The Paul Kristoffer Show

• Swedish and Danish authorities are currently conducting investigations to determine the culprit of the Nord Stream Pipeline sabotage.
• Investigators have recovered evidence, and it is being analyzed. The area has been reopened to maritime traffic.
• The Swedish Security Service confirmed that the evidence indicated several hundred pounds of explosives were used.
• Russia is protesting the investigation, which is being conducted without them.
• Scroll down to see the top suspects and the relative probability of guilt assigned to each.

The Russian Foreign Ministry protested the investigation. Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for the Russian foreign ministry, said on October 6th, “(To) Not to allow the owner (of the pipelines) to witness the investigation means there is something to hide.”

Pipeline owner, Gazprom may be interviewed as a witness. Gazprom, however, does not have authority in Sweden or Denmark, where the crimes occurred. Gazprom is free to conduct its investigation, but Sweden and Denmark are prudently preventing foreign powers from accessing the crime scene.

This is completely normal protocol for an investigation. For example, if a factory or plant is consumed by fire, the factory owner does not help to conduct the investigation. They are a suspect until proven otherwise. Interference from external parties does not help the investigators.

Statement by Swedish Defense Minsitry

Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvis, stated that foreign powers are not usually invited to participate in a criminal investigation.

Include the Russians in an investigation would bring few benefits, other than the opportunity for interference. Russia should let the investigation to continue and await the results. Of course if Russia, and/or its allies, are responsible, then the need to interfere with the investigation becomes critical. Russia also needs to be able to claim that the investigation was illegitimate with their guilt becomes public,

Why does Russia want to be involved Nord Stream investigation?

Russia has two primary reasons for wanting to be involved:

• Possibility #1:
  
  Russia, or its allies, were responsible for the pipelines blast. The Russian commandos responsible would have taken every precaution to not leave any evidence behind linking the explosion back to Russia. There is still a high chance that a mistake or misstep was made. The Swedish and Danish teams will likely use advanced forensic techniques and technology. They are likely to turn up strong evidence linking someone to the sabotage. It is very possible that the CIA are working with their Swedish and Danish counterparts to enable the use of advanced capabilities, teams, labs and equipment.
  
  The U.S. has an extremely good track record of investigating terrorism, identifying the perpetrators and either bringing them to justice, or eliminating those responsible through strikes or special forces missions. Due to this fact, Russian agents would very much like to intercept and destroy evidence to hide their crime.
  
  Another strong possibility is that Russia wishes to plant evidence to incriminate the U.S. or its allies.
  
• Possibility #2:
  
  Russia wishes to monitor the investigation to make sure that no one tampers with evidence and that the investigation is conducted thoroughly. This is the least likely possibility of the two.

The most likely reason why Russia insists on being part of the investigation is to interfere, tamper with and plant evidence. Russia is not known for conducting unbiased investigations or an independent legal system. In fact, Russia is widely recognized for a lack of accountability and a legal system that operates on behalf of the Kremlin to persecute the political enemies of Vladimir Putin.

Who are the leading suspects in the Nord Stream Pipeline sabotage?

Here are the leading suspects in the Nord Stream Pipeline sabotage case, and the probability of guilt:

Russia: Suspect number 1

In recent days, the probability that Russia was behind the Nord Steam pipeline sabotage has increased as additional incriminating circumstantial evidence has emerged:

• One Nord Stream 2 string remains intact (each pipeline has two strings). Russia has the greatest interest in preserving a way to deliver natural gas to Europe. While destroying subsea infrastructure is a costly method to galvanize support at home, it is a wise insurance policy to leave one pipeline string intact.
• Russia benefits from higher natural gas prices. Since the pipelines were not in use due to suspicious Russian maintenance claims, destroying three mothballed pipeline strings would be valuable to create fear in the energy markets, and spike prices.
• Russia insists that any investigation which takes place without Gazprom, or Russian officials, cannot be trusted. This is false. Many crime scene investigations are carried out independently of facility owners and foreign government officials. Russia’s protests merely implicate the country further.

U.S.: Suspect number 2

The U.S. is the second most likely perpetrator of the Nord Stream pipelines sabotage, due to its capability, opportunity and long history of covert action. However, if the U.S. decided to take the reckless action of detonating charges under the Baltic, why wouldn’t they target all four strings? If this were a U.S. operation, we are confident that the job would have been completed.

