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

491–500 of 1001 posts

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

#491

Post by ohmaigad »

ghostwriter wrote: post #363
ohmaigad wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These tensions have been brewing between NATO (mostly America) and Russia for at least a decade. It's unfortunate that the situation escalated in Ukraine though, which AFAIK is the victim in the scheming and plotting of those two powers. As a person from Eastern Europe this is literal Russian propaganda or in simple words - dogshit. You know why somebody like Baltic countries wanted to get in NATO? Because Russia w…

Sorry to tell you, but the US think-tanks have been saying it for years that the Baltic states are there in their current configuration to only restrain Russia from forming closer ties with Germany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UcXiUYLgbo They even have a term for it - "Cordon sanitaire": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(internationa...

Oh yes, the mighty Baltic states who are able to somehow lock down Russian ties to Germany. By that logic the NS2 should have never happened or German reliance to Russian gas in general. This sounds like the same stuff Russians were claiming at some point - that the Baltics are the main players in West geopolitics or what not. What that think tank is saying make no sense, as invading/controlling Ukraine is not making a buffer zone as you can't really call something a buffer zone when it is pretty much in Russias pocket. Something like Belarus today is not a buffer zone.

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

#492

Post by throwayyy479087 »

tlear wrote: post #450
oezi wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

He is right that sonar buoy detonation thing sounds like absolute bullshit. Incredibly risky and 17 hours.. I mean you want to do this, send a submarine, it fires few torpedoes. No more pipeline. Fast, simple, reliable. Let's say I am a Ukranian patriot, with few million in the bank. I bet given few month I could put together a team of divers to plant some C4 with a simple timer and blow this thing to hell. Or Polish…

I think it’s the Polish. Apparently their relationship with Russia is similar to a very angry pitbull has with steak. They were mass rapes by the Soviets at the end of World War II and horrible conditions for the Polish during the Soviet empire.

Polish friends say there’s no shortage of young men who want the glory of blowing up something owned by the people who gang raped Grandma.

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

#493

Post by AlbertCory »

bnralt wrote: post #368
karaterobot wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does strike me as odd that (by my reading) there's only a single, unnamed source for all these claims. Hersh's reputation as a journalist is significant and worth considering, but for me it makes it stranger that there's so little evidence in this piece which, as it notes, alleges an act of war.

> but for me it makes it stranger that there's so little evidence in this piece which, as it notes, alleges an act of war. It makes it less surprising to me. Back in 2006 I believed Hersh when he reported that the U.S. had troops inside Iran laying the groundwork for an imminent American attack. This was also based on anonymous sources. After the attack failed to materialize, I learned to take such reporting with a l…

I have to sympathize with Hersh; being on the outside yet being taken seriously by some has to be hard on you. Paranoia strikes deep; into your life it will creep.

He used to be credible. Then unfortunately a lot of shady people learned they could manipulate him and get away with it, and so they've done. He can publish something like this and when anyone says, "prove it" he can't. Because Top Secret.

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

#494

Post by VincentEvans »

mhermher wrote: post #461
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…

What does this have to do with the submission?

It casts doubt on the unverified claims that US is responsible for the sabotage of the gas pipeline and raises the possibility that it’s a planted piece by Russian propaganda ops.

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

#495

Post by somethoughts »

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 does seem like the title could use a "might have" as in "How America might have taken out the Nord Stream pipeline."

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

#496

Post by ajross »

zelias wrote: post #476

Conceivably this is a pro-Biden article. It demonstrates what Biden is willing to do and/or is capable of when it comes to big, complicated foreign policy questions. If you know ahead of time that a Russian invasion is inevitable (as all intelligence assessments made very clear) wouldn't it be a prudent strategy to relieve Russia of one of its most prominent economic weapons? Considering the much rumored campaign ann…

I think that's a reasonable spin. And I'll admit that there's a repressed neocon in the back of my brain that secretly wants to believe that the US is still capable of taking decisive and effective action in defense of world order.

But... this is just really, really thin. Hersh had no editor on this, it's literally a self-published blog with one entry[1], created for just this article. No one else wanted to run it, one has to assume. There's one source, with only the thinnest of descriptions[2] and no independent verification described.

Everyone wants to lean hard on Hersh's reputation from My Lai and Abu Ghraib. But those stories had evidence! The vietnam story was about a covered-up-but-very-real prosecution of an actual person for actual crimes. Abu Ghraib had the famous photographs and people willing to go on record with their own names. This isn't the same at all.

I mean, maybe it's true. Again, the Freudian Neocon would like that. But realistically this could also be someone feeding Hersh a fake story sourced from anywhere. I don't think this really tells us much of anything.

[1] When I saw this the first time, I immediately thought it must be a fake!

[2] Just "someone familiar with the planning", I mean, were they even looped in on the execution? How does that description square with all the Tom Clancy prose about operation processes?

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

#497

Post by ihatepython »

threeseed wrote: post #219
dang wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't think it would be. Hersh is inevitably part of the story because of his historical significance and the network of government sources that he's cultivated for decades. It doesn't follow that his claims are true (even if he's accurately reporting, his sources must have their own agendas). That's why I added the question mark to the title above. The story being on HN doesn't imply anything about that—only t…

a) I don't understand the relevance at all to Hacker News. There are plenty of interesting things going on in the tech world that aren't making the front page. b) There is a lack of evidence in the article. I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. c) His previous reputation is important but history is littered with examples of people making mistakes and relying on th…

> a) I don't understand the relevance at all to Hacker News. There are plenty of interesting things going on in the tech world that aren't making the front page.

It's possible the tech stack for the detonator was written in Rust.

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

#498

Post by splitstud »

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…

[dead]

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

#499

Post by Animatronio »

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 find your arguments pretty weak. - War is enough of a force majeure, literally the first case. There's no need to sabotage infrastructure. Or at least do it on land, where it's easier to fix. - One very weird way to escalate. I can think of a couple of more effective ways. - There was no wedge after all. Germany got a bloody nose, the Russians as well. Did anyone dare accuse the US immediately after the explosions? No, but they're starting to now, probably judging that there will be no retribution.

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

#500

Post by bunnie »

Octokiddie wrote: post #460

> The C4 attached to the pipelines would be triggered by a sonar buoy dropped by a plane on short notice, but the procedure involved the most advanced signal processing technology. Once in place, the delayed timing devices attached to any of the four pipelines could be accidentally triggered by the complex mix of ocean background noises throughout the heavily trafficked Baltic Sea—from near and distant ships, underwa…

What I don't get is the risk of an accidental signal triggering it. The system as described sounds similar to some existing tech used to communicate with submarines when they are under deep cover... presumably those comms come with both strong encryption and strong authentication off the rack. seems unlikely that random noise would be a concern for a trigger...

A more likely rationale for a fixed time line would simply be a concern on the life of the battery in the receiver, and the diplomatic fallout that would happen if the battery died, and an intact detonator was recovered on a later routine inspection that could be traced back to the USA.

Post reply on HN