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

161–170 of 439 posts

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#161

Post by pohl »

xyzelement wrote: post #157

I didn't read Hersh's essay, I did read this and found it logical. BUT independently from these two writeups, the thing that doesn't make any sense is the idea that Russian would blow up their own pipeline. It is an asset they fully control. The idea that they damaged their own asset "to show the world they are serious" or whatever is about as likely as "to threaten Alice, Bob shot off his own foot." Is it possible?…

“They” in your 2nd paragraph is probably making it hard to reason out.

You’re imagining Russia to be a nation with somewhat rational self interest, right? It isn’t.

Russia today is Vladimir Putin serving Vladimir Putin’s interests. He is desperately trying not to be ousted after having stepped on his own dick in Ukraine. Destroying his own asset could have been motivated by wanting to reduce the value of what a would-be challenger might gain control of should they try to depose him.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#162

Post by hutzlibu »

andrewflnr wrote: post #159
hutzlibu wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course you can, you now have valid information about the source of that false information - and can make hypothesis about the motives.

Only if you're very lucky do you actually know any of these things. There's generally a very wide space of things that could have happened, and knowing that exactly one of them is wrong narrows things down very little. The space of motives for people to muddy the water is similarly wide, so you probably don't know anything new about the source.

"Only if you're very lucky do you actually know any of these things."

No, if someone is spreading false information, then this gives the solid information, that this source is tainted.

And everything else is speculation, yes.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#163

Post by mullingitover »

xyzelement wrote: post #157

I didn't read Hersh's essay, I did read this and found it logical. BUT independently from these two writeups, the thing that doesn't make any sense is the idea that Russian would blow up their own pipeline. It is an asset they fully control. The idea that they damaged their own asset "to show the world they are serious" or whatever is about as likely as "to threaten Alice, Bob shot off his own foot." Is it possible?…

> It is an asset they fully control. The idea that they damaged their own asset "to show the world they are serious" or whatever is about as likely as "to threaten Alice, Bob shot off his own foot." Is it possible? I guess so... but it doesn't make sense as the go-to explanation.

I thought the Russia's problem was that they'd already withheld delivery of gas they were contractually obligated to deliver, and this gives them a cover.

i.e. "Bob had a contract with Alice to deliver her a truckload of gold, but didn't deliver it, and swore never to deliver it. Later Bob's truck mysteriously blew up and now Bob is saying he's freed from his contract."

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#164

Post by andrewflnr »

hutzlibu wrote: post #162
andrewflnr wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you're very lucky do you actually know any of these things. There's generally a very wide space of things that could have happened, and knowing that exactly one of them is wrong narrows things down very little. The space of motives for people to muddy the water is similarly wide, so you probably don't know anything new about the source.

"Only if you're very lucky do you actually know any of these things." No, if someone is spreading false information, then this gives the solid information, that this source is tainted. And everything else is speculation, yes.

You mean you know the outlet is unreliable, if they do it enough times. By "source" I assumed you meant the source of the story, about whom we still know nothing.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#165

Post by xyzelement »

ceejayoz wrote: post #160
xyzelement wrote: post #157

I didn't read Hersh's essay, I did read this and found it logical. BUT independently from these two writeups, the thing that doesn't make any sense is the idea that Russian would blow up their own pipeline. It is an asset they fully control. The idea that they damaged their own asset "to show the world they are serious" or whatever is about as likely as "to threaten Alice, Bob shot off his own foot." Is it possible?…

“We couldn’t have done it” seems like a good way to sow discord among the Western allies. There’s also the theory that it gets Gazprom out of contract violation penalties.

I hadn't heard of that, interesting. But curious, (1) are the penalties greater than the cost of the pipeline + all foregone future revenue? (2) Do they care? Whoever could possibly try to "penalize" Russia for contract violation, is currently already pretty much engaged in a hot war with it, couldn't really get worse in the moment, can it?

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#166

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #154

I've read both this paper and the original Seymour Hersh article. I found the abundance of details a bit weird, to be honest, but not enough to discount the credibility of the thesis. On the other hand, this paper is poorly constructed, mostly using straw man techniques and sleight of hands to discredit the original paper. I think it's doing the opposite of what it is trying to achieve, adding free publicity on top.