The pipelines were not in use, and thus its loss was minimal. The most useful motive for the U.S. would be to further bolster support at home for more spending. But support in the U.S. is already high. Ukrainian flags flying over suburban homes all over the country indicate solidarity with President Biden’s policy.

The U.S. and its allies have a greater incentive to leave the pipelines intact as negotiating leverage for Russia. A potential cease-fire agreement could include the eventual reopening of the pipeline. Russia would then resume sales of natural gas to Europe – which is badly needed by the manufacturing sector.

Ukraine

Ukrainian forces have accomplished many operations behind enemy lines including: the Crimea bridge blast, the assassination of Daria Dugina, daughter of a prominent Russian nationalist and the destruction of a fuel depot in Belgorod,

Ukraine, however, is blockaded by the Russian Black Sea fleet, and the airspace is pretty much closed down by Russia.

Given that Ukraine is busy fighting Russia within its own borders and lack the ability to sail or fly to the Baltic Sea, it would be easy to assume that Ukraine is not capable to pull off such an operation. But it is possible, just not as likely. A Ukrainian mission, supported by CIA assets, teams, and equipment is certainly a possibility

China

China has invested in its special forces significantly in recent years, and likely has the capability to pull off a mission in the Baltic Sea. The Chinese navy has operated in the Baltic in the past. However, I believe the Chinese are not brash enough to take on the Nord Stream Sabotage, and have little to gain. But little is more than zero, which is why I give China a 1% chance of having blown up the Nord Stream pipelines.

Iran

The Quds force of Iran has carried out international acts of terrorism, in the U.S. (attempted), South America and in the Middle East. The Iranian navy, however, operates mainly in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean. Iran has ambitions of operating its Navy in the Atlantic Ocean, but that is a wistful dream currently for the Islamic Republic.

North Korea

North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, is focused on launching missiles to terrify his neighbors. The North Korean navy mainly operates within 50 kilometers of its exclusive economic zone.

This has been the North Korean playbook: to fire off a few missiles, intimidate their neighbors and gain world attention.

In conclusion

The Swedes currently have evidence and are analyzing it. The Danes are conducting their own investigation in their territorial waters. Until the analysis of the evidence is released, we can only speculate based on facts. Currently, the fingers pointed at Russia are warranted, but we eagerly anticipate more information.

Your Support

Please support this work by subscribing and making a donation in any amount. All proceeds will be used to directly pay for web hosting costs.

What would Nato’s response to a nuclear attack by Putin in Ukraine look like?

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly reminded the international community of his stockpile of nuclear weapons and made threats . “Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.”

What if Putin actually launched a nuke in Ukraine? What is Nato’s likely response?

Why would Vladimir Putin use nuclear weapons?

Vladimir Putin has become increasingly frustrated by the lack of value of Russia’s nuclear stockpile. Under the theory of mutually assured destruction, the only way to win a nuclear exchange is to not get into one. Therefore his expensive weapons are just sitting and collecting dust.

Finding this unacceptable, Mr. Putin has used the threat of nuclear attacks to prevent Nato allies from directly entering the Ukraine war, and to prevent attacks on Russia itself. For its part, Nato does not want the war in Ukraine to spill over member countries. This has not prevented the US from supplying a record amount of ever increasingly effective modern arms.

Conventional weapons such as Javelins, Himars, Switchblade drones and Stingers have shifted the balance of power towards Ukraine and sent the Russians on retreat. Putin holds no illusions about the West’s leadership in technology and admits, “…they have considerable financial, scientific, technological, and military capabilities.” Putin has been scrambling to counter the West’s technological advantages on the battlefield.

We must not assume that Putin will be pushed back to the pre-2022 or pre-2014 boundaries before attempting some new form of brutal, inhumane response.

Among the most dangerous and feared of these is the use of tactical, or battlefield, nuclear bombs. Tactical nuclear warheads vary in strength from 0.1 to the 50 kiloton range. By comparison, the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki packed a walloping 15 and 21 kilotons respectively.

