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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by mistermann »

btown wrote: post #602
fsckboy wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> were not independently verified even, by his own admission, by Hersh. And that's just... not credible reporting since by his own admission, [what you said], that is credible reporting. it might not be a credible source or story

I have to disagree. The very first line in https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp is "verify information before releasing it." Disclosing that there is only one source is a first step, but an insufficient one. And the tone of the article, from the headline onward, reports not only that "a source said X" but presents "X" as factual. That's simply not a credible practice.

Can you name a single news org or reporter who does not engage in that practice?

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

#622

Post by bjornsing »

Gud wrote: post #585
bjornsing wrote: post #469

> Sweden had applied for membership into NATO, and had demonstrated its great skill in managing its underwater sound and magnetic sensor systems that successfully tracked Russian submarines that would occasionally show up in remote waters of the Swedish archipelago and be forced to the surface. This is not exactly the view of the Swedish navy here in Sweden. No Russian submarine has ever been “forced to the surface”…

Sweden had outstanding naval capabilities during the cold war. The Swedish navy frequently chased away foreign submarines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_submarine_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musk%C3%B6_naval_base

In most cases it’s debatable if there were any submarines. E.g. professor Anna Christensen who was on the 2001 government commission with access to all information has said that she does not think there is solid proof of a single foreign submarine in Swedish waters between 1981 and 1992 (other than U 137 of course).

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

#623

Post by pessimizer »

tootie wrote: post #564
drewda wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seymour Hersh has decades of credibility from reporting the My Lai Massacre to the abuses at Abu Graib. But he does often rely on sources who remain anonymous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous... I did find it interesting in that Wikipedia article to read that The New Yorker's editor insists on knowing the identify of all of the anonymous sources that Hersh has used when his reporting is p…

It's unfortunate, but Sy Hersh has kinda flown the coop in the last 10 years. He egged on the Seth Rich conspiracy and tried to deny the US killed bin Laden. The New Yorker has basically disowned him and he hasn't had a byline in many years.

A lot of journalists with extremely long track records and tons of accolades were excluded from media outlets after 2016 for not reporting correctly.

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

#624

Post by ccn0p »

btown wrote: post #559
drewda wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seymour Hersh has decades of credibility from reporting the My Lai Massacre to the abuses at Abu Graib. But he does often rely on sources who remain anonymous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous... I did find it interesting in that Wikipedia article to read that The New Yorker's editor insists on knowing the identify of all of the anonymous sources that Hersh has used when his reporting is p…

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bi... goes over how his more recent work verges on conspiracy theory. That even that inconsistent Bin Laden story purportedly relied on two distinct sources, and yet his Nord Stream story purportedly relies on only a single anonymous source, should be a significant red flag here. I have no reason to doubt that Hersh heard the quotes in his Nord Stream story fr…

[flagged]

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

#626

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

vasergen wrote: post #580
xg15 wrote: post #535

I find it extremely jarring how many reputable western media outlets immediately jumped to the conclusion that Russia did it even though that made zero sense - but absolutely refused to even consider the possibility that the US or another western state could have done it. But at this point, the article is basically "cool story, bro". The only independently verifyable bits are the public statements of Biden, Nuland, e…

> that Russia did it even though that made zero sense Can you explain then please how much sense did Russia had to start a war in Ukraine?

This is detail pretty well in an article I think I found here first.

If Russia ever wanted to take Ukraine “back”, it had to do it now. It would only get harder and less likely as time goes on. Now, as to why of take Ukraine back at all, IDK, beautiful women, I assume.

I’m not sure anyone can answer the why, really, but the why now seems to have reason.

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

#627

Post by meepmorp »

auctoritas wrote: post #584

Who had the most incentive to blow it up? Definitely not Russia which was using it as significant leverage over the Europeans. Definitely not the Europeans who were relying on it for energy. That leaves the US, with willing help from accomplices of course. We can squabble about Hersh's credentials - no doubt to be dragged through the mud in the coming days as establishment types attempt to discredit him - but the bas…

> Definitely not Russia which was using it as significant leverage over the Europeans.

There's still one pipe of NS2 left unscathed; Russia had offered to start delivering gas over this pipe, prior to the winter turning out to be incredibly mild.

So the potential leverage is still there, and would perhaps have been useful had the climate cooperated. Maybe Russia took out three of four pipes just to ratchet up the sense of risk to Europe.

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

#628

Post by coffeebeqn »

slantedview wrote: post #612
drewda wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seymour Hersh has decades of credibility from reporting the My Lai Massacre to the abuses at Abu Graib. But he does often rely on sources who remain anonymous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous... I did find it interesting in that Wikipedia article to read that The New Yorker's editor insists on knowing the identify of all of the anonymous sources that Hersh has used when his reporting is p…

Biden stated last year: "If Russia invades [Ukraine] there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." [1] This was a clear threat, clear as day, that the US could destroy Nordstream. It should surprise nobody that the US was involved. Since Nordstream was destroyed amidst public pressure from US energy companies who wanted to takeover the European energy market, the US has become the world's lead…

It’s not out of the realm of possibility but that statement is hardly an admission of future sabotage. I would imagine the US has more tools than deep sea bombing to convince their allies. Very high risk operation

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

#629

Post by GartzenDeHaes »

xg15 wrote: post #535

I find it extremely jarring how many reputable western media outlets immediately jumped to the conclusion that Russia did it even though that made zero sense - but absolutely refused to even consider the possibility that the US or another western state could have done it. But at this point, the article is basically "cool story, bro". The only independently verifyable bits are the public statements of Biden, Nuland, e…

[flagged]

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

#630

Post by hajile »

indymike wrote: post #284
vanviegen wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears to be based on a single, unnamed source "with direct knowledge of the operational planning". Why is that weird? Assuming this is true, there would be rather many people with such knowledge. One of them may feel the need to talk. Would you expect such a source to be named? Also, I find it a lot easier to imagine why the US would want to do this, than why…

> Why is that weird? Assuming this is true, there would be rather many people with such knowledge. One of them may feel the need to talk. The level of detail about the operation is basically, some divers from the US Navy attached bombs to the pipeline during a military drill that were detonated with magical sonobouy signals according to some professor who said that might work. Another red flag: The vast majority of t…

A US amphibious warship USS Arlington[0] was sailing near the nordstream location. It left a Swedish island in the middle of the Baltic Sea 6 September 2022.

Meanwhile, the US controversially transferred SEALS to Germany earlier in October 2022[1].

USNS William McLean left a German port 5 September 2022[3] (there are also port call records) and headed to meet the USS Arlington on 10 Sept 2022[2] to transfer cargo.

USS Arlington loitered around docking in Lithuania and only reaching the straight near Denmark on 22 Sept.[2]

USS Arlington then meets the exact same USNS William McLean for another cargo transfer 20 days later and just 6 days after leaving port.

Where USNS William McLean went after I don't know. I know it docked somewhere close as there's an entry for 26 Sept 2022, but I don't feel like paying to know the exact location.

If you were conducting a SEAL operation on the high seas, a San Antonio-class ship would be a perfect launch vessel. A cargo exchange would be the perfect cover to swap ships. Delayed bomb detonation isn't dangerous and could explain why only 3 of 4 pipelines were impacted (aka, something went wrong with one).

I'm not saying it 100% happened (and is somewhat at odds with the anonymous source in this story), but to me, it seems like the US had the motive, means, and opportunity.

[0] https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/31497...

[1] https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2022-10-20/seals-gre...

[2] http://www.uscarriers.net/lpd24history.htm

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3pp-ehkS2o

Post reply on HN