Say it Without Censorship.

Episode TRANSCRIPT :  The Cognitive War in Control of Your Mind

“Say it Uncensored”

Maria Hall

Issued on April 12, 2023

Transcription:

Hello, wherever you are! 

I am María Hall and this is one more edition of your program Dígalo Sin Censura. Thanks for being with us. You can also listen to us on the applications: Spotify, IhearthRadio , GooglePodcast , PodcastAddict , JioSaavn , Deezer , and if you visit www.radiosincensura.com you will find the transcriptions of these programs in English, French, and of course Spanish.

Well, today, as we promised you in the previous program, we will talk about the  Cognitive War and how they are promoting it, more seriously, within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO is the most serious war machine that violates international law and It has threatened the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries since the end of the Cold War, thanks to the United States, which, as we know, controls this body. The United States has been working on cognitive warfare for decades, so it is about time that its agencies abroad pick up the same tools today, to control the mind. Your mind.

Cognitive warfare is a form of conflict in which adversaries try to influence people’s perception and thinking in order to achieve a strategic advantage. This form of warfare involves the use of information, propaganda, disinformation, and other similar tactics to change the perception of events, weaken people's morale, and ultimately alter the outcome of a conflict.

Cognitive warfare can be carried out by governments, armies, companies, and individuals, and can be used in any type of conflict. Cognitive warfare often takes place in the realm of the media and social media, where fake news and messages can spread rapidly to sway public opinion.

It is important to note that cognitive warfare includes the use of psychological techniques to influence people's behavior and decision making.

For example, governments can use cognitive warfare as part of their national security strategy to influence public opinion abroad or at home.

Armies can use cognitive warfare in situations of armed conflict to weaken enemy morale or influence public opinion.

Comp

anies can use cognitive warfare to influence public opinion and protect their corporate image.

Political groups can use cognitive warfare to influence public opinion and win elections.

How can we counter cognitive warfare? It is a complex challenge, as it often involves the manipulation of information and perception to influence people's thinking and behavior. However, there are some strategies that could help counter cognitive warfare:

Media Education and Literacy: Recognizing misinformation, propaganda, and manipulation in the media and online can help people develop critical thinking skills and become more aware of attempts at cognitive manipulation. Also, it is important to verify information and sources before sharing or accepting them as true. Promoting critical thinking and informed decision making, can help people to analyze information more objectively and make decisions based on data and facts.

Lean on your ancient wisdom.

We will return…. .Music

The "Cognitive War" of the United States and NATO: in the "Battle for control of your brain"

Ben Norton

The US-led NATO military alliance governments have been developing the “cognitive warfare” tactics using the supposed threats from China and Russia to justify a “battle for the brains” in the so-called “human domain”.

The US-led NATO military cartel has tested novel modes of hybrid warfare against its unilaterally declared adversaries, including economic warfare, cyberwarfare, information warfare, and psychological warfare.

Today, it is developing another type of combat described as "cognitive warfare." Described as "arming yourself with brain science," the new method involves "hacking the individual" by exploiting "the vulnerabilities of the human brain" primarily biases, philias, and phobias to implement even more sophisticated "social engineering."

Until recently, NATO had divided warfare practices into five different operational domains: air, land, sea, space, and cyber. But with its new development of cognitive warfare strategies, the military alliance has a new sixth level: the "human domain."

A NATO-funded study on this new form of warfare made it clear: “While actions taken in all five domains are executed to have an effect on the human domain, the goal of cognitive warfare is to weaponize everyone.”

“The brain will be the battlefield of the 21st century,” the report emphasized. "Humans are the contested domain" and "future conflicts between people are likely to occur first digitally and then physically in close proximity to centers of political and economic power."

In a chilling statement, the report explicitly says that "the goal of cognitive warfare is to harm societies and not just military forces."

With entire civilian populations in NATO's crosshairs, the report stressed that Western militaries must work closer with academia to weaponize the social and human sciences and help the alliance develop its cognitive warfare capabilities. 

.

The study described this phenomenon as "the militarization of brain science." But it seems clear that the development of NATO's cognitive warfare will lead to a militarization of all aspects of human society and psychology, from the most intimate social relationships to the mind itself.

Such a degree of militarization of all areas of society is reflected in the paranoid tone of the report, which warned of "an embedded fifth column, where everyone is unknowingly behaving according to the plans of one of our competitors." The study makes it clear that those "competitors" who are allegedly exploiting the consciousness of Western dissidents are China and Russia.

In other words, this document shows that the leadership of the NATO military cartel increasingly sees its own national population as a threat, fearing that civilians are potential Chinese or Russian sleeper cells.

NATO's development of novel forms of hybrid warfare comes at a time when member states' military campaigns are directed at their own national populations at unprecedented levels.

For example, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the Canadian Army's Joint Operations Command took advantage of the Covid-19 pandemic to wage information warfare against its own national population, testing propaganda tactics against Canadian civilians.

Internal NATO studies suggest that this revelation only scratches the surface of a wave of new unconventional warfare techniques that Western militaries are employing around the world.

Canada hosts the so-called "NATO Innovation Race," which in others, deals with cognitive warfare.

Twice a year, NATO holds a 'launch event' which it calls the 'Innovation Race'. Organized one in the spring and the other in the fall, alternating between member states, these campaigns call on companies, organizations and private investigators to help develop new tactics and technologies for the military alliance.

The proposals reflect the prevailing influence of NATO's neoliberal ideology, as participants mobilize free markets, public-private partnerships and a promise to advance the agenda of the Military-Industrial Complex.

“Cognitive warfare seeks to change not just what people think, but how they act,” the Canadian government wrote in its official statement on the challenge. "Attacks against the cognitive domain involve the integration of cyber, disinformation/ malinformation , psychological, and social engineering capabilities."

Ottawa Citizen press release continued: “Cognitive warfare positions the mind as a battle arena and contested domain. Their goal is to sow dissonance, instigate conflicting narratives, polarize opinions, and radicalize groups . Cognitive warfare can motivate people to act in ways that can disrupt or fragment an otherwise united society."

A group called the ' NATO Association of Canada ' NAOC has mobilized to support this Innovation Challenge, working closely with military contractors to entice the private sector to invest in more research on behalf of NATO and their own results.

“The association has strong ties to the Government of Canada, including Global Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence.”

Also, François du Cluzel , is the former French military officer who in 2013 helped create the NATO Innovation Center ( iHub ), which he has run from his base in Norfolk, Virginia ever since.

Du Cluzel , as the manager of the Center conducting a six-month study on cognitive warfare, notes that cognitive warfare "is one of the hottest topics for NATO right now" and "has become a recurring term in the military terminology of recent years.

Although he is French, Du Cluzel emphasized that the cognitive warfare strategy "is currently being developed by my command here in Norfolk, USA." Du Cluzel , describes cognitive warfare as "A battle for the brain."'

“Cognitive warfare is a new concept that starts in the information sphere, which is a kind of hybrid warfare,” du Cluzel said .
“It starts with hyperconnectivity . Everybody has a cell phone, it starts with information because information is, if I may say so, the fuel of cognitive warfare. But it goes far beyond mere information, information warfare is an independent operation.
Cognitive warfare overlaps with big tech corporations and mass surveillance, because "it's all about harnessing big data," du Cluzel explained .
“We produce data wherever we go. Every minute, every second that we are, we are online. And it's extremely easy  to harness that data to get to know yourself better and use that knowledge to change the way you think."

Du Cluzel defined cognitive warfare as the "art of using technologies to alter the cognition of human targets."

These technologies, he highlighted, incorporate the fields of: nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Taken together, "it makes a kind of very dangerous cocktail that can further manipulate the brain," he said.

Du Cluzel went on to explain that the exotic new attack method "goes far beyond" information warfare or psychological operations ( psyops ).

"Cognitive warfare is not just a fight against what we think, but rather a fight against our way of thinking, an action against the way we think , the way we process information and turn it into knowledge." 

Yes, we can change the way people think," he said. “It is much more powerful and goes far beyond information [war] and psychological operations. It is crucial to understand that this is a game about our cognition, about the way our brains process information and turn it into knowledge, rather than just a game about information or psychological aspects of our brains.

