48 ms·
“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”
- m0llusk 4y agoThe Anders Puck Nelson video about this came to the conclusion that it was probably Russia. His reasoning is interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido
- jnsaff2 4y agoComplete bunk: https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour...
- daxfohl 4y agoI don't get it. US wanted it gone, Russia wanted it gone, Norway wanted it gone. Other comments suggest other countries wanted it gone too. Now it's gone. Shouldn't countries be lining up to take credit? What's the big deal? (I'll admit I don't follow politics and had not even heard of this event before today).
- Slava_Propanei 4y ago[dead]
- syzarian 4y agoSeymour doesn’t provide any proof or any evidence. It’s argument by assertion. What he writes is plausible but without any sources or other corroborating evidence. I think it more believable that Seymour has been paid to write this by a Russian aligned entity. I don’t know the truth of the matter and Seymour could be right. We just can’t tell from the evidence provided.
- avgcorrection 4y agoSeymour’s evidence: an anonymous source. Your evidence against Seymour: “I think it more believable.” (Based on what? Exactly nothing.) Not to mention that “paid to write” is not even hearsay: you just made it up as a theory, without any hint towards anything happening in the real world.
- h2odragon 4y ago[flagged]
- mcphage 4y agoHe has a lot of very specific details and quotes, but he doesn't say where any of them are from. Which ones are actual quotes, and which ones are creative writing?
- syzarian 4y agoHe has links in the article but those links don’t give any evidence of what he claims. For instance, he has a link to the Gang of Eight but this doesn’t provide any evidence to what he ways. He uses links in a clever way to make it seem like he’s acquired evidence. What the linked information shows is that his assertions are plausible. It’s plausible that the U.S. used the military personnel he claims the U.S. used so that they could avoid Congressional oversight. But where is the evidence they actually used said personnel? He references a source but my source with direct knowledge of Seymour’s work says that Russia paid him to write this. Given Seymour’s work on Russia’s involvement in Syria I’m skeptical of him having credibility on the topic of Nordstream. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-22/ty-article-opinion/.premium/why-hasnt-seymour-hershs-syria-genocide-denial-ended-his-career/0000017f-dba8-db5a-a57f-dbea59b80000 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-22/ty-article-opinio...
- Laaas 4y agoI find the article confusing/low quality, what false claims has Seymour propagated?
- mytailorisrich 4y agoIf you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. Of course this is not evidence but this the sort of operation where success means no evidence (at least no evidence available to the public at large as it is possible and, one might hope, likely that neighbouring countries know).
- syzarian 4y agoI think it’s plausible that Putin wanted it done. It got Russia out of a contractual obligation and greater isolation of Russian companies makes the oligarchs’ position tied to Putin. The oligarchs can’t go to the West since they’ve been sanctioned and their companies are increasingly barred from doing business in the West. That isolation makes their fortunes tied to Putin’s survival. Think Cortex burning the ships. In a personalist authoritarian regime the rationality of actions sometimes depends on wether or not the dictator is being rational on a given day.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. I disagree. The most logical explanation is tha Russia did it as a capacity demonstration and threat against Baltic Pipe to pressure contries in the region regarding Ukraine, but that, like all their threats against the West over Ukraine policy so far, the threat was hollow.
- mytailorisrich 4y agoThe US have been overtly against those pipelines and the close relations between Germany and Russia, including and especially energy dependency. In fact, a major win of the US so far in the Ukraine war has been the Europeans' and especially Germany's shift in gas supplies from Russia to themselves. Russia destroying their own pipelines (both NS 1 and the new NS 2 were sabotaged) looks like them shooting themselves in both feet at once. Like doing 'capacity demonstration' by nuking the Kremlin... They could, but would that be a likely scenario? Many, if not most, expert observers strongly suspect the US for a reason.
- LarryMullins 4y agoSeymour Hersh has a very credible background and reputation. Assuming he is still lucid in his age, hasn't become a senile puppet of a ghost writer, then it would be foolish to write off his claims just because he isn't telling you who his source is.
- syzarian 4y agoHis reporting on Syria lost him some credibility. It appears from my perspective that he has a bias toward always thinking the U.S. is the culprit. Given the power of the U.S. and it’s history of shenanigans he’ll often times be right. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-22/ty-article-opinion/.premium/why-hasnt-seymour-hershs-syria-genocide-denial-ended-his-career/0000017f-dba8-db5a-a57f-dbea59b80000 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-22/ty-article-opinio...
- pphysch 4y agoThe "Dirty War" over Syria is ongoing (US boots are literally on the ground right now) and there are many documented disinformation campaigns revolving around it from both sides, including from Western intelligence mouthpieces like Bellingcat. To assert that it is "settled" and Hersh is therefore "debunked" is deeply disingenuous. https://mronline.org/2021/10/11/bellingcat-funded-by-u-s-and-uk-intelligence-contractors-that-aided-extremists-in-syria/ https://mronline.org/2021/10/11/bellingcat-funded-by-u-s-and...
- syzarian 4y agoWhat is settled is Russia’s crimes in Syria and their indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Seymour lost credibility by disregarding these facts in his reporting. The U.S. is still involved there and the U.S. hardly can take the moral high ground when it comes to the Middle East but neither can Russia and Seymour acts as if they can.
- pphysch 4y agoThe US is actively occupying Syria, facilitating the theft of its natural resources including oil to (also occupied) Northern Iraq, while backing AQ-affiliated terrorists like Abu Mohammad al-Jolani to advance its goal of overthrowing the legal Syrian government. US state media literally aired a puff piece for Jolani, including interviews from top DoD officials. It is staggering [1]. These are all undisputed facts which I can supply primary evidence to support. Russia is doing nothing of the sort. Some civilians possibly died as collateral as Russia targeted extremist strongholds in extremist-controlled Idlib. In fact, outside the West, Russia is credited with preventing Syria from turning into an Iraq/Libya-style disaster. [1] - https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/the-jihadist/transcript/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/the-jihadist/...?
- mc32 4y agoIf this turns out to be right --and we don't have conclusive evidence, but this would upset the current narrative. Why would Russia be an idiot to shoot itself in the foot (cui bono) and blow up their leverage; though in international affairs the unimaginable is possible, so yeah they may have done it to themselves -though to outsiders it would seem illogical If true though, it would be as big as the Gulf of Tonkin incident [as in it was us in pursuit of our own interest]
- selimthegrim 4y agoRussia would be an idiot to start a war with Ukr…oh wait a minute
- mc32 4y agoRobbing a bank is stupid... and people do it. But one usually does not use one's own check to write the hold-up note. Sure, it happens, but not typically.
- kibwen 4y agoThe Gulf of Tonkin involved the US claiming that a US ship was fired upon as a pretense to declare war in retaliation. The idea here is that the US blew up a Russian pipeline in order to... what? Declare war on Russia in retaliation for Russia's own pipeline being destroyed? This makes no sense unless you're accusing Russia of blowing up the pipeline.
- LarryMullins 4y agoFor completeness, the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident was two alleged incidents. One of them probably happened and the other almost certainly didn't (admitted by Robert McNamara years later.) The first incident, the one that probably happened, was insufficient casus belli for LBJ and then conveniently for the war hawks the second incident, which never actually happened, sealed the deal two days later. McNamara's tacit admission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k
- 4y ago
- twoquestions 4y agoMy thoughts exactly. If this is true and more evidence comes out, the usual suspects will be screaming it from the rooftops, if not this narrative will die in obscurity. There's been a lot of misinformation about this war, and a bunch of people who for a variety of reasons want to blame the US for it and are willing to believe some incredible things if they support that narrative.
- pillefitz 4y agoIt's really not far fetched to believe the US did it - or any Eastern European country, for that matter.
- jjtheblunt 4y agoPolish GROM could easily do it
- ROTMetro 4y agoIt's really not fat fetched to believe the US didn't do it. Check and mate to your powerful argument.
- pillefitz 4y agoI assumed people read the article or any of the comments. In short: Become the EU's main supplier of gas, while weakening Russia. What's not to like? All other actors' benefits pale in comparison. Hell, the US killed millions in for-profit wars, which is a generally accepted fact. Still think it's far-fetched?
- Animatronio 4y agoYup, Hungary Navy Seals are most definitely behind this.
- qwertox 4y agoThe story is credible. Is it true? This is not enough information to decide that, because, as you say it, there are no sources or other corroborating evidence. But it does host a starting point for future discussion due to the fact that it offers relatively detailed pieces of information. Now it's up to others to come out and say "this is true, that is not", people who actually do have provable information. It offers them a story to share their information on. This story didn't exist previously in the public discourse.
