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

201–210 of 439 posts

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#201

Post by aga98mtl »

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?…

Russia could have done it in a “burn the ships, no way out but forward” type of move. Putin might have been worried by a coup attempt by a faction that wished to restore gas deliveries. There is a lot of very rich and very unhappy oligarchs in Russia.

That being said, it’s almost certainly done by NATO as a punishment to Germany for having gone against everyone else who told them these pipelines were a dangerous tool of russian influence/blackmail.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#202

Post by jrsj »

mandevil wrote: post #167
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 woul…

[flagged]

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#203

Post by tptacek »

ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: post #97
tptacek wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When you qualify Hersh as one of journalism's least trustworthy figures, it's impossible to take the rest of your comment at face value.

If you're stuck in a time tube and perceive the world as it was in 2005, Hersh is one of the more important journalists in the world. I don't deny that. I only deny that the Jews are attempting to start WW3 in Iran, that Opus Dei runs USSOCOM, that the US faked the UBL raid in Pakistan (and in fact the ISI had UBL for years prior), and that Syria's Sarin attacks on their own people were faked by the US. Oh, also that the US got the Norwegian Navy to put a minesweeper in the Baltic Sea as a diving platform for US divers to blow up a pipeline that wasn't shipping any gas to Germany.

If you're still in 2005, I have great news for you: you've got one more amazing season of the Wire ahead of you, and 5 whole seasons of a show called Breaking Bad --- take my word on this, it's going to be amazing. You can skip The Wire S5 though.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#204

Post by mandevil »

xyzelement wrote: post #189
mandevil wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

I think Russians can articulate a logical reason for the war: in their perception, Ukraine was becoming unacceptably close to the West/NATO and they took a gamble to prevent it. Whether the gamble will pay off, we'll see. But I can follow the logic - risk for a chance at upside. What's the upside of blowing up your own pipeline and then denying it?

I mean, I can tell a just-so-story as well. It's just that, like your explanation, it involves Putin making what seems to me to be a dumb decision.

Some parts of game theory emphasizes ostentatious signaling that you can't turn back (e.g. 'win the game of chicken by clearly throwing your steering wheel out of the car before the game starts, so the other person KNOWS you can't turn' line of reasoning, which is stupid but some people occasionally try- the most famous successful example is of course Cortes burning his ships). In support of that, it's possible Putin was afraid of a coup: shortly before the invasion, he made each and every member of the cabinet get up on national TV (recorded to tape and broadcast a few hours later) and give a speech about why the war was a great idea and just the thing for Russia, that seems consistent with preventing an anti-war clique from trying to seize power if the war became unpopular, because you had everyone even close to power on the record, before the war, as major cheerleaders for it. If Shoigu or Lavrov or whomever try to seize power in a coup, banking on ending an unpopular war to give them legitimacy, they have to explain away those speeches and their full-throated support of the war back in 2/2022.

Similarly, ostentatiously destroying the pipelines in a way that will take months to fix even if you wanted to removes the ability of a coup to win goodwill and legitimacy with Europe by immediately turning on the pipeline and letting the CH4 flow. Is it what motivated the bombing? I don't know. Does Putin fear a coup by his senior people? I mean in the vague sense that all dictators are aware that it's a threat, certainly. But is he actually taking steps to prevent it? I dunno. Is this explanation plausible? I dunno, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. Is it just as plausible as the US or Poland or Norway or Ukraine or even Germany blowing up the pipeline? That I do think is a clear yes. Which is why I paraphrased that analyst before, none of the explanations really seem plausible, but one of them has to be true.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#205

Post by jrsj »

mullingitover wrote: post #163
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 give…

This just isn’t nearly as compelling as the U.S. wanting to blow it up to prevent Germany from even having the option of using it.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#206

Post by tptacek »

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.

Be specific. Which of the arguments in this do you find "poorly constructed"?

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#207

Post by thoewiruoi2343 »

mandevil wrote: post #167
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 woul…

[flagged]

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#209

Post by ninjagoo »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #196
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I find that write-up dubious. > The fear, however, was that the bombs wouldn’t work if they stayed in the water too long. This is actually what happened with two of the bombs. Seriously? The world's largest military hasn't developed explosive devices that are sufficiently waterproof? > There were still active explosives on the sea bed as the pipes were leaking their gas, which explains why partially complicit Denmark…

>> The fear, however, was that the bombs wouldn’t work if they stayed in the water too long. This is actually what happened with two of the bombs.

> Seriously? The world's largest military hasn't developed explosive devices that are sufficiently waterproof?

The OP might be referring to the triggering mechanism running out of battery and thus unable to receive the triggering signal, rather than to water exposure.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#210

Post by thoewiruoi2343 »

xyzelement wrote: post #189
mandevil wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

I think Russians can articulate a logical reason for the war: in their perception, Ukraine was becoming unacceptably close to the West/NATO and they took a gamble to prevent it. Whether the gamble will pay off, we'll see. But I can follow the logic - risk for a chance at upside. What's the upside of blowing up your own pipeline and then denying it?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN