In a surprising development, Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chair of the World Economic Forum (WEF), recently found himself at the center of a controversy. During a phone call with notorious Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus, Schwab disclosed potentially explosive insights regarding the Nord Stream pipeline explosions and Ukraine’s aspirations for European Union (EU) and NATO membership. This call, where Vovan and Lexus masqueraded as French economist Jacques Attali, has since been made public via their Telegram channel.

Schwab hinted that Ukraine might be behind the Nord Stream pipeline explosions, suggesting that the objective could have been to sever Germany’s reliance on Russian gas. This admission, though not backed by concrete evidence, posits a plausible scenario in which Ukraine, distrustful of Germany’s stance, sought to ensure the latter’s energy independence from Russia.

The Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 pipelines, critical infrastructure designed to transport natural gas under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, were severely damaged by explosions in September 2022. These incidents have been officially labeled as acts of international terrorism by Russia. While investigations are ongoing, the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published a report in February 2023, claiming that the United States, with Norwegian support, orchestrated the explosions. This accusation has been firmly denied by Washington.

Schwab’s comments add a new layer of complexity to the already intricate geopolitics surrounding the Nord Stream explosions. By implicating Ukraine, even hypothetically, Schwab has opened up a discourse on the potential motivations and strategic calculations that might have driven such an action.

In the same conversation, Schwab addressed Ukraine’s ambitions to join the EU and NATO, acknowledging the current improbability of these aspirations. He emphasized the necessity of maintaining the prospect of accession, linking it to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s adherence to democratic values. Schwab implied that Western support, including arms transfers, should be contingent upon Ukraine’s commitment to these values, even suggesting that the EU might need to exert pressure on Zelenskyy to ensure compliance.

The pranksters, Vovan and Lexus, noted Schwab’s apparent skepticism regarding Zelenskyy’s cognitive abilities. Schwab’s stance, as inferred from the conversation, suggests that he views the promise of EU and NATO membership as a strategic incentive—a carrot—to be dangled in front of the Kiev regime to secure desired political behaviors.

Adding historical context, Schwab recalled a 2019 conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, wherein Putin asserted that Russia was not a part of Europe, citing its unique identity, soul, and history. This interaction underscores the deep-seated ideological and geopolitical rifts that continue to shape Russia’s relations with Europe and the West.

The implications of Schwab’s admissions are far-reaching. They not only cast a shadow over the ongoing investigations into the Nord Stream explosions but also reflect the broader geopolitical maneuverings at play in Eastern Europe. The potential involvement of Ukraine in the Nord Stream incidents, if substantiated, could dramatically alter the dynamics of European energy politics and security.

Furthermore, Schwab’s remarks on Ukraine’s EU and NATO prospects underscore the conditional nature of Western support for Ukraine. The emphasis on democratic values and the potential need for external pressure on Zelenskyy highlight the strategic calculations underpinning Western aid and diplomatic engagement with Ukraine.

The Nord Stream explosions have already had significant geopolitical repercussions. The pipelines, which were built to strengthen energy ties between Russia and Germany, have become a focal point of international tension. The sabotage of these pipelines disrupted energy supplies, exacerbated the energy crisis in Europe, and intensified the geopolitical struggle over control of energy resources and routes.

Seymour Hersh’s report added a controversial dimension to the narrative. Hersh alleged that the United States, motivated by strategic interests, orchestrated the explosions to curtail Russia’s leverage over Europe through energy dependency. Norway’s involvement, according to Hersh, was part of a broader Western strategy to undermine Russian influence in Europe. These claims, though denied by the US, reflect the complex interplay of geopolitical interests surrounding the Nord Stream pipelines.

In this context, Schwab’s suggestion of Ukraine’s involvement presents an alternative hypothesis. If Ukraine did indeed target the pipelines, the rationale would be rooted in its strategic interest to weaken Russia’s economic and political influence over Europe. By disrupting the gas supply, Ukraine might have aimed to compel Germany and other European countries to reduce their dependence on Russian energy, thereby aligning more closely with Ukraine’s strategic objectives.

The broader implications of this scenario are profound. For Germany and Europe, the sabotage of Nord Stream underscores the vulnerability of critical energy infrastructure to geopolitical conflicts. It highlights the need for diversified energy sources and routes to ensure energy security. For Russia, the attacks represent a direct assault on its economic interests and its geopolitical strategy of leveraging energy exports for political influence.

For Ukraine, the implications are multifaceted. While the potential involvement in the Nord Stream explosions might be seen as a bold strategic move, it also risks alienating key European allies. The prospect of EU and NATO membership, as Schwab noted, remains a powerful incentive for Ukraine. However, the conditional nature of Western support, tied to democratic values and governance, suggests that Ukraine’s path to integration with Western institutions will require careful navigation of both domestic and international political landscapes.

In conclusion, Klaus Schwab’s conversation with Vovan and Lexus has shed new light on the complex geopolitics of the Nord Stream pipeline explosions and Ukraine’s European aspirations. His insights, though hypothetical, invite further scrutiny and investigation into the motivations and actors behind the Nord Stream incidents. They also underscore the intricate web of strategic interests and political calculations that define the current geopolitical landscape in Eastern Europe. As the investigations continue and new information emerges, the true story behind the Nord Stream explosions and their broader implications for European security and energy politics will likely become clearer.