- hedora 4y agoThe story doesn't even claim it is credible. It claims the White House says the rest of the article is fiction, and provides no counterargument or evidence that contradicts the White House's statement.
- jerome-jh 4y agoFunnily enough, the article could just as well be commissioned/suggested by an American organization or person. The USA could easily shoulder the responsibility even if they did not do it, and the goals would be: - show how firm they have been "back then": an interesting narrative in light of recent events (the balloon) - deflect fire from the allied or friendly country who actually did it: Sweden, Poland who boldly supported Ukraine right from the start of the war? Seymour could also have been trapped by a source he previously knew at the CIA and who decided to play its own game. Anyway the article lacks credibility on several aspects raised by weatherlight and erentz. The existence of said source just a few monthes after the events is in itself suspicious.
- eternalban 4y ago[flagged]
- jron 4y agoDo you have a twitter account?
- eternalban 4y agoWhy do you ask?
- Apocryphon 4y agoOkay, I'll bite. If he's a mouthpiece for the U.S. intelligence community, why is he implicating the U.S. in this? Does it discredit that narrative by making it ridiculous, thus aiding the CIA's position? What's going on?
- jron 4y agoI like your take on this topic and enjoy following interesting people.
- eternalban 4y agoah (thanks). I don't really post on twitter anymore.
- zqrtay 4y agoI agree that sources should be given. But this is the name of a famous journalist, so instead of flagging the article, perhaps the Substack people could weigh in: a) Is this the real Seymour Hersh? b) If so, perhaps people should ask him for sources.
- eternalban 4y agoYou won’t need a source once the news comes out. This little text bomb thrown by CIA at the Executive can only mean that the Swedes have found conclusive evidence. https://www.rferl.org/a/nord-stream-sabotage-investigation-russia-sweden-denmark/32068710.html https://www.rferl.org/a/nord-stream-sabotage-investigation-r... Please note that Radio Free Europe is run by CIA.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> This little text bomb thrown by CIA at the Executive can only mean that the Swedes have found conclusive evidence. That’s a bizarre interpretation, since what the Swedish government says in that article, which is no different than non-US-government news source reporting on the same Swedish statement, is additional evidence of sabotage but no evidence of by whom. > Please note that Radio Free Europe is run by CIA. No, its run by a private 501(c)3 that used to be (more thab 59 years ago) covertly funded by the CIA, but is now overtly funded by the federal government through the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
- eternalban 4y agoThe article was -just- a link to the latest official news. Yes, I am implying that whoever is “the source” for Mr. Hersh knows much more than you and I and the internet about this matter. Just do a ctrl-f on “the source” on the OP. And read those lines. That’s the message.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- uoaei 4y ago
- EarthIsHome 4y agohttps://archive.is/jaqOv https://archive.is/jaqOv
- andrejguran 4y agoCan someone explain why would they blow up inoperational pipeline that Germany even said is not planning to operate in near future? And if they would have remote explosive wouldn't it make more sense to explode it in the moment of starting the pipeline to make it look more like an accident?
- miguelazo 4y ago[flagged]
- andrejguran 4y agoVery helpful comment. I clicked upvote twice
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dang 4y agoPlease don't break the site guidelines like you did here and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712682. We're trying to avoid flamewar. If you want to make your substantive points thoughtfully, that would be fine. "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." "Eschew flamebait." "Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- sschueller 4y agoTo make absolutely sure Germany does not go behind the US and makes a deal with Russia irregardless of the situation in Ukraine. Backstap before the others can backstap you.
- The_Colonel 4y agoAlternative hypothetical take - US did it on behalf of German government to avoid the potential political meltdown. Removing this toxic option removed a path to split the society and politics.
- itsyaboi 4y ago> My Lai was first revealed to the American public on November 13, 1969—almost two years after the incident—when Hersh published a story through the Dispatch News Service. The article threatened to undermine the U.S. war effort and severely damage the Nixon presidency. Inside the White House, officials privately discussed how to contain the scandal. On November 21, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger emphasized that the White House needed to develop a "game plan", to establish a "press policy", and maintain a "unified line" in its public response to the incident. The White House established a "My Lai Task Force" whose mission was to "figure out how best to control the problem", to make sure that administration officials "all don't go in different directions" when discussing the incident, and to "engage in dirty tricks". These included discrediting key witnesses and questioning Hersh's motives for releasing the story. What soon followed was a public relations offensive by the administration designed to shape how My Lai would be portrayed in the press and understood among the American public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%E1%BB%B9_Lai_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%E1%BB%B9_Lai_massacre
- nerpderp82 4y ago[flagged]
- steponlego 4y agoHe’s one of the Kings of the Earth.
- dang 4y agoOk, but please don't feed flamewars on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 4y agoMaybe so, but please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago[dead]
- dang 4y agoWould you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, so we ban accounts that do it. I actually just briefly banned your account, but had second thoughts because it's been around for a while and has also posted good comments. But if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules and definitely stop posting like this, we'd appreciate it.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago[flagged]
- dang 4y agoAll: 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&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22significant%20new%20information%22%20by%3Adang 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." We don't want political or nationalistic flamewar here, and any substantive point can be made without it.
- torstenvl 4y agoDan, 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.
- miguelazo 4y agoAmazing the lengths people will go to censor anything that goes against the US proxy war narrative, even on HN. The mental gymnastics are truly breathtaking.
- dang 4y agoI just asked you to stop breaking the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712768. Doing exactly what we just asked you not to do is a fast track to getting banned. I'm not going to ban you because you might not have seen that other comment, but please look at it now and please stop posting like this. Regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are, you owe this community better if you're participating in it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- sschueller 4y agoUsually destroying 40% of a countries energy resource is considered an act of war but I guess if it's your ally that also spies on your top officials it's OK. /s
- dang 4y agoPlease make your substantive points without snark or flamebait. This topic is obviously as inflammable as it gets. More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712496
- sschueller 4y agoSorry, got emotional, can't seem to be able to delete it anymore. It's extremely infuriating situation having to deal with the consequences of what a few top officials decide the world should look like and expecting at least one side to play fair.
- wizzwizz4 4y agoYou can't delete once there's a reply. As a hack, some people edit the message to contain only the text "deleted": it's often poor practice, but since the only reply is from dang I think it'd be okay here.
- dang 4y agoNo need to delete. I know these things can be intensely infuriating—all of us have some topic that hits us like that. Managing that without bursting into flames is a work-in-progress and we're all learning together (myself definitely included).
- isoprophlex 4y agoOff topic but I really hope you wrote "obviously inflammable" there because this is a about gas pipes blowing up Pun intended or not, it's got me laughing
- deleted 4y ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is the evidence?
- partiallypro 4y agoThe blog post is mostly a sea of text with no real citations and loose quotes. The author, though a famed journalist for his breaking of a story 50 years ago, has also made claims recently to defend dictators such as Assad; even going so far as to claim the US was going to fake Bin Laden's dead by dragging his body back to Afghanistan from Pakistan to pretend like he died in a missile strike. His reasoning for this? Well, basically apparently flying below the deck and stealth helicopters are impossible. People need to come to grips that people can slowly become kooks over time (or maybe they were always crazy, but did one good thing and now have clout.) Snowden, Greenwald have made similar kooky remarks of late defending bad actors all over. It's bizarre, but not unusual.
- sudosysgen 4y agoThe journalist also broke the Abu Ghraib story less than 20 years ago.
- partiallypro 4y agoNo he didn't, the AP did based on a whistleblower (followed by a 60 Minutes report.) He may have reported on it, but he didn't break it. He did however make a claim not reported by the anyone else that the US soldiers raped children, which no one else ever reported, then offered no evidence of said claim.
- sudosysgen 4y agoDo you have a source for that? Here is DW claiming he was the first one who disclosed what went on in detail: https://www.dw.com/en/problem-is-not-interrogation-its-war-itself/a-17592575 https://www.dw.com/en/problem-is-not-interrogation-its-war-i... > US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh disclosed the torture scandal of Abu Ghraib 10 years ago. > He was the first to describe in detail what was happening in Abu Ghraib, quoting from the Taguba Report, a secret, internal investigation by the US army about atrocities committed against the prisoners. The article goes on to discuss how even though second hand accounts of abuses already existed, he was the first to get access to and disclose the report, giving a detailed first party account and giving proof of chain of command involvement for the first time.
- varjag 4y ago[flagged]
- waiseristy 4y agoMore unfounded bullshit reaching the front pages of HN. This smells of the same "whoa dude" journalism that brought us soft disclosure and UAPs Let's see some proof
- Khelavaster 4y agoThis is the same journalist who broke news about Mai Lai, reported in-depth on Abu Ghraib, and much more. Serious, serious news.