“In other words, cognitive warfare is not just another word, another name for information warfare. It is a war against our individual processor, that is, our brain and he emphasized that "this is extremely important for us in the military", because "it has the potential, by developing new weapons and ways to damage the brain, to connect to neuroscience and technology in many different points of view to influence human ecology, because everyone knows that it is very easy to turn a civil technology into a military one.”

cognitive warfare targets might be , du Cluzel revealed that they are all on the table.

"Cognitive warfare is universal in scope , starting with the individual, states and multinational organizations," he said. "Its field of action is global and its objective is to take control of the human being, both civil and military."

And the private sector has a financial interest in advancing cognitive warfare research, he noted: "The enormous global investments made in neuroscience suggest that the cognitive domain is likely to be one of the battlefields of the future."

The development of cognitive warfare totally transforms military conflict as we know it, du Cluzel said , adding "an important third dimension of combat on the modern battlefield: to the physical and informational dimension is now added a cognitive dimension."

This “creates a new space of competition beyond what is called the five domains of operations, or land, sea, air, cyber and space domains. Warfare in the cognitive arena mobilizes a broader range of combat spaces than just the physical and informational dimensions provide.”

In short, humans themselves are the new contested domain in this new mode of hybrid warfare, along with land, sea, air, cyberspace, and outer space.

We'll be back…music… music..

NATO Cognitive Warfare Study Warns of 'Inserted Fifth Column'

The study, conducted by NATO Innovation Center manager François du Cluzel , was funded by the military cartel's Allied Command Transformation office and published as a 45-page report in January 2021.

The chilling document shows how contemporary warfare has reached a kind of dystopian stage, once imaginable only in science fiction.

“The nature of war has changed,” the report emphasized. "Most of today's conflicts remain below the threshold of the traditionally accepted definition of warfare, but new forms of warfare such as Cognitive Warfare (CW) have emerged, while the human mind is now considered a new domain of warfare." .
And anyone could be a target of these cognitive warfare operations: “Any user of modern information technologies is a potential target. It targets the entire human capital of a nation,” the report added.

“In addition to the possible perpetration of cognitive warfare to complement a military conflict, it can also be carried out alone, without any commitment to the armed forces. Likewise, cognitive warfare is potentially endless, as there can be no peace or surrender treaty for this type of conflict.

Just as this new battle mode has no geographical borders, it also has no time limit: “ This battlefield is global via the Internet. Without beginning or end, this conquest knows no truce, marked by notifications from our smartphones , anywhere, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The study noted that "some NATO nations have already recognized that neuroscience techniques and technologies have high potential for operational use in a variety of security, defense and intelligence enterprises."

François du Cluzel spoke of advances in " neuroscientific methods and neurotechnologies , uses of research results and products to directly facilitate the performance of combatants, the integration of human-machine interfaces to optimize the combat capabilities of semi-autonomous vehicles (for example drones ) and the development of biological and chemical weapons (i.e., neural weapons).”

And, “although several nations have conducted and are currently conducting neuroscientific research and development for military purposes, the most proactive efforts in this regard have been made by the United States Department of Defense; with the most notable and rapidly maturing research and development being carried out by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA).”

Military uses of neuroscientific research and neurotechnologies , include intelligence gathering, training, "optimizing performance and resilience in combat and supporting military personnel" and, of course, "direct weaponization of neuroscience and neurotechnology”.

This militarization of neuroscientists and neurotechnologies can and will be fatal, the NATO study clearly pointed out. The research can “be used to mitigate aggression and foster cognitions and emotions of affiliation or passivity; induce morbidity, disability or suffering; and “neutralize” potential opponents or cause death”, in other words, it can maim and kill people.

Human Domain Operations Plan , it will support combat operations by providing possible courses of action for the entire surrounding human environment, including enemy forces, but also determining key human elements such as the center of cognitive severity, desired behavior as end state.

All academic disciplines will be implicated in cognitive warfare, not just the hard sciences. “Within the armed forces, expertise in anthropology, ethnography, history, psychology, among other areas, will be required more than ever before to cooperate with the armed forces,” the NATO-sponsored study stated.

The report concludes with a disturbing quote: “Today's advances in nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC), driven by the seemingly unstoppable march of a triumphant troika made of Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and civilizational 'digital addiction' have created a much more sinister perspective: an inserted fifth column, where everyone unknowingly behaves according to the plans of one of our competitors."

"The modern concept of war is not about weapons but about influence ." " Long-term victory will continue to depend solely on the ability to influence, affect, change, or impact the cognitive domain."

The NATO study concluded with a final paragraph that makes it clear beyond any doubt that the ultimate goal of the Western military alliance is not just physical control of the planet, but also control over the minds of the people: “
The Cognitive warfare may well be the missing element that will enable the transition from military victory on the battlefield to lasting political success. The human domain could well be the decisive domain, in which multi-domain operations achieve the commander's effect. The first five domains can yield tactical and operational victories; only human mastery can achieve our final and total victory.

music …. music…. . music…. .

This has been all for today, thank you for having been with us in another edition of your program "Say it without Censorship", we love you all very much, until next time.

Say it Without Censorship.

Episode:  

TRANSCRIPT: Episode: "Critical Thinking and Global Warming"

“Say it Uncensored”

María Hall

Issued on April 1, 2023

Hello, good day everyone, wherever you are, I am María Hall and this is one more edition of your program Dígalo Sin Censura. Thanks for being with us. You can also listen to us on the applications: Spotify, IhearthRadio , GooglePodcast , PodcastAddict , JioSaavn , Deezer , and if you visit www.radiosincensura.com you will find the transcriptions of these programs in English, French, and of course Spanish.

Well, we often talk to you about improving your critical thinking and deepening your political awareness, among other qualities necessary to increase your ability to understand, compare, evaluate, interpret, analyze and conclude accurately and objectively what is behind the information that comes to you daily.

So, many of you want to know more about critical thinking, political awareness and how to acquire them to be better thinkers and why, lacking these qualities makes us easy victims of the so-called cognitive warfare, already underway around the world.

Today we will talk to you about that and as an example of contaminated information we will give you part of a report on climate and greenhouse gases released by Euronews , and hundreds of other media, based on a report from the European organization Climate Change Service. of Copernicus (C3S). This information, coming from an organization that belongs to the European Commission, creator of Copernicus , has credibility among those who do not seek deeper information about who is in charge of institutions that, since their creation, have shown great affinity with politics. US imperial.

Copernicus has a direct and indirect relationship with the US Pentagon, with NATO, and with corporations that profit from wars.

At the end of this issue we talk to you in more depth about critical thinking. But now listen to the note that we bring you about global warming, taking into account that the information comes from the Copernicus Climate Change Service , which currently has several " Sentinel " satellites and the Sentinel satellite number 6 is the result of an alliance between organizations European organizations such as the European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites, and the American NASA. The same ones that are destroying the protective layer of the planet. Global warming is real, but who is to blame?

We’ll be right back….music

Copernicus Climate Change Service , 2022 was a year of record temperatures, climate extremes and high concentrations of Greenhouse Gases, says the report entitled: “Global Climate Highlights from the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) )

Some countries around the world experienced temperatures exceeding 40°C, which brought with them heat waves and forest fires. Other regions of the globe, due to variations in precipitation patterns, suffered from heavy rains that led to floods or droughts that affected crops.

Last year it was positioned as the fifth warmest recorded to date since these types of records have been kept worldwide. Some regions even broke their own records. “Temperatures were more than 2°C above the 1991-2020 reference period average in parts of northern central Siberia and along the Antarctic Peninsula.

"Greenhouse gases are the main drivers of climate change and, thanks to our monitoring activities, we can verify that atmospheric concentrations continue to increase with no signs of slowing down," said Vincent-Henri Peuch, director of the Monitoring Service of the Copernicus atmosphere (CAMS).

Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service calculated that as of December 10, 2022, around 1,455 megatonnes of gases were emitted as a result of forest fires and vegetation worldwide. 

Substantially high emissions were recorded in Europe and South America during their peak wildfire seasons.

For Samantha Burgess, Deputy Director of Copernicus, “these phenomena show that we are already experiencing the devastating consequences of global warming. The latest report from the Copernicus Climate Change Service provides clear evidence that avoiding the worst consequences will require society to urgently reduce carbon emissions and rapidly adapt to climate change .”

“The last eight years are on track to be the eight hottest ever recorded, driven by steadily increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and accumulated heat. Extreme heat waves, devastating droughts and floods have affected millions of people and cost billions this year,” the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said.

