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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by 0xDEF »

brmgb wrote: post #846
0xDEF wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rel…

Europe couldn't even stop Little Russia (Serbia) from genociding Bonsian Muslims and Kosovo-Albanians until the US-led NATO intervention had to put a stop to it twice.

Also Norway can replace a lot of the Russian gas supplies.

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

#852

Post by camgunz »

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?

Because if the best you can do as a whistleblower is to give anonymous info to an independent reporter who won't verify it, you're probably on the crank side of things.

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

#853

Post by stephc_int13 »

SergeAx wrote: post #762
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…

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?

Germany was hesitant/not fully committed on Ukraine support because of ongoing discussions with Russia about NordStream.

USA has been pissed off by this project from the start.

This is also a way to send a strong message to Putin.

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

#854

Post by SergeAx »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #853
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?

Germany was hesitant/not fully committed on Ukraine support because of ongoing discussions with Russia about NordStream. USA has been pissed off by this project from the start. This is also a way to send a strong message to Putin.

Anonymous message is never strong. Non-anonymous message is a casus belli.

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

#855

Post by ghostwriter »

dralley wrote: post #756
ghostwriter wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone who buys gas from Russia is essentially supporting genocide of Ukrainian civilians, if suffering is what we're talking about. Weekly snapshot: Russian fossil fuel exports 16 to 22 January 2023: * The week of 16 to 22 January 2023, the EU was the largest importer of Russian fossil fuels. * The EU imported pipeline gas, oil products and LNG, as well as crude oil via pipeline or rail. * The top five EU importer…

And yet, the situation has drastically changed from one year ago. Russian gas went from being 50% of EU gas imports to 10%. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-gas-suppl... https://www.bbc.com/news/58888451

> Russian gas went from being 50% of EU gas imports to 10%.

That's expected as there's no longer the pipelines everyone is discussing in this comment section.

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

#856

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

nova22033 wrote: post #510

Seymour Hersh is a known fabulist. His "scoops" have become more and more bizarre over time

That maybe seems so to people who did not check that our reality branched into more and more bizarre parts of the multiverse over time.

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

#857

Post by ClumsyPilot »

dralley wrote: post #763
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sick of hearing this BS. Who can invade EU, Russia after their showing in Ukraine? China from half the world away? EU militaries have multiple times the budget of the RU army. We don't need 11 carriers to defend ourselves.

Ukraine, in January 2022, had more tanks than Germany, France, and the UK combined. They had more air defense than Germany, France, and the UK combined, though the systems were not quite as capable individually. They had nearly as many active duty military as Germany, France, and the UK combined, and a huge number of reservists with experience fighting in the War in Donbass against Russian military and paramilitary f…

> Ukraine had, by a very significant margin, the largest military in Europe

Italy has a much more capable armoured force than Ukraine did at the time.

You are comparing T64s, vehicles designed in 1951 to modern vehicles? How do you think they are performing when it comes to firing on the move, engaging at night, accuracy, survivability?

Tanks newer than T64 have been long retired to reserve in Europe. There are many IFVs today capable of putting holes in T64s' in service today.

> The Russians were also rather handicapped by the reckless, arrogant stupidity of their plan

Such disrespect! Russia is an exemplary conservative society with traditional values!

Europe is 27 countries, not 3. Its's half a billion people. Europe combined has more operational vehicles than Russia does. Has a larger standing army than Russia does. A much better air force, and relies on it for air defence, not on ground-based missiles.

I never said 'easilly' but imagining that Russia can occupy half a billion people is downright crazy

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

#858

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

dragonwriter wrote: post #779
uoaei wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put a name to this organization, it is called the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) . It is widely understood to be a propaganda arm of the US, developing media presences in countries where the US wishes to increase its power by manipulating narratives around contentious political topics. "Radio Free Europe/Asia/etc." is a common offering of theirs, typically skeptical or outright critical of regimes the US w…

> To put a name to this organization, it is called the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). No, NED is a completely unrelated organization. The 501c3 that runs Radio Free Europe is RFE/RL, Inc. (the name conbining the abbreviations for Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.) > Radio Free Europe/Asia/etc." is a common offering of theirs No, Radio Free Asia is a separate 501c3, which is, like RFE/RL, funded by the Bro…

Shell companies. Circles within circles. Fractal foundations.

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

#859

Post by newsclues »

ajross wrote: post #746
newsclues wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone plans to blow something up. And then it blows up. Makes a lot of sense to connect the dots given that it's a covert activity. Often planning is done by senior members, who get out of the military more frequently (especially recently) and the younger people who are operational stay quiet. The people who were on the operation, aren't going to talk right now, because they are still operating and aren't ready to…

> Makes a lot of sense to connect the dots given that it's a covert activity. "Makes a lot of sense" is hardly the standard for legitimate journalism though. Did it happen or not? How do you know? Does your source know that it happened or just that it was planned? Do you make that clear? Hersh really does not.

How do you prove that which the powerful government keeps secret?

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

#860

Post by impossiblefork »

hef19898 wrote: post #140
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…

You can easily imagine any of the Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine (with some local help) or even Finland, Swede or Norway doing the deed. Or, since the pipelines are well known and not difficult to reach, basically everyone with access to explosives, a boat a divers with explosives skills. None of which is particularly hard to come by.

The Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, Sweden and so on, all understand that they have duties to Germany due to their EU membership and further understand that they are dependent on the German economy and that any action of this kind, which jeopardises the German economy, jeopardises also them.

Thus you cannot easily imagine any of the Baltic states, Finland or Sweden doing the deed.

Norway is conceivable-- but they're not really all that active in the Baltic sea, Ukraine is conceivable-- but it isn't actually super easy to do what was done. Blowing up the pipeline would have been easy, but there were several bombs, and they were, as I understand it, quite big, and this would be removal of resources from things closer to the fighting.

Norway is difficult for political reasons though-- would they really screw over their neighbouring countries in the EU?

Thus all these countries are all unlikely choices.

Post reply on HN