- zzleeper 4y agoAnd is the same guy who has been going into crazy conspiracy theories over the last ten years or so
- pphysch 4y agoQuestioning the narratives around the ongoing Syrian Dirty War is not a "crazy conspiracy theory".
- partiallypro 4y agoThat's not the only crazy conspiracy theory he has claimed in the past 10-20 years.
- pphysch 4y agoGo on. Link some examples.
- ceejayoz 4y agohttps://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bin-laden https://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bi... > According to Hersh's story, Navy SEALs met no resistance at Abbottabad and were escorted by a Pakistani intelligence officer to bin Laden's bedroom, where they killed him. Bin Laden's body was "torn apart with rifle fire" and pieces of the corpse "tossed out over the Hindu Kush mountains" by Navy SEALs during the flight home (no reason is given for this action). There was no burial at sea because "there wouldn’t have been much left of bin Laden to put into the sea in any case." > The first hints came in the latter years of the Bush administration, when Hersh reported repeatedly that the US was on the verging of striking Iran. These included reports stating that the US might even bomb Iran with a nuclear warhead, and later that the administration had considered using US special forces disguised as Iranians to launch a "false flag" attack as a premise for war. > The moment when a lot of journalists started to question whether Hersh had veered from investigative reporting into something else came in January 2011. That month, he spoke at Georgetown University's branch campus in Qatar, where he gave a bizarre and rambling address alleging that top military and special forces leaders "are all members of, or at least supporters of, Knights of Malta ... many of them are members of Opus Dei." He suggested that they belong to a network first formed by former Vice President Dick Cheney that is steering US foreign policy toward an agenda of bringing Christianity to the Middle East. > The next year, in 2012, Hersh reported in the New Yorker that the Bush administration had secretly armed and funded an Iranian terrorist group known as the MEK in 2005. Two sources, neither with direct knowledge, told Hersh that American special forces had flown the Iranians all the way to Nevada to train at a base there. This detail was both spectacular and puzzling: the US has bases throughout the world, including several in the Middle East; why bring terrorists to Nevada?
- cactusplant7374 4y agoThe Nordstream pipeline was blown up by Russia. They have done this twice before. Russia weaponizes its energy. That has been the pattern. I don't believe America would attack an ally like this and I don't believe Hersh has found the truth. Russia Georgia Energy Crisis (2006) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_energy_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_... Turkmenistan (2009) https://www.rferl.org/a/Pipeline_Explosion_Stokes_Tensions_Between_Turkmenistan_Russia/1608633.html https://www.rferl.org/a/Pipeline_Explosion_Stokes_Tensions_B...
- throwbadubadu 4y agoI don't believe Russia is capable to do that the way it was done... and sorry: They are not even capable to be that stupid also (stupid enough, but that would top it by magnitudes).
- partiallypro 4y ago> They are not even capable to be that stupid But they were stupid enough to invade Ukraine and think they were going to take it over in 2 weeks? But the US itself is just so stupid that it would jeopardize the entire NATO alliance which is critical to US global power? Ok.
- macinjosh 4y agoYour only concept for what the Russians were thinking when they invaded Ukraine is what western media and politicians have fed you. You don't actually know anything about what they were thinking. lol.
- qaz_plm 4y agoWhere can I read more about “what they were thinking?”
- partiallypro 4y agoI'd love to read sources on why they started a war they thought they'd win in 2 weeks which now has come to 100,000+ troops lost (on both sides separately.) Please share, because I'm interested in their strategy.
- r721 4y ago>The White House on Wednesday dismissed a blog post by a U.S. investigative journalist alleging the United States was behind explosions of the Nord Stream gas pipelines as "utterly false and complete fiction." >... >"This is utterly false and complete fiction," said Adrienne Watson, a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council. Spokespeople for the CIA and State Department said the same. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-says-blog-post-nord-stream-explosion-is-utterly-false-2023-02-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-says-blog-post-...
- steponlego 4y agoThe problem is they lie all day, every day, even about trivial stuff that’s easily verified. This looks more like an admission of guilt.
- gs17 4y agoIs there anything they could say or do, without providing undeniable evidence someone else did it that you would believe? If "we didn't do it" reads as "we did it", what do you expect them to do, not respond at all? That would be more suspicious to me.
- Apocryphon 4y agoSounds like they should provide undeniable evidence then!
- macintux 4y agoEven if they had it, they likely couldn’t share it for security reasons. And of course, proving innocence is effectively impossible without proving someone else did it.
- Apocryphon 4y agoSure. I'm just curious about who did it and hey if Hersh is providing one narrative, it's better than the lack of answers or even any attempt at an investigatory effort from any party, whether NATO or Russian.
- cde-v 4y agoSeymour Hersh took out the Nord Stream pipeline. In this essay, I will use the same number and quality of sources as Hersh did in his article to support my claims. Hersh had an incentive to take out the Nord Stream pipeline so he could write the aforementioned article and become slightly relevant again, therefore he did. In conclusion, Seymour Hersh took out the Nord Stream pipeline.
- akmarinov 4y agoIt’s not that u/cde-v doesn’t have sources, it’s that he has a secret source, there’s a difference. So yes, Seymour Hersh did take out the Nord Stream pipeline.
- ben7799 4y agoThis is not a new theory, non-US media laid out reasons why the US was a plausible culprit last year. Most of them also put out relatively balanced reasons why the US would not do it as well. Lots of logical reasons have been laid out why the Russians are suspects too.
- draw_down 4y agoNo one is claiming it’s a new idea.
- throw_pm23 4y ago"Lots of reasons" often do not make something more likely or credible, but one very strong one does.
- hackandthink 4y agoI once read (Don DeLillo?): The John F. Kennedy assassination could not have been a conspiracy, some conspirator would have spoken sooner or later (maybe on his/her death bed). This is obviously not a lone perpetrator, so the truth will come out. But it may take decades, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
- sschueller 4y agoMaybe not today with the internet and the speed at which this stuff gets out. Things get hacked and documents leak digitally which is way easier than someone breaking into a physical building and riffling through old documents. Additionally as we have seen with Trump, Biden and Pence it appears that the way the administration deals with secret documents can be quite sloppy.
- hackandthink 4y agoYes, it seems really hard to keep things secret. I guess it would be easier for a country known to kill journalists (thinking of Russia here, Assange is alive). And everything is recorded nowadays. (people like Biden are great security risks)
- pphysch 4y agoJFK was one of many contemporaneous high-profile political assassinations that share a common theme -- those assassinated were strong leaders that basically opposed the global ambitions of the growing transatlantic military-industrial-white-supremacist complex. JFK, RFK, Dag Hammarskjöld, MLK, Malcom X, Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankara, et al. to just name a few. When you put it all together in historical context, it seems improbable that these were random unrelated events that just happen to advance the interests of a very powerful class that felt victimized by the end of European imperialism/American slavery and the rise of Communism and the Global South. Otto Skorzeny is emblematic of the character that was central to this history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Skorzeny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Skorzeny
- steponlego 4y ago
- mmastrac 4y agoIt'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 to be based on a single, unnamed source "with direct knowledge of the operational planning".
- LarryMullins 4y agoIt's not unsourced, the source is being kept private. That may not seem like a meaningful difference but there is a difference. And that difference is the reason Seymour Hersh's reputation is relevant.
- hedora 4y agoDoes it actually say that anywhere? I read the first half of the article, and skimmed the second. It doesn't claim to be sourced from anywhere, and the only paragraph that discusses sources and fact checking is when they point out the White House says the entire article is a work of fiction. It doesn't present any evidence that it happened (other than that the US has a big swimming pool that the navy trains in), and summarizes itself by saying that it was a perfect plan (presumably meaning it left behind no evidence), except that they actually did it. What am I missing?
- ravi-delia 4y agoIt claims that the info came from someone "with direct knowledge of the operational planning"
- AdamJacobMuller 4y agoAnd 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 the time that we were the most likely culprit. There's a very small subset of groups who have the capability to do this and even fewer who have the motivation. It forces Germany/EU to stop buying NG from Russia and start buying LNG from the US (among others) with exceptionally minimal political risk to the US. The US will just continue to deny that we did it, this article will get no traction in mainstream media. If incontrovertible proof ever did surface the media will just bury the story and if anyone involved is forced to comment they will just spin it as a good and necessary and just thing that they did to help Ukraine with a dose of natural gas bad because of climate change and all will be forgiven.