In Latin America, the December heat wave experienced by Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay was 60 times more likely due to climate change. In these countries, temperatures exceeded 40°C in 24 locations, four of them above 45°C.

According to scientists from the World Climate Attribution (WWA) organization, if Greenhouse Gas emissions are not curbed, global temperatures will continue to rise and these types of events will become more frequent. 

Although the reports do not refer to Central America, the inhabitants of the isthmus witnessed a fairly rainy 2022 that triggered several emergencies due to floods, landslides, and landslides.

As regards Africa, Asia and Oceania, in January and February 2022, a series of tropical storms – including three cyclones – hit Madagascar, Mozambique, Malawi and other neighboring countries.

In addition, an unusually prolonged heat wave affected Pakistan and northern India from March to May Some parts of Pakistan reached temperatures of 45°C and, according to the organization World Climate Attribution , climate change made these devastating heat 30 times more likely in these Asian countries 

In 2022, Europe experienced the hottest summer on record, with many countries reporting impacts on agriculture, river transport and energy management,” the report says.

Outside of Europe, North America faced water shortages, extreme heat, and dry soil moisture conditions throughout the summer of 2022.

“ Drought conditions observed in 2022 in both regions would have been less likely in the early 20th century .

And, at the close of the year, Europe experienced an “unprecedented” winter heat wave. Poland, Denmark, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Belarus, Lithuania and Latvia experienced their hottest New Years on record; while Germany, France and Spain recorded record temperatures in January 2023.

In addition, according to the reinsurer Swiss Re, the extreme events that occurred in 2022 caused damage worth $268,000 million ; being Hurricane Ian – which hit the Caribbean, Central America and the United States at the end of September – the one that caused the greatest economic losses, calculated between $50,000 and $65,000 million.

Regarding human lives, and according to data from the German reinsurer Munich Re, the extreme events experienced last year caused some 11,000 deaths worldwide , after the 9,320 deaths that occurred in 2021, said part of the report presented by Euronews .

So, what you've heard is happening around the world, and as you may have noticed, it has been repeated that these problems are due to Greenhouse Gases, but they leave out information that, if known, would make it clear who the culprits are. guilty of this violation of the protective layer of the planet.

And furthermore, they tell us that “societywill need to urgently reduce carbon emissions and quickly adapt to climate change ”. But what about the warmongering corporations, imperial governments and the US military, which are the biggest polluters in the world? Why doesn't Copernicus denounce them? The US Pentagon is the biggest polluter on the planet.

Nor do they mention the damage caused by explosions in space to the belt known as the Van Allen, two radiation belts that in turn shield the Earth from outside radiation. The “ South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly” is a region where the Van Allen radiation belts lie a few hundred kilometers from the Earth's surface. As a result, in that region the radiation intensity is higher than in other regions. Uruguay is at the center of this Anomaly, a region that includes Paraguay and parts of Argentina, Brazil and Chile, and even extends to the southern tip of South Africa. Scientists differ on the cause of this damage. Especially scientists who work for the Pentagon, NATO, HAARP or corporations that profit from war conflicts and the conquest of space. Space explosions have damaged these belts.

And of course they don't talk about the contradiction that exists in the scientific community about the relationship between greenhouse gases and the ozone layer. Some say that there is no relationship, others say that there is and they can verify it.

Ozone layer damage is generally said, to be a significant decrease in the amount of ozone in the stratosphere over Antarctica during the spring and summer months. This decrease in the amount of ozone is mainly due to the presence of certain chemicals, especially chlorine and bromine, which are released by human activity, such as the use of certain chemicals in refrigeration and in the manufacture of aerosols.

They hide from us that, according to scientists, “as the world community has come to understand more about these problems and the complex physical and chemical processes that drive them, we have become increasingly aware of the ways in which actions to address each one are interrelated. The most obvious link between efforts to mitigate ozone depletion and climate change is the fact that certain ozone-depleting substances (ODS), such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), are also powerful greenhouse gases. greenhouse effect. Additionally, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and other halocarbons, which are not ozone-depleting but are greenhouse gases, are commonly used as alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons . This illustrates the need to consider the implications for both issues when choosing alternatives to ozone-depleting substances and to consider environmental impact as an important factor, in addition to technical and financial feasibility.

Another important link has to do with how ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases alter certain processes in the atmosphere to increase both global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion. These changes result in a warming of the troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere. Stratospheric cooling is a key factor in the development of ozone holes over the poles. It is clear that actions to mitigate global warming can have positive effects on ozone depletion and vice versa. However, care must be taken to avoid solutions to one problem that make the other worse.

On the other hand, rockets launched into space threaten the ozone layer by depositing radicals directly into the stratosphere, with solid fuel rockets causing the most damage due to the hydrogen chloride and aluminum they contain.

In an investigation entitled: “Summary of the impact of space rocket launches on stratospheric ozone”, prepared for the US Air Force Missile and Space Systems Center, it was said that:

“It is well known that the solid fuel rocket motors of large space launch vehicles release gases and particles that can significantly affect stratospheric ozone densities along the rocket's path. Solid rocket exhaust products deplete ozone in the stratosphere as solid propellants, which contain large amounts of chlorinated substances, have the potential to chemically destroy ozone in the stratosphere.

In addition, a series of chemical reactions at extremely high temperature levels in the rocket column cause the immediate release of large amounts of active chlorine in a small area of the stratosphere local to the rocket column. On a global scale, each chlorine atom released eventually causes the destruction of thousands of ozone molecules in what is known as the catalytic cycle.

On the other hand, researchers from the University of Canterbury (UC), have summarized the threats that rocket launches would pose to the Earth's protective ozone layer in a review article, published in the journal of the Royal New Zealand Society. , where they say that, “the ozone layer that protects life on Earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays was badly damaged in the 1980s and 1990s by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Contemporary rockets emit reactive chlorine, black carbon, and nitrogen oxides (among other species).

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) are chemical substances made up of carbon, fluorine and chlorine atoms, belonging to the group of halocarbons , they have a very long life and remain in the atmosphere between 50 and 200 years; their potential to cause ozone depletion lasts for decades, even after being withdrawn from circulation.”

In addition to rockets, according to Aaron C. Boley and Michael Byers of "Scientific Report," man-made mega-constellations of satellites create risks in low-atmosphere orbit. Corporations are sending satellites into space at an unprecedented frequency to build "mega constellations" of communications satellites. In two years, the number of active and extinct satellites has increased by more than 50%, to about 5,000 (as of March 30, 2021). Elon Musk's SpaceX alone is on track to add 11,000 more as it builds its " Starlink " mega-constellation to deliver high-speed broadband internet via satellite to the entire planet, and has already applied for another 30,000 satellites with the Federal Commission. of Communications of the United States. Something that worries many scientists

In addition, there is the “South Atlantic Anomaly” and the so-called “Argus” project, carried out between August and September 1958, when the United States Navy detonated three nuclear fission bombs 480 km above the South Atlantic Ocean. and two hydrogen bombs 100 miles over Johnston Island in Africa, and the military called it the "greatest scientific experiment ever undertaken, but this gigantic experiment spawned new Van Allen belts." interiors of magnetic radiation, which covered almost the entire earth.

In addition, in the Starfish Project, in 1962 the United States began a series of experiments in the ionosphere, where a kiloton artifact was detonated at a height of 60 km, a megaton, and a multi-megaton device at several hundred kilometers. km of altitude, generating a wider belt than the Argus Project. According to scientific reports, it will take many hundreds of years for the Van Allen belts to return to their normal level. The bomb also disrupted the Earth's Magnetic Field or its protective shield, and for days, distortions in the atmosphere caused by the accumulation of traces of lithium and other compounds were observed .

Also, there are the serious implications of the so-called "Solar Energy Satellite Project"

It started around 1978 and its explosions caused physical changes in the ionosphere, contributing to damage to the ozone layer.

