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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by erentz »

lr1970 wrote: post #338
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…

> Why leave one of the brand new, larger pipelines undamaged ... Two possibilities: (1) explosive charge malfunctioned (2) make plausible arguments that it was Russia who did it

(1): See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713247

(2): Then why blow the other three?

So for the US angle to work here what is the motivation?

At the outset of the war Germany stopped NS2 activation plans and started diversifying its energy away from Russia.

Leading up to the explosion Russia had been trying to blackmail Germany by reducing the supplies of gas. And gas was fully turned off at the time of the explosion. Russia was also playing games with Germany to try to get propaganda wins over the subject of gas by cutting gas supplies on NS1 and saying it was because Germany needed to ship it a turbine. Then Russia was claiming it couldn't receive the turbine from Germany because of the sanctions imposed by other countries. Russia was also saying, well pity that we can't supply enough gas because we don't have the turbine, but we could activate NS2 with you instead. [1]

So the clear motivation for the US could be that they did not want Germany to capitulate to Russian blackmail and give Russia some kind of political or sanction relief. That's actually somewhat reasonable as a theory if you believe Germany was susceptible to it (was it?), and assume all the other levers that the US and other EU allies had wouldn't be enough to keep Germany on the team.

The risk is that doing this and being caught would be a huge breach of trust. The claim of Hersh is that these explosives sat on the pipeline for three months.

The US even warned Germany about potential attacks on the pipeline. [2]

So now if that is the motivation, in this context leaving one of the newer, larger NordStream 2 pipelines untouched would make absolutely no sense. As you leave open the possibility for Germany to still capitulate and worse give Russia a massive propaganda win by forcing Germany to reverse its position and activate NS2.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/business/germany-russia-g... [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/cia-warned-berlin-about-possib...

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

#432

Post by sampo »

mmastrac wrote: post #97

It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing. The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story. What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears…

> It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing.

That's why there were several explosions: Everyone was blowing it up at the same time, unbeknownst of each other's plans.

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

#433

Post by tlear »

vanviegen wrote: post #124
mmastrac wrote: post #97

It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing. The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story. What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears…

> What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears to be based on a single, unnamed source "with direct knowledge of the operational planning". Why is that weird? Assuming this is true, there would be rather many people with such knowledge. One of them may feel the need to talk. Would you expect such a source to be named? Also, I find it a lot easier to imagine why the US would want to do this, than why…

Because without a collaboration of some sort this reads like a planted story.

Source with this degree of knowledge would have no issue providing lots of things that could be confirmed through other means. Documents, names, precise dates and times. Who was in charge of this on Norwegian side? On CIA side.. when and where did they meat etc etc etc

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

#434

Post by TechBro8615 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #220
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that makes this distinct from much of said kindling is that it hasn't been reported on before. This isn't someone coming into an unrelated comment thread and commenting "9/11 was an inside job!" I would encourage any who disagree to consider truly why this reporting upsets them.

> it hasn't been reported on before Wasn't the U.S. being behind the bombing a leading alternative hypothesis when the news broke?

I'm not even sure it's an "alternative" hypothesis - it's sort of the obvious conclusion, in terms of means, motive and opportunity, that the US sabotaged the pipeline. I bet a poll of US citizens would show a clear majority believe the US to be the culprit, but a minority have a problem with it. And so you get this situation where everyone kind of accepts the truth but different people have varying levels of enthusiasm for publicly arguing about it.

Even extending to the international community (which is generally a reflection of American politics, much to the chagrin of Europeans who are unwilling to admit it), there is mixed levels of enthusiasm for getting to the truth. The countries are all anti-Russia, and so the pipeline sabotage is generally seen as a "good thing" except by the countries with direct profit motive for it. However, those countries aren't about to publicly accuse US intelligence of carrying out the operation, because their relationship with US intelligence is too important to lose, especially given all the weapons and intelligence they provide.

