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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by ZeroGravitas »

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 ever established whether the fourth pipeline was even attacked? Did it have explosives attached that didn't go off? (And if so do they have a convenient "made in ..." sticker?)

Would have been interesting to hear the alleged source give a reason for only blowing up 3 of 4 pipes in a plan they call "perfect".

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

#842

Post by vintermann »

jessaustin wrote: post #777
mannerheim wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know nothing of him, but given that there's an entire paragraph about Jens Stoltenberg where almost every sentence is just completely factually wrong in a way that could be verified to be wrong with a look at the first paragraph on his Wikipedia page, I'm not inclined to take what he says seriously. I mean, par for the course for modern journalism, I suppose.

Yeah, the idea that he was involved in the American war in Vietnam seems far-fetched. Perhaps this is a confusion with some other, older Stoltenberg?

Likely. Jens's father was Thorvald Stoltenberg, a powerful Labour politician working in foreign policy most of his life. He was allegedly trying to negotiate between the US and Vietnam.

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

#843

Post by consumer451 »

dang wrote: post #393
nindalf wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dan there’s no sugarcoating this - you’ve got it wrong on this one. I say this as a supporter of your moderation policies in general. The sooner you reverse this decision, the better for everyone.

That's certainly possible! But I would need to hear an argument about why, which actually addresses the reasons I've given in my responses in this thread. So far I haven't heard that. In fact, no one seems to have even tried (maybe I missed it amid the inundation - I've been trying and failing to keep up for a couple hours now).

Hi, your job is rough sometimes, and hats off. Here is the one of the best arguments I have found here as to why the quality of this article is highly questionable:

> I know nothing of him, but given that there's an entire paragraph about Jens Stoltenberg where almost every sentence is just completely factually wrong in a way that could be verified to be wrong with a look at the first paragraph on his Wikipedia page, I'm not inclined to take what he says seriously.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34717803

This is something that could be verified quickly by you and others.

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

#844

Post by vintermann »

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…

This reminds me of the old defense of OJ Simpson, that in fact only very few of men who domestically abuse their wives go on to murder them.

And yeah, that is true. But when the wife was in fact murdered, then the odds that the known abusive husband did it are very high.

Maybe it was a reasonable interpretation that he didn't mean blowing up the pipeline, before the pipeline was blown up.

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

#845

Post by dragonwriter »

nivenkos wrote: post #501
dragonwriter wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they were gonna destroy critical international infrastructure wouldn’t it make more sense to blow up something else? No, if they were going to make a threat and capacity demonstration against other, active natural gas pipelines in the region, destroying an idle natural gas pipeline makes a lot more sense than “something else”. (There’s a certain extent to which it doesn’t make sense to make idle threats without…

That would be outright war, they don't need to threaten that at all, if it got to that point they might as well just nuke Berlin.

> That would be outright war

Uh, yeah, Russia already describes the current war in Ukraine as against “the collective West”.

> they don't need to threaten that at all,

Whether or not you think Russia needs to issue war threats to Western states, rhey’ve been doing it a lot inn last year.

> if it got to that point they might as well just nuke Berli

The point of a threat is to dissaude an opponent before it becomes necessary to execute on. Yhe threat. So other attacks that they might do if the threat fails don’t really effect whether the threT might be seen as useful. Also, Russia has made implicit nuclear thrrats to Germany, most, recently over the decisions to send MBTs to Ukraine.

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

#846

Post by brmgb »

0xDEF wrote: post #451
MilaM wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a German citizen let me tell you, hardly anyone here is angry that the pipelines are gone. No one is even talking about Nord Stream anymore. When Gazprom stopped the gas flows in July 2022, it was abundandly clear, that the deliveries would not resume in the foreseable future. In a way, blowing up the pipelines made things easier, because the government and the industry could fully focus on reorganizing energy pro…

I am Danish. Half the country was making fart jokes about the leak. Nobody is missing the Nord Stream pipelines.

I'm French and I'm missing the Nord Stream pipelines. We need all the supply lanes we can get even if our neighbours are untrustworthy.

Now we have to rely on the US and there is nothing worse than relying on the US. Europe just showed once again it failed to learn anything from the Suez crisis. The US should never be trusted. They are not a reliable and only care about themselves.

Europe has been mismanaging its relationship with the BRIC since the end of the Cold War. We are too dependent on NATO. Not that there is much to expect from the EU. Every addition since 1995 has only weakened it.

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

#847

Post by vintermann »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #628
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…

It’s not out of the realm of possibility but that statement is hardly an admission of future sabotage. I would imagine the US has more tools than deep sea bombing to convince their allies. Very high risk operation

I believe the US often takes stupid risks, despite having better options.

This is not an indictment of the US, it's just an assessment based on my own and other's extensive experiences with large, hierarchical organizations.

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

#848

Post by brmgb »

tiahura wrote: post #658
nostromo123 wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America "doing things in the long-term interests of EU citizens, despite causing them some short-term discomfort" is exactly why the US is seen as the baddy in a lot of countries. We are not your children to be nannied and taken decisions on behalf of!

We are not your children to be nannied and taken decisions on behalf of! Until you can defend yourselves, you are.

We do have nukes you know. Feel free to pack up, go home and never come back. Would be the best thing to ever happen to Europe.

Honestly Europe would be far more peaceful now without NATO. The US has mostly been a destabilising force for the past three decades.

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

#849

Post by vintermann »

welterde wrote: post #671
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…

Why destroy NS1 then and not NS2 (NS1 and NS2 both have two pipes and only one of the two NS2 pipes were destroyed)? And why destroy it at this exact time when Russia was already coming up with less and less plausible excuses to halt deliveries via NS1 (both NS1 pipes were destroyed)? Why not wait with the nuclear option until there were even signs that NS2 would come online (Germany had already halted the certificat…

The article implicitly suggests that the goal was indeed to sabotage both pipelines fully.

It doesn't say it outright, but if the hastily re-programmed explosives were triggered by a sonar buoy after three months in sea water as the article says, then it would not be surprising at all if some of them failed to go off.

Precisely that the article implicitly gives very plausible answers to good questions like yours, is why I think it's credible.

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

#850

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> 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!

Keeping the gas flows off has manifestly not given the leverage they are seeking over Ukraine policy, Considering that there is every reason to believe (whether or not this was initially the case, but note that is one of the explicit Russian justificafions foe the war) that Putin sees Western assistance to Ukraine as both an imminenr ans existential threat to Russia, or at least the present regime, scarificing leverage that had already been exhausted without effect on that issue foe something that has a chance, even remote, Of budging that can be worthwhile.

Post reply on HN