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

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791

Post by neycoda »

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…

If there's a reasonable motive, a reasonable story makes a reasonable connection.

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

#792

Post by chii »

VincentEvans wrote: post #397
throwaway894345 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kremlin has miscalculated Europe has also had a very mild winter, so luck played a nontrivial role. > Now that the Western sanctions are strangling Russian economy I'm very curious about how Western sanctions are affecting the Russian economy (I understand that you're speaking narrowly to Gazprom, but I'm asking about the Russian economy more broadly). My understanding is that Putin has spent the better part of the…

Russian attempts to withstand the economic pressure of sanctions have been successful insofar as to prevent a collapse, but the pressure is crushing on all aspects of the economy, as well as any hopes for Russia for economic and industrial development. Brain drain, loss of foreign investment, technology imports, diminishing consumer activity, falling real estate markets - are just some of the headwinds that are in ef…

> Brain drain, loss of foreign investment, technology imports, diminishing consumer activity, falling real estate markets

I dont think the kremlin cares for any of these, except may be with brain drain (which they can easily fix by preventing movement of people).

As long as russia produces enough food for the population, a subsistence living is "good enough" in the eyes of the kremlin, and thus these sanctions doesn't hurt as much as the west had hoped.

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

#793

Post by chii »

dralley wrote: post #748

This story requires one to believe that, on one hand, the mission was so secret that US Special Operations could not be used, because then the "Gang of Eight" in Congress would need to be notified, and according to Hersh that would have been a problem. But on the other hand, Norway and other countries were invited to be intimately involved in the planning and execution. This strikes me as rather unlikely.

It was implied that Norway would benefit from such a mission - they are directly going to be able to sell more gas. However, it does seem implausible that so many are informed and involved.

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

#794

Post by claytongulick »

GAN_Game wrote: post #582
beebmam wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah, I think Seymour Hersh's reputation is relevant. He's pretty much a conspiracy theorist in this era.[1] Including his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Criticism_and_co...

> his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden You give a link but it is nowhere in that link. I watched an interview where Hersh talked about how the US killed bin Laden. Hersh has always said this. Hersh did do reporting that countered parts of the US government story about bin Laden. Namely the idea no high Pakistani army/intelligence/government official knew where bin Laden was in Pakistan. As well as some…

This is a frustratingly common technique that I've seen from those who have strong political affiliations.

It's much easier to make a strong claim, and to repeat it, than it is to read through articles and debunk those claims. Frequently, as soon as you've done it, there are several more of these strong claims made, and the discussion becomes impossible.

I think it's rooted in the desire to "win".

I know I get a little excited when I see a comment I've made get upvoted.

I think about it when I'm writing and I've found it affects what I write and my phrasing.

I think this is an unintended consequence of self-moderated discussions - it seems to devolve into a zero-sum game.

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

#795

Post by sudosysgen »

jccooper wrote: post #571
peanuty1 wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's not very deep. You can buy a tethered underwater ROV rated for 300ft OTS for a few thousands of dollars. Not to mention a camera and an actuator on an anchor. Practically anybody could have done it. Even non-state actors. Hardest part would be getting the explosives in sufficient quantity.

You would leave debris by doing that. Doing it in a way that doesn't leave evidence is difficult.

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

#796

Post by sudosysgen »

mandevil wrote: post #755
lambdasquirrel wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No man. This was not in the Russians’ geopolitical interests. And even if Germany wanted to divest itself of Russian gas, they would not have done so, in this way. This was leaked at the time that it is now to send a message to the Germans.

I would be very very careful with your analysis of what is and is not "in the Russians' geopolitical interests." Almost every analysis based on "what was in the Russians' geopolitical interests" ended up concluding that Putin was not going to invade the Ukraine, because doing so was transparently a terrible idea[1]. And he did it anyway, because his calculations of what was in the Russians geopolitical interests were…

Many, many realist analysts were of the opinion that Russia invading Ukraine was a possible outcome of the geopolitical moment.

