Wow! Jeff Sachs says world thinks the US attacked Nord Stream pipelin

[Model35mech]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/10/03/jeffrey_sachs_most_of_the_world_doesnt_view_the_ukraine_war_the_way_the_us_media_does.html

How far US credibility hase fallen!


Jeffrey Sachs: Rest Of The World Thinks The U.S. Probably Sabotaged The Nord Stream Pipeline, But It Doesn't Show Up In Our Media

Posted By Tim Hains On Date October 3, 2022

A Bloomberg TV host pushed back against Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs on Monday when he suggested that the U.S. and Poland are probably behind the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline.

"A lot of the world is watching these events in horror," Sachs said. "They view this as a horrible clash between Russia and the U.S. They don't see this, as we do in the media, as an unprovoked attack by Russia on Ukraine."

"Most of the world doesn't see it the way we describe it. Most of the world is just terrified right now, frankly," he added.

[PortTack]

1. Sure...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Model35mech]

2. What? You think I lied about what is in the Link???????????

I really think somebody, maybe me, missed something here..................................................

The post links to a very clear statement from BLOOMBERG.

I didn't lie I reported what was published

You can think what you wish, but I posted a pretty accurate description of what is in the provided link.

[Demsrule86]

12. That is one guy's opinion...who gives a damn? And it is Bloomberg.

[womanofthehills]

22. That one guy just happens to be chairman of the Covid commission

A pretty big world job.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. He is also full of shit about Covid

Conspiracy Theories About COVID-19 Help Nobody
The continued pushing of a “lab-leak” theory is unsupported and dangerous.
By Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO) at the University of Saskatchewan, and Michael Worobey, department head of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona,

Sachs has consistently pushed the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was engineered in a laboratory. Michael Worobey, one of this article’s authors, has been one of the most vocal proponents of taking the idea of a lab leak seriously, proposing an influential letter published in Science that brought the hypothesis into the mainstream. It was a hypothesis worth considering, especially the version that posited a natural bat virus infecting an unsuspecting lab worker; the evidence now, however, overwhelmingly indicates the pandemic did not originate via any kind of laboratory incident.

Sachs’s increasingly speculative musing about pandemic origins culminated in a recent interview with Current Affairs, in which he directly dismissed the findings of our recent, peer-reviewed paper that established the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market as the epicenter of the pandemic, with live animals being sold there the overwhelmingly likely conduit of the virus into humans. Instead of engaging with the evidence we used to reach this conclusion, Sachs claims that we are “creating a narrative” to avoid addressing his preferred hypothesis: The pandemic began as a result of a conspiracy between the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NIH-funded scientists, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Sachs recently appeared on a podcast with notorious anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., where he elaborated on these claims. He believes that American and Chinese scientists collaboratively conducted so-called gain of function research—or experiments to make a pathogen more transmissible and/or pathogenic—and that this may have been part of “biodefense” research funded by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which does not include biodefense as its primary focus. Kennedy insinuates that this alleged work may have been a violation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), a disarmament treaty that expressly forbids the development of such agents, to which Sachs replies “You can’t make this stuff up,” going on to say “a lot of this work is around the biodefense, highly classified environment and of course that means that the transparency, the understanding of what is going on here is so much less indeed than it otherwise might have been.”

Such serious allegations should be backed up by substantive evidence. However, no such evidence is offered besides suspicions based on unfunded grant applications, speculation about NIAID director Anthony Fauci’s motives, and the notion that virologists are lying to protect their profession and research funds. To date, apart from these unfounded suspicions, the sole piece of evidence that supports a lab leak is the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/09/15/conspiracy-theories-covid-19-commission/

Sachs is now basically an anti-American conspiracy theorist. He may as well be wearing a MAGA cap.

[Demsrule86]

17. No one said you lied.

[PortTack]

31. No..I'm not saying you were not truthful..not at all.

The second reason is that destroying or damaging critical infrastructure is consistent with Russia’s warfighting concept called Strategic Operation to Defeat Critical Infrastructure of the Adversary (SOPKVOP). In a conflict they had concluded was inevitable since Moscow and Washington have been in conflict over control of the post-Soviet space since the collapse of the USSR in 1991, Russian strategists spent decades conceptualizing ways to bypass the conventional superiority of the U.S. and NATO.

https://absolutenews.com/the-reasons-why-russia-likely-blew-up-the-nordstream-pipeline/

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-nord-stream-putin-explosion-1747387

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/27/russia-sabotage-suspected-after-leaks-found-on-nord-stream-pipelines.html

It is also suggested that Russia blew the pipeline testing its underwater warfare, testing the west’s vulnerabilities

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2022/09/russia-tests-latest-underwater-warfare-technology-barents-sea

[Alexander Of Assyria]

5. America is supplying vast amounts of arms to one side, logically the other side would consider

that side a partner of the enemy in war?

That’s the scary part being not discussed much…what would be Americas response, acting as proxy for Ukraine, if Russia used a tactical nuke? Ukraine has no nukes.