- keithwhor 4y agoAn unsubstantiated story that’s presented as if it’s fact doesn’t really belong on Hacker News. The fact the submission has to be edited to include a question mark when the source material does not is an implicit admission of such by the moderation team. Why it hasn’t been removed I have no idea.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kylehotchkiss 4y agoIt is written with the confidence that ChatGPT has when teaching me how to use a javascript library that does not actually exist
- dang 4y agoIt's no such admission. In fact it's the opposite, because if we thought the story didn't belong on HN, nothing would be easier than to let it sink without a trace. I think the story belongs on HN because I know a little bit about the historical significance of Seymour Hersh and I think the appearance of this story is intellectually interesting. Maybe I'm the only commenter who feels that way, since most appear only to want to score points for their pre-existing political side, but it's our job to serve the intellectual interest of the larger audience, most of whom don't comment. Re the question mark in titles, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713747. This is a longstanding practice and has nothing to do with the topic.
- keithwhor 4y agoNothing I’ve argued about the quality of this submission — either publicly or privately — has been political. This is hearsay presented as fact. It is simply not intellectually honest source material. It could be true! I’ve read lots of compelling narratives over the years. Many of them are wholly true, some have elements of the truth, some are fiction. But there’s no verifiably new information presented here; only a compelling narrative. I really urge you to reconsider your stance but this is the last comment I’ll make on the topic.
- beebeepka 4y agoNone of this is proof, of course. But it logical. Who else would do it? And why? I think it's great the topic has been brought up again. This was a major event that somehow got swept away like nothing happened. The propaganda machine even tried to sell it as Russians blowing up their own pipe. Cause you know, at this point they could be blamed for the most ridiculous thing and it would still "track" because crazy. What really matters is who else here in Europe helped them. And why. Norway stands to gain but did they help with the sabotage? Things don't look good at all. I am scared. Russia is just across the black sea. I don't want war
- reducesuffering 4y ago> The propaganda machine even tried to sell it as Russians blowing up their own pipe. Russia has absolutely blown up their own gas pipe before... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_energy_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_...
- chii 4y ago> Russia is just across the black sea. I don't want war russia is the one perpetrating war. And yet, it is somehow the US that is questionable? It isn't really logical for the US to do it - risk vs reward wise. And i doubt any european country would want to help the US do this either - they stand to gain very little. Even if Norway stands to gain more gas sales - those aren't guaranteed, and the reputational damage is not worth the financial reward imho.
- Tepix 4y agoWhy was there a questionmark added to the title? It's against the site rules
- ceejayoz 4y agoIt was added by the site's moderator. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713747
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hsuduebc2 4y agoHonestly. As European I'm glad that somebody did that. No matter who. Even this unsourced story makes more sense that Russians did that themself.
- VincentEvans 4y agoGazprom, 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, “weaponizing energy supplies” as it often referred to, in the course of hybrid war. Kremlin has miscalculated - Europe was able to largely avoid the intended crisis, while simultaneously Gazprom lost its largest market. The pivot from Russian supplies did come at a significant cost though. Now that the Western sanctions are strangling Russian economy - if Gazprom wanted to come back to European market - they would be first greeted by billions of dollars of contract charges in arbitration courts. It has long became obvious that Gazprom will likely attempt to use claims of force majeure to try to avoid financial penalties. And as it became customary for Russia - start preparing fertile ground in the courts of public opinion by planting various stories misdirecting the blame and muddying the waters.
- steponlego 4y agoWhy don't we just properly view the gas reductions for what they are - a form of sanctioning?
- VincentEvans 4y agoKremlin 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.
- steponlego 4y agoDeliberately misunderstanding what I said won't change my opinion or anybody else's.
- bee_rider 4y agoWhy was a question make added to the submission here? It makes it look like a (incorrectly written) question about a thing that happened, rather than… whatever it is, speculation I guess.
- dang 4y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713747
- bee_rider 4y agoOdd, haven’t seen titles like this before. It seems like a weird policy, to change headlines in a manner that is misleading if parsed following normal English grammar rules. And especially to only apply that rule in controversial cases. If the goal is to make it clear that the claim is not endorsed by HN, why not something like AuthorName: “This is clearly a quote because it is in quotation marks”
- dang 4y agoWe do quotation marks sometimes too, and that's actually maybe a good idea here, so I'll add them. Thanks!
- beginning_end 4y agoWhat on earth is this doing on Hackernews?
- weatherlight 4y agoOr it was an accident. Im asserting as much evidence as Hersh. https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html
- Sed47_ 4y agoSo let me understand this clearly, all of this is based on an "unnamed source"? How does this have even an ounce of legitimacy and isn't just mere fiction?
- Sed47_ 4y agoJesus christ this website is becoming junk. Posting "reliable" information yet again, as many times before. Literally Reddit with extra steps.
- readonthegoapp 4y agowas the question mark ? part of the original title?
- stevespang 4y ago[dead]
- dgroshev 4y agoThe only factual bits in the post: - Biden saying that NS2 will not go forward - the pipeline is blown up Did I miss anything? Because the rest is conjectures, one anonymous source, and references to historical events. I don't understand what does this add to the discourse. Adding Hersh's name to the conspiracy theory (in a very literal sense) does not add any factual weight to it, it's still an unfounded conspiracy theory. It's (again, literally) an "ad hominem" argument, which is widely understood to be a fallacy. Which also makes people linking stuff like https://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bin-laden https://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bi... wrong, because it's not about Hersh's integrity or lack thereof, the whole premise is wrong.
- weatherlight 4y agoNot 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.
- oezi 4y agoSince it was established that the destruction was caused by explosives, what is your argument? The US is too competent to do such a bad job (17 hours apart and only 3 of 4 pipes destroyed)? Does this imply we have a rogue actor or insufficiently equipped one to blame? Who?
- hedora 4y agoWas it established that it was caused by explosives? The last time the US did this, it was by adding malicious code into pipeline control software (before the USSR stole the software from a US company).
- peterfirefly 4y ago> Was it established that it was caused by explosives? Yes.
- tlear 4y agoHe is right that sonar buoy detonation thing sounds like absolute bullshit. Incredibly risky and 17 hours.. I mean you want to do this, send a submarine, it fires few torpedoes. No more pipeline. Fast, simple, reliable. Let's say I am a Ukranian patriot, with few million in the bank. I bet given few month I could put together a team of divers to plant some C4 with a simple timer and blow this thing to hell. Or Polish patriot, or Polish government or any of the Baltic states. It is an existential struggle for all of them, and russkie understand one thing and one thing only, this was a very clear communication straight to Putin.
- gadders 4y agoIf Trump's sanctions had been left in place, it probably wouldn't have been necessary to blow them up.
- mark_l_watson 4y agoI don’t have a strong opinion about who blew up Nord Stream. I do believe one thing: with US AWACS and other assets, and in that part of the world, I believe that the US government (and perhaps other governments, like Germany) know who did it. There a many reasons why they would not share information, such as an ally could have done it. Or, of course, Russia may have done it. I am glad this story is posted on HN because I like getting many different opinions in one place.
- rr888 4y agoyeah I'm sure the US and probably European governments know exactly what happened. Also if Russia did do it, its officially an attack on NATO and requires a response? It makes sense that USA/Europe didn't officially blame Russia with evidence.
- LarryMullins 4y ago> Also if Russia did do it, its officially an attack on NATO and requires a response? In either the case of America attacking a pipeline jointly owned by the Russians or the Russians attacking a pipeline jointly owned by a NATO country, you could call this an act of war. But in neither case will either side use it as their casus belli to start WW3, because nobody wants that. Nobody is waiting for a 'legitimate' excuse to start such a war. It is much safer for everybody to pretend they haven't noticed such attacks, or to pretend that the culprit is uncertain or maybe that it was done by accident. Pretending to be ignorant of the provocation is preferable to WW3, for both sides of the conflict.
- b3nji 4y agoSo, let me get this straight. U.S. is worried Russia will use the pipeline that's supplying Europe with gas as a bargaining chip, and blackmail them. Threatening with higher prices, or switching it off. Which makes zero sense, why blow up your own cash cow? So the U.S. come in and blow it up. Causing sky high prices across Europe, poor families and elderly to choose to either freeze to death, or starve. Causing chaos for potentially years. Possibly more damage than Russia could ever have done. Makes sense, well done. Fuk yeaaah, America!!!
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- demarq 4y agoHN has been host to all sorts of articles so to see the storm this article has raised is telling. Do people realise that once the article is on the internet, removing it from HN is self censorship, the equivalent of pretending something doesn’t exist?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y agoLooks like the only 100% benefactor of this is Ukraine. Russia now must pump all its gas to Europe through Ukraine. And they are already at war with Russia, so there is no risk of escalation. And they have pulled other impressive stunts no one believed were possible, like Moscow cruiser, Kerch bridge, Engels airport. They kept it secret because didn't want to alienate Germany.