Russia has about 2,000 of these tactical nuclear weapons. You can bet that these are burning a hole in his pocket. And the temptation to use them must be increasing proportionally as Ukraine advances.

How would nuclear warheads be delivered?

Russia has strategic nuclear weapons deployed on submarines, aircraft missiles and those that can be launched from fixed sites (ICBMs). Low yield, or tactical, nuclear warheads could be launched from aircraft either loaded on air to surface missiles, or on gravity bombs. They can also be launched by conventional land based missile systems.

Tactical nuclear warheads need to be moved from storage facilities to the front and onto delivery mechanisms. These storage areas are inside of Russia, and some are within 25 miles of Ukraine.

The most likely choice for delivery would be the Iskander missile system. The Iskander is capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear weapons, and has been used in the war to deadly effect.

The US and its allies would have advance warning by satellite imagery if these weapons were to betransported to the front.

Why hasn’t Putin used nuclear weapons already?

If and when Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, he will no longer have the leverage of his threats. Following a nuclear attack, he will be out of control. Nato will most certainly strike back.

The only thing preventing Putin from using nuclear weapons is that he does not yet believe it will be to his advantage to do so. Considerations he might well be mulling over are:

• Ukraine’s forces are dispersed along a long battle line. It’s questionable as to the effectiveness of a nuclear missile strike, unless a city center were to be targeted.
• Radioactivity would be released onto the land that he plans to occupy, which might be more than inconvenient.
• China, India and Pakistan might waver in their support of Russia.
• Nato will respond in a devastating manner, making the costs high.
• It will make it easier for the U.S. and its allies to establish secondary sanctions. Secondary sanctions can be imposed on foreign banks, corporations, individuals and nations that do business with Russia. For example, China, India and Pakistan and their banks.

When might Putin use nuclear weapons?

Putin has been clear that if Russia is attacked directly, or an existential threat to Russia is made, he will respond with all manner of weapons, including nuclear warheads.

Now that Russia has announced the illegal annexation of four Ukrainian regions, any Ukrainian advance into those areas can be interpreted as an attack on Russia itself. This is a thin justification that Putin has engineered by brutally shipping out millions of Ukrainian families to Russia, and conducting sham referendums.

This justification, however, would be well received in Russia.

With reports of the Russian army in retreat, the time is getting closer to when Putin may be desperate enough to use tactical nuclear weapons. What happens when or if he launches them?

The U.S.’s response to the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine

The U.S.’s current policy is deliberate ambiguity. This means that we will make clear that our response to the use of nuclear weapons will be devastating and swift. However, the U.S. will not state what the response actually will be.

The U.S. response will be dependent on many factors, including:

• How many nuclear weapons were used, and what was the yield?
• How many casualties resulted?
• What were the targets? Civilian or military?
• Where and how were the weapons launched?

The minimum expectations of Russia will be that the U.S. and its allies will:

• Eliminate the delivery system(s) (aircraft, naval vessel, truck mounted) and those like it near the theater of war. This would be designed to prevent further strikes.
• Strike all or a portion of Russian military targets supporting nuclear delivery systems in and around Ukraine. This would include naval targets in the Black Sea, in Ukraine itself and possibly within Russia (if the strike came from within Russia).
• An in kind response, matching the yield of the nuclear weapon in kilotons of conventional weaponry.

In addition to the above steps, the U.S. and its allies may decide to all or part of the following with conventional weapon attacks:

• Destroy all or part of Russia’s black sea fleet, especially those vessels capable of transporting or delivering nuclear weapons.
• Strike all or a portion of Russian personnel on the ground in Ukraine.
• Close the airspace over Ukraine. Eliminate Russian anti-aircraft weapons including those on Russian soil.
• Destroy the nuclear weapons storage areas where tactical, low yield warheads are kept in Russia.
• Enact secondary sanctions which would punish countries that do business with Russia and close them off from the global economy. That would include China, India, Pakistan and others.

Conclusion

I believe that the U.S. response to the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be proportional, devastating and specifically designed to *not* climb up the nuclear escalation ladder.

According to experts quoted in a recent article in the Atlantic, war games conducted in 2019 that begin with Russia invading Ukraine, do not result in a happy ending.