It is now known that Putin's decision to invade was due to bad intel from his intelligence services that reported that Ukraine would not be able to mount significant resistance. In that light it was reasonably self-interest-pursuant.

Acting on incorrect information is not the same as being irrational.

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

#797

Post by claytongulick »

indymike wrote: post #284
vanviegen wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. The level of detail about the operation is basically, some divers from the US Navy attached bombs to the pipeline during a military drill that were detonated with magical sonobouy signals according to some professor who said that might work. Another red flag: The vast majority of t…

The part that struck me as strange was the supposed risk of accidental detonation.

It's like no one had ever heard of encrypted digital signals.

This part made me question a lot more.

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

#798

Post by reducesuffering »

kubectl_h wrote: post #778
reducesuffering wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Gell Mann Amnesia in full effect here. Everything you two have said are basic geopolitical knowledge blunders and it's clear Hersh has lost his intellectual bearing the last decade as he's now 85... Hersh: "Today, the supreme commander of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg" Reality: Jens Stoltenberg is the secretary general of NATO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Allied_Commander_Europ... https://en.wikipedia.org/w…

This is a mistaken title attribution, but even with a correction do you think it changes much? Stoltenberg is the civilian leader of NATO and having his support is crucial. Hersh may have been mistaken in the title, but not the person nor their importance.

It actually means a lot. Hersh is basing the entire story off one anonymous source. For such a serious implication, he’s unable to even do due diligence on basic verifiable facts. That buries the lede on how much verification he competently did for his source.

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

#799

Post by RajT88 »

sclarisse wrote: post #771
RajT88 wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one you'd never guess: Vanuatu It's the perfect crime

I lived next door to Tuvalu once, in New York City. Quiet little apartment building in Manhattan, west-facing views of the East River. We hung out with Vanatu once or twice. Doesn’t quite seem the type.

> Doesn’t quite seem the type.

Exactly!

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

#800

Post by chii »

Const-me wrote: post #575
ak_111 wrote: post #563

Not trying to be snarky, but genuinely what is the most articulate and sensible piece on why the most likely culprit is Russia? All the commentary I read from reputable media seem to boil down to "Putin did it because that is the sort of thing that Putin does", without providing any further analysis on why it would make strategic or tactical sense for Putin to do so. The more serious journals such as Foreign Policy s…

> what is the most articulate and sensible piece on why the most likely culprit is Russia? I think this video is articulate and sensible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido

This is an interesting theory.

But the theory presented in the video hinges on the idea that if the americans were to have done it, they would've chosen a more covert means to do it - aka, undetectable (such as cyber warfare).

For example, they would've done something similar to Stuxnet to sabotage the iranian nuclear material processing.

However, i cannot imagine what method of covert sabotage is possible for a pipeline. If everyone believed the pipeline is working, even if it was sabotaged, then they will behave as though it wasn't sabotaged (until they realize it actually is broken). So the effect of the sabotage won't be felt until they turn back on the pipeline, by which, it is too late to for the sabotage's effect to change policy!

So i don't completely buy that the americans aren't a culprit, based purely on the operational design of the attack.

However, i do buy that the risk taking vs risk adverse behaviour does fit. America would not want to risk fracturing NATO from such covert activities. They gain very little - as the pipeline is already closed, and financial and diplomatic pressure on germany is enough to keep it closed. If russia wants to use the pipeline and prospect of cheap gas to lure germany out of the alliance, they've already showed to have failed at it. May be it will change in the future (like 5 yrs down the line), but that seems to be very far to predict, given the current risks of being discovered in between that time.

Lastly, the idea that Putin would covertly destroy the pipelines because they are at a state of war does seem a bit plausible - he's trying to remove the pipeline from being used as a negotiation leverage by any potential successor in ousting him! If germany could sponsor a political opponent in russia with which the gas and economy of russia could be rescued, they might get popular support. This removes the possibility, despite hurting russia in the short term (they're already lost the ability to sell gas from the pipeline, so blowing it up doesn't hurt as much). Coupled with the deniability, the kremlin could blame the act on the US, and hope to cause fracture within NATO for some added effect.

Post reply on HN