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

861–870 of 1001 posts

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

#861

Post by welterde »

vintermann wrote: post #849
welterde wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Neither the mechanism nor the reasoning in the article sound plausible to me (nor the involvement of Norway..). NS1 was already shutdown by Russia within weeks of the supposed time of installation of the explosives, after which there was no more point to explode them and it would make more sense to silently remove them again. NS2 was already dead in the water since couple days before the invasion.

In addition the bad-trigger scenario would imply that the explosives and triggering mechanism remained in place on the remaining pipe, which would require the US to rush there to remove them or trigger the missing one to avoid terrible diplomatic consequences if the unexploded device were to be discovered.

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

#862

Post by impossiblefork »

throwayyy479087 wrote: post #492
tlear wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is right that sonar buoy detonation thing sounds like absolute bullshit. Incredibly risky and 17 hours.. I mean you want to do this, send a submarine, it fires few torpedoes. No more pipeline. Fast, simple, reliable. Let's say I am a Ukranian patriot, with few million in the bank. I bet given few month I could put together a team of divers to plant some C4 with a simple timer and blow this thing to hell. Or Polish…

I think it’s the Polish. Apparently their relationship with Russia is similar to a very angry pitbull has with steak. They were mass rapes by the Soviets at the end of World War II and horrible conditions for the Polish during the Soviet empire. Polish friends say there’s no shortage of young men who want the glory of blowing up something owned by the people who gang raped Grandma.

I said this in another comment, but the Polish would be very stupid to do something like that, which jeopardises the German economy.

I think it's moderately unlikely. This is obviously something that many Polish people would cheer for, but would their actual government really be that stupid?

I find it hard to imagine.

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

#863

Post by gregw2 »

partiallypro wrote: post #557
throwayyy479087 wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s the Polish. Apparently their relationship with Russia is similar to a very angry pitbull has with steak. They were mass rapes by the Soviets at the end of World War II and horrible conditions for the Polish during the Soviet empire. Polish friends say there’s no shortage of young men who want the glory of blowing up something owned by the people who gang raped Grandma.

I can totally see it being the Polish, but I don't think there is a clear finger that points to anyone (including the US and Russia.) This does sound more plausible than the US. If the US did it, it would literally be done with support of other NATO allies (including Germany itself, and in secret.) It's simply too risky for them to end up destroying the entire NATO relationship, which they would not risk at this junc…

Is there any plausible scenario where Ukraine did it, with or without help?

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

#864

Post by welterde »

ghostwriter wrote: post #855
dralley wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The second string of NS2 is undamaged (but denied operation from the German side). In addition Russia there are several land-based pipelines from Russia to central Europe (only used for small volumes at this point - much below capacity).

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

#865

Post by asimpletune »

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?

I don’t think he’s calling him a crank, anymore than he’s talking about a specific broken clock being right twice a day. It’s just hypothetical to demonstrate a point. If he were a crank journalist, being accidentally right twice could still make him a journalistic legend. Therefore, we can’t trust simply because he’s famous, because a broken clock is right twice a day.

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

#866

Post by trogdor »

Lazare wrote: post #591
drewda wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seymour Hersh has decades of credibility from reporting the My Lai Massacre to the abuses at Abu Graib. But he does often rely on sources who remain anonymous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous... I did find it interesting in that Wikipedia article to read that The New Yorker's editor insists on knowing the identify of all of the anonymous sources that Hersh has used when his reporting is p…

Seymour Hersh has had a long and storied career, and he has made some very bold claims that later turned out to be correct. He's also, especially recently, made some very bold claims that so far have not turned out to be correct, whether because the truth just hasn't been revealed yet, or because Hersh was wrong or misled by his sources. It's also worth noting that Hersh - as with any journalist - is only as good as…

>If people choose to give him lies and misinformation, he may end up publishing conspiracy theories instead.

I am an investigative reporter who covers crime, and my sources often insist on anonymity. There are ways to mitigate the possibility of being lied to.

All of my sources know that we have a deal: I promise to do everything that I reasonably can to keep their identity secret, and they promise me the truth. If a source lies to me or intentionally misleads me, my agreement to keep their identity secret no longer stands.

There’s more to it than that, but that’s the gist, and it has worked well for years. I have never burned a source, and as far as I know, I have never published an investigative story that is wrong about anything material.

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

#867

Post by _djo_ »

Laaas wrote: post #349
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.

Why do you think Putin is against de-escalation? The post you links to proposes a not very sensible argument: We are talking about _nation states_. The law isn't as black and white, Gazprom would not pay any fines put on it by a court of the enemy. Even if they were to pay fines put on them, why would this in any way reduce fines? Even if it were to reduce the fines, why would that be worth more than two pipelines th…

International contract arbitration wouldn't be handled by 'a court of the enemy', but by a neutral venue mutually agreed to in the contract signing, perhaps hosted by the World Bank, International Chamber of Commerce, or similar.

Gazprom would have to abide by it once relations are normalised, or find other countries unwilling to trust it when signing future contracts.

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

#868

Post by _djo_ »

klrtwm wrote: post #677
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…

Initially I had the same reaction. After reading the piece slowly again my impression is: This is not a conspiracy theory. It is very carefully and lucidly written, with so many details, each of which can be refuted. How does he know about all the meetings between the CIA, Sullivan, etc. Why does no one refute individual facts? I think he did have a source who provided all this. If the source lied, tough. Investigati…

> If the source lied, tough. Investigative journalism is always a gamble.

That's not how it works. The onus is on the journalist and the editors to ensure that any source they're relying on is credible, in a position to know what they're claiming, and not playing you. That's why most will insist on dual-sourcing any particularly sensational claims unless they really trust the source.

In the past journalists have been fired for relying on non-credible sources, most recently James LaPorta, so this is no small thing.

If Sy Hersh is not verifying anything about the source he's relying on, he's just being a transcriber not a journalist.

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

#869

Post by _djo_ »

lambdasquirrel wrote: post #704
dathinab wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much any country bordering the baltic sea + US + China + Ukrain have groups which a) have interest in it being destroyed b) have the capabilities to do so.

I don’t reckon that the leaks are accidental either. The Biden Administration waited until the tide of public opinion turned further against Russia. They waited until the rest of the West had committed MBTs to Ukraine before allowing this to be leaked. There’s a message being sent here.

You're saying the US government is leaking a message to Sy Hersh, of all people, for him to publish on his Substack?

That strains credibility quite extraordinarily.

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

#870

Post by sclarisse »

sampo wrote: post #818
sclarisse wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Quiet little apartment building in Manhattan, west-facing views of the East River. How can you view the East River if you're facing West?

Admittedly it’s harder in Manhattan but take the aerial tram and it works out.

(Yes, that’s legally Manhattan still. And a reasonable walk from the UN.)

Post reply on HN