Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

oalexanderdk.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 267 posts

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#191

Post by nocoiner »

sschueller wrote: post #174
DeLeeuw wrote: post #21

Well, somebody blew up that pipeline. And the list of possible suspects is very short. Germany, Denmark and Sweden have not yet blamed Russia.

Biden pretty much gave it away. In a press conference before the invasion he assured the German media that nordstream 2 will never happen and when asked how the US has any say in a German / Russia venture he said he it will never happen, trust me. Blowing up the pipeline is the only way to make sure. The only other option would have been to somehow sanction Germany if they turned on Nordstream 2 but that would also b…

I thought there was subsequent reporting that Biden got a commitment from the chancellor (embarrassingly, I can’t remember if it was before or after Merkel left) that if Russia did invade, Germany would pull the plus on NS2. That could just as easily explain the comment, no?

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#192

Post by etc-hosts »

askheqybewq wrote: post #165
erentz wrote: post #156

It’s interesting to me that dang overrode community moderation of this story [1] yesterday. Without having first even read it. A story that was based on an unverified anonymous source, by a discredited journalist, and which as we see now contained provably made up parts. Because dang overrode moderation, that literal fake news (fake as in actually made up) was allowed to hover on the front page for a long time and gi…

>by a discredited journalist I'm French and I had never heard of that journalist. Can you share the link to the official list of discredited journalists so I know who not to trust going forward?

I think the commenter is labelling Hersh a "discredited journalist".

The discrediting part would be his recent articles on Syrian government complicity in chemical warfare attacks, his narrative of how the Bin Laden killing actually happened, and if the Russians actually poisoned the Skripals.

But you probably knew all that and I have been concern trolled. Oh well, I try.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#193

Post by marcusverus »

abracadaniel wrote: post #162
marcusverus wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He said that in the context of sanctions Do you have a different transcript or something? There's nothing in the video that provides such a context. Regardless, "There will be no more Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it" is a weird way to threaten sanctions, don't you think?

You're looking at a youtube short that explicitly cuts out any semblance of context. The entire world had been discussing nothing but Russian sanctions for weeks at that point. And no, it wasn't a weird way to threaten sanctions, and no one at the time thought any differently, otherwise there would've been a flurry of articles saying Biden threatened to blow it up. But that never happened.

You're looking at a youtube short that explicitly cuts out any semblance of context.

> Lol. Here's the video.[0] The 'context' you're arguing for was a question posed to someone else. The question she asked to Biden--the immediate context for his comment--clearly strengthens the argument that this was a threat against the pipeline.

> The entire world had been discussing nothing but Russian sanctions for weeks at that point.

I don't even know where to start with this one.

> And no, it wasn't a weird way to threaten sanctions, and no one at the time thought any differently,

Listen to the lady in the video above. Why's she so flabbergasted after Biden's answer? How does her follow-up question make sense if she thought he was talking about sanctions?

> otherwise there would've been a flurry of articles saying Biden threatened to blow it up.

Articles like this[1]?

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKoPA3M7x2o&t=610s [1] https://theweek.com/joe-biden/1009898/biden-warns-there-will...

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#194

Post by HybridCurve »

notinfuriated wrote: post #4

While 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'…

>The utter stupidity of that idea is along the sames lines as rhetoric, also present in OP, that Russia "weaponized" its gas pipelines

Cutting off energy a nation's energy supply in violation of an established trade agreement, as a response to an escalating conflict between nations, is economic warfare. The term "weaponized" is used correctly in this sense and the author was not engaging in hyperbole.

Modern hybridized warfare is fought across a number of spaces: legal, political, economic, ecological, informational, 'cyber', etc, etc. We no longer have the luxury of believing the warfare only involves weapons with purely kinetic effects. This is not the way Russia conducts war anymore nor has it been for the last few decades if not more. Conventional military action is always the last resort or the culminating event in modern campaigns.

>I'm going to just go out on a limb here and say that I won't take seriously anything that doesn't immediately address how insane those initial accusations, of Russian sabotage of its own pipelines, were.

Can you honestly justify any actions that Russia has taken openly over the last few years as sane? Countries run by viscous autocrats who have consolidated power often make decisions which suit their personal interests more than the those of the nation. Many in Europe and the US have made the mistake of assessing Putin's strategies as being 'Russia's strategy' and therefore unlikely because it would be bad for Russia. When in fact Putin's strategies serve him just fine because he doesn't give a shit about Russians.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#196

Post by HybridCurve »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #151
smcl wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why this is so downvoted. People are doing a lot of mental gymnastics to discount the possibility of Russian sabotage here and I really don't understand why that is. Nothing is certain, but I think it's silly to discount Russia being responsible it for the reasons people are giving.