- chii 4y agoBut would ukraine devote resources to do this sabotage, when they're actually short on resources? And where did they get the ship and the movement of troops/operatives to pull such a thing off? Surely, a rogue ship in the most heavily monitored sea would throw off alarm bells. Not saying they can't have done it, but it would have required more resources than ukraine would spare imho. And if they have such resources, would they not use it instead to sabotage something else of more importance to russia? Such as their oil or gas fields that are still operational?
- Ancalagon 4y agoI think the question on everyone's mind right now can be adequately summed up with the quote: "Are we the bad guys? I think we're the bad guys?"
- Laaas 4y agoIt is bewildering how many here are against this post staying up; no matter whether it's true or not, it's an interesting article! If you feel it is not true, why take it down rather than simply state your opinion in the comments? Do we not have the freedom to discuss and form our own opinions about it?
- threeseed 4y agoBecause this is Hacker News not Political Conspiracy News. For every one of these posts that are manually forced to stay on the front page we lose an actual relevant, technical post that we never see and get a chance to comment on.
- LAC-Tech 4y agoIf you want less politics, lobste.rs is pretty good
- joenot443 4y agoGiven there are 500 comments already and more to come, do you not think it’s been demonstrated the community has an interest in discussing it?
- ecf 4y agoI’d argue most of those 500 comments are comments wondering why in the world this wasn’t deleted/flagged instantly.
- officehero 4y agoAs a former resident in Russia I'm shocked at how all state controlled media from Russia has been completely censored in the west. I understand why it's done (bcs it breeds conspiracies etc) but it's not for free because now people don't get any 'alternative' view on the matter. Censorship is a tricky thing
- reducesuffering 4y ago
- anigbrowl 4y agoIt might be true. But the story rests on the following premise: *Biden’s and Nuland’s indiscretion, if that is what it was, might have frustrated some of the planners. But it also created an opportunity. According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline “no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it.” The plan to blow up Nord Stream 1 and 2 was suddenly downgraded from a covert operation requiring that Congress be informed to one that was deemed as a highly classified intelligence operation with U.S. military support. Under the law, the source explained, “There was no longer a legal requirement to report the operation to Congress. [...]' This glosses over the legal fact that the President can't just carry out military operations and then never mention them again, not least on the grounds that someone needs to be in the loop in case the executive branch suffers some catastrophic attack. As far as I am aware, 10 USC 130f still requires that Congress be notified of sensitive military operations within 48 hours: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/130f https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/130f I don't see where Hersh addresses this aspect of the legal environment, he just waves it away. Of course, it could be that Congress notified but only a small number of sufficiently serious members with the capacity to keep their mouths firmly shut, but the article doesn't seem to contemplate that possibility.
- ttctciyf 4y agoI wonder what Biden was referring to when he stated > "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." > When asked how, the president says, "I promise you, we will be able do that." (C-SPAN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 )
- abracadaniel 4y agoConsidering the context was about sanctions, and no one at the time thought he was suggesting he would blow it up, then it’s not reasonable to try to retroactively change the context.
- nabla9 4y agoThis is a phenomenon. People who did good work and have fame are getting old. Instead of retiring they just start to do sloppy work, or fall prey to people who exploit their reduced cognitive capacity. They get publicity because internet has no editors. Hersh is 85. He has been on decline for some time. Remember Michael Atiyah few years back. One of the greatest mathematicians in the last century. He claimed he solved the Riemann hypothesis little before he died. It was clear that he was in cognitive decline, but media and social media had their day.
- donohoe 4y agoI take this with a grain of salt. The 'source' (or sources) here are un-named and unclear if just the one or more. The author, Seymour Hersh, has accused the Obama administration of lying about the events surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden, and disputed the claim that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on civilians in the Syrian Civil War. This all sounds very plausible. It may even be true, but I do not trust the messenger that much.
- SergeAx 4y agoThis smells strange. A Pulitzer winner, 60+ years in journalism, starts Substack just to post this one investigation. He has about one million chances to have at least Twitter, not mentioning a website, but no. BTW, I checked the text with GPT detector, it didn't sound alarm, so at least it is a human-written.
- tromp 4y agoPerhaps the discussion should be phrased instead as how likely can a hypothetical operation as sketched by Mr Hersh, involving so many people in so many governments, remain without hard evidence leaking out for years? Personally, I wonder what would have happened to the sonar buoy that was alledged to have triggered the explosives. Wouldn't they have to come back and pick it up to avoid leaving evidence of the triggering mechanism? And if they have to come pick it up anyway, why drop a buoy at all? Why not use that presence to send a time delayed trigger?
- jamisteven 4y agoIts crazy that people prior to this thought this was some kind of conspiracy when it was so blatantly obvious who blew it up. Ask anyone working in commodities trading who blew it up, they all knew exactly who it was. The US had the most to gain and they even told us on 2 different occasions thats they would do it.
- kccqzy 4y agoIs this fiction or fact?
- edenceover 4y ago> Today, the supreme commander of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg, a committed anti-communist, who served as Norway’s prime minister for eight years before moving to his high NATO post, with American backing, in 2014. He was a hardliner on all things Putin and Russia who had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War. He has been trusted completely since. “He is the glove that fits the American hand,” the source said. A lot of what he is saying here is not strictly true. Jens Stoltenberg was the leader of the labour party and while he was not a communist, describing him as a committed anti-communist is just plainly wrong. It was not part of his platform at all and one the parties in his coalition was a socialist, Marxist party. Also he was not a hardliner on Russia. In fact during his time as a prime minister Norway and Russia peacefully and diplomatically solved the territorial dispute they had in the Barents Sea. Neither have the Americans always completely trusted him since the Vietnam war. He was vocally anti-NATO in his youth and the Bush administration gave him a cold shoulder for the rest of it's years after he was elected prime minister in 2005. He claimed that during the congratulation call from the American president he said that he wanted all Norwegian troops out of Iraq and the the mission. The Americans were adamant he did not. I know it's just one paragraph, but when thing gets misconstructed by the source in such a way it kinda losses credibility with me. Also the quote about Norwegians "Hating Russians" while I've never felt anything like that in my dealing with the armed forces (Norway don't have any historical grievances with Russia), really makes me question it.
- redbar0n 4y ago> "Today, the supreme commander of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg ... He was a hardliner on all things Putin and Russia who had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War." During the Vietnam War (1955-1975) Stoltenberg (born 1959) was -4 to 16 years old.. Hersh possibly confused Jens with his father Thorvald Stoltenberg. Who travelled to North-Vietnam in 1970 to negotiate between them and USA, and who was commended for his negotiating skills by the am. intel community in a declassified rapport from 1980. Links/sources follow: «Thorvald Stoltenberg and Reiulf Steen visited Hanoi in 1970.» https://vietnamkrigen-wordpress-com.translate.goog/2010/02/22/stoltenberg-steen-propagandabesøk/ https://vietnamkrigen-wordpress-com.translate.goog/2010/02/2... «In a new biography of Thorvald Stoltenberg, it is described how Norway brokered peace between the parties in the Vietnam War at the end of the 1960s.» https://www-vg-no.translate.goog/nyheter/innenriks/i/Pk947/norge-meglet-under-vietnamkrigen https://www-vg-no.translate.goog/nyheter/innenriks/i/Pk947/n... «Defense Minister Thorvald Stoltenberg was praised for his negotiating skills in a so far classified CIA report from 1980.« https://www-nettavisen-no.translate.goog/nyheter/cia-vurderte-norske-politikere-i-hemmelig-rapport/s/12-95-5240140 https://www-nettavisen-no.translate.goog/nyheter/cia-vurdert...
- kersplody 4y agoIf any part of Hersh's claims are true, which I doubt, the U.S. Senate and House U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will demand immediate classified hearings with DoD & IC since this was done all wrong. If they don't demand them (SSCI is still rather bipartisan) within 24-48 hours, you know it's complete BS.
- ecf 4y agoIt would be a shame if any real-world decisions where made based on the validity of an opinion piece without any, and I mean ANY, substantial evidence.
- lossolo 4y agoHistory repeats itself. > In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural gas pipeline, according to a new memoir by a Reagan White House official. > At the time, the United States was attempting to block Western Europe from importing Soviet natural gas. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/reagan-approved-plan-to-sabotage-soviets/a9184eff-47fd-402e-beb2-63970851e130/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r...