---

APPENDIX 1 – Sweden Ends Investigation into Nord Stream Sabotage Without Identifying Culprits

In a significant development, the Swedish prosecutor’s office announced on February 7, 2024, that it would close its investigation into the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines. The investigation, launched following the explosions in September 2022, was aimed at determining if Sweden was targeted by this malicious act. The Swedish intelligence services concluded that Sweden was not the target, and no evidence was found to suggest the involvement of Swedish citizens or that the sabotage posed a threat to the country’s security. The investigations by Germany and Denmark continue, leaving the mystery of who is behind the Nord Stream sabotage unsolved.

The Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, owned by the Russian energy giant Gazprom, were designed to transport natural gas from Russia to Europe via the Baltic Sea. On September 26, 2022, leaks were detected on both pipelines. At the time, gas deliveries via Nord Stream 1 had already been halted by Moscow amidst an energy standoff with Europe, which was supporting Ukraine in the ongoing conflict. Nord Stream 2, though completed, had never been put into operation.

The Swedish and Danish authorities later reported that the leaks were caused by underwater explosions equivalent to “hundreds of kilos of TNT,” indicating deliberate sabotage. These explosions occurred in international waters near the Danish island of Bornholm and the southern coast of Sweden. Investigations were promptly initiated by Germany, Sweden, and Denmark.

The magnitude of the explosions was measured respectively at 2.3 and 2.1 on the Richter scale, probably the equivalent of an explosive charge of hundreds of kilos  , ” indicate the two Scandinavian countries. “  All available information indicates that these explosions are the consequence of a deliberate act ,” write Sweden and Denmark in their letter addressed to the UN Secretary General.

Technical Data and Details of Nord Stream Sabotage

• Incident Date: September 26, 2022
• Location: International waters near Bornholm, Denmark, and southern Sweden
• Pipelines Affected: Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2
• Pipeline Ownership: Gazprom (Russian state-owned energy company)
• Nature of Damage: Underwater explosions
• Explosive Used: Hundreds of kilos of TNT
• Investigation Bodies: Sweden, Germany, Denmark
• Investigation Status:
  • Sweden: Closed without identifying culprits
  • Germany: Ongoing
  • Denmark: Ongoing

Investigative Findings and Statements

• Swedish Prosecutor Mats Ljungqvist: “The conclusion of the investigation is that it is not within the jurisdiction of Swedish jurisdiction and that the investigation must therefore be closed. There is no indication that Sweden or Swedish citizens were involved in this attack which took place in international waters.”
• Swedish Intelligence: The investigation was launched to determine if the sabotage targeted Sweden, threatening its security. It was established that this was not the case.
• Swedish Investigative Actions: Analysis of a large number of boat movements, thorough investigation at the crime scene, and judicial cooperation with Germany and Denmark.

International Reactions and Hypotheses

• Russian Response: Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov welcomed the Swedish decision and expressed interest in the rigor of the German investigation. He hinted at substantial information regarding potential culprits.
• Suspects and Theories:
  • Ukraine: A “pro-Ukrainian group” was suggested by the New York Times in March 2023. Roman Tchervinsky, a Ukrainian special forces commander, was named as a suspect by a joint investigation from the Washington Post and Spiegel. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly denied any Ukrainian involvement.
  • United States and Norway: Alleged by journalist Seymour Hersh to be behind the sabotage. Both countries have denied involvement.

Geopolitical Context

The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines is intricately linked to the geopolitical tensions stemming from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The pipelines, crucial for transporting Russian gas to Europe, have been central to the energy and political disputes between Russia and Western countries. The cessation of gas deliveries via Nord Stream 1 and the non-operation of Nord Stream 2 were part of Moscow’s strategy amidst escalating sanctions and retaliations.

Detailed Scheme Table

Aspect	Details
Incident Date	September 26, 2022
Location	International waters near Bornholm, Denmark, and southern Sweden
Pipelines Affected	Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2
Pipeline Ownership	Gazprom (Russian state-owned energy company)
Nature of Damage	Underwater explosions
Explosive Used	Hundreds of kilos of TNT
Investigation Bodies	Sweden, Germany, Denmark
Swedish Investigation Conclusion	Closed; no culprits identified, no indication of Swedish involvement or threat to Sweden
Swedish Prosecutor Statement	“Not within Swedish jurisdiction; no Swedish involvement; attack in international waters”
Swedish Intelligence Conclusion	No threat to Swedish security
Investigative Actions in Sweden	Analysis of boat movements, crime scene investigation, judicial cooperation with Germany and Denmark
Ongoing Investigations	Germany and Denmark
Russian Reaction	Welcomed Swedish decision; interest in German investigation; implied substantial information on potential culprits
Suspects and Theories	Ukraine (pro-Ukrainian group, Roman Tchervinsky), United States and Norway (denied involvement)
Geopolitical Context	Linked to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; pipelines central to energy and political tensions between Russia and the West
Initial Report of Explosions	Leaks observed on September 26, 2022
Nature of Explosions	Underwater explosions equivalent to “hundreds of kilos of TNT”
Locations of Explosions	Near Bornholm, Denmark, and southern Sweden
Purpose of Pipelines	Transport natural gas from Russia to Europe
Status of Nord Stream 1	Gas deliveries halted by Moscow amid energy standoff
Status of Nord Stream 2	Completed but never operational
Statements from Investigative Bodies	Detailed analysis of boat movements, crime scene investigation, judicial cooperation
Hypotheses of Sabotage Origin	Potential state involvement; various accusations without concrete evidence
Media Reports	Seymour Hersh’s allegations of US and Norway involvement; New York Times’ report on pro-Ukrainian group’s potential involvement; Zelensky’s denials

---

Copyright of debuglies.com
Even partial reproduction of the contents is not permitted without prior authorization – Reproduction reserved