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

#435

Post by qwertox »

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.

The story is credible. Is it true? This is not enough information to decide that, because, as you say it, there are no sources or other corroborating evidence.

But it does host a starting point for future discussion due to the fact that it offers relatively detailed pieces of information.

Now it's up to others to come out and say "this is true, that is not", people who actually do have provable information. It offers them a story to share their information on. This story didn't exist previously in the public discourse.

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

#436

Post by benmmurphy »

anigbrowl wrote: post #330

It might be true. But the story rests on the following premise: *Biden’s and Nuland’s indiscretion, if that is what it was, might have frustrated some of the planners. But it also created an opportunity. According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline “no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it.”…

I'm not sure how courts are interpreting section d) but using a plain reading of the three points:

  1) a lethal operation or capture operation...
  2) an operation conducted by the armed forces in self-defense or in defense of foreign partners, including during a cooperative operation; or
  3) an operation conducted by the armed forces to free an individual from the control of hostile foreign forces.
blowing up infrastructure that has no risk of killing someone for an offensive purpose would not be covered. I think they should have notified congress because that is the clear spirit of this law but the executive is always trying to dodge congressional oversight.

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

#437

Post by hedora »

LarryMullins wrote: post #147
mmastrac wrote: post #97

It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing. The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story. What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears…

It's not unsourced, the source is being kept private. That may not seem like a meaningful difference but there is a difference. And that difference is the reason Seymour Hersh's reputation is relevant.

Does it actually say that anywhere?

I read the first half of the article, and skimmed the second. It doesn't claim to be sourced from anywhere, and the only paragraph that discusses sources and fact checking is when they point out the White House says the entire article is a work of fiction. It doesn't present any evidence that it happened (other than that the US has a big swimming pool that the navy trains in), and summarizes itself by saying that it was a perfect plan (presumably meaning it left behind no evidence), except that they actually did it.

What am I missing?

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

#438

Post by econonut »

abracadaniel wrote: post #411
ttctciyf wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what Biden was referring to when he stated > "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." > When asked how, the president says, "I promise you, we will be able do that." (C-SPAN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 )

Considering the context was about sanctions, and no one at the time thought he was suggesting he would blow it up, then it’s not reasonable to try to retroactively change the context.

I realize I'm just some guy on the internet, but damaging/destroying a section of the pipeline is exactly what I thought President Biden meant when he said that.

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

#439

Post by VincentEvans »

blub wrote: post #314
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…

The EU politicians may have expected to declare an unprecedented economic war on Russia while the latter dutifully continued to fulfill its gas contracts to the EU. Seems plausible given the geopolitical mastery the EU posesses. But does anyone else actually believe that? The other contract party trying to destroy your economy is a pretty good reason to terminate a contract. Failing that Russia could keep inventing p…

“Unprecedented economic war” that was only preceded by an “unprecedented actual war” war.

And stoking and supplying separatists, along with mercenaries in Ukrainian territories before that. And downing a passenger jet before that. And annexing Crimea before that. And invading and occupying a quarter of Georgia before that. And doing the same in Moldova before that.

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

#440

Post by hedora »

oezi wrote: post #382
weatherlight wrote: post #261

Not a few hours later, 17 hours apart. No military is going to arrange for two pipes in the same general area to be destroyed 17 hours apart. 17 hours to find the second floating sonar device. 17 hours to get caught with your pants down. I'm saying this as former US military here. the Idea that in the middle of a OPORD, of any kind, POTUS would come in last minute and change a detail, like an explosive on a timer (fa…

Since it was established that the destruction was caused by explosives, what is your argument? The US is too competent to do such a bad job (17 hours apart and only 3 of 4 pipes destroyed)? Does this imply we have a rogue actor or insufficiently equipped one to blame? Who?

Was it established that it was caused by explosives? The last time the US did this, it was by adding malicious code into pipeline control software (before the USSR stole the software from a US company).
Post reply on HN