“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline” • Hacker News Board

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

#421

Post by TEP_Kim_Il_Sung » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 9:03 PM UTC

VincentEvans wrote: post #417

joe_the_user wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is a brutal dictatorship engaging in a war of aggression against the Ukraine and using natural gas as weapon in it's war. But is that a reason to not to address or even mention the topic of the post, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline? I mean, are implicitly saying that covert act was justified? If people believe that, they should say it. One of the worst effects of war is an attitude of "not only is…

You seem to be pretty convinced that US is behind it, where I am not so much. I wouldn’t presume to know if destruction of the pipeline is justified if you look at it from Russian perspective, if they are responsible, but I can volunteer a few motives why they might be: - an attempt to introduce a force majeure factor into any future contract disagreements - an attempt at escalating the seriousness of threats, signal…

I think the only thing we can be sure of is that this was perpetrated by government.

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

#422

Post by marginalia_nu » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 9:03 PM UTC

thwayunion wrote: post #171

hef19898 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can easily imagine any of the Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine (with some local help) or even Finland, Swede or Norway doing the deed. Or, since the pipelines are well known and not difficult to reach, basically everyone with access to explosives, a boat a divers with explosives skills. None of which is particularly hard to come by.

At that moment in the war, even Putin had a lot of strong motivations -- lock out the option of bringing Nord Stream back online and close to door on de-escalation. As a side-benefit, the possibility of driving a wedge into NATO. I also found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713402 interesting. Who knows.

Putin was already effectively doing that, by demanding payment in rubles and making weird terms. If Putin wanted to shut down Nordstream, he'd just stop sending gas. What was Europe going to do, sanction him more?

I can see the US doing it as they've been vocal opponents to nordstream since its inception, I can see Ukraine wanting to do it although I doubt they'd have the resources, might also have been some other rogue European faction wanting out from under Putin's thumb.

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

#423

Post by dang » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 9:04 PM UTC

Ancalagon wrote: post #332

dang wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no such admission. In fact it's the opposite, because if we thought the story didn't belong on HN, nothing would be easier than to let it sink without a trace. I think the story belongs on HN because I know a little bit about the historical significance of Seymour Hersh and I think the appearance of this story is intellectually interesting. Maybe I'm the only commenter who feels that way, since most appear only…

Dang, the question mark is not significant enough in my mind to present this story in a proper light. I think you should preface the title with "Theory:", "Hypothesis:", or some other disclaimer to immediately signify to the readers that it does not have substantial evidence to back up its extraordinary claims. I respect and appreciate your opinions on all things HN related, but in this instance I think we need to ma…

I've put quotation marks up there now, as an alternative way of making the same point. That won't satisfy everyone but I hope the intention is clear!

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

#424

Post by spoiler » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 9:04 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #380

strawpeople wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying what amounts to ‘we’d never be in that position’ comes across as pretty evasive. Also saying Hersh only writes this kind of thing supports the idea that Hersh is biased enough to be taken for a ride by a source with an agenda.

Ok, if that was too evasive: yes, of course we would have the same stance.

Ah the comment was aimed at the person replying to the reason why this was unflagged.

I do appreciate you replying! Thanks!

I realise it's an incredibly difficult question to answer because of the what-ifs, though.

I would also like to think you'd have the same stance... And for what it's worth I do believe you would.

I'd argue that your stance is currently harder to uphold since it makes the whole situation a lot morally murkier, and also because it goes against popular opinion (one can only be immune to it so much).

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

#425

Post by hef19898 » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 9:04 PM UTC

TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote: post #421

VincentEvans wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be pretty convinced that US is behind it, where I am not so much. I wouldn’t presume to know if destruction of the pipeline is justified if you look at it from Russian perspective, if they are responsible, but I can volunteer a few motives why they might be: - an attempt to introduce a force majeure factor into any future contract disagreements - an attempt at escalating the seriousness of threats, signal…

I think the only thing we can be sure of is that this was perpetrated by government.

The Baltic Sea is quite shallow, so not even necessarily a government. Someone did it so.

