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

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

seymourhersh.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#261

Post by weatherlight »

Not a few hours later, 17 hours apart. No military is going to arrange for two pipes in the same general area to be destroyed 17 hours apart. 17 hours to find the second floating sonar device. 17 hours to get caught with your pants down.

I'm saying this as former US military here. the Idea that in the middle of a OPORD, of any kind, POTUS would come in last minute and change a detail, like an explosive on a timer (fairly simple,) to what is effectively some new technology no one has ever heard of, that allows for remote sonar detonations is Tom Clancy stuff.

In the United States Military, there's this thing called the Chain of Command.

This exercise was under the U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa, which is under the United States European Command & United States Africa Command.

The "work" that being described here would have been under SOCOM (United States Special Operations Command), which is the only command that could do this kind of work, they are the only ones that even have the assets to do this kind of work and theres absolutely no mention of that in this piece.

It's complete conjecture and should absolutely be treated as such until theres hard evidence.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#262

Post by threeseed »

haswell wrote: post #247
threeseed wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) I don't understand the relevance at all to Hacker News. There are plenty of interesting things going on in the tech world that aren't making the front page. b) There is a lack of evidence in the article. I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. c) His previous reputation is important but history is littered with examples of people making mistakes and relying on th…

> I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. An established reputation is the difference between those claims. You making a claim without evidence is just that. Hersh making a claim without sharing his evidence is something different. That isn’t to say we don’t need evidence, but there’s a better reason to believe him than you, given the context of the situation. > His…

> Maybe time will tell.

This article shouldn't be allowed here until that time.

Reputation is not evidence.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#263

Post by PantaloonFlames »

VincentEvans wrote: post #241
steponlego wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deliberately misunderstanding what I said won't change my opinion or anybody else's.

Don’t pout but rather explain what you meant.

I will try to restate what I understood from VincentEvans' post.

Gazprom unilaterally cut off gas supplies at the direction of the Kremlin, "weaponizing energy supplies" to Europe.

At some point, if Gazprom wanted to come back to European market - they would be first greeted by billions of dollars of contract charges in arbitration courts.

(and I guess the number of billions is probably in the 10's or more)

Therefore, to avoid that fate, Gazprom or the Kremlin surreptitiously blew up Nordstream2 themselves, in order to be able, later, to claim in court that the could not have resumed gas deliveries if they wanted to. This would be an argument against the billions in contract charges. Basically, they incur the cost of blowing up (and later repairing, one presumes) their own pipeline in order to avoid the cost of the fines and legal sanctions for suspending gas delivery unilaterally.

Summarized as: the Kremlin miscalculated in suspending gas delivery, and by blowing up the pipeline is trying to preserve some future access to the European market, after current hostilities cease.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#264

Post by hef19898 »

swader999 wrote: post #253
ceejayoz wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because "put an end to it" can easily (and more plausibly) encompass approaches like "sanction Nord Stream AG into the ground".

"There will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

And NS 2 ended, it was never certified. No need to blow it up...

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#265

Post by rank0 »

cactusplant7374 wrote: post #70
rank0 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Russia tried to send a message by……destroying its own infrastructure?! It was their biggest leverage over the EU. Now it’s gone and there’s no possibility of restoring Russian gas flows to the EU. If they were gonna destroy critical international infrastructure wouldn’t it make more sense to blow up something else?

If what you say is true, why has Russia blown up their own pipelines twice before?

Neither of the two sources you linked claim that Russia destroyed those pipelines.

Play out the game theory here. Russia has nothing to gain and lots of leverage to lose by destroying the pipelines. They can just keep the gas flows off FFS!

That doesn’t mean the US was involved but it makes zero sense for the Russians to do it to themselves.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#267

Post by waiseristy »

someotherperson wrote: post #242
waiseristy wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seymour Hersh, also a advocate of the Syrian rebel chemical weapon conspiracy and is a Osama Bin Laden death truther. Maybe we should also include his later work as well?

[flagged]

@Dang, you see what I'm talking about? You think this type of content is aligned with HN's guidelines? This is what you get when you allow completely unbased conspiracy theory to go unchecked

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#268

Post by davesque »

dang wrote: post #200
torstenvl wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dan, I respectfully ask you to reconsider. This is a poorly-sourced speculative piece of propaganda and clearly goes against site guidelines. You repeat, above, that HN is not for nationalist flamewar, and requires substance. But this post is nationalist flamewar and isn't substantive. Allowing it while shutting down similar content from the opposite perspective is... unsettling.

I'll read the article and reconsider. I haven't had time to even look at it yet. The moderation call here isn't based on agreeing, disagreeing, liking, or disliking. It just seems like an obvious interesting event, that's all. Edit: Ok, I've read the first half and looked over the second half, and I think the moderation call was the correct one. Not saying this to pile on; I just wanted to report back.

If that's the case, then it's especially weird to me why the usual conventions on highly charge political stories wouldn't apply.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#269

Post by brookst »

steponlego wrote: post #235
VincentEvans wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kremlin sanctioned themselves? Or are you presenting the suspension of gas supplies to Europe by Russia as a sort of “retaliatory sanctions”? That’s fine of course, it’s like North Korea cutting off themselves from the world and starving as a way to punish the world for interfering in its internal matters as they relate to nuclear weapons.

Deliberately misunderstanding what I said won't change my opinion or anybody else's.

I for one have no idea what you meant, and who you’re suggesting was sanctioning who in what manner for what purpose.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#270

Post by sega_sai »

dang wrote: post #34

All: Whether he is right or not or one likes him or not, Hersh reporting on this counts as significant new information ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... ), so I've turned off the flags on this submission. If you're going to comment in this thread, please make sure you're up on the site guidlelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) and note this one: " Comments should…

Where is the new information here ? He tells a story without any shred of proof.
Post reply on HN