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

221–230 of 439 posts

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#221

Post by hndamien »

kornhole wrote: post #199
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…

There is a lot missing from this account such as: The US promising not to expand NATO beyond Germany. The Maidan coup in 2014. The Minsk agreement where Kiev agreed to stop bombing the Donbas but has still killed over 14K people doing so. The Ruble is strong and Russia's GDP will grow more than the UK this year.

Don't forget the US breach of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and the Defensive Alliance NATO (and Clinton) deposing Ghadafi after he got rid of his nukes.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#222

Post by hndamien »

aga98mtl wrote: post #201
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…

Dangerous for American hegemony.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#223

Post by tptacek »

miguelazo wrote: post #219
tptacek wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Literally every paragraph. Let’s start with this completely unsubstantiated and incoherent section: > The US Air Force officials reportedly proposed “dropping bombs with delayed fuses that could be set off remotely”. One could write an entire post on the reasons why sounds entirely made up by someone with no real grasp of what that suggestion would actually technically entail. During the supposed initial planning of…

I don't think you've picked up the argument being made there, which is that, being a pipeline, the Norwegian Navy wasn't constrained to one particular spot to disable it: it runs seven hundred and fifty miles under the Baltic Sea. The author of this post is saying Hersh doesn't know what a pipeline, not that the USG doesn't.

Try another paragraph. Let's interrogate it. For instance: why is the Norwegian Navy allocating a minesweeper, a large ship that is certainly tracked by the Russian military, to serve as a diving platform for a bunch of EC-UBA divers? Why wouldn't they use a civilian ship instead?

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#224

Post by earthboundkid »

Analemma_ wrote: post #212
thoeiu4oi234 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about you, but I find these "pro-West" side to be quite specious in their arguments. What idiot really believes that Russia of all people would want to kill their own golden goose ? The argument these geniuses are implicitly making is that either Russians (or more euphemistically "Putin") is a raging lunatic, or that their readers so utterly dim-witted that they'll believe any shit that they'll spin. OTO…

There’s a very straightforward and plausible rationale for Russia (specifically, Putin) to do it: coup-proofing by forced commitment to not turning the oil back on, like breaking your own steering wheel in a game of chicken and throwing it out the window. There are presumably elites in Russia who would like to see the war end and go back to business-as-usual so they can get their assets and incomes back, and blowing…

The most likely coup scenario right now in Russia is that the head of the Wagner Group deposes Putin from the right.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#225

Post by debatem1 »

thoeiu4oi234 wrote: post #188
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.

I don't know about you, but I find these "pro-West" side to be quite specious in their arguments. What idiot really believes that Russia of all people would want to kill their own golden goose ? The argument these geniuses are implicitly making is that either Russians (or more euphemistically "Putin") is a raging lunatic, or that their readers so utterly dim-witted that they'll believe any shit that they'll spin. OTO…

I'm really surprised to hear people talking about the US, UK, Russia, etc but not talking about Ukraine.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#226

Post by Jerry2 »

tptacek wrote: post #223
miguelazo wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally every paragraph. Let’s start with this completely unsubstantiated and incoherent section: > The US Air Force officials reportedly proposed “dropping bombs with delayed fuses that could be set off remotely”. One could write an entire post on the reasons why sounds entirely made up by someone with no real grasp of what that suggestion would actually technically entail. During the supposed initial planning of…

I don't think you've picked up the argument being made there, which is that, being a pipeline, the Norwegian Navy wasn't constrained to one particular spot to disable it: it runs seven hundred and fifty miles under the Baltic Sea. The author of this post is saying Hersh doesn't know what a pipeline, not that the USG doesn't. Try another paragraph. Let's interrogate it. For instance: why is the Norwegian Navy allocati…

Instead of getting lost in minutia, can you explain why Biden, Nuland, Blinken and the rest of the neocon and lib imperialist gang would go on record about getting rid of NS1 and NS2 and then deny they had anything to do with it?

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#227

Post by lispm »

thoeiu4oi234 wrote: post #188
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.

I don't know about you, but I find these "pro-West" side to be quite specious in their arguments. What idiot really believes that Russia of all people would want to kill their own golden goose ? The argument these geniuses are implicitly making is that either Russians (or more euphemistically "Putin") is a raging lunatic, or that their readers so utterly dim-witted that they'll believe any shit that they'll spin. OTO…

The pipeline is not completely destroyed. It could be repaired.

Putin attacked the Ukraine and used Energy Dependence as a weapon against Europe. Russia bought energy companies. Russia influenced energy politics and politics in general in these countries. Russia reduced the storage and flow of natural gas before the invasion and prepared it to be used as a political instrument in this war, which is not just a war against the Ukraine, but a war against the West (US, EU, NATO, ...).

Energy is one of Russias main weapons against Europe in its expansion politics towards the west.

One would be naive to underestimate the will and evil of Putin to use his weapons, to influence European politics - for example by inducing fear in the population because of energy supply shortages. There is plenty further escalation possible. Putin thought that the Ukraine would fall easily into his hands, Controlling the Energy supplies then would be his many insurance. Now he is in a lengthy war against the Ukraine and he needs to instrument more pressure, like creating fear and panic in the western europe population, which could force western politics to make compromises. Russia still has the gas&oil, it has other pipelines and enough existing or future customers. In a conflict the value of this goes up. Temporarily blowing up a pipeline is only increasing this value.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#228

Post by zmgsabst »

pvg wrote: post #116
honkler wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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.

Except that it’s legacy media who has eviscerated their reputation in the past decade.

Eg, CNN has a lower viewership in the “key demo” than large YouTube news channels.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#229

Post by rurp »

thoeiu4oi234 wrote: post #188
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.

I don't know about you, but I find these "pro-West" side to be quite specious in their arguments. What idiot really believes that Russia of all people would want to kill their own golden goose ? The argument these geniuses are implicitly making is that either Russians (or more euphemistically "Putin") is a raging lunatic, or that their readers so utterly dim-witted that they'll believe any shit that they'll spin. OTO…

> What idiot really believes that Russia of all people would want to kill their own golden goose ?

Putin killed his own golden goose by invading Ukraine. Starting this war has been a disaster for Russia's economic future. Putin either doesn't care about that, or drastically miscalculated. Blowing up the pipeline would be consistent with either mindset.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#230

Post by astro19238_ »

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.

Even if the Hersh thesis is completely made up, he still makes more sense than what this guy does.

For one thing. The most plausible reason he can't find the plane dropping the buoy he privides himself.

-It's a small device. -Better to use a boat. -Better to use a non military boat.

Yeah? Maybe that is what they did?

It's not impossible the source filled in a few gaps in his story? Or was mistaken? Or Hersh himself might have?

I don't want to go full conspiracy mode myself here but one thing is for sure. And that is that not finding proof of a covert operation can only mean one of two things. Either that it didn't take place or that it indeed was covert.

And why could the source not have said Stoltenberg worked with the Americans since the Vietnam war as a figure of speech?

Hersh article is not enough to base an opinion on imo. But it's not precisely worse off after this guys rather hollow arguments.

Howrver the analysis is not a bad start.

Post reply on HN