Also, there are the so-called Innovative Shuttle Experiments. In 1985 the use of shuttles for space experiments in Earth orbit began using the injection of gases from the Space Maneuver to “cause a sudden reduction in local plasma concentration, creating a so-called “ozone hole”. This artificially induced plasma reduction can be used to investigate other space phenomena, such as increased plasma imbalances or modification of radio propagation paths. The fire in 47 seconds of the System of Space Maneuver on July 29, 1985, produced the largest and longest-lasting ionospheric hole ever recorded. During this decade the rockets launched were maintained at a rate of 500 to 600 per year with a peak of 1,500 in 1989. Although many more were launched during the Gulf War. The shuttle is the largest of the solid-fuel rockets, with twin 45-meter boosters. Solid-fuel rockets release vast amounts of hydrochloric acid in their combustion, each shuttle flight injecting some 75 tons of ozone-destroying chlorine into the stratosphere. Those launched since 1992 inject even more ozone-destroying chlorine with more than 187 tons into the stratosphere where the ozone layer is.

This type of mercenaries from space are destroying our protective layer, but little is known about them because those who manipulate the information are the same ones who work around the elite that seeks to control the planet. And the famous Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) which also feels the information on climate change, unfortunately works for them. Their operations for world control, climate warfare, cognitive warfare, conventional warfare, among other malevolent acts against the world, will continue to hit us if the peoples do not learn to know their true enemies through critical thinking and political awareness. , among other qualities. Climate change, above all, is caused by the enemies of the working class, in their eagerness to control it in its entirety, to make it obedient, docile, and subservient to their interests. And that they continue to pay more and more green taxes to save the planet that they are destroying.

are back…. music …. music ….. music ….

Now we will talk about Critical Thinking:

Critical thinking is a skill that involves analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information to reach a logical and well-founded conclusion. It is a reflective process used to question and evaluate ideas, arguments, and evidence, seeking to reach a conclusion based on logic and reasoning.

Critical thinking involves being able to recognize relevant and valuable information, question the information that is presented deeply and intelligently and assess the quality of the evidence, consider different perspectives and approaches, and come to an informed conclusion.

Critical thinking skills can be applied in various areas of life, such as decision making, problem solving, effective communication, and understanding and evaluating information.

And who contributes to damaging critical thinking by distributing fake news? Unfortunately, these people are everywhere, and they can be: your friend, your neighbor, your teacher, your boss, your doctor, the director of a non-profit organization, your union, your pastor, your spiritual guide, your counselor. financier, your psychologist, community radio that receives funds from elite-controlled foundations, radio and television news, among other knowingly or unknowingly peddlers of falsehoods, because being a professional does not necessarily imply that you have a political conscience or that their critical thinking is deep, sometimes they are the most corrupt beings around them but that happens due to their ignorance and lack of deep analysis. So don't allow your own ignorance or arrogance to automatically place you in the line of provider of false news to your same classmates. Get informed and then help others to get informed wisely and objectively.

In our second part we will talk about cognitive warfare as a mind control design.

Thank you for having been with us in another edition of your program say it Without Censorship, I am María Hall, you are loved very much, until next time.

what is political consciousness?

Political awareness refers to a person's ability to understand, analyze, and participate in political and social issues. Political awareness involves being informed about relevant political and social issues, having a critical understanding of political and social structures, and having the ability to make informed decisions about political and social issues.

Political awareness does not necessarily imply voting, protesting or getting involved in political campaigns, because today many people vote, get involved in political campaigns and protest for what they should not protest or vote for who they should not vote for, because when there is no political awareness , politicians, worth the redundancy, easily deceive the least thinking peoples to vote for causes that ultimately go against their own interests.

Being politically aware is important, otherwise decisions may be made that do not represent the interests of the majority of the population.

Both political awareness and critical thinking are important skills that complement each other and are necessary to achieve an informed and active people in a healthy, truly democratic society where there is not so much inequality and the media falsehood called “fake news.”

The impact of fake news is negative for the people, it is important that news consumers verify the source and veracity of the information before sharing it or making decisions based on it.

And here we return to global warming. Global warming is caused by man, but... what kind of men?

So, you be the judge, and that is where you, with your deep critical thinking and your clear and consistent political conscience, are going to intelligently analyze, investigate and question, to find the correct answers and then help all those who lack critical thinking, begin to become aware that without critical thinking and without political awareness they will be easy prey for Cognitive Warfare, an effective weapon of mind control. In our second part we will talk about cognitive warfare as a mind control design.

Thank you for having been with us in another edition of your program say it Without Censorship, I am María Hall, you are loved very much, until next time.  

Say it Without Censorship.

Episode: Were the earthquakes in Turkey and Syria the work of the United States?  aired March 5th 2023

You be the judge.

Hello and good day, wherever you are, this is Maria Hall with one more edition of “Dígalo Sin Censura”. -  

Say it Without Censorship.-“Thanks for being with us. 

You can also listen to us on the applications: Spotify, IhearthRadio , GooglePodcast , PodcastAddict , JioSaavn , Deezer, and if you visit www.radiosincensura.com you will find the transcriptions of these programs in English, French, and of course Spanish.

Well, many of you, and it is obvious, want to know about the earthquakes in Turkey and Syria and ask if the United States could have caused these disasters that have already left more than 50 thousand dead in Syria and Turkey in addition to billions of dollars in losses. 

We cannot assure you that the United States is behind these disasters, but yes, we can give you some deeper details that the United States has the technology to cause this type of disaster when it is convenient.

If your political awareness is deep as well as your critical thinking and your ability to discern, to analyze is solid, possibly you will make your own decision on whether this was natural or a coldly provoked attack as coldly provoked were the attacks of the Nordstream gas pipelines. There is evidence that it was the USA. Visit www.radiosincensura.com,  there is an episode in our Podcast, that explains this, very clearly. 

So, going deeper into how the United States has been using technology to control the environment, there will be no doubt whether or not this deadly disaster was evilly provoked by the United States.

On February 4, 2023, it was announced that: the Interior Minister of Turkey, suleyman Soylu said, in a public intervention to the US ambassador to Turkey, Jeffrey L. Flake , this, according to the Turkish Anadolu agency. The minister told the US representative:

"I am addressing the US ambassador from here. I know the journalists you incite to write articles. Get your dirty hands-off Turkey. I am being very clear. I know very well how you would like to create conflicts in Turkey. Get your smiling face off Turkey ". Soylu went on to accused the US embassies in Europe of coming together to try to control the continent. He added that the US efforts in Turkey were futile thanks to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan .

“Turkey has this misfortune: every US ambassador who comes to Turkey is quick to ask how he can foment a coup, how he can hurt Turkey. For years it has been one of the most important misfortunes in Turkey, everything comes from there. He gathers the other ambassadors and whispers to them," denounced the minister. In other words, the United States has had many differences with Turkey for some time, and making one or more disdain to the warlike United States could mean great punishment.

Suleyman  Soylu said this on February 4, 2023, on February 6, two days later, a strong earthquake hits Turkey, in which, according to reports until March 3, the dead exceeded 50 thousand. In addition, on February 3, it was reported that Turkey summoned nine Western ambassadors over its security alerts, including the United States and Sweden, to criticize their decision to temporarily close diplomatic missions and issue security alerts following the security incidents. Koran burning in Europe. The envoys from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Great Britain were also summoned, according to sources from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Turkish capital .

All this, just a few days from the big earthquakes. Coincidence or Revenge. The United States has the tools, according to in-depth research by experts, and the ability to create not only earthquakes, but also tsunamis, floods, forest fires, droughts, fierce winds, snowfall, etc.

Worldwide questions of alternative organic analysts are: What security alerts were the ambassadors talking about? And who promoted these alerts? Was it the earthquakes?

In the past two weeks, far-right activists have burned copies of the Muslim holy book, the Koran, in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, actions that led Turkey to break off negotiations to drop its objections to Sweden and Finland's entry into NATO.

Turkish Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu , accused the embassies of waging "a new psychological warfare" against Turkey on the same day that Ankara had set itself a goal of attracting 60 million tourists a year.

A couple of days before the call, France, Germany, Italy and the United States were some of the countries that warned their citizens of a greater risk of attacks in Turkey, particular against diplomatic missions and non-Muslim places of worship.

Germany, France and the Netherlands were some of the countries that temporarily closed diplomatic missions in Turkey. Some cited areas in central Istanbul as very worrying, but did not provide the source of the information.

Berlin also warned the public of a "threat" and said there is "precise and concrete" information about the existence of this threat, but did not name any group behind the threat.

