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

651–660 of 1001 posts

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

#651

Post by coffeebeqn »

mrguyorama wrote: post #333
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?

It's important to point out here that Russia has done MANY brainless things during this war, things that actively harmed their position in the world. Miscalculating an attempt to change the calculus is definitely a possibility. Or Russia did it for the internal audience: "Look at what they did the big evil US just wants europe to suffer we are the best" I'm not sure it makes sense for either the US or Russia to have…

Or could be Putin cementing his position. Even if you do a coup there is no thawing of energy policy with Europe so now the elites as less likely to try

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

#652

Post by philistine »

Reason077 wrote: post #455
VincentEvans wrote: post #176

Gazprom, Russian gas monopoly, has on Kremlin’s orders first threatened to, and then suspended gas supplies to Europe in an attempt to blackmail it to stop supporting Ukraine under a threat of, as they put it, “freezing Europe”. In the process unilaterally breaking existing delivery contracts. There were no Western sanctions targeting Russian gas - it was entirely a political operation initiated by Russian government…

It doesn't make sense that Russia would blow up their own pipeline. They can't blackmail Europe with gas if there's no pipeline to supply the gas. And force majeure? That's pretty far-fetched. Why would Russia care about financial penalties? This is the country that effectively stole over 400 airliners by refusing to return them when the leases were terminated.

The clearest reasoning is this: the pipeline was closed and unused. A potential replacement of Putin could have gotten Western support by promising to quickly reopen the pipeline. If the pipeline is gone, no potential replacement can use the pipeline to gather Western support.

There doesn’t even need to be a physical person that exists right now in Russia to oppose Putin. Just the possibility of it might have been enough for Putin to blow his own goddamn jewel in the Baltic.

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

#653

Post by atomicbeanie »

This narrative points to no proof expecting motive to suffice. I think the US is not the only motive hypothesis. It would have made more sense for the US to blow it up earlier. Given that the pipeline was unused at the time of destruction it seems more likely a Russian intelligence ploy executed from Baltic ports.

I think the Swedish investigation, with no public announcement, might be the only source of primary information. Add to this the sabotage against German trains etc, and the overall lack of ability of the Russian government to negotiate for its interests but instead choose subterfuge (they denied the invasion, and claim themselves the victim), it is more likely such a secret operation is in the interests of the aggressor.

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

#654

Post by WeylandYutani »

pessimizer wrote: post #623
tootie wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody was excluded in my country but America going insane was COMPLETELY missed by almost every expert and America watcher.

It was funny how suddenly all the journalists started to report from Kentucky or Alabama instead of Fifth avenue. As the media it is your job to explain how the world works.

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

#656

Post by ribit »

rsync wrote: post #207
mmastrac wrote: post #97

It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing. The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story. What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears…

"You could probably write a similar one with Russia ..." I disagree - there is no credible motive here for Russia and, in fact, the outcome was directly opposed to every outcome they are, or were trying, to achieve. Not only do I, as a US citizen, believe that the US perpetrated this act but further: I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most eco…

There is a lot of credible motive for the fascist russia. First, make allies distrust each other, sabotaging their unity. Second, create panic among the EU population, hoping for increased pressure to lift the sanctions and stop support of Ukraine defending their homeland. Third, force the issue with pending legal approvals for the remaining new pipeline.

Fortunately, EU managed to store up plenty of gas and the winter was mild, so russian blackmail has failed.

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

#657

Post by GAN_Game »

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…

> That even that inconsistent Bin Laden story

Worth noting that both the White House and the New York Times walked back inconsistent claims they made in the days after bin Laden's death. So the White House and Times were self-admittedly inconsistent about it. If Hersh is inconsistent it is in that light.

Hersh pokes holes in different points of the official narrative. Particularly the idea no one high up in the Pakistani government knew bin Laden was in the compound. Contradicting the White House, but very convincing to me and others.

However, to be fair to you, Hersh goes into a great deal of detail about the initial intelligence, the raid etc. Was any part of that wrong or inconsistent? It's hard to know. He didn't just make a few statements but went into a lot of detail. So there could theoretically be inconsistencies in Hersh's reporting about it too, since he covered so much ground. It is hard to know though. You just take what the White House said, what Hersh says, what the Pakistani press says and try to figure out what actually happened.

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

#658

Post by tiahura »

nostromo123 wrote: post #553
LarryMullins wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most economically. In the scenario where America did it, I think there is a strong argument to be made that it was in the long-term interests of EU citizens, despite causing them some short-term discomfort. They never should have started this pipeline project in the first place, buying energy from Russia ma…

America "doing things in the long-term interests of EU citizens, despite causing them some short-term discomfort" is exactly why the US is seen as the baddy in a lot of countries. We are not your children to be nannied and taken decisions on behalf of!

We are not your children to be nannied and taken decisions on behalf of!

Until you can defend yourselves, you are.

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

#659

Post by redeeman »

mmastrac wrote: post #97

It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing. The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story. What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears…

> The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story.

we can also choose to ignore the american material movements in the area at more or less the exact time. Coincidence im sure, after all, the good old uncle sam is an ally to europe and would NEVER do anything against citizens of other countries

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

#660

Post by officehero »

reducesuffering wrote: post #631
nostromo123 wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

rt.com does not work in Austria.

That's unfortunate domains are being blocked in your country, but not relevant to GP's outlandish comment. Let's break this down... > all state controlled media from Russia has been completely censored in the west . > all No. > completely censored No. > in the west No.

You're right I stand corrected. I'm mainly following these things on YouTube and there the Russian state point of view is actively suppressed. Ironically I've become more pro-Ukraine the more I've learnt about the Russian state view, still can't get over how fast things went downhill.
Post reply on HN