Live data from Hacker News

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

seymourhersh.substack.com

951–960 of 1001 posts

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

#951
post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for that angle. The desire to repeat ones brightest hour can certainly be a strong force and might lead even the most careful astray when a big scoop like Abu Graib makes all further successes seem trivial. I'm not suggesting that he personally made it up, but his desire to believe could be spectacularly strong, turning him into an instrument that is easy to play by people with an agenda. But I'm biased as wel…

> the only immediate winners of the explosions were people in Moscow Come on now. I get the desire for people to believe their own government could just never possibly engage in this kind of skullduggery (at least, not until they're comfortably removed from the incident in question by many decades and can safely file it under "well we don't do that kind of thing anymore "), but the idea that the Russians were the onl…

Given the circumstances, which were Russia refusing to send meaningful amounts down those pipes anyways, yes. Next best candidate would be some rogue group refusing to accept that all their preparations were made pointless for the time being.

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

#952

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine there are very good reasons why he can’t trust the editors of certain publications for certain stories. Many of them are among the “power elite” who collaborate with the security state, whether directly or indirectly. There’s a long, storied history of that.

You're getting downvoted, despite the fact that when he headed the CIA, Allen Dulles used to just call up the editor of the Washington Post to have troublesome reporters fired.

That is exactly right, and nothing has changed— the CIA still has plenty of influence over WaPo, NYT, etc. I would say it’s perhaps slightly less direct now, but even worse because they have such a large network of think tanks and cutouts to shape the narrative. Remember when CBS news had that 60 Minutes piece last year about how most US arms and supplies were not actually getting to the front in Ukraine? How long did it take for them to “partially” retract it for some embarrassingly bogus reason? PS: if you haven’t read “The Devil’s Chessboard” by David Talbot, highly recommend.

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

#953

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not in operation. The project had not been completed.

It was completed in every sense of the word. It was merely awaiting approval/certification. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-europe-ru...

It was not completed in the most important sense for this discussion—it was not operational. The project could still be ended short of completion without blowing it up.

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

#954

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it includes direct quotes from that person in the last paragraphs. It was clearly someone Hersh spoke to directly. While I am extraordinarily distrustful of news reports using anonymous sources you do have to consider the author here. Ultimately we are deciding if we trust him and, for me personally, he lends a lot of credibility. The other side of this is, duh, of course America blew up the pipeline. I said at t…

When it happened it was clear that the US, Russia, and Poland were likely the only suspects, except they're all really weird! The US absolutely has not made return on investment, which was obviously going to happen because shipping it over is much more expensive than the pipeline, and in the meantime Biden has to deal with increased gas prices. His incentives go the other way on this. But why the fuck would Russia do…

> The US absolutely has not made return on investment, ...

Umm, the US has made a terrific return on investment. EU supplies have shifted dramatically away from Russia to Norway and the United States following the end of Nordstream.

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

#955

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…

" The US government does not own our energy industry and is often at odds with the gas and oil industry here, "

For someone who is not American, this statement is amusing. The US govt and US military are fully in bed with the US energy industry, when it comes to actions outside America.

US still occupies the Syrian oil fields btw. No one talks about US territory grabbing there - it never even makes the news.

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

#956
post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and not who is benefited by the destruction of the pipeline. The article itself said that Norway would benefit from the destruction of the pipe line.

> The article itself said that Norway would benefit from the destruction of the pipe line. This does not make the article more credible, in fact, it detaches the beneficiary one more degree from the actor.

You can check the increase in energy exports from the US and Norway after the Nordstream sabotage yourself..

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

#957
post #922
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I haven’t had time to even look at it yet. Yikes.

Moderation is guesswork.

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

#958

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.

Honest question: what about this story seems so far-fetched to you that you can't give the author the benefit of the doubt? There are decades of such intelligence goings-on.

There are a large, large number of discrepancies which have been detailed ad nauseam in the larger thread. He also cites a single source, who—by Hersh's own admission—has no personal knowledge about the truth or falsity of these claims. Additionally, Hersh does not claim to have performed even rudimentary checking or his source. He said his source was the operational planner. Did he even try to FOIA the OPLAN to see how much was redacted on the basis of being classified? Not by any indication in his write-up.

But beyond the article itself, it's worth explaining my priors. The first is that the shifting finger-pointing is a classic Russian disinformation campaign. The second is that America would incur enormous risk by doing this and gain nothing; while Russia would risk nothing and had everything to gain. Both of these deserve further explanation.