- outside1234 4y agoThis is 100% hearsay and has a high probability of being a Russian psyop either directly or through breadcrumb plants of false information for Hersh to run across. This has no business being on Hacker News.
- amai 4y agoIf that is true shouldn’t there still be explosives installed at the fourth pipeline?
- TruthShare 4y ago[dead]
- stephc_int13 4y agoThere is one thing that is really bothering me in this story. I don't really care who is behind the sabotage, they would certainly not admit it for obvious reasons, and it could be more complex than it seems. But the press, here in the UK, in France and in the US, has been suspiciously "clueless", avoiding with great care to imply that anyone in the west could be behind it, even if it really seems obvious that it could very well be the case. Why? Why are they so careful? They usually are not afraid to speculate, especially on such a scale. I find it disturbing to think that they could either have received instructions from their respective governments or are simply afraid push any inquiries on this subject.
- Tepix 4y agoSuch an action would be an act of war and uncovering it - in the US - likely seen as unpatriotic or worse.
- dghlsakjg 4y agoAny US journalistic outlet would KILL to be first to report on this. The US loves its military, but American news sources have no want to keep a secret like this on behalf of the government. The US media loves to report on US war crimes, and other stupid government shit It wouldn't surprise me to know that the US government had knowledge of this. It would surprise me if they were directly involved though.
- stephc_int13 4y agoWhy would you be surprised?
- dghlsakjg 4y agoBecause the destruction of the pipeline serves american interests, but being directly involved in the destruction of russian state infrastructure that serves a bunch of NATO allies is something the US would not want to be involved in. In other words, The US very much likes that the pipeline is gone, but it would been politically insane to be involved.
- Octokiddie 4y ago> The C4 attached to the pipelines would be triggered by a sonar buoy dropped by a plane on short notice, but the procedure involved the most advanced signal processing technology. Once in place, the delayed timing devices attached to any of the four pipelines could be accidentally triggered by the complex mix of ocean background noises throughout the heavily trafficked Baltic Sea—from near and distant ships, underwater drilling, seismic events, waves and even sea creatures. To avoid this, the sonar buoy, once in place, would emit a sequence of unique low frequency tonal sounds—much like those emitted by a flute or a piano—that would be recognized by the timing device and, after a pre-set hours of delay, trigger the explosives. (“You want a signal that is robust enough so that no other signal could accidentally send a pulse that detonated the explosives,” I was told by Dr. Theodore Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology and national security policy at MIT. Postol, who has served as the science adviser to the Pentagon’s Chief of Naval Operations, said the issue facing the group in Norway because of Biden’s delay was one of chance: “The longer the explosives are in the water the greater risk there would be of a random signal that would launch the bombs.”) This is the hardest part to believe in the piece. Making this kind of very technical change (timer to remote detonation) at essentially the last minute seems very hard to pull off. I think the piece could have benefitted from more than one view (besides Postal) on how difficult such a change would be. That said, that last quote by Postal offers an alternative explanation. Namely, that the explosives were rigged for remote detonation but exploded accidentally.
- leros 4y agoI don't think it sounds that difficult to pull off. The underwater communication technology is probably something already developed, they just had to modify the devices with a new trigger mechanism.
- bunnie 4y agoWhat I don't get is the risk of an accidental signal triggering it. The system as described sounds similar to some existing tech used to communicate with submarines when they are under deep cover... presumably those comms come with both strong encryption and strong authentication off the rack. seems unlikely that random noise would be a concern for a trigger... A more likely rationale for a fixed time line would simply be a concern on the life of the battery in the receiver, and the diplomatic fallout that would happen if the battery died, and an intact detonator was recovered on a later routine inspection that could be traced back to the USA.
- carabiner 4y agooh my god it's jason bourne
- bjornsing 4y ago> 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” in Swedish waters to the best of my knowledge [1]. The only case where the Swedish navy claimed they had proof of a foreign submarine it turned out to probably be minks and herrings. 1. Closest case I’m aware of is Soviet submarine U137 that ran aground on the Swedish east coast due to navigation error.
- Gud 4y agoSweden 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/Swedish_submarine_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musk%C3%B6_naval_base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musk%C3%B6_naval_base
- bjornsing 4y agoIn 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).
- Gud 4y agoIn 2001 the anti-militarism in Sweden was peaking so that a government appointed commissioner came to the conclusion that there were no subs(except for the sub that were) is hardly surprising.
- patientplatypus 4y ago[dead]
- zelias 4y agoConceivably this is a pro-Biden article. It demonstrates what Biden is willing to do and/or is capable of when it comes to big, complicated foreign policy questions. If you know ahead of time that a Russian invasion is inevitable (as all intelligence assessments made very clear) wouldn't it be a prudent strategy to relieve Russia of one of its most prominent economic weapons? Considering the much rumored campaign announcement, I can absolutely see a large portion of "centrist America" respecting Biden for this move, and rewarding him for it. I think this quote from TFA encapsulates the sentiment: > The source had a much more streetwise view of Biden’s decision to sabotage more than 1500 miles of Gazprom pipeline as winter approached. “Well,” he said, speaking of the President, “I gotta admit the guy has a pair of balls. He said he was going to do it, and he did.”
- ajross 4y agoI think that's a reasonable spin. And I'll admit that there's a repressed neocon in the back of my brain that secretly wants to believe that the US is still capable of taking decisive and effective action in defense of world order. But... this is just really, really thin. Hersh had no editor on this, it's literally a self-published blog with one entry[1], created for just this article. No one else wanted to run it, one has to assume. There's one source, with only the thinnest of descriptions[2] and no independent verification described. Everyone wants to lean hard on Hersh's reputation from My Lai and Abu Ghraib. But those stories had evidence! The vietnam story was about a covered-up-but-very-real prosecution of an actual person for actual crimes. Abu Ghraib had the famous photographs and people willing to go on record with their own names. This isn't the same at all. I mean, maybe it's true. Again, the Freudian Neocon would like that. But realistically this could also be someone feeding Hersh a fake story sourced from anywhere. I don't think this really tells us much of anything. [1] When I saw this the first time, I immediately thought it must be a fake! [2] Just "someone familiar with the planning", I mean, were they even looped in on the execution? How does that description square with all the Tom Clancy prose about operation processes?
- sargun 4y agoWouldn't there be satellite imagery of said ship in the area? Can't you get that from the likes of Planet Labs? If so, this should be a pretty easy theory to (dis)prove.
- leobg 4y ago> In the immediate aftermath of the pipeline bombing, the American media treated it like an unsolved mystery. Russia was repeatedly cited as a likely culprit, spurred on by calculated leaks from the White House—but without ever establishing a clear motive for such an act of self-sabotage, beyond simple retribution. A few months later, when it emerged that Russian authorities had been quietly getting estimates for the cost to repair the pipelines, the New York Times described the news as “complicating theories about who was behind” the attack. No major American newspaper dug into the earlier threats to the pipelines made by Biden and Undersecretary of State Nuland.
- macinjosh 4y agoITT: People who took the words of anonymous sources to heart for years during the Trump admin suddenly start questioning them. haha!
- spxd 4y agoAmazing journalism again. This can be a huge problem for Germany, Europe and US.
- nova22033 4y agoSeymour Hersh is a known fabulist. His "scoops" have become more and more bizarre over time
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y agoThat maybe seems so to people who did not check that our reality branched into more and more bizarre parts of the multiverse over time.
- stephc_int13 4y agoThe fact that this subject is able to trigger so much controversy on HN is fascinating. I could understand if diplomats and politicians were upset, but regular techies?
- 0xDEF 4y agoFrom my experience European techies are one of the most pro-Ukrainian and anti-Putin/Russia demographics in the world right now so that shouldn't be surprising.
- nostromo123 4y agoYour experience is wrong. Source: I'm a "European techy".
- readonthegoapp 4y agoi think any article that is a bad look for country 'x' will have that country's nationalists up in arms. it's not just a natural reaction for nationalists, it's a strategy for people in power generally - nationalist or otherwise - it's just one way to try to make a story go away, and it's obviously had some success here on HN today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Flak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Flak
- stephc_int13 4y agoWhat I don't get is that from my perspective this is not really a bad look. A lot of Putin strategy relied on the weakness of the leaders on the other side. He very likely expected to see most government caving or at least stay away. The narrative is that Biden is an old almost senile dude and Zelensky is a clown. Well, we now know that this narrative turned out to not be entirely accurate, and IMHO Biden cutting the big pipe of Putin can be seen as a good thing if you expect your leader to be strong and decisive.
