In its own reporting on the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, the New York Times initially ignored Seymour Hersh’s exposition of the Biden administration’s operation in his article published on February 8th, 2023 with the title, “How America Took Out the Nord Stream.” In accordance with the nearly complete media blackout of his exposition, no other major news company published a response.

However, nearly four weeks after the publication of Hersh’s article, the New York Times broke the silence with an article published on March 8th, 2023, finally deciding to address Hersh’s article directly in an article where the authors not only mention him by name but discuss the main thrust of his article, namely, that the Biden administration ordered the Nord Stream pipeline’s destruction.

The article whose headline ran on the front page as “Clues Emerge In Bid to Solve Pipeline Attack” with the title in the inner folio as, “Pipeline Inquiry Points to a Pro-Ukraine Group, U.S. Officials Say,” reported U.S. officials, as saying: “Mr. Biden and his top aides did not authorize a mission to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines, and they say there was no U.S. involvement.”

“Last month, the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published an article on the newsletter platform Substack concluding that the United States carried out the operation at the direction of Mr. Biden.” Later the article stated essentially the same thing all over again in different words, writing: “U.S. officials and intelligence agencies acknowledge that they have limited visibility into Ukrainian decision-making.” These claims sought to undermine the main thrust of Hersh’s reporting on the incident.

Alongside the denial of any involvement by the Biden administration, the New York Times sought to advance an entirely different narrative for the event, seeking to shift the blame away from the United Stats to Kyiv.

Part of that narrative has been to shift blame from Washington to Kyiv. In attempt to appear as though the Biden administration frowned upon the terrorist act its administration committed, the New York Times article sought to portray Kyiv as rebellious, acting in opposition to the will of its masters at the head of the U.S. led NATO proxy war in Ukraine.

The New York Times noted how “[any] key findings that put blame on Kyiv or Ukrainian proxies could prompt a backlash in Europe and make it harder for the West to maintain a united front in support of Ukraine.”

Furthermore, the New York Times quoted U.S. officials as saying, “there was much they did not know about the perpetrators,” as though to say the officials knew absolutely nothing about who carried out the attack. “Officials said there were still enormous gaps in what U.S. spy agencies” or their European counterparts knew.

None of these claims hold up upon light of a recent article published by the Wall Street Journal. In an article published June 14th, 2023, the Wall Street Journal’s title explicitly contradicts the claim that the U.S. had no findings that put the blame on Kyiv.

But the title is only just the start. Most of the claims from March 8th, 2023 article published in New York Times contradict information from the Wall Street Journal‘s article.

Entitled “U.S. Told Kyiv Not to Attack Nord Stream,” the authors explain how the Central Intelligence Agency (henceforth CIA) not only possessed information to “put [the] blame on Kyiv” but explicitly requested that Kyiv refuse to carry out the attack as early as June.

“The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency warned the Ukrainian government not to attack the Nord Stream gas pipelines last summer after it obtained detailed information about a Ukrainian plot to destroy a main energy connection between Russia and Europe,” the newspaper reported. This is certainly not what one would call “limited visibility into Ukrainian decision making.”

Intelligence agencies such as the CIA, however, weren’t the only ones who knew the who, what, where, when, or how of the attack, as the Wall Street Journal mentions. Many of the nations neighboring the Baltic Sea were not only privy to the attack but forwarded the CIA.

CIA officials, who are described as having had no prior knowledge of the attack, apparently received a tip from the military intelligence service in the Netherlands, alerting the agency to Kyiv’s plans in June. June would have been many months before the actual strike.

“Dutch military intelligence officials told the CIA that a Ukrainian sabotage team was looking to rent a yacht on the Baltic coastline, [using] a team of divers to plan explosive along the four pipes of the Nord Stream pipelines,” reports Wall Street Journal.

Despite the knowledge of these two countries, neither Denmark nor the Netherlands have agreed to respond to Moscow’s requests for information or cooperate with an investigation into the attack, stonewalling the attempt to uncover the truth.

Furthermore, the fact that these countries not only knew but allegedly informed the CIA contradicts earlier reports published in the New York Times’s March 8th, 2023 article where the authors explained how “days after the explosion, Denmark, Sweden and Germany began their own separate investigations into the Nord Stream operation,” as though to say that none of the countries knew anything at all about a planned Ukrainian operation on the Nord Stream pipelines, as the New York Times reported in March.

At the time the New York Times sought to account for that scenario. It is reporting as saying in March 8th, 2023 article that “the pipelines themselves were not closely monitored.” At the end of the day, however, no one can accept that these intelligence agencies whose professed modus operandi is the prevention of criminal activity, state security, or the analysis of intelligence, could have ‘failed’ to monitor the pipelines after allegedly informing the CIA about the attack.

It cannot be solely an exaggeration on the part of the New York Times to have claimed in its article from March 8th, 2024 that there were enormous gaps in what U.S. spy agencies” or their European counterparts. As is evidenced from the information in the Wall Street Journal’s article, the CIA communicated with the Netherlands, Denmark, as well as several countries in the Baltic, well before the attack.

The lie that the Biden administration has sought to peddle to the public about the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines is so transparent that the various newspapers, damned, if they do, damned, if they don’t, cannot keep their stories straight from one newspaper to the next. It is clear from these entangled story lines that the newspapers have failed to conceal the fact that Hersh’s exposition of Biden’s order to destroy the pipelines.

The Nord Stream pipelines stretch 760 miles from the north west coasts of Russia to Lubmin in northeast Germany. The first pipeline cost more than $12 billion dollars to build before completion in 2011. The second pipeline, which cost slightly less than the first, was finished in 2021. Detractors of the pipeline such as those from United States, Britain, Poland, or Ukraine, have argued that the pipeline deepens Germany’s dependence on cheap Russian energy.

Seymour Hersh, who has begun to appear in a series of news interviews online, defends his explanation of the pipeline’s destruction, as there is really no way Ukrainian divers could descend to a depth of 600 feet on a fifty foot long yacht from a Warsaw based travel agency. The difficulties of deep sea diving require extremely sophisticate equipment. A descent to a specific depth requires prolonged waiting period at different intervals.

The Andromeda narrative contains the elements of a fictional spy thriller where ‘investigators,’ who were able to match a sample of DNA from one of the diver’s suits to a boy in Germany, identify the Ukrainians involved in the operation. The story is so fantastic that these investigators even found passports on the ‘Andromeda.’

It is clear that the ‘Andromeda’ narrative is not merely an attempt to rebuke Hersh’s exposition of the Biden administration’s role in the pipeline’s destruction but a massive deception, whose various tentacles do not lead to an inked octopus but the Biden administration.