Disinformation campaigns, especially false flag operations, are a hallmark of KGB operations. If you haven't already, I highly recommend you read The Sword and the Shield, by Christopher and Vasili Mitrokhin. The Mitrokhin archive is probably the best primary source the West has about KGB active measures and internal politics. The Mitrokhin archive confirms that disinformation false flags are a common theme of KGB destablization operations, such as fomenting the degradation of race relations in the U.S. by forging hatemail. Most experts agree it's highly likely Putin himself used this domestically, by staging the 1999 apartment bombings that killed hundreds and injured a thousand people, and blaming it on Chechens; the resulting fear and hatred rocketed him to popularity when he then mercilessly persecuted Chechens, gaining him the Presidency for the first time. To this day, the real facts are unknown, but what is known is this: Achemez Gochiyaev rented basement facilities to an FSB officer for storage; those basements had bombs; after the first two explosions, Gochiyaev called police, who found and disabled the remaining bombs; after Putin's ascendency, the official narrative became that Gochiyaev didn't call, but that an unnamed real estate agent turned him in; that Gochiyaev later disappeared without a trace; and that the Russian government refuses any independent investigation. Other examples of Russia flooding the information space with competing false narratives include the conduct of the 2014 Ukraine invasian (little green men); the build-up before the 2022 Ukraine invasian; and the 2016 Presidential election. Their goal in these cases, according to Mitrokhin, is to overwhelm the populace's ability to critically examine every narrative and "give up," distrusting everything instead. Russia officially blaming the U.K., while getting a senile but formerly respected journalist to claim it was the U.S., perfectly fits their SOP.

In addition, there would be no reason whatsoever for the U.S. to do something like this. The cost is enormous: already concerned about disunity in NATO, the risk of doing something like this and it being discovered would be enormous within NATO, not to mention the risk of Russia viewing it as an act of war. The benefit is nil: Germany had already halted Nord Stream 2 on 22 Feb 22, well before the September 2022 explosion, and their gas reserves were over 90% at the time, minimizing Russia's ability to weaponize NS as an incentive for Germany to oppose Ukraine aid. By contrast, there are multiple reasons Russia would do this. It's essentially zero-cost: destroying their own pipeline is unlikely to bring any retribution from any other country, and certainly wouldn't warrant direct NATO involvement. And the benefits are immense: (1) claim the West did it and galvanize the Russian population, just as Putin did in the lead-up to the bombing of Grozny; (2) make it socially unacceptable to continue the then-current protests against mobilization of reserve units; (3) undercut any later claims against Russia for cutting off fuel supplies, as now it would be impossible for Gazprom to perform on its contracts; (4) now that it appeared the war in Ukraine might drag on longer than Putin expected, make it impossible for any successor to back out from Putin's chosen course of action and resume business as usual.

Bottom line is this: Russian disinformation is the KGB/FSB's modus operandi. We saw this all the time in Iraq: a news outlet would make a claim that the U.S. had caused civilian casualities. We investigated every allegation of CIVCAS. But most of the time, when RT would make a claim of CIVCAS, it wasn't even in a location we had performed a strike. All they were doing was flooding the information environment with the narrative that the U.S. was killing civilians.

This post by Hersh is deeply disappointing. It would hardly be a clearer case of Russian propaganda if it had a giant Z plastered above the fold. It doesn't deserve any credit, and—with respect to dang and the decision he has made—it doesn't deserve to be on HN.

Further reading:

https://www.amazon.com/The-Sword-and-Shield-audiobook/dp/B00...

https://www.amazon.com/Winter-Is-Coming-Garry-Kasparov-audio...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/08/07/u...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKb1Rv_EKwA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gOpI3AieFo

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

#959

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but why wouldn't he just blow up the Baltic Pipe then? What use is the threat itself when you admit losing the Nord Stream did cost them something? Seems like a stretch.

That would have been treated as an attack on NATO. Why perform a hostile act if a much cheaper threat works? Even if it only gets you 10% of what a successful hostile act gets you, it is worth doing because it is a lot less risky.

Gotta say this threat doesn't sound compelling. Who didn't know Russia could bomb a pipeline? Seems more like Russia punching itself in the face for literally no reason.

Also, given the climate now, if there was even a shred of evidence or any hint that Putin did this, US media and intelligence officials would be blaring that from every rooftop and every talking head would be "Russia this", and "Russia that". I think the relative silence speaks very clearly.

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

#960
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will definitely take a random substack blog more seriously. After all, he is citing "unnamed sources"! Very credible!

It's not a random substack blog, it's one of the most famous journalists (a real one, no less!) in the world.

A one with a long history of talking bullshit with nothing to back it (other than "anonymous sources").
Post reply on HN