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

#426

Post by kibwen » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 9:04 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #401

VincentEvans wrote: post #176

Gazprom, Russian gas monopoly, has on Kremlin’s orders first threatened to, and then suspended gas supplies to Europe in an attempt to blackmail it to stop supporting Ukraine under a threat of, as they put it, “freezing Europe”. In the process unilaterally breaking existing delivery contracts. There were no Western sanctions targeting Russian gas - it was entirely a political operation initiated by Russian government…

Russia is a brutal dictatorship engaging in a war of aggression against the Ukraine and using natural gas as weapon in it's war. But is that a reason to not to address or even mention the topic of the post, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline? I mean, are implicitly saying that covert act was justified? If people believe that, they should say it. One of the worst effects of war is an attitude of "not only is…

> are implicitly saying that covert act was justified?

This is still taking the OP at face value. If we're being honest, the destruction of the pipeline doesn't really make geopolitical sense for either the US or Russia, given the information we have. If we must assume that one of them did it, then in the absence of evidence we should prefer to assume that it was the action of an irrational actor, and Putin is clearly the more irrational of the two here (as evidence, allow me to gesture towards the war in Ukraine).

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

#427

Post by strawpeople » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 9:04 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #380

strawpeople wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying what amounts to ‘we’d never be in that position’ comes across as pretty evasive. Also saying Hersh only writes this kind of thing supports the idea that Hersh is biased enough to be taken for a ride by a source with an agenda.

Ok, if that was too evasive: yes, of course we would have the same stance.

Presumably not with just anyone who reported that claiming to have a source, but only because it’s Hersh.

As far as I can see your position evaluates to ‘dang trusts Hersh‘.

Since it’s 2023 and we use machines to do our thinking now, I consulted ChatGPT about this. I draw your attention to the last paragraph.

—————

strawpeople: Can Seymour Hersh’s reporting always be trusted?

chatgpt:

Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has had a long and storied career. While he has been praised for his investigative reporting and his ability to uncover important stories, it is important to note that not all of his reporting can always be trusted. Like any journalist, Hersh is human and may make mistakes or have biases that affect the accuracy of his reporting.

Additionally, some of Hersh's reporting has been called into question, and he has faced criticism for making claims that are not supported by evidence or for relying on sources that are not credible. For example, in 2017, Hersh faced criticism for his reporting on the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, which some experts said was based on unreliable sources and was contradicted by a large body of evidence.

In conclusion, it is important to approach Hersh's reporting with a critical eye and to carefully evaluate the evidence and sources he relies on. While some of his reporting has been praised for its accuracy and impact, it is not always reliable and should be independently verified.

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

#428

Post by joe_the_user » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 9:06 PM UTC

VincentEvans wrote: post #417

joe_the_user wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is a brutal dictatorship engaging in a war of aggression against the Ukraine and using natural gas as weapon in it's war. But is that a reason to not to address or even mention the topic of the post, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline? I mean, are implicitly saying that covert act was justified? If people believe that, they should say it. One of the worst effects of war is an attitude of "not only is…

You seem to be pretty convinced that US is behind it, where I am not so much. I wouldn’t presume to know if destruction of the pipeline is justified if you look at it from Russian perspective, if they are responsible, but I can volunteer a few motives why they might be: - an attempt to introduce a force majeure factor into any future contract disagreements - an attempt at escalating the seriousness of threats, signal…

Nah, I have no idea.

Now, that I read your post in more detail, it's an argument for why Russia might have done it. OK. You could have made that a lot more clear.

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

#429

Post by cpwright » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 9:06 PM UTC

VincentEvans wrote: post #322

MilaM wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now that the Western sanctions are strangling Russian economy - if Gazprom wanted to come back to European market - they would be first greeted by billions of dollars of contract charges in arbitration courts. This is not merely hypothetical. Uniper, one of Gazproms biggest customers in Europe, is already suing for $12 billion in damages. And that is only one of many former customers. https://www.reuters.com/busine…

It’s probably worth adding here that according to a quick google search - the cost of Nordstream2 project is $11B. So one might imagine that the costs of potential repairs are negligible in comparison.

Salt water entering the pipeline can damage more than just the single length of pipe that has the hole in it, so fixing it is can be uneconomical.

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

#430

Post by SideburnsOfDoom » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 9:06 PM UTC

atdrummond wrote: post #277

threeseed wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because it's interesting No. It's interesting to you .

The level of engagement seems to indicate there is interest amongst a wide swath of the site. Some of that interest, rather predictably, is negative.

>The level of engagement seems to indicate there is interest

Far more heat than light being generated though, though. Which is predictable with this kind of story, raising emotion is part of the desired outcome of posting it (1). "interest" in baseless speculation and conspiratorial thinking is not a good thing.

Standards are slipping, that this story is protected.

1) https://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/more+heat+than...