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

531–540 of 1001 posts

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

#531

Post by VincentEvans »

Animatronio wrote: post #499
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 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?…

Russia and Europe are not at war. Whether a war that Russia itself started elsewhere on it’s own accord is considered a valid excuse to unilaterally terminate existing contracts - that the courts will decide.

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

#532

Post by bnralt »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #422
thwayunion wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ro…

The Russians had been claiming in the months before the explosion that sanctions were keeping them from delivering gas, and that Europe needed to back off sanctions if they wanted gas to flow. Europe called them out and said this was obviously a falsehood.

Then the explosions happened, which prevented gas from being transported through the pipelines - except for one Nordstream 2 pipeline, which actually would require Germany to budge for it to be operational. Russia even stated that they'd be happy to send gas through the remaining pipeline as soon as Germany backtracked.

Whether or not you think Russia did it, the explosion had the effect of turning something the Russians had been trying and failing to convince other countries of into a reality.

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

#533

Post by LAC-Tech »

threeseed wrote: post #369
Laaas wrote: post #328

It is bewildering how many here are against this post staying up; no matter whether it's true or not, it's an interesting article! If you feel it is not true, why take it down rather than simply state your opinion in the comments? Do we not have the freedom to discuss and form our own opinions about it?

Because this is Hacker News not Political Conspiracy News. For every one of these posts that are manually forced to stay on the front page we lose an actual relevant, technical post that we never see and get a chance to comment on.

If you want less politics, lobste.rs is pretty good

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

#534

Post by archagon »

k1m wrote: post #529
archagon wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the community decides. By flagging. Which was, in this case, ignored by fiat. Moreover, the article has little to do with tech and has obviously loaded statements such as this: > From its earliest days, Nord Stream 1 was seen by Washington and its anti-Russian NATO partners as a threat to western dominance. If we can’t filter out misinformation and propaganda, we are screwed as a community. ( Is this misinforma…

> Is this misinformation/propaganda? Maybe, maybe not, but false positives are better in cases like this than false negatives. You question people's motivation when it comes to submissions. Why not when it comes to flagging? Does it foster intellectual curiousity to flag a story by a renowned investigative journalist? In any case, what's surprising to me here is the reaction to dang's reasonable justification for dis…

I flagged it because it looks and quacks like propaganda and has little to do with tech. Perhaps Seymour Hersh is another once-reputable journalist who has unfortunately succumbed to anti-West brain-rot like Glenn Greenwald.

I am also worried that HN's moderation has a bus factor of one, and has effectively no recourse. That's a lot of community-shaping power in one person's hands, regardless of how good of a job dang normally does.

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

#535

Post by xg15 »

I find it extremely jarring how many reputable western media outlets immediately jumped to the conclusion that Russia did it even though that made zero sense - but absolutely refused to even consider the possibility that the US or another western state could have done it.

But at this point, the article is basically "cool story, bro". The only independently verifyable bits are the public statements of Biden, Nuland, etc, which are already well-known. But those only show that the US really really really didn't like the pipelines - and that was never a secret. They do not give any evidence for a planned operation to destroy them.

The rest of the article is amazingly detailed but only based on an anonymous source. Even if we trust that the source existed, there is no way to know if that source itself is trustworthy.

So as of now, I don't the information in the article would convince anyone of the "US did it" hypothesis who wasn't already convinced.

I think the only thing that the article is useful for is as a future reference. It could be useful to remember the details and keep an eye if they match with any future developments.

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

#536

Post by peanuty1 »

linkjuice4all wrote: post #489
thwayunion wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I'd bet my last dollar that at least four nations had "blow up Nord Stream to force continued conflict" contingency plans. Who did it? Germany, Russia, USA, Ukraine, or a curve ball from the one of the Nordic or Baltic states? We'll probably never know, and none of…

Why just those countries? Surely some countries in the middle east would be interested in opening and supplying petro products to a new market. What about China? Maybe they're interested in division and weakening their nearest neighbor so they could buy up all the gas? There are too many players with varying interests at different levels to just go off of someone's reputation and an unnamed source. Perhaps Biden or s…

Are any middle eastern militaries competent enough to blow up the Nord Strom pipeline and cover their tracks?

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

#537

Post by blub »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #471

There is one thing that is really bothering me in this story. I don't really care who is behind the sabotage, they would certainly not admit it for obvious reasons, and it could be more complex than it seems. But the press, here in the UK, in France and in the US, has been suspiciously "clueless", avoiding with great care to imply that anyone in the west could be behind it, even if it really seems obvious that it cou…

The Western press seems to more or less parrot the government talking points or are even more hawkish themselves. Criticism is offered on minor topics or is feeble and drowned in a torrent of other articles.

One could recognize this also with the Coronavirus fiasco when for example the press was parroting the governments saying that the virus is not going to come to Europe and urging people not to be racist against the Chinese (extra funny given the current mainstream position against China). Then the press was parroting that masks don’t work. Then they were parroting that people should really wear masks. Not all the press, not all of the time, but the trend and direction were obvious. And the tireless downplaying of AstraZeneca and mRNA side-effects, goodness.

All of these narratives were also mainstream on HN, just as most opinions on the war are unsophisticated and thoroughly mainstream.

It’s so bizarre, imagine having freedom of the press and then doing what’s expected of you anyway.

Or as an individual being able to think, gather facts and information and draw your own conclusions. And having the freedom to present those conclusions go to waste while just repeating some simplistic talking point.

HN is worse than usual at discussing the war. Many non-mainstream commenters have given up or were censored and it’s mostly pockets of conformity now.

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

#538

Post by strangattractor »

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.

Most News outlets prefer to have more than one source of info. For the life of me I cannot see how this would be a net plus benefit to the US. The potential to destabilize our allies seems likely. If they find out it is true - some of them would be at minimum very pissed.

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

#539

Post by torstenvl »

dang wrote: post #200
torstenvl wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dan, I respectfully ask you to reconsider. This is a poorly-sourced speculative piece of propaganda and clearly goes against site guidelines. You repeat, above, that HN is not for nationalist flamewar, and requires substance. But this post is nationalist flamewar and isn't substantive. Allowing it while shutting down similar content from the opposite perspective is... unsettling.

I'll read the article and reconsider. I haven't had time to even look at it yet. The moderation call here isn't based on agreeing, disagreeing, liking, or disliking. It just seems like an obvious interesting event, that's all. Edit: Ok, I've read the first half and looked over the second half, and I think the moderation call was the correct one. Not saying this to pile on; I just wanted to report back.

I greatly appreciate your willingness to take a second look at it. Even though I would have made a different call in your shoes, it can't be emphasized enough that you do an outstanding job at a difficult and often thankless task. Thank you.

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

#540

Post by apnew »

hedora wrote: post #437
LarryMullins wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.

The third paragraph in the article.

Post reply on HN