Recently, far-right Danish-Swedish politician Rasmus Paludan burned a copy of the Koran in front of a Stockholm’s Mosque, threatening to do so every week until Turkey agreed to Sweden's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

All 30 NATO members must approve newcomers. Sweden and Finland applied to join last year in the face of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but met with surprising resistance from Turkey, because when they declared their intention to join NATO, Turkey expressed opposition to the intention, mostly from Sweden. and, to be accepted into the military alliance, the unanimous consent of all 30 NATO members is required and, with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a key member of this treaty, disfavoring that possibility, this is bad news for the United States, the whole world knows, that is the US  the one who manipulates NATO.

Regarding the possibility that Finland decides to enter NATO before Sweden if Turkey maintains the veto on Stockholm, the Finnish representative pointed out that it is "almost impossible" to answer what Finland would do in that case, because it is a "speculative" question.

The Swedish minister, for his part, did not want to answer whether Finland's entry into NATO separately could deteriorate bilateral relations between the two nations and said that it is not up to him as minister to comment on the accession process of the neighboring country and, with respect to the war in Ukraine, said the minister assured that, for his country, which this semester holds the rotating presidency of the European Union (EU), no task is more important than maintaining the unity of community partners, increasing support for Ukraine and increasing pressure on Russia, something the United States favors. Sweden, for its part, will send Ukraine 50 CV-90 armored fighting vehicles, and wants the EU to explore during its rotating presidency other ways to support Kiev in its war against Russia.

"The lifting of sanctions will open the doors for additional and supplementary aid that will bring immediate relief to those in need," the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee said.

The unilateral US sanctions against Syria hinder the arrival of humanitarian assistance to the country after the powerful earthquakes denounced the Committee."The lifting of sanctions will open the doors for additional and supplementary aid that will provide immediate relief to those in need".

Separately, United Nations coordinator Jens Laerke said: "We know that the quake has mainly affected the northern part of Syria. Many territories are disputed. Many territories are under opposition control. It will be a challenge to reach up there. This is a country that has suffered 11 years of war. The infrastructure is damaged."

The official added that "it is very important to put politics aside" and "consider this as a strictly humanitarian issue." "This is about saving lives," he concluded.

For his part, the president of the Syrian Red Crescent,  a humanitarian nonprofit organization Khaled Hboubati, called on the European Union to lift its sanctions against Syria to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the affected areas, the restrictive measures aggravate the difficult humanitarian situation, and affirmed that the organization is "ready to deliver aid to all regions of Syria, even to areas that are not under government control, but there is not even fuel to send aid convoys and that is because of the blockade and sanctions, he said.

Martin Griffiths, United Nations assistant secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, said that before the earthquakes, 15.3 million people (70% of the population) required humanitarian assistance, and said he saw entire neighborhoods destroyed when visiting the place after the earthquake in the middle of winter.

The crime against humanity, say alternative organic analysts, is that the United States is stealing Syria's oil. According to local sources in that country, the US invaders, in recent months have transferred more than 300 tankers full of oil looted from Syrian fields to their bases in Iraq through the illegal border crossing Al-Mahmudia, in northeast Syria . The United States established military bases in the Konico , Al-Omar, Al- Tanak , and Releman oil fields in Hasakeh and Deir provinces Ezzor , considered to be the one with the highest hydrocarbon production in the country.

The US invaders, the note says, have occupied areas of northeastern Syria under the pretext of fighting terrorism and are continually stealing the Arab country's oil resources. With the defeat of the Daesh terrorist group as the US military arm in Syria nearly six years ago, US forces directly replaced this group and began extracting and stealing Syrian oil. And today, the United States does not allow aid to Syria.

The United States sowed the conflict in Syria and continues to bleed the country after more than a decade of attacks of all kinds, then, why will they allow help after the earthquakes,  that in the first place, many are already claiming it was an USA creation?,  that is how USA  works. And there are hundreds of proofs, and the last one could be the attack on the Nordstream gas pipelines , which has been denied by the United States, but an expert  who participated in the plan and a recognized and reliable analyst and investigator, both Americans, exposed such a criminal attack.  And even after that denounce, the United States appears more aggressive than ever, more belligerent, more heartless, they have the tools to pulverize the planet and more. 

You be the judge.

The UN climate change summit (COP27) opened in Egypt on November 6, 2022. At that summit, more than 120 world leaders gathered amid a well-known propaganda campaign telling us that “Our planet is sending a distress signal. However, alternative organic analysts have pointed out that US environmental modification techniques have been carefully excluded from the climate change debate.

While environmental modification techniques have been available to the US military for over half a century, there is no concrete evidence that these techniques have been used to trigger extreme weather conditions, as their activities are classified. That is to say, they protect themselves perfectly and also, being the masters of the world, there is no talk that the US Department of Defense is the biggest polluter in the world or that the damage to the ozone layer is due to an experiment that did the United States did decades ago.  We talk about that in more depth in part 2 of this topic.

We’ll be right back….music….music…

Prof Michel Chossudovsky says that:

“Man-made Climate Change” was casually heralded as the cause of the Pakistan floods that “killed 1,508 people, inundated millions of acres of land and affected 33 million people. More than half a million people have been left homeless.

While there is said to be no concrete evidence that the 2022 heat waves and floods were caused by environmental modification techniques, the issue of climate manipulation needs to be addressed and analysed. US military documents, as well as scientific reports, confirm that "environmental modification techniques" (ENMOD) are fully operational.

On the other hand, there is no firm evidence, as described by mainstream media, routinely citing authoritative climate scientists, that these extreme weather conditions are the result of so-called “human-induced greenhouse gas emissions”. 

In addition, it must be understood that these greenhouse gas emissions that supposedly trigger “global warming” are being used as a pretext and justification to adopt drastic and unnecessary measures that lead to the total destabilization of agriculture. These measures have been applied simultaneously in several countries. They remain as part of a “climate consensus” that also consists of banning the use of fossil fuels.

The underlying procedure is as follows: The “climate agenda” (ie global warming) is to restrict the use of fertilizers with a view to “reducing nitrogen emissions” (for example in the Netherlands, and western Canada). “To the point that it is impossible for the farms to continue operating. This, in turn, leads to triggering major food shortages and famines.

There are too many coincidences and contradictions. The causes of extreme weather conditions must be addressed. Much of the information on the use of environmental modification techniques and their impacts is "classified." That is, there is no access to that information.

The matter should be the subject of an intergovernmental investigation conducted in accordance with the terms of the landmark 1977 International Convention ratified by the UN General Assembly that prohibits "the military  hostile use of environmental modification techniques that are  widespread, long-lasting and are  serious”.

Each State Party to the Convention undertakes not to make military use of environmental modification techniques that have widespread, lasting or serious effects as a means of destruction, damage or injury to any other Member State.

It should be noted that, in February 1998, the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP programme. The Committee's “Motion for a Resolution” submitted to the European Parliament Considers that HAARP, by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment, is a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an independent international body ...; [the Committee] regrets the US Administration's repeated refusal…to present evidence at the public hearing, on the environmental and public risk [of the HAARP program”.

Environmental Modification Techniques  are instruments of "climate warfare" and are an integral part of the US military arsenal.

“Weather modification will become part of national and international security and could be done unilaterally. It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on Earth or to modify space weather and the production of artificial weather are part of an integrated suite of military technologies.”

It should be noted that with the closure of the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program ( HAARP ) in Alaska in 2014, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been actively involved in researching environmental modification techniques, most of which is classified.

In relation to the current context, including the war in Ukraine, the Pentagon has formulated the contours of a global military agenda, a "long war", a war without borders. “Climate warfare” is part of a diversified military arsenal of conventional and strategic weapons systems. The environmental modification technique is potentially a weapon of mass destruction (WMD), with the ability to destabilize an enemy's ecosystem, destroying their agriculture, disabling communication networks, among other damage.

Weather manipulation is the quintessential preventative weapon. It may be directed against enemy countries or even “friendly nations”, without their knowledge.

Weather manipulation can be used to destabilize an enemy's economy, ecosystem, and agriculture. Environmental modification techniques can undermine the entire national economy, impoverish millions of people, and “kill a nation” without the deployment of troops and military equipment.

American mathematician John von Neumann, working with the US Department of Defense, began his research on weather modification in the late 1940s, at the height of the Cold War, and foresaw "forms of war climatic conditions still unimaginable”. During the Vietnam War, cloud seeding techniques were used, beginning in 1967 under “Project Popeye”, which aimed to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

The US military has developed advanced capabilities that allow it to selectively alter weather patterns. The technology, which was initially developed in the 1990s under the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP). From a military point of view, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilizing agricultural and ecological systems around the world.

