The implications of Seymour Hersh’s Reporting on Ukraine are becoming profound, exposing the ‘NATOization’ of Ukraine and the Western world of simulacra.: Nord Stream and
Burns’ Warning to Zelenskiy
The recent Seyomour Hersh report that CIA chief William Burns visited Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy in Kiev and issued a shot over the corrupt bow of Ukrainian politics is important. The report holds that Burns handed Zelenskiy a list of 35 Ukrainian generals who were involved in actions skimming $400 million of Western assistance to Ukraine since the war began. Burns reportedly told Zelenskiy that he, the Ukrainian president should have been at the top of the list. Zelenskiy was thus forced to fire the most ambitious military corruptionaires on the list. This suggests that Washington has serious hold over Zelenskiy and can control Ukraine’s war policies, putting aside Kiev’s full dependence on Western financing for its state budget. Clearly. Washington and Brussels can now manipulate Zelenskiy even more than they have up until now. This means that more than ever Ukraine is a de facto NATO member, while remaining de jure a simple ally of NATO fully reliant on the alliance for its survival. The upcoming NATO summit in Vilnius will likely issue a resolution going beyond the usual assertion that ‘Ukraine will be a NATO member sone day.’ Instead, NATO is likely to announce that Ukraine will become a NATO member de jure after its victory in the war over Russia. Since Ukraine is not expected to win the war, whatever might remain of Ukraine in the form of territory under the sovereign control of Kiev could very well become after the war instead a colonized protectorate under Western control. More likely, the NATOization of Ukraine, the proposed Polish colonization, and the plan I wrote months ago is afoot to insert NATO forces into Western Ukraine will force Moscow into a position of making a tough decision: either begin talks and accept annexation of all of eastern Ukraine up to the Dnepr River or cross the Dnepr and engage de facto or de jure NATO forces, sparking World War III.
At the same time, the West is sinking deeper and deeper into the fake world of simulacra the building of which accelerated beginning with COVID. Western simulacra, particularly in the US, has reached new low points of non-reality. So now in the West, Hersh is finding it more and more difficult to get his story out. He is ignored by liberal-left media that once held he and his award-winning journalism as sacred. Posts of his articles on Facebook are tagged now as ‘disinformation.’ The efforts to disinform or at least muddy the waters are also evident in the case of Hersh’s Nord Stream reporting.
As I noted previously, the NYT and German press’s failed coverup of the US’s Nord Stream terrorist attack was carefully designed to blame ‘a pro-Ukrainian group’ without casting a taint of suspicion on the Maidan Zelenskiy regime. Even more interesting is the likelihood that Germany, in particular Chancellor Sholz supported the operation in advance and is involved in the coverup (https://twitter.com/mgkrupa/status/1639227562319654914?s=51&t=n5DkcqsvQXNd3DfCRCwexQ). Here, it is important to recall that Sholz sat by Biden’s side when Biden promised to end the Nord Stream pipelone should Putin invade Ukraine. Seymour Hersh has followed up his expose` revealing US culpability in the attack with a report claiming Germany has directly partnered with Biden and US intel to cover up the crime by muddying the waters by way of the NYT and German media articles (https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/the-cover-up). It can be argued that if Sholtz colluded with Biden in the terror attack on the pipeline, then he has committed treason against the German state. Like American politics, German and European society are being divided along ‘liberal’ woke lines and traditionalist lines in a kind of global cold civil war.
But Hersh’s account has many inaccuracies in the details, as Oliver Alexander notes (see https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe). However, none of the wholes Alexander punches in Hersh’s narrative necessarily undermines the ultimate claim that the Biden administration ordered the attack, and CIA and an interagency group planned and ensured it was carried out. Hersh’s source may have been unknowledgeable about many of the technical issues which Hersh then used in his report. It seems highly unlikely that Hersh would have mistaken or falsified facts as to whether or not the administration gave the order for the operation. Hersh is careful with sources, and his source took part in the interagency planning group’s meeting. Thus, Alexander’s deep dive – forgive the pun – punches wholes in many technical details in Hersh’s article, but it fails to cast even a shadow of doubt on Hersh’s and his source’s claim that Biden ordered the attack. If the Hersh story is so benign, and this blogger could expose its wholes, why did US and German intel feel it necessary to publish the pathetic NYT and German article and thereby muddy the waters?
One way to settle the issue is for governments or an international body to investigate the crime. This would obviate the need of relying solely on unverified journalistic reports. NATO members Sweden and Germany, a major victm of the attack, have withheld the results of their own separate investigations from the public and, as far as we know, from foreign governments. Russia has called for an “independent international commission” to do so and specifically called upon Denmark to join Moscow in helping to achieve that. No response has been forthcoming from Denmark, Germany, Sweden, the US or any other Western country (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/70868). Specifically, the US government has not ordered publicly its own investigation, or issued any reports or intelligence related to the operation or proposed any other investigation. This tells us almost everything we need to know. If, as the Biden administration claims, Moscow stood behind the attack, where are the traditional repeated condemnations, sanctions, and political measures? This finished the story, and the conclusion is obvious.
EUROPE BOOKS, 2022
MCFARLAND BOOKS, 2021
MCFARLAND BOOKS, 2018
About the Author –
Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is an Expert Analyst at Corr Analytics, www.canalyt.com. Websites: Russian and Eurasian Politics, gordonhahn.com and gordonhahn.academia.edu
Dr. Hahn is the author of the new book: Russian Tselostnost’: Wholeness in Russian Thought, Culture, History, and Politics (Europe Books, 2022). He has authored five previous, well-received books: The Russian Dilemma: Security, Vigilance, and Relations with the West from Ivan III to Putin (McFarland, 2021); Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the “New Cold War” (McFarland, 2018); The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global Jihadism in Russia’s North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland, 2014), Russia’s Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), and Russia’s Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction, 2002). He also has published numerous think tank reports, academic articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian language media.
Dr. Hahn taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia and was a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Kennan Institute in Washington DC, the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group.