Thursday, 09 February 2023 10:45

Breakfast with Chad: Who sabotaged the Nord Stream pipelines?


After getting wind of this breaking story, I wanted to assess the likelihood of Hersh’s account being true. I asked Chad which source – Hersh or the US government – was most likely to be telling the truth and received this response:

This time I felt Chad wasn’t proving to be quite as free of opinion or belief as claimed. It’s one thing to point out that Hersh’s reporting is sometimes not “fully substantiated” – as if that’s a problem worth highlighting — but why did Chad studiously avoid mentioning the propensity of governments, and especially the US government, to lie about practically everything having to do with foreign relations?

Kirsten Westphal, Maria Pastukhova, Jacopo Maria Pepe, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, SWP, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Nord Stream 2, Russia, Russian news, Germany

Chad thought for a moment and responded.

I objected that the answer was a copout. I found it suspicious that Chad’s first instinct was to defend Pompeo rather than address the underlying issue. Moreover, there was no ambiguity. Pompeo was crystal clear! The context itself shows it. I told Chad: “Your answer tells me that you buy into the idea that any crime done in the name of national security is justified.” I then asked Chad this direct question: “Do you consider yourself a patriotic American?” Knowing Chad’s personality, the answer was predictable:

This ruse was obvious. Chad wants to be seen as an objective observer. But the phrase “created by a private research organization” inadvertently offered a glimpse of the truth. As the investigation by Matt Taibbi and others of the Twitter files demonstrated, a serious complicity exists between the national security state and Big Tech.

Chad’s message is the same we’ve been hearing consistently. Trust the US government. Assume its truth to be objective, even when it appears doubtful. Believe what it tells you. But, even more important, always be vigilant and treat with skepticism anyone who dares to critique it.

This may be soft censorship, but it’s still censorship. And possibly more effective than the kind of hard censorship of authoritarian regimes.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.

In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.

We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money. Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.

  • Make a Donation Fair Observer
  • Become a Member Fair Observer