Officially, the HAARP program was said to have been shut down at its Alaska location, but, alternative organic analysts realized that after several exchanges and meetings it was handed over to the control of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, where the weather modification technology, full of secrets, however, prevails. In other words, HAARP technology is fully operational. According to reports from the same Fairbanks University: “The operation of the research facility was transferred from the United States Air Force to the University on August 11, 2015, allowing HAARP to continue exploring ionospheric phenomenology at through a land use cooperative research and development agreement. HAARP is the world's most capable high-power, high-frequency transmitter for the study of the ionosphere. The HAARP program is committed to the development of a world-class ionospheric research facility." Says the official information of the university.

We’ll be right back!

Music…music…

Thank you for having been with us in one more edition of  “Say It Without Censorship” and remember that: When the peoples begin to question this type of secret investigations in depth, perhaps they will stop blaming mother earth for devastating droughts or floods or earthquakes, although it is true that they happen daily where tectonic plates exist, the vile hand of the man with imperialist dreams, can increase these events and even make them more lethal when it suits them to increase their world control and with it, the control of the planet's resources.

This is Maria Hall, love you guys, see you soon.

The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now

Seymour Hersh

The U.S. Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center can be found in a location as obscure as its name—down what was once a country lane in rural Panama City, a now-booming resort city in the southwestern panhandle of Florida, 70 miles south of the Alabama border. The center’s complex is as nondescript as its location—a drab concrete post-World War II structure that has the look of a vocational high school on the west side of Chicago. A coin-operated laundromat and a dance school are across what is now a four-lane road.

The center has been training highly skilled deep-water divers for decades who, once assigned to American military units worldwide, are capable of technical diving to do the good—using C4 explosives to clear harbors and beaches of debris and unexploded ordnance—as well as the bad, like blowing up foreign oil rigs, fouling intake valves for undersea power plants, destroying locks on crucial shipping canals. The Panama City center, which boasts the second largest indoor pool in America, was the perfect place to recruit the best, and most taciturn, graduates of the diving school who successfully did last summer what they had been authorized to do 260 feet under the surface of the Baltic Sea.

Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.

Two of the pipelines, which were known collectively as Nord Stream 1, had been providing Germany and much of Western Europe with cheap Russian natural gas for more than a decade. A second pair of pipelines, called Nord Stream 2, had been built but were not yet operational. Now, with Russian troops massing on the Ukrainian border and the bloodiest war in Europe since 1945 looming, President Joseph Biden saw the pipelines as a vehicle for Vladimir Putin to weaponize natural gas for his political and territorial ambitions.

Asked for comment, Adrienne Watson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email, “This is false and complete fiction.” Tammy Thorp, a spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly wrote: “This claim is completely and utterly false.”

Biden’s decision to sabotage the pipelines came after more than nine months of highly secret back and forth debate inside Washington’s national security community about how to best achieve that goal. For much of that time, the issue was not whether to do the mission, but how to get it done with no overt clue as to who was responsible.

There was a vital bureaucratic reason for relying on the graduates of the center’s hardcore diving school in Panama City. The divers were Navy only, and not members of America’s Special Operations Command, whose covert operations must be reported to Congress and briefed in advance to the Senate and House leadership—the so-called Gang of Eight. The Biden Administration was doing everything possible to avoid leaks as the planning took place late in 2021 and into the first months of 2022.

President Biden and his foreign policy team—National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, and Victoria Nuland, the Undersecretary of State for Policy—had been vocal and consistent in their hostility to the two pipelines, which ran side by side for 750 miles under the Baltic Sea from two different ports in northeastern Russia near the Estonian border, passing close to the Danish island of Bornholm before ending in northern Germany.

The direct route, which bypassed any need to transit Ukraine, had been a boon for the German economy, which enjoyed an abundance of cheap Russian natural gas—enough to run its factories and heat its homes while enabling German distributors to sell excess gas, at a profit, throughout Western Europe. Action that could be traced to the administration would violate US promises to minimize direct conflict with Russia. Secrecy was essential.

From its earliest days, Nord Stream 1 was seen by Washington and its anti-Russian NATO partners as a threat to western dominance. The holding company behind it, Nord Stream AG, was incorporated in Switzerland in 2005 in partnership with Gazprom, a publicly traded Russian company producing enormous profits for shareholders which is dominated by oligarchs known to be in the thrall of Putin. Gazprom controlled 51 percent of the company, with four European energy firms—one in France, one in the Netherlands and two in Germany—sharing the remaining 49 percent of stock, and having the right to control downstream sales of the inexpensive natural gas to local distributors in Germany and Western Europe. Gazprom’s profits were shared with the Russian government, and state gas and oil revenues were estimated in some years to amount to as much as 45 percent of Russia’s annual budget.

America’s political fears were real: Putin would now have an additional and much-needed major source of income, and Germany and the rest of Western Europe would become addicted to low-cost natural gas supplied by Russia—while diminishing European reliance on America. In fact, that’s exactly what happened. Many Germans saw Nord Stream 1 as part of the deliverance of former Chancellor Willy Brandt’s famed Ostpolitik theory, which would enable postwar Germany to rehabilitate itself and other European nations destroyed in World War II by, among other initiatives, utilizing cheap Russian gas to fuel a prosperous Western European market and trading economy.

Nord Stream 1 was dangerous enough, in the view of NATO and Washington, but Nord Stream 2, whose construction was completed in September of 2021, would, if approved by German regulators, double the amount of cheap gas that would be available to Germany and Western Europe. The second pipeline also would provide enough gas for more than 50 percent of Germany’s annual consumption. Tensions were constantly escalating between Russia and NATO, backed by the aggressive foreign policy of the Biden Administration.

Opposition to Nord Stream 2 flared on the eve of the Biden inauguration in January 2021, when Senate Republicans, led by Ted Cruz of Texas, repeatedly raised the political threat of cheap Russian natural gas during the confirmation hearing of Blinken as Secretary of State. By then a unified Senate had successfully passed a law that, as Cruz told Blinken, “halted [the pipeline] in its tracks.” There would be enormous political and economic pressure from the German government, then headed by Angela Merkel, to get the second pipeline online.

Would Biden stand up to the Germans? Blinken said yes, but added that he had not discussed the specifics of the incoming President’s views. “I know his strong conviction that this is a bad idea, the Nord Stream 2,” he said. “I know that he would have us use every persuasive tool that we have to convince our friends and partners, including Germany, not to move forward with it.”

A few months later, as the construction of the second pipeline neared completion, Biden blinked. That May, in a stunning turnaround, the administration waived sanctions against Nord Stream AG, with a State Department official conceding that trying to stop the pipeline through sanctions and diplomacy had “always been a long shot.” Behind the scenes, administration officials reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, by then facing a threat of Russian invasion, not to criticize the move.

There were immediate consequences. Senate Republicans, led by Cruz, announced an immediate blockade of all of Biden’s foreign policy nominees and delayed passage of the annual defense bill for months, deep into the fall. Politico later depicted Biden’s turnabout on the second Russian pipeline as “the one decision, arguably more than the chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan, that has imperiled Biden’s agenda.” 

The administration was floundering, despite getting a reprieve on the crisis in mid-November, when Germany’s energy regulators suspended approval of the second Nord Stream pipeline. Natural gas prices surged 8% within days, amid growing fears in Germany and Europe that the pipeline suspension and the growing possibility of a war between Russia and Ukraine would lead to a very much unwanted cold winter. It was not clear to Washington just where Olaf Scholz, Germany’s newly appointed chancellor, stood. Months earlier, after the fall of Afghanistan, Scholtz had publicly endorsed French President Emmanuel Macron’s call for a more autonomous European foreign policy in a speech in Prague—clearly suggesting less reliance on Washington and its mercurial actions.

Throughout all of this, Russian troops had been steadily and ominously building up on the borders of Ukraine, and by the end of December more than 100,000 soldiers were in position to strike from Belarus and Crimea. Alarm was growing in Washington, including an assessment from Blinken that those troop numbers could be “doubled in short order.”

