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

831–840 of 1001 posts

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

#831

Post by kubectl_h »

mannerheim wrote: post #804
kubectl_h wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, he also claims Stoltenberg collaborated with American intelligence during Vietnam at the tender age of 16 given his birth date and the end of the war. The whole paragraph is just completely wrong.

Why is it impossible that he hasn't cooperated with American intelligence since the Vietnam war -- a quick cursory search of his name and Vietnam yield many press release type new clippings that he was quite active in protests during that war -- protests that led to the jailing of his friend but conveniently not him...

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

#832

Post by tazjin »

beaned wrote: post #774
jonstewart wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that a good journalist would do is be skeptical of his crank sources and try to confirm them with reputable sources and evidence. He does neither. But a broken clock is right twice a day and a bad journalist can break two big stories in a career of publishing lies.

How can you call his sources crank without knowing who they are yourself?

Easy - they reported things that don't fit into this person's worldview.

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

#833

Post by tazjin »

bandyaboot wrote: post #743
slantedview wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden stated last year: "If Russia invades [Ukraine] there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." [1] This was a clear threat, clear as day, that the US could destroy Nordstream. It should surprise nobody that the US was involved. Since Nordstream was destroyed amidst public pressure from US energy companies who wanted to takeover the European energy market, the US has become the world's lead…

> This was a clear threat, clear as day, that the US could destroy Nordstream [2]. It should surprise nobody that the US was involved. Or you could take a breath and realize that Nordstream 2 was not yet complete. It was an ongoing, non-operational project. In that context, “bringing it to an end” could easily mean not completing it. In fact, that’s the far more reasonable interpretation—-the literal physical destruc…

At the time the physical construction had been completed.

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

#834

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

mint2 wrote: post #669
RobotToaster wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine to buy gas from the USA, the butchers of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Yugoslavia though?

It’s telling that this post includes stopping a genocide as a bad thing, I.e. the UN stopping the Bosnian genocide in the fracturing Yugoslavia as a bad thing. Coincidentally, the Russian sphere is one of the groups mad about the UN involvement in Bosnia and Serbia

I'll just leave this here, in case you haven't heard of it.

It's about a documentary which made some waves, accusing the involved politicians of outright lies and exaggerations as justification for military action, which in turn then lead to the things they fabricated.

It was called 'Es begann mit einer Lüge/It started with a lie'

https://programm.ard.de/?sendung=281116097670119

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/umstrittene-ard-dokum...

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

#835

Post by vintermann »

mzs wrote: post #452
vintermann wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. No, it wouldn't. The narrative provided by Hersh's source, whether it's true or not, explains many of the facts that demand an explanation. It provides plausible answers to the questions "How were the explosives placed", "How were the explosives triggered" and "how weren't they detected". Not necessarily true ones! But plaus…

>This article is remarkable for how different it is from Hersh's Syrian gas claims. It really isn't: >What became clear to participants, according to the source with direct knowledge of the process, is that Sullivan intended for the group to come up with a plan for the destruction of the two Nord Stream pipelines … >… Everyone involved understood the stakes. “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack…

It looks like most of what you're objecting to is the style of the storytelling.

But to the parts that aren't, I'm open to be convinced. Tell me what you think is unrealistic in the substance of the narrative, and tell me how you came to know how these things work better than the rest of us.

I know from many jobs that the image we would like to preserve for outsiders about how you work, especially in leadership and decision making, is a lot prettier and competent than how it actually works. Hearsh's source tells a story about a messy process, which he sounds, despite it all, kind of proud that still worked. Only he thinks the whole thing should never have happened. I can totally relate to that. It's completely different from typical conspiratorial stories (including some of Hearsh's).

And you sound, unfortunately, like one trying to defend the reputation and preserve the prestige and mystique of planners and decision makers in hierarchical institutions. All that's missing now is that you reply with some variant of a huffy "think what you will" to this.

But you can try to prove me wrong, by spelling out in detail what's so implausible about the sources story.

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

#836

Post by cactusplant7374 »

rank0 wrote: post #265
cactusplant7374 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you say is true, why has Russia blown up their own pipelines twice before?

Neither of the two sources you linked claim that Russia destroyed those pipelines. Play out the game theory here. Russia has nothing to gain and lots of leverage to lose by destroying the pipelines. They can just keep the gas flows off FFS! That doesn’t mean the US was involved but it makes zero sense for the Russians to do it to themselves.

If your standard of proof is that Russia admits it this conversation won’t go far. Russia is the only one that benefits.

Russia weaponizes energy. Many people assume Russia is rational but it’s just not true. Like John McCain said, it’s a gas station run by gangsters.

> They can just keep the gas flows off FFS!

Russia would have to pay penalties in the contract. They don’t want to do that.

> That doesn’t mean the US was involved but it makes zero sense for the Russians to do it to themselves.

See above points. It is clearly not “zero.”

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

#837

Post by himinlomax »

xg15 wrote: post #535

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, e…

> jumped to the conclusion that Russia did it even though that made zero sense

It makes a lot of sense. The pipeline was rendered useless anyway, they get to blame the US and sowing division by planting stories such as these, and they also send a message that they can blow up stuff underwater anywhere; in particular, undersea cables, whose destruction would cause major economic problems.

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

#838

Post by SergeAx »

dmatech wrote: post #775
SergeAx wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please elaborate how exactly it was obvious (that anyone in the West could be behind the attack)? What is a motivation for the West?

The most straightforward reasons would be: 1. Russia would get income from the pipeline, empowering their economy. 2. This sort of infrastructure would represent increased German dependence on Russia for their energy needs. 3. This would also tend to increase economic and diplomatic ties between Germany and Russia. Destroying the pipeline (even if it's not being used) could theoretically send the message that these i…

North Stream 2 was never started, no gas was transported through it, and by several political announcements - never would.

North Stream 1 was a blackmail tool since June 2022, Russia manipulated EU gas prices by changing the volume, using supposed turbine failure as an excuse. Blowing up the pipe could be just a next move.

At the moment nobody has no illusion of economical feasibility of Russia already.

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

#839

Post by SergeAx »

chii wrote: post #788
SergeAx wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Russia had no motivation to destroy it Russia wanted to cause panic and meltdown on EUs energy markets, but to no avail. Russia tried to sabotage gas supply by fiddling with turbines for months, but was in the end out of options, and EU gas prices were still too far from panic and collapse. Blowing up underwater gas pipes the same day that a gas pipe from Norway started to work - too good to be coincidence. > Russi…

> enormous penalties in case of breaching contract. penalties they could simply just ignore if they choose to. After all, they forced the sale in rubles, despite this not being part of the initial agreement of gas sales. blowing it up seems just too much of shooting-self-in-the-foot for russia, unless russia can confidently lay the blame onto the west (particularly, the US) as the culprit.

One cannot ignore penalties if one is on the supply side. Gazprom pumps the gas, Germany says "thank you, we will not pay for it because you owe us penalties". All they can do is stop pumping.

And Russia immediately laid the blame onto the West, and never stopped. Maybe we are now looking at the part of that continuous effort.

Post reply on HN