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

171–180 of 439 posts

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#171

Post by ceejayoz »

xyzelement wrote: post #165
ceejayoz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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?

The cost of the pipeline was likely a sunk cost before it actually got sunk. Even intact, there’d be little chance of it being activated anytime soon.

Penalties can be taken out of Gazprom holdings abroad. There’s already discussion of giving sanctioned seized Russian assets to Ukraine.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#172

Post by ceejayoz »

steponlego wrote: post #170
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]

They stopped it from coming online months before the explosions. It was decertified in Feb 2022, and NordStream 2 AG went bankrupt a week later.

Sanctions are a way of stopping things.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#173

Post by scythe »

tptacek wrote: post #43
kornhole wrote: post #39

I spent a few days with the chief of special operations of the joint chiefs of staff, and he told me many stories of things they would do to cover their tracks in special ops. For example, they would dismantle an airplane and file off every serial number of every part and then put it back together again. Anyone planning an operation of this scale and significance would have thought to ensure the ship had an alibi. Mo…

According to the same analysis: it doesn't even make sense that they'd require an Alta-class ship from Norway's Navy in the first place; the ship was essentially just a diving platform, and civilian ships operate in those waters with far less need for cover. Moreover, the whole structure of the operation Hersh claims: EC-UBA divers planting C4 charges detonated by a sonobuoy dropped by a Norwegian P8, doesn't make se…

>other than that one random, implausibly-well-informed anonymous person told Hersh

There is no reason to believe that Hersh is working off a single source. If he were, it would be extremely stupid, and certainly unbefitting a journalist with his level of experience, to admit it, since it would make it far easier to determine who the leaker was — it narrows the list of candidates dramatically. It seems like the whole justification for the "single source" smear is coming from a few times when Hersh said "my source" in the essay, which may simply be good practice in ensuring he doesn't accidentally reveal which claims came from one source and which came from multiple, since that could also (unlikely, but not impossible) help the intelligence services find one of the leakers.

>remote underwater detonation is a routine operation performed in the civilian oil and gas industry.

Remote underwater detonation with an unidentifiable signal is not. Using a normal sonar detonator would probably increase the chance of detection.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#174

Post by ninjagoo »

> Updated to include information given my Seymour Hersh in interviews in the days following his original post.

This was in bold font underneath the picture under the headline. Presumably it should be "Updated to include information given by Seymour Hersh in interviews in the days following his original post."

If Oliver is relying on details to blow holes in the Hersh story, the prognosis isn't that great for Oliver's story, at the moment.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#175

Post by graeme »

pphysch wrote: post #133
pvg wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hersh stopped working within journalistic organizations, with their editors, fact-checkers, second-sourcing, etc - the organizations in which all his previous and more credible and verifiable work was done. That's a concrete fact, not 'tribalistic bias'. There's no basis whatsoever for you to attribute skepticism of recent Hersh to it, it's just namecalling.

According to Hersh, he still does due diligence with editors and fact checking. He just doesn't have the brand sponsorships anymore.

There’s a difference between:

1. Convincing an editor to run your ideas under their masthead

2. Paying someone to edit your work, and running your ideas under your own masthead

A newspaper is more than a brand. They put their reputation on the line when they publish.

(You can make a good argument that many newspapers have trashed their own reputations, but that doesn’t negate the argument. When you self publish, you have no one vouching for you. Furthermore if you don’t like an editor or fact checker you can fire them)

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#176

Post by steponlego »

ceejayoz wrote: post #172
steponlego wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

They stopped it from coming online months before the explosions. It was decertified in Feb 2022, and NordStream 2 AG went bankrupt a week later. Sanctions are a way of stopping things.

[flagged]

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#177

Post by mint2 »

xyzelement wrote: post #165
ceejayoz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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?

“Whoever could possibly try to "penalize" Russia for contract violation, is currently already pretty much engaged in a hot war with it”

So they’re at war with their only potential customers. Sounds like the pipeline has zero commercially value to Russia since it’s unlikely anyone would buy the gas.

So there’s no monetary concern to stop Russia doing whatever with it.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#178

Post by ceejayoz »

steponlego wrote: post #176
ceejayoz wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They stopped it from coming online months before the explosions. It was decertified in Feb 2022, and NordStream 2 AG went bankrupt a week later. Sanctions are a way of stopping things.

[flagged]

I’m sure it will be as exciting as that time Colin Powell held up the little vial of fake anthrax there.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#179

Post by steponlego »

ceejayoz wrote: post #178
steponlego wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I’m sure it will be as exciting as that time Colin Powell held up the little vial of fake anthrax there.

Yeah DOD has a long, long track record of lying to everybody's face, then pretending it didn't harm what was left of their reputation. Remember the incubator babies, the yellow cake, etc? LOL

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#180

Post by fishnchips »

hutzlibu wrote: post #156
simplicio wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the 2 reasons people don't suspect Ukraine is that: a) it seems kinda implausible they have ability to blow up the pipe-line, nevermind to do so without being detected in what has to be the most cloesly monitored body of water on the planet. b) Germany was already backing them. Blowing up the pipeline might make Germany marginally less likely to backslide, but if Ukraine were caught blowing up the pipeline, G…

(FWIW, I think the most likely suspect is the one that doesn't usually get mentioned, that Germany blew it up to demonstrate their resolve regarding Russian sanctions) This is very unlikely, the german government simply never would have the balls to do anything remotely drastic. But they likely would close their eyes, if someone else would do it.

Funny, as a Pole my 1st reaction was "damn our spooks finally did a good job". I was (and still am) very surprised nobody was even considering Poland as a perpetrator.
Post reply on HN