The administration’s attention once again was focused on Nord Stream. As long as Europe remained dependent on the pipelines for cheap natural gas, Washington was afraid that countries like Germany would be reluctant to supply Ukraine with the money and weapons it needed to defeat Russia.

It was at this unsettled moment that Biden authorized Jake Sullivan to bring together an interagency group to come up with a plan. 

All options were to be on the table. But only one would emerge.

PLANNING

In December of 2021, two months before the first Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Jake Sullivan convened a meeting of a newly formed task force—men and women from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the State and Treasury Departments—and asked for recommendations about how to respond to Putin’s impending invasion.

It would be the first of a series of top-secret meetings, in a secure room on a top floor of the Old Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House, that was also the home of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). There was the usual back and forth chatter that eventually led to a crucial preliminary question: Would the recommendation forwarded by the group to the President be reversible—such as another layer of sanctions and currency restrictions—or irreversible—that is, kinetic actions, which could not be undone?

What became clear to participants, according to the source with direct knowledge of the process, is that Sullivan intended for the group to come up with a plan for the destruction of the two Nord Stream pipelines—and that he was delivering on the desires of the President.

THE PLAYERS Left to right: Victoria Nuland, Anthony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan. 

Over the next several meetings, the participants debated options for an attack. The Navy proposed using a newly commissioned submarine to assault the pipeline directly. The Air Force discussed dropping bombs with delayed fuses that could be set off remotely. The CIA argued that whatever was done, it would have to be covert. Everyone involved understood the stakes. “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack were traceable to the United States, “It’s an act of war.”

At the time, the CIA was directed by William Burns, a mild-mannered former ambassador to Russia who had served as deputy secretary of state in the Obama Administration. Burns quickly authorized an Agency working group whose ad hoc members included—by chance—someone who was familiar with the capabilities of the Navy’s deep-sea divers in Panama City. Over the next few weeks, members of the CIA’s working group began to craft a plan for a covert operation that would use deep-sea divers to trigger an explosion along the pipeline.

Something like this had been done before. In 1971, the American intelligence community learned from still undisclosed sources that two important units of the Russian Navy were communicating via an undersea cable buried in the Sea of Okhotsk, on Russia’s Far East Coast. The cable linked a regional Navy command to the mainland headquarters at Vladivostok.

A hand-picked team of Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency operatives was assembled somewhere in the Washington area, under deep cover, and worked out a plan, using Navy divers, modified submarines and a deep-submarine rescue vehicle, that succeeded, after much trial and error, in locating the Russian cable. The divers planted a sophisticated listening device on the cable that successfully intercepted the Russian traffic and recorded it on a taping system.

The NSA learned that senior Russian navy officers, convinced of the security of their communication link, chatted away with their peers without encryption. The recording device and its tape had to be replaced monthly and the project rolled on merrily for a decade until it was compromised by a forty-four-year-old civilian NSA technician named Ronald Pelton who was fluent in Russian. Pelton was betrayed by a Russian defector in 1985 and sentenced to prison. He was paid just $5,000 by the Russians for his revelations about the operation, along with $35,000 for other Russian operational data he provided that was never made public.

That underwater success, codenamed Ivy Bells, was innovative and risky, and produced invaluable intelligence about the Russian Navy's intentions and planning.

Still, the interagency group was initially skeptical of the CIA’s enthusiasm for a covert deep-sea attack. There were too many unanswered questions. The waters of the Baltic Sea were heavily patrolled by the Russian navy, and there were no oil rigs that could be used as cover for a diving operation. Would the divers have to go to Estonia, right across the border from Russia’s natural gas loading docks, to train for the mission? “It would be a goat fuck,” the Agency was told.

Throughout “all of this scheming,” the source said, “some working guys in the CIA and the State Department were saying, ‘Don’t do this. It’s stupid and will be a political nightmare if it comes out.’”

Nevertheless, in early 2022, the CIA working group reported back to Sullivan’s interagency group: “We have a way to blow up the pipelines.”

What came next was stunning. On February 7, less than three weeks before the seemingly inevitable Russian invasion of Ukraine, Biden met in his White House office with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who, after some wobbling, was now firmly on the American team. At the press briefing that followed, Biden defiantly said, “If Russia invades . . . there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”

Twenty days earlier, Undersecretary Nuland had delivered essentially the same message at a State Department briefing, with little press coverage. “I want to be very clear to you today,” she said in response to a question. “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.”

Several of those involved in planning the pipeline mission were dismayed by what they viewed as indirect references to the attack.

“It was like putting an atomic bomb on the ground in Tokyo and telling the Japanese that we are going to detonate it,” the source said. “The plan was for the options to be executed post invasion and not advertised publicly. Biden simply didn’t get it or ignored it.”

Biden’s and Nuland’s indiscretion, if that is what it was, might have frustrated some of the planners. But it also created an opportunity. According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline “no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it.”

The plan to blow up Nord Stream 1 and 2 was suddenly downgraded from a covert operation requiring that Congress be informed to one that was deemed as a highly classified intelligence operation with U.S. military support. Under the law, the source explained, “There was no longer a legal requirement to report the operation to Congress. All they had to do now is just do it—but it still had to be secret. The Russians have superlative surveillance of the Baltic Sea.”

The Agency working group members had no direct contact with the White House, and were eager to find out if the President meant what he’d said—that is, if the mission was now a go. The source recalled, “Bill Burns comes back and says, ‘Do it.’”

“The Norwegian navy was quick to find the right spot, in the shallow water a few miles off Denmark’s Bornholm Island . . .”

THE OPERATION 

Norway was the perfect place to base the mission.

In the past few years of East-West crisis, the U.S. military has vastly expanded its presence inside Norway, whose western border runs 1,400 miles along the north Atlantic Ocean and merges above the Arctic Circle with Russia. The Pentagon has created high paying jobs and contracts, amid some local controversy, by investing hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade and expand American Navy and Air Force facilities in Norway. The new works included, most importantly, an advanced synthetic aperture radar far up north that was capable of penetrating deep into Russia and came online just as the American intelligence community lost access to a series of long-range listening sites inside China.

A newly refurbished American submarine base, which had been under construction for years, had become operational and more American submarines were now able to work closely with their Norwegian colleagues to monitor and spy on a major Russian nuclear redoubt 250 miles to the east, on the Kola Peninsula. America also has vastly expanded a Norwegian air base in the north and delivered to the Norwegian air force a fleet of Boeing-built P8 Poseidon patrol planes to bolster its long-range spying on all things Russia.

In return, the Norwegian government angered liberals and some moderates in its parliament last November by passing the Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA). Under the new deal, the U.S. legal system would have jurisdiction in certain “agreed areas” in the North over American soldiers accused of crimes off base, as well as over those Norwegian citizens accused or suspected of interfering with the work at the base.

Norway was one of the original signatories of the NATO Treaty in 1949, in the early days of the Cold War. Today, the secretary general of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg, a committed anti-communist, who served as Norway’s prime minister for eight years before moving to his high NATO post, with American backing, in 2014. He was a hardliner on all things Putin and Russia who had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War. He has been trusted completely since. “He is the glove that fits the American hand,” the source said.

Back in Washington, planners knew they had to go to Norway. “They hated the Russians, and the Norwegian navy was full of superb sailors and divers who had generations of experience in highly profitable deep-sea oil and gas exploration,” the source said. They also could be trusted to keep the mission secret. (The Norwegians may have had other interests as well. The destruction of Nord Stream—if the Americans could pull it off—would allow Norway to sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe.)

Sometime in March, a few members of the team flew to Norway to meet with the Norwegian Secret Service and Navy. One of the key questions was where exactly in the Baltic Sea was the best place to plant the explosives. Nord Stream 1 and 2, each with two sets of pipelines, were separated much of the way by little more than a mile as they made their run to the port of Greifswald in the far northeast of Germany.

The Norwegian navy was quick to find the right spot, in the shallow waters of the Baltic sea a few miles off Denmark’s Bornholm Island. The pipelines ran more than a mile apart along a seafloor that was only 260 feet deep. That would be well within the range of the divers, who, operating from a Norwegian Alta class mine hunter, would dive with a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and helium streaming from their tanks, and plant shaped C4 charges on the four pipelines with concrete protective covers. It would be tedious, time consuming and dangerous work, but the waters off Bornholm had another advantage: there were no major tidal currents, which would have made the task of diving much more difficult.