- 0xDEF 4y agoModern Norway is one of the wealthiest and most developed societies that has ever existed. To give an example: Their population is only 5.4 million but they are the third biggest market for premium/luxury electric vehicles after the US and China. Why would people living in what is an actual paradise on Earth risk all that by blindly following Joe Biden's orders to shoot at Russia? Sorry but the Norwegian involvement claim doesn't pass the smell test.
- jbd28 4y agoHersh hasn’t gotten anything right since My Lai. The Matthew Berry of investigative reporting
- photochemsyn 4y agoThere are a lot of details presented so it seems further investigation is warranted. As far as "Why American would want to take out the Nordstream pipeline", there's been an ongoing desire to get Europe to buy US LNG tanker gas to meet domestic energy demand, instead of Russian pipeline gas, and blowing up the pipeline is a step in that direction. Of course, the optimal solution for Europe would have been to start massive renewable infrastructure development over a decade ago, then they'd be on their way to not needing any gas imports, instead of having their domestic economy held hostage like this. The rest of the world would be wise to think in these terms - fundamental necessities like energy should not be subject to the random fluctuations of global supply chains due to wars, pandemics, etc. It's very reckless behavior if true, essentially an act of war. I can't imagine Washington politicians responding with calm deliberation if someone was blowing up US LNG tankers, for comparison. The story does sound a little strange, but who knows? I'd have suspected the explosives were planted by underwater rover / submarine but maybe human divers are less detectable.
- xg15 4y agoI 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, etc, which are already well-known. But those only show that the US really really really didn't like the pipelines - and that was never a secret. They do not give any evidence for a planned operation to destroy them. The rest of the article is amazingly detailed but only based on an anonymous source. Even if we trust that the source existed, there is no way to know if that source itself is trustworthy. So as of now, I don't the information in the article would convince anyone of the "US did it" hypothesis who wasn't already convinced. I think the only thing that the article is useful for is as a future reference. It could be useful to remember the details and keep an eye if they match with any future developments.
- alchemist1e9 4y ago> 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. One simple hypothesis would be that it is only an illusion that western media outlets are independent from their governments.
- chii 4y agoThere's been many instances of western media outlets being hugely critical of the US gov't.
- hackandthink 4y agoA german book by Precht/Welzer argues it's the other way. The media became a power by itsself and it's the media which influences the government. And they analyze how the media synchronized itself on certain topics (especially Ukraine war). https://www.fischerverlage.de/buch/richard-david-precht-harald-welzer-die-vierte-gewalt-wie-mehrheitsmeinung-gemacht-wird-auch-wenn-sie-keine-ist-9783103975079 https://www.fischerverlage.de/buch/richard-david-precht-hara...
- ak_111 4y agoNot trying to be snarky, but genuinely what is the most articulate and sensible piece on why the most likely culprit is Russia? All the commentary I read from reputable media seem to boil down to "Putin did it because that is the sort of thing that Putin does", without providing any further analysis on why it would make strategic or tactical sense for Putin to do so. The more serious journals such as Foreign Policy seem to have ignored the issue entirely as far as I can see.
- Const-me 4y ago> what is the most articulate and sensible piece on why the most likely culprit is Russia? I think this video is articulate and sensible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido
- chii 4y agoThis is an interesting theory. But the theory presented in the video hinges on the idea that if the americans were to have done it, they would've chosen a more covert means to do it - aka, undetectable (such as cyber warfare). For example, they would've done something similar to Stuxnet to sabotage the iranian nuclear material processing. However, i cannot imagine what method of covert sabotage is possible for a pipeline. If everyone believed the pipeline is working, even if it was sabotaged, then they will behave as though it wasn't sabotaged (until they realize it actually is broken). So the effect of the sabotage won't be felt until they turn back on the pipeline, by which, it is too late to for the sabotage's effect to change policy! So i don't completely buy that the americans aren't a culprit, based purely on the operational design of the attack. However, i do buy that the risk taking vs risk adverse behaviour does fit. America would not want to risk fracturing NATO from such covert activities. They gain very little - as the pipeline is already closed, and financial and diplomatic pressure on germany is enough to keep it closed. If russia wants to use the pipeline and prospect of cheap gas to lure germany out of the alliance, they've already showed to have failed at it. May be it will change in the future (like 5 yrs down the line), but that seems to be very far to predict, given the current risks of being discovered in between that time. Lastly, the idea that Putin would covertly destroy the pipelines because they are at a state of war does seem a bit plausible - he's trying to remove the pipeline from being used as a negotiation leverage by any potential successor in ousting him! If germany could sponsor a political opponent in russia with which the gas and economy of russia could be rescued, they might get popular support. This removes the possibility, despite hurting russia in the short term (they're already lost the ability to sell gas from the pipeline, so blowing it up doesn't hurt as much). Coupled with the deniability, the kremlin could blame the act on the US, and hope to cause fracture within NATO for some added effect.
- blownpipeline 4y agoCui bono? It’s alarming how many comments here are attempting to gaslight the public and shift the narrative. We know it wasn’t an accident. We don’t know who did it exactly. But we certainly know who benefited from it.
- tikwidd 4y agoMy thoughts on the incident, organised as a series of nested propositions. 0. The Nord Stream pipeline incident was not an accident. 1. The pipeline was sabotaged by a state actor. a. Only a state had the capability to carry it out undetected. b. The sabotage was in violation of international law. c. Evidence of the sabotage would cause a diplomatic scandal. d? Either Russia or the United States sabotaged the pipeline. e? The sabotage was authorised at the highest levels. 3. Russia did not sabotage the pipeline. a? Russia had no motivation to destroy it. b. Russia controls the pipeline, and could choose to turn it off. c. No state has presented evidence that Russia was involved in the sabotage. d. The area is highly monitored by US and US-aligned countries. 4. The US sabotaged the pipeline. a. The US had strategic and economic motivations to prevent the pipeline from operating. b. The US govt made public statements prior to the sabotage that, had they been made by the Kremlin, would have uncontroversially implicated Russia in the eyes of the American public. c. The US has the means to destroy it. d? The US has the means to hide their involvement in the sabotage from European allies and the US public. e. The Western public have no appetite for stories which portray Russia as a victim, or US/EU as villains. Hiding their involvement is therefore trivial, since media outlets have no motivation to investigate the truth. f. Conversely, Russian state and media have no incentive to investigate, since the Russian audience takes it for granted that NATO was responsible.
- f5ve 4y agoYea this pretty much sums it up. Although it seems clear to me that the nordic states were either in the loop or involved in the operation. As for the rest of NATO and the media, it took them a few days to assess the situation and shut up.
- SergeAx 4y ago> Russia had no motivation to destroy it Russia wanted to cause panic and meltdown on EUs energy markets, but to no avail. Russia tried to sabotage gas supply by fiddling with turbines for months, but was in the end out of options, and EU gas prices were still too far from panic and collapse. Blowing up underwater gas pipes the same day that a gas pipe from Norway started to work - too good to be coincidence. > Russia controls the pipeline, and could choose to turn it off No, Russia cannot just turn off the gas without a force majeure cause (and even declaring the war to Ukraine, which will never be an option, is not a force majeure enough). Otherwise there are contractual obligations to fulfill, and enormous penalties in case of breaching contract.
- auctoritas 4y agoWho 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 base case for this is that the US is responsible.
- meepmorp 4y ago> 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.
- auctoritas 4y agoReducing the number of pipes reduced their leverage.
- meepmorp 4y agoNo, they can ration the supply and charge more. Same leverage, increased sense of urgency due to the uncertainty about supply. It just didn’t work.
- nostromo123 4y agoNo matter what the truth is, in EU there seems to be a touch of "of course it was the Americans", often justified by "that's just what the Americans do". Well, in hindsight, Russia does not seem to gain from it, in the EU we were lucky that the winter was not very bad, but the US somehow conveniently gets to sell us overpriced gas...
- davesque 4y agoThe fact that this story has been allowed to live on HN's front page for so long has really knocked my confidence in the forum and its moderators. I thought HN had taken an enlightened stance on avoiding juicy topics like this since they clearly lead to lots of useless speculation and uncritical thinking. They are a net drain on community health. This story does not belong on HN. I think I can say that even if it turned out to be entirely true. It's been shown over and over again that civilized discussion about high stakes political topics is impossible. For every hard fact that deserves attention, a thousand hypotheticals are thrown up with misplaced confidence. The instinct to want to believe what you wish were true is just too high. And being witness to it makes you stupider, whether or not you participate. None of the behaviors I've seen on display in this thread indicate that this story is any different.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dcdc123 4y agoI blame it on the lack of downvote buttons. (*for most users)
- meepmorp 4y agodang specifically disabled flagging on the article, so it can't go away via the normal "downvote" mechanism.
