The main problem with Hersh's claims is why the US/Norway would keep one of the two new NS2 lines intact? That line alone is big enough to meet Germany's domestic demands and according to Nord Stream AG one of the other lines received so little damage that they can fix it in a year or less.
Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
81–90 of 267 posts
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#82I regret that Hersh's reporting relied on anonymous officials. That's not a dig on Hersh - this is the standard for journalism on these topics. As a standard it creates a deniability to any story that comes out e.g. "they probably made it up", "the source doesn't know what they are talking about", "the source is influencing the journalist for their own ends". I think Hersh's article is interesting and useful however.…
There's nothing wrong with anonymous sourcing, but if your thing is based on a _single_ anonymous source, AND you've cultivated a reputation for being a credulous crank (see also the sourcing on the alternate universe Bin Laden writing Hersh did), AND you don't have any kind of editorial machine to back up your sourcing, AND the claim is incredibly inflammatory, then probably that's going to present a problem.
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#83Sure, there are probably some holes/slight inaccuracies in Hersh's story. This particular "debunking" is mostly nitpicking. The tweet about the minesweeper path is a head-scratcher, because it sure looks like the boat slowed down/loitered near both blast sites. It is interesting that the White House, CIA, State Department, and establishment media class all found the need to promptly respond to what they characterized…
[deleted]
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#84I actually was drawn into reading this much more than the original article. I found myself going into skim mode with the original Hersh article. So ironically, I actually learned more about Hersh's claims reading this article than the original.
I've worked with a bunch of old people of late. And I'm saying that from the reference point of 52. It's hard. I don't want to be an ageist. But I regularly see how hard it is to grow older. To do so gracefully scares the heck out of me. Some things are in your control, but it's increasingly a journey where the constitution of yourself slips out of your control. Some 85 year olds (Hersh's current age) are still sharp as a tack, but even then, the fight to still feel relevant is an uphill battle. It is hard for me to not be suspicious much of Hersh's vector here isn't hugely influenced by advancing years.
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#85Good piece, and I think he points out some clear problems with the exact events that Hersh describes. I think the lack of a verifiable path for either the ship carrying divers or for the plane that supposedly dropped off the sonobuoy do make it less likely that Hersh's version actually happened. The author's conclusion is that this is because Hersh's source was making things up, but I think it's also compatible with…
> a mistake in the execution by whoever did this, with one pipeline somehow getting two explosives planted
This was my thought exactly. It's dark underwater, and it's often not clear which pipe is which
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#86This text doesn’t really disproof the Hersh story beyond nitpicking some details and incorrect use of technical languages. (Admittedly it would be hard to disprove; and it is the accuser that has the burden of proof.) However the big issue is the complete shutdown of media coverage and that the governments of Denmark, Sweden, and Germany all keep their investigations secret.
"complete shutdown of media coverage" is completely false, there were many stories in major US outlets that explicitly called out the possibility that the US did it.
I meant now; there was obviously media coverage when it happened.
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#87While the Seymour Hersh story seems unbelievable to me, so does the initial explanation that was being thrown around, that Russia did this as sabotage, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/28/nord-stream-... . The utter stupidity of that idea is along the sames lines as rhetoric, also present in OP, that Russia "weaponized" its gas pipelines. (To use that language, nearly anything can be a "weapon.") I'…
One of the pipelines is still undamaged. Why would the US be this sloppy?
No opinion on whether the US did it.
But Hersh's essay indicates there were last-minute changes to the detonation method. That adds risk, which could have manifested as failure of some detonations.
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that Russia would use it as a reminder that they could sabotage other pipelines doesn’t seem so far-fetched.
Extremely far-fetched, you'd have to convince me that the Russian government and military are full of total morons. Building a pipeline is not cheap, not in money or time or bureaucratic effort. It's easier to just stop supplying the gas if you want to make an obvious threat.
> Extremely far-fetched, you'd have to convince me that the Russian government and military are full of total morons.
They launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine while denying they were doing so and failed at every one of their military objectives while causing their economy to collapse due to the massive worldwide sanctions. What other evidence could you require?
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#89For anyone interested, there's more to the accusation of Stoltenberg's involvement with intelligence from a young age than the author of this article implies by dismissing it as ridiculous on its face.[1] Whether or not you find the linked narrative convincing is up to you, however.
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
"complete shutdown of media coverage" is completely false, there were many stories in major US outlets that explicitly called out the possibility that the US did it.
I meant now; there was obviously media coverage when it happened.
I see. News organizations have a duty to corroborate claims like this before they publish them, so I would interpret the lack of coverage as other reporters being unable to verify anything he said. There is of course still some coverage though: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/prize-winning-reporter-seym..., https://www.newsweek.com/did-joe-biden-attack-russias-nord-s..., https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-bombed-nord-stream-gas...