After a bit of research, the Americans were all in.

At this point, the Navy’s obscure deep-diving group in Panama City once again came into play. The deep-sea schools at Panama City, whose trainees participated in Ivy Bells, are seen as an unwanted backwater by the elite graduates of the Naval Academy in Annapolis, who typically seek the glory of being assigned as a Seal, fighter pilot, or submariner. If one must become a “Black Shoe”—that is, a member of the less desirable surface ship command—there is always at least duty on a destroyer, cruiser or amphibious ship. The least glamorous of all is mine warfare. Its divers never appear in Hollywood movies, or on the cover of popular magazines.

“The best divers with deep diving qualifications are a tight community, and only the very best are recruited for the operation and told to be prepared to be summoned to the CIA in Washington,” the source said.

The Norwegians and Americans had a location and the operatives, but there was another concern: any unusual underwater activity in the waters off Bornholm might draw the attention of the Swedish or Danish navies, which could report it.  

Denmark had also been one of the original NATO signatories and was known in the intelligence community for its special ties to the United Kingdom. Sweden had applied for membership into NATO, and had demonstrated its great skill in managing its underwater sound and magnetic sensor systems that successfully tracked Russian submarines that would occasionally show up in remote waters of the Swedish archipelago and be forced to the surface.

The Norwegians joined the Americans in insisting that some senior officials in Denmark and Sweden had to be briefed in general terms about possible diving activity in the area. In that way, someone higher up could intervene and keep a report out of the chain of command, thus insulating the pipeline operation. “What they were told and what they knew were purposely different,” the source told me. (The Norwegian embassy, asked to comment on this story, did not respond.)

The Norwegians were key to solving other hurdles. The Russian navy was known to possess surveillance technology capable of spotting, and triggering, underwater mines. The American explosive devices needed to be camouflaged in a way that would make them appear to the Russian system as part of the natural background—something that required adapting to the specific salinity of the water. The Norwegians had a fix.

The Norwegians also had a solution to the crucial question of when the operation should take place. Every June, for the past 21 years, the American Sixth Fleet, whose flagship is based in Gaeta, Italy, south of Rome, has sponsored a major NATO exercise in the Baltic Sea involving scores of allied ships throughout the region. The current exercise, held in June, would be known as Baltic Operations 22, or BALTOPS 22. The Norwegians proposed this would be the ideal cover to plant the mines.

The Americans provided one vital element: they convinced the Sixth Fleet planners to add a research and development exercise to the program. The exercise, as made public by the Navy, involved the Sixth Fleet in collaboration with the Navy’s “research and warfare centers.” The at-sea event would be held off the coast of Bornholm Island and involve NATO teams of divers planting mines, with competing teams using the latest underwater technology to find and destroy them.

It was both a useful exercise and ingenious cover. The Panama City boys would do their thing and the C4 explosives would be in place by the end of BALTOPS22, with a 48-hour timer attached. All of the Americans and Norwegians would be long gone by the first explosion. 

The days were counting down. “The clock was ticking, and we were nearing mission accomplished,” the source said.

And then: Washington had second thoughts. The bombs would still be planted during BALTOPS, but the White House worried that a two-day window for their detonation would be too close to the end of the exercise, and it would be obvious that America had been involved.

Instead, the White House had a new request: “Can the guys in the field come up with some way to blow the pipelines later on command?”

Some members of the planning team were angered and frustrated by the President’s seeming indecision. The Panama City divers had repeatedly practiced planting the C4 on pipelines, as they would during BALTOPS, but now the team in Norway had to come up with a way to give Biden what he wanted—the ability to issue a successful execution order at a time of his choosing.  

Being tasked with an arbitrary, last-minute change was something the CIA was accustomed to managing. But it also renewed the concerns some shared over the necessity, and legality, of the entire operation.

The President’s secret orders also evoked the CIA’s dilemma in the Vietnam War days, when President Johnson, confronted by growing anti-Vietnam War sentiment, ordered the Agency to violate its charter—which specifically barred it from operating inside America—by spying on antiwar leaders to determine whether they were being controlled by Communist Russia.

The agency ultimately acquiesced, and throughout the 1970s it became clear just how far it had been willing to go. There were subsequent newspaper revelations in the aftermath of the Watergate scandals about the Agency’s spying on American citizens, its involvement in the assassination of foreign leaders and its undermining of the socialist government of Salvador Allende.

Those revelations led to a dramatic series of hearings in the mid-1970s in the Senate, led by Frank Church of Idaho, that made it clear that Richard Helms, the Agency director at the time, accepted that he had an obligation to do what the President wanted, even if it meant violating the law.

In unpublished, closed-door testimony, Helms ruefully explained that “you almost have an Immaculate Conception when you do something” under secret orders from a President. “Whether it’s right that you should have it, or wrong that you shall have it, [the CIA] works under different rules and ground rules than any other part of the government.” He was essentially telling the Senators that he, as head of the CIA, understood that he had been working for the Crown, and not the Constitution.

The Americans at work in Norway operated under the same dynamic, and dutifully began working on the new problem—how to remotely detonate the C4 explosives on Biden’s order. It was a much more demanding assignment than those in Washington understood. There was no way for the team in Norway to know when the President might push the button. Would it be in a few weeks, in many months or in half a year or longer?

The C4 attached to the pipelines would be triggered by a sonar buoy dropped by a plane on short notice, but the procedure involved the most advanced signal processing technology. Once in place, the delayed timing devices attached to any of the four pipelines could be accidentally triggered by the complex mix of ocean background noises throughout the heavily trafficked Baltic Sea—from near and distant ships, underwater drilling, seismic events, waves and even sea creatures. To avoid this, the sonar buoy, once in place, would emit a sequence of unique low frequency tonal sounds—much like those emitted by a flute or a piano—that would be recognized by the timing device and, after a pre-set hours of delay, trigger the explosives. (“You want a signal that is robust enough so that no other signal could accidentally send a pulse that detonated the explosives,” I was told by Dr. Theodore Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology and national security policy at MIT. Postol, who has served as the science adviser to the Pentagon’s Chief of Naval Operations, said the issue facing the group in Norway because of Biden’s delay was one of chance: “The longer the explosives are in the water the greater risk there would be of a random signal that would launch the bombs.”)

On September 26, 2022, a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane made a seemingly routine flight and dropped a sonar buoy. The signal spread underwater, initially to Nord Stream 2 and then on to Nord Stream 1. A few hours later, the high-powered C4 explosives were triggered and three of the four pipelines were put out of commission. Within a few minutes, pools of methane gas that remained in the shuttered pipelines could be seen spreading on the water’s surface and the world learned that something irreversible had taken place.

FALLOUT

In the immediate aftermath of the pipeline bombing, the American media treated it like an unsolved mystery. Russia was repeatedly cited as a likely culprit, spurred on by calculated leaks from the White House—but without ever establishing a clear motive for such an act of self-sabotage, beyond simple retribution. A few months later, when it emerged that Russian authorities had been quietly getting estimates for the cost to repair the pipelines, the New York Times described the news as “complicating theories about who was behind” the attack. No major American newspaper dug into the earlier threats to the pipelines made by Biden and Undersecretary of State Nuland.

While it was never clear why Russia would seek to destroy its own lucrative pipeline, a more telling rationale for the President’s action came from Secretary of State Blinken.

Asked at a press conference last September about the consequences of the worsening energy crisis in Western Europe, Blinken described the moment as a potentially good one:

“It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs. That’s very significant and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come, but meanwhile we’re determined to do everything we possibly can to make sure the consequences of all of this are not borne by citizens in our countries or, for that matter, around the world.”

More recently, Victoria Nuland expressed satisfaction at the demise of the newest of the pipelines. Testifying at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in late January she told Senator Ted Cruz, “​Like you, I am, and I think the Administration is, very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”

The source had a much more streetwise view of Biden’s decision to sabotage more than 1500 miles of Gazprom pipeline as winter approached. “Well,” he said, speaking of the President, “I gotta admit the guy has a pair of balls.  He said he was going to do it, and he did.”

Asked why he thought the Russians failed to respond, he said cynically, “Maybe they want the capability to do the same things the U.S. did.

“It was a beautiful cover story,” he went on. “Behind it was a covert operation that placed experts in the field and equipment that operated on a covert signal.

“The only flaw was the decision to do it.”