I’m genuinely curious where the gymnastic is? I am asking in good faith. What is Russia’s interest in sabotaging it? They can’t sell gas to fund their war machine. What’s the US interest? Now Europe must buy LNG from our fantastic gas companies. US exports of LNG are at an all time high price. Europe is pissed off at our rival. Not to mention our commander in chief threatened to blow it up, why? Everything here says…

You need to stop thinking like a rational capitalist. It's a common problem for westerners to try to look at Russia from this angle.

It makes the cost of energy go up in Europe and the US, which exacerbates the existing problem of monetary inflation caused by the recent pandemic. It was meant as punishment for the West's support of Ukraine to increase civil discontent with the existing pro-Ukraine western governments. This allows the electorate to be more receptive to populist candidates funded by Russia with anti-Ukraine positions which will give Russia what they want.

Then, Ukraine goes to Russia, gas goes back to Europe via the still intact pipeline, European money goes back to Russia, and Russia wins.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#197

Post by chii »

pseudo0 wrote: post #93
mopsi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not clear to me who else even has a motive to do this. Putin. Blow up the pipeline so no-one can offer cheap gas in exchange for being recognized as the next legitimate leader of Russia behind his back. It's one of the simplest explanations and falls into the overall pattern. False-flag terrorism[1] is how Putin got into power in the first place. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

Cheap gas or not, the west would welcome any new Russian leader with open arms if they withdrew from Ukraine. That explanation does not seem very compelling at all.

The west is not the only party that would have to welcome a new russian leader - the russian oligarchs, as well as people interested in making money selling to the west, needs to be on board.

Putin can remove the temptation to overthrow him, and restoring normal relations with the EU (gas pipes included), by blowing it up - something that is currently not being used and serves to short to medium term value for putin. However, blowing it up, but hiding who did it, can sow mistrust in the NATO alliance. He might be betting that the germans would think the americans did it (or at least be suspicious). And if he was found out, russia can claim that they're within their rights to blow up a pipeline that belongs to them (aka, no real bad consequences).

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#198

Post by chii »

api wrote: post #59

If the US did blow it up, then good work. It reduces Putin’s energy blackmail ability by just taking some of it off the table. It was kind of like shooting the hostage. I would not even consider it a scandal. It’s all Europe’s fault for making themselves energy dependents on a dictator.

> It was kind of like shooting the hostage. ... It’s all Europe’s fault for making themselves energy dependents on a dictator.

You should not be chopping off the hands of an addict to prevent him from injecting himself with drugs.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#199

Post by kstenerud »

alienicecream wrote: post #158
BWStearns wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll speak not for, but as one of, the agitated. People are not agitated at the suggestion that the US did it. People are agitated because the claims are coming from Cy Hersh without remotely compelling evidence, who in the past decade or so has turned to spouting off unsubstantiated claims to carry water for Assad and Putin and shilling ridiculous Bin Laden theories and 9/11 trutherism. I'm personally agitated becau…

So should everyone shut up until they have hard evidence to present? That doesn't sound like a very interesting way to live. Even in court circumstantial evidence is a valid form of evidence and plausible scenarios can be presented to try and convince. What is wrong with that?

This is one of the most infuriatingly disingenuous argument devices: "People keep doing this irresponsible thing and get traction!" "Oh, so you mean everyone should not do a thing???"

Yeah, buddy. The most absurd interpretation of the opposite is what we mean...

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#200

Post by quonn »

marcusverus wrote: post #193
abracadaniel wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're looking at a youtube short that explicitly cuts out any semblance of context. The entire world had been discussing nothing but Russian sanctions for weeks at that point. And no, it wasn't a weird way to threaten sanctions, and no one at the time thought any differently, otherwise there would've been a flurry of articles saying Biden threatened to blow it up. But that never happened.

You're looking at a youtube short that explicitly cuts out any semblance of context. > Lol. Here's the video.[0] The 'context' you're arguing for was a question posed to someone else . The question she asked to Biden--the immediate context for his comment--clearly strengthens the argument that this was a threat against the pipeline. > The entire world had been discussing nothing but Russian sanctions for weeks at tha…

> Why's she so flabbergasted after Biden's answer? How does her follow-up question make sense if she thought he was talking about sanctions?

She just asked how Biden would do it, since the pipeline was within Germany‘s control. And he answered: „We will be able to do it.“

He did not identify who „we“ is and how it‘s done. „We“ could be the US and Germany together, it could be the western World or it could be the US alone. If it were the US alone it could be done by imposing sanctions on that particular pipeline and it could be done by putting diplomatic or economic pressure on Germany (many ways to do that) and it could be done by putting sanctions on companies that interact with the pipeline and so on. It could also be done by using force, but that is merely one of many options and I believe that Biden at that time didn‘t even know how himself. He made a strong assertion in order to take control of the situation and he did.

Post reply on HN