yesterday.
I would like to believe that the international investigation into the underwater Baltic Sea pipeline incidents will be objective. A major role in exposing the reasons could be played by an explanation, by the American side (a detailed one, not the White House spokesperson style one) regarding US President Joe Biden’s statements made at a news conference on February 7. “If Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine — then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it,” he said. Shocked, American journalists tried to ask clarifying questions, gasping and stuttering – how will you do that, exactly? And the President of the United States gave them a clear and unequivocal answer: “I promise you we will be able to do it.”
US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland pulled the same stunt on January 27, making an official statement at the US State Department: “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward... It is a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.” That was more than six months ago. But this “hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea” kept bothering them. They were ever so concerned about its turbines, they were endlessly going back to intimidating the European consumer, they were quite aggressive in offering their services instead. No. It wasn't a “hunk of metal” or a “dead project.” European countries were doing a lot of work around it. They were aware of how much they needed it. Just as the Russian Federation has always remained a conscientious party to all its contracts and obligations. The United States has already denied its involvement through a Pentagon representative. But we know what they are capable of. We remember how they weren’t responsible for a huge number of acts of sabotage and extremism in various corners of the world, for murders and kidnappings. The truth came to light later. So is the Pentagon refuting its president's promises now?
In any case, Washington owes an explanation and a confession now. Why have they delegated this to Mr Sikorski? As an EU Parliament member, he wholeheartedly (that showed what kind of heart he has) thanked the United States for the Russian gas pipeline explosion. Sikorski tweeted “Thank you USA,” adding it was his working theory as to who could have had the “motive and the ability” to sabotage the pipelines. He didn’t have to guess, really. Washington had been airing its motives for years through the mouths of both Democrats and Republicans. Both administrations said the same thing: Nord Stream 2 needed to be removed as a factor of global energy cooperation. They said they would spare no effort to prevent the project from being implemented. Opportunities were to be found, schemes and methods to be invented to thwart it once and for all. What other motives do you need? As to their ability, what was he even talking about? Wasn’t it in NATO's area of responsibility? Weren’t NATO forces conducting exercises in the area? Were there no US soldiers deployed in nearby countries? Is none of this true?
Radoslaw Sikorski (a vocal Americanophile, although still a Polish citizen) actually said Poland had had motives for years to disable those pipelines. The former foreign minister, now a European Parliament member, said: “I am glad that Nord Stream, against which all Polish governments have been fighting for 20 years, is three-quarters paralysed. It's good for Poland.” And here he is, asking who could have had a motive. Who could that be? Really.
We have to point out that NATO held exercises in the vicinity of the island of Bornholm (owned by Denmark) in July of this year, using deep-sea equipment. An interesting opportunity, from the Western politicians’ perspective. That region is actually stuffed with NATO military infrastructure. Is this not a factor either? Or will no one notice it? Maybe it was Russia that deployed its naval forces there? Was Russia or another organisation conducting manoeuvres in the area? Is there any evidence? Please, Western partners, share this information if you have it. No one saw anyone there except you. You are constantly engaged in provocations and sham incidents. Only they aren’t harmless anymore. They have devolved from intrigues to acts of sabotage and everything that has to do with that.
It is interesting that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines would be “in no-one’s interest.” Really? It wouldn’t be in the interest of Western and Central Europe, the European regions that are part of the Eurasian link between Europe and Asia. No, it wouldn’t be in the interest of that group of countries. Neither would it be in the interest of the world as a whole, because it demonstrates total disregard for morality and the law in many Western countries. Washington is the clear beneficiary of this situation. I suggest that Mr Blinken reread his own words and what US presidents said on this issue. He may not see Donald Trump as his president, but what about Joe Biden and Mr Blinken’s predecessors? They said a great deal about destroying, shutting down and removing Nord Stream from the agenda and why this would be in the US’s interest. You often explained to the Americans why Nord Stream is not in the US’s interest. Read those statements again, and you will see who will benefit from the explosions on the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 pipelines.
To summarise what US officials have said over the past years, disabling the pipelines would allow the United States to increase LNG deliveries to the EU. This is not my assessment. It is the essence of the slogans, calls and theses of US officials, both Republicans and Democrats, which they have been working for the past years to implement. The United States never made it a secret that its main goal was to cut Europe off from Russian energy resources. And now Mr Blinken says he doesn’t know in whose interest that would be? It would be in your interest! Until September 25, 26 and 27, 2022, Washington didn’t succeed. Its threats, blackmail and promises all failed, possibly because the EU has learned to separate lies from the truth. They didn’t believe Washington. They decided to implement the project despite the provocations and the bloodbath Washington initiated in the region. They repaired the turbines and did everything else necessary to ensure gas supplies to Europe. The attempts to suspend the project to destroy it economically and politically have failed. And then a series of explosions took place on the pipelines on September 25, 26 and 27, 2022.
Russia has requested an emergency UN Security Council meeting, which will be held on Friday, September 30, over the provocations against Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2. There is one more interesting fact. We called for holding a meeting on September 29. Do you know who was against it? Who needed more time? Who decided to put off the meeting? It was NATO countries on the UN Security Council. They said they could only meet on September 30. We will demand an honest and objective investigation."