Some details in Hershs story were weird and made be cautious, but here is some more info that put some of that into new light:

"It looks for all the world like somebody organised two totally separate operations, involving two separately triggered pipeline attacks, and that Hersh’s source only knows about one of them."

https://www.eugyppius.com/p/nord-stream-update-in-lengthy-in...

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#167

Post by mandevil »

xyzelement wrote: post #157

I didn't read Hersh's essay, I did read this and found it logical. BUT independently from these two writeups, the thing that doesn't make any sense is the idea that Russian would blow up their own pipeline. It is an asset they fully control. The idea that they damaged their own asset "to show the world they are serious" or whatever is about as likely as "to threaten Alice, Bob shot off his own foot." Is it possible?…

As I've argued before, the issue here is that invading Ukraine doesn't really make any sense from the Russian perspective. They've lost so much money in trade, their army is shattered, their soft-power is in shambles, and they've pissed off even the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine that used to view them as friends. This is why there was a lot of dissension in the West over a year ago about whether the Russians would invade- people who looked at the actual Russian actions kept saying 'it looks like they are getting ready to invade' but people who focused on whether it was a good idea or not kept saying that it would be a terrible idea to invade, and gain them nothing, so they weren't going to do it.

So given that Kremlin decision-making clearly does not seem like it is well thought-through, I'm very wary of this particular argument. Of course their decision-making might not make sense. Not that this proves their guilt, of course. As one analyst I saw put it, all of the stories for who planted the bombs seem weak, but one of them necessarily has to be true.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#168

Post by ninjagoo »

Mizza wrote: post #143
kurthr wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in the last decade he's kinda blown it with multiple claims in Syria. Statements that are either unbelievable, undocumented and easily could be (like building locations), or basically falsified have really brought down his trust. Even if he's just getting bad information rather than coming from a particular angle, his readers deserve better vetting of the material. At some point it feels like he's being driven…

Bellingcat is a way for UK/US spies to launder intelligence, a bootleg Wikileaks that won't challenge domestic power structures. I wouldn't point to them if I wanted my point to be taken seriously.

> I wouldn't point to them if I wanted my point to be taken seriously.

Bellingcat have a significant proven track record [1] and have won significant awards for their reporting, including the Investigative Reporting Award from the European Press Prize [2]. Do you have evidence for your counter-claim that they should not be taken seriously?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellingcat#Notable_cases [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellingcat#Awards

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#169

Post by xyzelement »

pohl wrote: post #161
xyzelement wrote: post #157

I didn't read Hersh's essay, I did read this and found it logical. BUT independently from these two writeups, the thing that doesn't make any sense is the idea that Russian would blow up their own pipeline. It is an asset they fully control. The idea that they damaged their own asset "to show the world they are serious" or whatever is about as likely as "to threaten Alice, Bob shot off his own foot." Is it possible?…

“They” in your 2nd paragraph is probably making it hard to reason out. You’re imagining Russia to be a nation with somewhat rational self interest, right? It isn’t. Russia today is Vladimir Putin serving Vladimir Putin’s interests. He is desperately trying not to be ousted after having stepped on his own dick in Ukraine. Destroying his own asset could have been motivated by wanting to reduce the value of what a would…

I am curious: how do you know this, and is this logical?

IE, how do you know what Putin is doing and how he's thinking? What give you that insight?

And - even assuming you do, does this make sense? Who is the "would be challenger" who would say "well, damn. I am going to oust Putin and take over the world's largest country, but ... nah, not gonna bother without Nordstream"?

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#170

Post by steponlego »

xyzelement wrote: post #157

I didn't read Hersh's essay, I did read this and found it logical. BUT independently from these two writeups, the thing that doesn't make any sense is the idea that Russian would blow up their own pipeline. It is an asset they fully control. The idea that they damaged their own asset "to show the world they are serious" or whatever is about as likely as "to threaten Alice, Bob shot off his own foot." Is it possible?…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN