Charlie Kirk suggests apparent Nord Stream pipeline sabotage may be a “midterm election operation”

Video file

Citation From the September 28, 2022, edition of The Charlie Kirk Show, streamed on YouTube

CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): Let's play some more tape here. Let's go to cut 96, Tucker on how the pipeline leaks were no accident.


KIRK: If it's an act of industrial terrorism and it was done with sophistication of a military, it only narrows down the potential actors. And you have to wonder what European country would have the spine to do that if America wasn't aware that this was going to happen?

Now, from a calculus standpoint, I could see this. I could see it potentially where a couple of different situations. Number one, Russia wants to play the victim so they bomb their own pipeline. Why? Because they're already selling enough to India and China. And they want to punish Europe. They want to blow it up and act like the United States did it.

However. I could see it the other way. I could see Germany and the United States wanting to play the victim because they know that they've so recklessly managed the proxy war in Ukraine where they bomb the pipeline to then say that Russia and all of the coming energy shortages is because Russia bombed their own pipeline. That doesn't make any sense. That doesn't really aim for a big PR war. So Russia bombs their own stream of cash? On the same day the Norwegian pipeline launches.

Cut 98. Tucker Carlson suggests that Joe Biden is behind this move.


KIRK: If this was an act of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA -- which, again, is just speculation. It's very important. How does that get us closer to peace? Is this a potential midterm election operation? Pure speculation, I am asking a question. I know Media Matters will have a heyday with this. Is this a wag-the-dog situation where they want us talking about a war in Europe when we have inflation, border problems, and the economy? Is this because that there is a looming red wave here? Is this an underwater October surprise? I don't know.

But I certainly don't trust our government. The government that lied about the origins of the Chinese coronavirus, that lied about the mRNA gene altering technology, that lied about the efficacy of masks, that lied about early treatments, that lied about emergency use authorization, that has lied about the southern border, that has lied about inflation, that lied about Afghanistan. I don't trust the narrative-industrial complex.

The intelligence agency – and I hate to say it this way, it's very painful as a proud American – they're guilty until proven innocent in this situation. They're going to have to prove to us it wasn't them given the evidence that they were, basically, saber-rattling and threatening that they were going to do it.

I pray it wasn't, I hope it wasn't. I hope it was Greenpeace. I don't think so.

The Washington Post dug into Tucker Carlson's claims about the apparent sabotage to Nord Stream, and in particular about a Polish politician that Kirk cites in this clip:

The last source Carlson cited was not a U.S. politician, but a European one. Radek Sikorski is a member of European Parliament representing Poland and is a former defense and foreign minister of the country. His Twitter account on Tuesday featured a photo of gas bubbling up to the surface of the Baltic Sea, with the brief message: “Thank you, USA.”

Some reports cast Sikorski’s comments as explicitly accusing the United States of sabotage, and some Polish politicians suggested Sikorski was furthering Russian propaganda efforts. Prominent Russian officials promoted Sikorski’s tweet, but Sikorski is not known as a pro-Russian politician.

But his meaning wasn’t entirely clear; it seems possible he was crediting the United States with rendering the pipelines moot by pressuring Europe not to take Russian natural gas. In later tweets, he seemed actually to point to Russian sabotage, citing a supposed Russian “special maintenance operation” on the pipelines.

(The Post attempted to contact Sikorski through the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where he holds a nonresident position, but has not received comment from him.)