Here’s the latest developlments regarding the Nord Stream pipeline:

• Latest Developments
• Billions of dollars of gas lost
• How were the pipelines constructed?
• What would it take to rupture the Nord Stream pipelines?

Latest Developments

• Almost $2 Billion in lost natural gas will be lost due to the Nord Stream pipelines sabotage
• Estimates based upon the Danish Energy Agency. The agency expects 779 million cubic meters will be released into the atmosphere by Sunday (10/9) , when all gas pressure is expected to be lost through leak.
• Sweden has sent coast guard aircraft to monitor the gas leaks. The larger leak is no longer visible.
• The Swedish vessel, KBV 003 Amfitrite, is on site to monitor the leaks and steer maritime traffic away from danger. The Amfitrite is a search and rescue vessel, capable of supporting dive teams.
• Russia requested that the pipeline sabotage be discussed by the U.N. security council this Friday, October 7th.
• According to Gazprom, part of the Nord Stream 2 (String B) can be made operational. This twist, if true, implicates Russia. What nation would sabotage some, but not all, pipeline strings to eventually resume gas supply?
• No hard evidence has emerged. Neither the U.S., or allies, have formally pointed the finger at Russia.

What is the value of the leaked gas?

• $1,992,146,800 USD, based upon today’s price of $70.04 per million BTU’s.
• Why would Russia deliberately waste almost $2 billion worth of its own gas? The news media is speculating that Putin’s motive was to demonstrate that the world’s critical infrastructure is at risk.
  • Destroying this vast amount of natural gas is far more advantageous to Ukraine, which seeks to reduce Russia’s gas and oil revenues.

How were the pipelines constructed?

• The pipe sections are 48″ diameter and made of high yield strength steel. The individual pipe sections are welded together and coated in concrete.
• The pipelines were built by Gazprom and European partners. The costs of the project ran into the billions.
• The pipe sections are shipped to pipeline laying ships (the largest ships in the world) where the pipelines are lowered to the sea floor.
• The weight of the pipes and concrete coatings are enough to keep the pipelines embedded on the sea floor. This does not seem like a mistake that the U.S. would make.

What would it take to rupture the Nord Stream pipelines?

• Due to the scale of the blasts and distance of the leaks British military sources have stated that mines or other explosives could have dealt the damage. The blasts were well coordinated and could have been detonated remotely.
• Both the U.S. and Russia have the ability to plan and execute such a mission.

The world woke up to find four suspicious leaks in Nord Stream and Nord Stream pipelines. This has kicked off a Whodunit as strategist rush to determine who did this, and why. As of this writing, no evidence has been made publicly available.

NATO has formally blamed sabotage for the pipeline damage, and stated that it would defer and defend against attack on NATO members’ infrastructure. You can read the statement here.

NATO also noted the impact that the leaking gas is having on shipping and the environment. According to Penn State, Natural gas contains some of the worst greenhouse gases, including methane, ethane, propane and butane.

The question is, what actor undertook this reckless act, and why. Join me in my game of whodunit as we analyze the situation in The Paul Kristoffer Show approach, which is to use logic.

I will use the following criteria to identify the main suspects in this whodunit mind game:

• What nation(s) stand to benefit, and how?
• What nation(s) have the means to carry out such sabotage, and have a high likelihood of success
• What nation(s) have the opportunity to commit an act?

Below is a table of the possible suspects and our analysis:

As you can see from the above table, it is the U.S. and Russia that have the most to gain by sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines, the means and the opportunity. Arguably, the U.S. special forces, including the SEAL teams, train to specifically detonate underwater targets.

I included other nations that have demonstrated a willingness to commit acts of terrorism, most notably Iran. But Iran does not have the capability to pull off such an operation, so far from home. Same goes for North Korea.

China has not demonstrated state acts of terrorism, and I would be very surprised if China were behind this. China also has not demonstrated any type of special force capable of underwater sabotage.

There is also the evidence of President Biden himself:

The international whodunit will continue until convincing evidence emerges about what actor committed this reckless act. My analysis concludes that it is either the U.S. or Russia that committed the sabotage. But as in any murder mystery, there could be a stunning wildcard at the end of the story that shows that it was the butler.