Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Episode 216 - Ceci N'est Pas Une Pipeline? (w/ Aaron Maté) (Patreon)

Published:
2022-10-06 08:00:22
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • Episode 216.mp3

Missing 1 file, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock our full premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast

Briahna speaks with Aaron Maté of The Grayzone & Useful Idiots about who blew up the Nordstream 2 pipeline, the threat of nuclear war, and what western media refuses to acknowledge about America's role in in causing this crisis.

Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod).

Produced by Armand Aviram.

Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).

Comments

Jared

“Long overdue” x 100

Anonymous

Wasn't expecting Black Sabbath!

Anonymous

I never hear from any of either the host or guests is discussion about the Budapest Memorandum.

Sifl

Mate made a career of rightfully calling out MSNBC for constructing a circumstantial case of Russian collusion with Trump by ignoring journalistic principles of sourcing and verification of claims by interested parties. Then, Mate goes all MSNBC on the Nord Stream Pipeline sabotage, linking together sound bites to construct a circumstantial case of US involvement without any real evidence. Worse still, Mate omits very relevant facts from consideration (just like he never mentions Russia's war crimes in Ukraine). First, the Nordstream 1 + 2 have two segments each. Both segments of no. 1 were sabotaged. Only one segment of no. 2 was sabotaged. Russia can still supply Germany with gas through the undamaged second segment of no. 2. So, the sabotage effectively shifts all Russian gas deliveries to Nordstream no. 2, effectively defeating any effort to stop Nordstream 2. Also, Russia has realized that there are real legal liabilities for cutting off Europe from gas deliveries. Gas is traded in future contracts. If Russia fails to deliver gas, it has breached contracts with the EU customers and will be liable for the difference between the cost of cover and the cost of the original contract price. The spot market price for gas is very expensive. This means billions in damages that can ultimately be recovered by seizing payments owed to Gazprom or other assets (primarily vessels and cargo). By sabotaging the pipelines, Gazprom can declare force majeure and escape any legal liability for failing to deliver. Gazprom has already invoked force majeure, claiming that it cannot deliver gas due to broken compressors that cannot be repaired due to sanctions. Worse still, Mate's arguments line up perfectly with what right wingers like Tucker Carlson, Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk have been saying, right down to citing the same quotes from Biden and the Polish EU parliamentarian's tweet thanking the US. And all the right wing outlets did was copy what Russian state media saying about the sabotage, right down to the same quotes and citing the Polish tweet. There is certainly a need for critical analysis of the Ukraine war. But Mate's opinions on the Nordstream sabotage are nothing more than uncritical amplification of Russian talking points. That is right in line with the worst offenses of the MSNBC set during Russiagate.

Sky guy

How tf are you not gonna fact check this man lol

Jared
>>93069437

the US blew the Nordstream pipeline, likely with the help of Poland. This is obvious to everyone who has paid attention.

Anonymous

Mad Dog Mate is impressive the way he can recall names, events, dates to add so much needed context. Great guest!

David Dunnett

Have to quibble here: Aaron claims at the beginning that Nordstream 2 would make Germany dependent on Russian gas - but it already was. The difference with Nordstream is that it would allow Russia to bypass the pipelines through the intervening countries of Eastern Europe. This has pretty consequential repurcussions for all involved parties, which is why it was contentious.

Anonymous
>>93069437

Who benefits from the Nordstream pipelines becoming useless? Who? Certainly not Russia or Europe. Who benefits? USA's OWNERS, the Fossil Fuel Energy Oligarchs. To somehow come to the conclusion, that after the USA has lied over and over and over about EVERY SINGLE military action. The many coups the US has orchestrated, that hurt the people of those countries but makes BIG Bank for US Corporations & the War Dept. It is willful blindness to not see that it is the US Govt is behind this.

David Dunnett
>>93075868

He seems to acknowledge that later but again, stopping Nordstream would not have changed Russia's energy sales or Germany's dependence. It would only change the route (potentially the price but that is speculative) and change the strategic/economic value for the eastern European countries (including but not limited to Ukraine)

James Staub

killing it with the outro music

Sifl
>>93069437

Russia already shut down Nordstream 1 on the pretext that it could not operate it due to sanctions. Nordstream 2 still has one pipeline that is operable. Nordstream 2 has never been used due to political pressure over Russia. Now, if Germany wants gas, they will have no choice but to use Nordstream 2.

Anonymous

Such a great conversation. Thank you, Bri!

Sifl
>>93069437

No. You shut the fuck up. I have made a very serious critique of Mate’s mindless regurgitation of Russian propaganda which no one has been able to refute. I will not let progressives descend into a left version of FoxNews confirmation bias

Josephus Franks
>>93069437

Your reasoning holds up - assuming technical details about the pipelines are accurate - until you get into contract law. Ain't nobody taking Russia to court over breach of contract and expecting to get anything out of them. Then you state perhaps a main driver of your position: that rightwing cretins have been pointing out the same thing. Sorry, broken clocks and all...

Anonymous
>>93069437

Answering "a circumstantial case of US involvement without any real evidence" with a circumstantial case of Russian involvement without any real evidence. Hm.

Anonymous
>>93069437

Your circumstantial case for Russian responsibility is not ridiculous, or at least no more so than the circumstantial case for US/UK/other responsibility, but your complaints about which arguments are used by whom could have been profitably omitted. Specifically, you emphasize that certain facts (key US quotes, Polish tweet) have been cited by Maté, the US right, and Russian propaganda. But who cites a thing doesn't go to its relevance. Blinken really did say, whether Putin tattoos the words on his chest or not, that the pipeline bombing "offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come" -- and it is not absurd to think that a party which celebrates an event, and had the technical capability to bring it about, might actually have had a hand in bringing it about. There's no proof yet (maybe ever) for either side of this, but US responsibility is one plausible possibility. Declaring it a certainty would indeed be overstepping the evidence -- but Maté doesn't do that. He says "I don't know who did it, but I strongly suspect . . ."

Anonymous
>>93069437

Nor is it necessarily hypocritical for Maté to have criticized promoters of poorly evidenced Russiagate beliefs, e.g. Rachel Maddow, while now offering a strong suspicion about the pipeline bombing sans dispositive proof. Nobody thinks that we must never infer tentative conclusions from incomplete evidence: it was Maté's contention that the evidence for "Trump is a Putin puppet" was too weak to support the inferences made, which often (e.g., with Maddow) went beyond even the "strong suspicion" level to assertion as fact. Maté trashcanned Maddow's claims because the evidence, as he argued in detail, was crap -- not because it was "circumstantial" per se. (Circumstantial evidence can be strong or weak.) So Maté is not necessarily applying an inconsistent standard here. The case for US involvement in the Nordstream pipeline bombing may be poor or not, but that has to be argued on the merits, which you don't do: you appear to be arguing that citing the evidence is improper because it has also been cited by unsavory actors, which is irrelevant. Bottom line, I think Maté is fine in "suspecting" US involvement while not claiming certain knowledge.

Anonymous
>>93075868

I would like to understand why, if bombing the pipeline made no material difference to German dependence, Blinken thought it was such a positive development.