Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

seymourhersh.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 1001 posts

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#51

Post by wizzwizz4 »

sschueller wrote: post #44
dang wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please make your substantive points without snark or flamebait. This topic is obviously as inflammable as it gets. More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712496

Sorry, got emotional, can't seem to be able to delete it anymore. It's extremely infuriating situation having to deal with the consequences of what a few top officials decide the world should look like and expecting at least one side to play fair.

You can't delete once there's a reply. As a hack, some people edit the message to contain only the text "deleted": it's often poor practice, but since the only reply is from dang I think it'd be okay here.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#52

Post by dang »

miguelazo wrote: post #24
andrejguran wrote: post #11

Can someone explain why would they blow up inoperational pipeline that Germany even said is not planning to operate in near future? And if they would have remote explosive wouldn't it make more sense to explode it in the moment of starting the pipeline to make it look more like an accident?

[flagged]

Please don't break the site guidelines like you did here and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712682. We're trying to avoid flamewar. If you want to make your substantive points thoughtfully, that would be fine.

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

"Eschew flamebait."

"Don't be snarky."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#53

Post by nerpderp82 »

itsyaboi wrote: post #16

> My Lai was first revealed to the American public on November 13, 1969—almost two years after the incident—when Hersh published a story through the Dispatch News Service. The article threatened to undermine the U.S. war effort and severely damage the Nixon presidency. Inside the White House, officials privately discussed how to contain the scandal. On November 21, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger emphasized…

[flagged]

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#54

Post by The_Colonel »

sschueller wrote: post #36

Usually destroying 40% of a countries energy resource is considered an act of war but I guess if it's your ally that also spies on your top officials it's OK. /s

I wouldn't be surprised if Germany OKayed it (IF USA did it). Germany returning to Nord Stream would be a disaster for everybody (including Germany). Paradoxically, removing Nord Stream from the consideration helped Germany and its political situation.

I always thought it's more likely that somebody from the West did it, since from my perspective it helped West and not Russia. But what's confusing me is the rather muted reaction from Russia. If it wasn't them and if they believed it's the West, why are they so silent about it?

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#55

Post by erentz »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #9
syzarian wrote: post #2

Seymour doesn’t provide any proof or any evidence. It’s argument by assertion. What he writes is plausible but without any sources or other corroborating evidence. I think it more believable that Seymour has been paid to write this by a Russian aligned entity. I don’t know the truth of the matter and Seymour could be right. We just can’t tell from the evidence provided.

If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. Of course this is not evidence but this the sort of operation where success means no evidence (at least no evidence available to the public at large as it is possible and, one might hope, likely that neighbouring countries know).

Why leave one of the brand new, larger pipelines undamaged, so that Russia could then offer after the event to work with Germany to activate it? Which naturally they did.

This pipeline had been completed but activation was stopped due to the start of the war. If Germany had capitulated and activated it with Russia that would be a major political win for Russia and blow for the suggested goals of the US and other allies. To me this seems to be the biggest hole in the theory that the US was responsible.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#56

Post by partiallypro »

cpursley wrote: post #46
partiallypro wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. How so? The pipeline(s) was/were already off, so the US and Norway already had a new customer because of this. If the US risked blowing up the pipeline(s) (which was already not delivering,) it would put NATO in jeopardy which is explicitly against US interests and WAY more valu…

It absolutely does. Blowing up the pipeline took away Russias ability to hold the EU hostage with the energy card.

The pipeline was already not operational. What are you missing? If you think the US had a profit motive (which it seems you are saying this), NATO is much much more profitable than gas which will be diversified over time. So why would they risk the entire NATO alliance for this? Again, the theory makes no sense.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#57

Post by isoprophlex »

dang wrote: post #39
sschueller wrote: post #36

Usually destroying 40% of a countries energy resource is considered an act of war but I guess if it's your ally that also spies on your top officials it's OK. /s

Please make your substantive points without snark or flamebait. This topic is obviously as inflammable as it gets. More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712496

Off topic but I really hope you wrote "obviously inflammable" there because this is a about gas pipes blowing up

Pun intended or not, it's got me laughing

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#58

Post by sudosysgen »

partiallypro wrote: post #48
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #40

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is the evidence ?

The blog post is mostly a sea of text with no real citations and loose quotes. The author, though a famed journalist for his breaking of a story 50 years ago, has also made claims recently to defend dictators such as Assad; even going so far as to claim the US was going to fake Bin Laden's dead by dragging his body back to Afghanistan from Pakistan to pretend like he died in a missile strike. His reasoning for this?…

The journalist also broke the Abu Ghraib story less than 20 years ago.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#59

Post by cactusplant7374 »

The Nordstream pipeline was blown up by Russia. They have done this twice before. Russia weaponizes its energy. That has been the pattern. I don't believe America would attack an ally like this and I don't believe Hersh has found the truth.

Russia Georgia Energy Crisis (2006)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_...

Turkmenistan (2009)

https://www.rferl.org/a/Pipeline_Explosion_Stokes_Tensions_B...

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#60

Post by rank0 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #13
mytailorisrich wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. Of course this is not evidence but this the sort of operation where success means no evidence (at least no evidence available to the public at large as it is possible and, one might hope, likely that neighbouring countries know).

> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. I disagree. The most logical explanation is tha Russia did it as a capacity demonstration and threat against Baltic Pipe to pressure contries in the region regarding Ukraine, but that, like all their threats against the West over Ukraine policy so far, the threat was hollow.

You think Russia tried to send a message by……destroying its own infrastructure?!

It was their biggest leverage over the EU. Now it’s gone and there’s no possibility of restoring Russian gas flows to the EU.

If they were gonna destroy critical international infrastructure wouldn’t it make more sense to blow up something else?

Post reply on HN