- dang 4y agoI agree with you a lot—let's say 80%—but there's a big difference between 80% and 100%, and experience has shown that it's impossible to operate the forum 100% this way. In terms of how we handle the issue of political/divisive topics on HN, there are some pretty complete explanations here, if you (or anyone) are interested: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... If you read those and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd like to know what it is and would be happy to take a crack at it. Here are a couple of good places to start: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902490 (April 2020) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 (Nov 2019) People have a love/hate relationship with their favorite internet forums. If you (again, I don't mean you personally, I mean anyone here) aren't occasionally running into something you hate, then we're probably doing a bad job—we're either too predictable, or too narrow, or both. I think that follows from the core idea of this place, which is intellectual curiosity: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... It's quite amazing how many unexpected and interesting things follow from that principle, but maybe this isn't the moment to make that case.
- LarsDu88 4y agoIt seems like the only consistent aspect of Seymour Hirsch's reporting is that it supports whatever narrative the Kremlin is pushing, whether that's the Kremlin of 1970 or the Kremlin of 2023. The dude could have been a Cold War asset from day one!
- imwillofficial 4y agoI’m calling BS. I’m in a position to know and too many operational details are wrong.
- fromseashore 4y agoWell, it is surely not wrong about the main detail: who gave the order to blow the pipeline.Unless you are living in a fantasy world, as most commenters here. But then, americans know so little about the world outside of their empire, that it is not very surprising.
- imwillofficial 4y agoOh I’m totally onboard with the main point. However I’m calling a spade a spade. Every. Single. Detail. Is wrong.
- api 4y agoIf they did, then good. It reduced Putin’s energy blackmail ability, kind of akin to shooting the hostage.
- atomicbeanie 4y agoThis 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.
- aaron695 4y ago[dead]
- ribit 4y agoIt’s interesting how pro-russian propaganda has massively spiked in the recent days. They are bringing pretty much every talking head with half a name to it they can get. Putin and his cronies must really feel the pressure. I have to say it kind of makes me happy. Means that Ukraine and Allies are doing things right.
- hughw 4y agoThe Swedish team currently investigating the explosion might be able to confirm or refute parts of this account: can they find fragments of the sonar-activated detonator?
- medo-bear 4y ago[flagged]
- boplicity 4y agoI think I would be very skeptical that this was actually written by Seymour Hersh. This Substack was created today. There's no previous history on it. I can't find any credible evidence that this is actually Seymour Hersh. If it's not Seymour, it sure is very effective propoganda. Does anyone see any proof that this is indeed written by the claimed author?
- marianatom 4y agoThe substack was created today, then Russian outlet Sputnik ran the story hours later. Then a hacker news account with pro CCP content submitted this substack. Why is this rubbish on top of hacker news?
- htrgh 4y ago[flagged]
- judahmeek 4y agoIf there's a lot of facts that discredit a narrative, then people simply stating those facts are not a part of a "concentrated effort". Your contrarian logic is going to take you down a very sorrowful & dimly lit path in life.
- jjoonathan 4y ago[flagged]
- boplicity 4y agoI think I would be very skeptical that this was actually written by Seymour Hersh. This Substack was created today. There's no previous history on it. I can't find any credible evidence that this is actually Seymour Hersh. If it's not Seymour, it sure is very effective propoganda. Does anyone see any proof that this is indeed written by the claimed author?
- rossdavidh 4y agoInteresting, but "While it was never clear why Russia would seek to destroy its own lucrative pipeline..." is not true. There was/is a very good rationale for why Putin (not "Russia") would seek to destroy the pipeline. It wasn't bringing in any money, but it could (a lot) if Russia gave in to Western demands to pull out of Ukraine. There are persistent rumors that Medvedev and other high-ranking Russian officials were upset at the loss of western money, and Putin might have simply wanted to burn his bridges, for the same reason Vikings were said to have burned their bridges: to put out of your side's minds the option of retreat. With no NordStream, there was less temptation to try to get the West's business back (and at the point it was blown up, neither NordStream was actually bringing in much money anyway due to sanctions). Now this doesn't mean Putin actually ordered it. But it's not true to say that there was no plausible reason w he would.
- justinzollars 4y agoWe are in the fog of war.
- alfiedotwtf 4y ago[citation needed]
- mlindner 4y agoSometimes when people get too old they lose the ability to clearly tell truth from fiction. Seymour is 85 at this point.
- stevespang 4y ago[dead]
- dralley 4y agoThis story requires one to believe that, on one hand, the mission was so secret that US Special Operations could not be used, because then the "Gang of Eight" in Congress would need to be notified, and according to Hersh that would have been a problem. But on the other hand, Norway and other countries were invited to be intimately involved in the planning and execution. This strikes me as rather unlikely.
- chii 4y agoIt was implied that Norway would benefit from such a mission - they are directly going to be able to sell more gas. However, it does seem implausible that so many are informed and involved.
- jprd 4y agoA single sourced "news story" by anyone, is a non-starter. It isn't a news story, it is hearsay. First hand testimony with fanfic levels of correlating data have caused untold misery throughout History, of late being a particular sorry swing of that pendulum. When someone like Hersh is behind it, I expect _WAY_ more. His single source could be President Biden on the record and I'd still take issue with this. All of this could turn out to be nearly 100% correct and it would still be irresponsible. The implications of getting this even slightly wrong are potentially catastrophic, in so many unpredictable ways. Perhaps I'm showing my age, but I grew up learning not to F around with the implications of a land war in Europe.
- Kukumber 4y agoHahaha, my comments saying it was the US were all flagged back when the sabotage occurred, now the truth appears to the eyes of everyone :) I'm not always full of shit
- nasredin 4y agoDisappointed to see this on the front page.
- nullc 4y agoCan someone more in tune with global politics explain to me why it hasn't just been assumed that the us did it? We had the motive. We had the means. oh yea, and our president said we would do it in advance of it happening: "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." (reporter: "How will you do that, exactly, since the project is within germany's control?") "I promise you we'll be able to do it. (smirks, silence)" https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=81 https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=81 With that context why wouldn't the default be to assume it was destroyed by the US unless there was compelling evidence otherwise?
- hackandthink 4y agoThe best argument against "The US blew it up" is the political risk for the US when the truth comes out. As CIA guy I would not trust Biden to keep the mouth shut.
- nostromo123 4y agoThe political risk for the US is zero. Just look at any other similar situation, for instance where the US has killed civilians by drone as collateral damage: there's a bit of outcry, a bit of finger wagging and after a couple of weeks there's some other big news and it's all forgotten.
- tsimionescu 4y agoThe fact that Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, the countries investigating the explosions, are refusing to point any fingers at Russia suggests to me that they have serious reasons to believe that it may have been an ally nation that destroyed the pipeline. Pointing the finger at the USA, even if they had very concrete evidence, would be a massive diplomatic problem - so it stands to reason that we would not hear about it. By contrast, especially in the context of the war, pointing the finger at Russia would not particularly affect diplomatic ties - especially given how Russia has already been pointing the finger at everyone else. So, even though this report itself is rather thin on evidence, it is presenting a version of what seems to be the most plausible hypothesis.
- tim333 4y agoAccording to the Russians it was the Ukrainians helped by the Brits https://youtu.be/STqoHnV5cDM?t=69 https://youtu.be/STqoHnV5cDM?t=69
- daniel-cussen 4y ago[dead]
- mharig 4y agoI still think, that Poland together with GB were the main actors is more probable. But I've updated my posterior.
- coryfklein 4y agoWhy is the title of this submission in quotes?
- ecf 4y agoDang finally showing some bias. Anything like this would normally be insta deleted.
- ecf 4y agoLost a lot of respect for HN moderation with this post.
- BurnGpuBurn 4y agoThe argument that Russia would've taken out it's own pipeline is ludicrous. It's like a store owner blowing up his own store front to punish shop thieves, or something. It doens't make sense. If you want to know who did it, ask yourself: who benefits? Spoiler: it isn't Russia, and it isn't Ukraine or Europe either.
- miguelazo 4y agoCorrect, with a couple exceptions. The Norwegians (listed by Hersh as collaborators in this piece) certainly benefit as well because they can sell more of their own gas too. This was an alliance of convenience between essentially mafioso gas exporters and the US security state that will do anything to harm Russia. https://peoplesworld.org/article/pipeline-ploy-how-u-s-natural-gas-interests-are-fueling-the-ukraine-crisis/ https://peoplesworld.org/article/pipeline-ploy-how-u-s-natur...