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

101–110 of 1001 posts

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

#101

Post by pphysch »

erentz wrote: post #90
pphysch wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose this story was written by a "credible" reporter. Do you think NYT's Foreign Editors would allow it to be published? Would it pass the national security screening?

Claims and sources are supposed verified in journalism. In the case of anonymous sources a journalist can't just bring to his manager a quote and say he's anonymous because that journalist (as many have over the years) might have just made it up. The manager has to know the identity of the source. If the journalist won't share the identity then it won't fly. So if someone else brought this story to NY Times, they wou…

Yes, I understand how journalism is supposed to work in theory.

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

#102

Post by erentz »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #88
erentz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alli…

Both NS 1 and NS 2 were sabotaged. The US have been hostile for a long time to Germany getting closer to Russia. The war in Ukraine has just been a convenient event to push their strategic agenda forward and so far, irrespective of those pipelines, it has been very good for the US.

Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 are not just two pipelines. It's four total. The two pipelines of Nord Stream 1 were demolished. But only one of the pipelines of Nord Stream 2 was demolished, the second was untouched.

https://www.dw.com/en/putin-offers-europe-gas-through-nord-s...

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

#103

Post by The_Colonel »

sschueller wrote: post #38
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?

To make absolutely sure Germany does not go behind the US and makes a deal with Russia irregardless of the situation in Ukraine. Backstap before the others can backstap you.

Alternative hypothetical take - US did it on behalf of German government to avoid the potential political meltdown. Removing this toxic option removed a path to split the society and politics.

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

#104

Post by Apocryphon »

macintux wrote: post #94
Apocryphon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like they should provide undeniable evidence then!

Even if they had it, they likely couldn’t share it for security reasons. And of course, proving innocence is effectively impossible without proving someone else did it.

Sure. I'm just curious about who did it and hey if Hersh is providing one narrative, it's better than the lack of answers or even any attempt at an investigatory effort from any party, whether NATO or Russian.

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

#105

Post by partiallypro »

cpursley wrote: post #75
partiallypro wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn’t say a thing about US profit motive. I was very clear: Russia can’t blackmail the EU with energy if they don’t have a way to deliver it. Why would they want to lose that leverage (and their billions in investment)? And EU industry very much depends on low cost gas (chemical manufacturing, vehicle and other industrial manufacturing, greenhouse heating, etc). There’s report after report of vital industrial faci…

> Russia can’t blackmail the EU with energy if they don’t have a way to deliver it. Why would they want to lose that leverage (and their billions in investment)?

Because the pipeline was already off. The second pipeline was not operational. They already had no leverage.

> And EU industry very much depends on low cost gas (chemical manufacturing, vehicle and other industrial manufacturing, greenhouse heating, etc). There’s report after report of vital industrial facilities shuttering due to high gas.

So, your theory is that the US not only endangered the entire NATO alliance, but also sought to weaken NATO members? Again, how does that make any sense? You also fail to mention that gas prices currently are actually pretty low relative to before this event occurred and Europe never ran out of gas.

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

#106

Post by sschueller »

The_Colonel wrote: post #54
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 mu…

Even if Germany OKayd it. 51% of it belongs the Swiss Holding company. You can't just go blow up some private companies assets and get away with it.

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

#108

Post by throwbadubadu »

cactusplant7374 wrote: post #59

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_…

I don't believe Russia is capable to do that the way it was done... and sorry: They are not even capable to be that stupid also (stupid enough, but that would top it by magnitudes).

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

#109

Post by selimthegrim »

mc32 wrote: post #74
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 this turns out to be right --and we don't have conclusive evidence, but this would upset the current narrative. Why would Russia be an idiot to shoot itself in the foot (cui bono) and blow up their leverage; though in international affairs the unimaginable is possible, so yeah they may have done it to themselves -though to outsiders it would seem illogical If true though, it would be as big as the Gulf of Tonkin i…

Russia would be an idiot to start a war with Ukr…oh wait a minute

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

#110

Post by davesque »

dang wrote: post #34

All: Whether he is right or not or one likes him or not, Hersh reporting on this counts as significant new information ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... ), so I've turned off the flags on this submission. If you're going to comment in this thread, please make sure you're up on the site guidlelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) and note this one: " Comments should…

I'm honestly really shocked by your stance on this. Regardless of whether or not this information is credible, this seems like text book flame war kindling. In the past, I've thought HN's policy of "you can discuss things like this in other forums" was wise and I've been corrected by it myself many times. Why wouldn't that apply in this case?
Post reply on HN