Scary indeed. That needs to be discussed more…what is America doing covertly in his war?

[Model35mech]

7. Well you can't know the risks with your head buried in the sand

Which is how people here seem prefer to avoiding anything that doesn't cheer their hearts

[littlemissmartypants]

3. Real Clear Politics - Right Center Bias - Republican - Conservative

Real Clear Politics - Right Center Bias - Republican - Conservative -
RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/

Check DU SOP. You may be in violation.

❤️ pants

[littlemissmartypants]

9. You may be mistaken. In more ways than one.

[Model35mech]

11. No I don't think so

It's really necessary to consider how much of the world doesn't give a flying fuck about anyone BUT the US being guilty

But I would say there IS NO EVIDENCE as yet that it was the US or a NATO nation.

The gas is no longer bubbling out into the Baltic Sea.

WHO???????? Really controls the relief VALVES on the pipeline?

Not, I think the US.

Yet, if Sachs is even marginally correct, the WORLD outside western Europe and North America thinks it IS the US

That's something to stick in your hat like a feather and consider if it's all MACARONI.

[Bucky]

10. Bloomberg has a fact vetting process and does have a professional reputation

Bloomberg has its pro-business biases, to be sure, but Real Clear Politics lives by and bends by its biases. Bloomberg is, on factual matters, far more reliable than RCP.

[Demsrule86]

15. Indeed...I would.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

4. Pro-China anti-Ukraine Tankie Jeffrey Sachs?

I didn't realize that he was the voice of the world's views on US credibility.

[Bucky]

8. the vandalism is a blow to our ally, Germany.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. I'll admit, based on my biases, I just sort of assumed it was done by Russia. I have no knowledge or any evidence that Putin ordered this attack. If anything, I assume that he'd not want this to happen, since he presumedly would like to see the pipeline put back in use some day.

Not that I think Vladimir is necessarily operating in his own rational self interest these days.

[obamanut2012]

13. Why are you boostering Tankie Sachs?

[Demsrule86]

14. You should delete. A simple google search would show you Sachs is pro-Russia at this point.

He has been involved with Russia for decades. You can read his pro-Russia stance all over the news and see his decades-long involvement with Russia.

[hlthe2b]

16. You say "How far US credibility has (sic) fallen!" REALLY? Based on a known pro-Russian academic

who has no more first-hand knowledge than I or you do? Based on accusations that make no sense and he provided no explanation as to WHY the US and Poland would do so when all it does is badly hurt Europe and our NATO allies, especially Germany?

This is pure bullshit and RW postering from RealClearPolitikkks. The question is why are you so quick to accept it as truth and to exclaim "How far US credibility has fallen! " Why?

[obamanut2012]

18. FYI: OP will be PMing anyone who disagreed with them in this thread

They are circumventing being blocked from their own OP. Just an FYI for other posters.

[FSogol]

26. Forward to admins. n/t

[JohnSJ]

19. Sachs is a reckless to make unfounded statements like that, and it is not a surprise that Sachs,

who has no particular expertise in foreign political affairs, but has no problem from making pronouncements on them.

It should be no surprise that Sachs has been making excuses for the Russian aggression against Ukraine, and suggested when Russia was amassing its forces on Ukraine's border, that if only "NATO" had taken possible Ukraine membership off the table, Russia would not invade. Too bad he wasn't paying attention that it was taken off the table, and Putin immediately begin the invasion.

Sachs blames Biden, as unwilling to "compromise" with Putin, as the reason why Putin invaded Ukraine.

He has effectively adopted the DSA, (Democratic Socialist of America) position, that it is the U.S. to blame for Putin invading Ukraine.

This is not the first time that Sach's has made unfounded statements. He repeated the COVID disinformation from China by stating publicly that COVID-19 came out of "US lab biotechnology", without proof or evidence.

That Sachs has worked as an economic adviser to governments in Latin America, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, suggests perhaps that is why he wants to give Putin the benefit of the doubt.

It should also be noted that Sachs endorsed Bernie Sanders in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, and has provided advice to Sanders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs

[malaise]

20. Misleading subject

Sachs is correct in pointing out that the majority of the planet believes the US is fighting a proxy war with Russia.

[raptor_rider]

21. Both US and

Poland did 🤷🏼?♀️

[Kingofalldems]

23. Please delete.

[womanofthehills]

27. Stop with the delete stuff

This is a discussion forum. Many of us dislike war. We dislike having to think about being hit with nuclear weapons. Thousands of young kids in the military on both sides being killed. I wish Biden would push for peace instead of sending more weapons.

[oioioi]

28. +1

[Kingofalldems]

29. Nope.

[Mad_Machine76]

25. Tucker Carlson thinks so too

and thinks that war with Russia is now inevitable. But what would the possible gain to us even be by sabotaging the pipeline?! What is the reasoning here?

[fanfanois]

30. Real clear politic is a right wing source.

They are founded and directed by a right winger, and all of their columnists are right wingers. The rules here state that right wing sources are prohibited. Please delete.