21 ms·

It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents a

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

LarryMullins 4y ago
It'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 ago
  Does 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 ago
    It claims that the info came from someone "with direct knowledge of the operational planning"
    - AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
      And it includes direct quotes from that person in the last paragraphs. It was clearly someone Hersh spoke to directly. While I am extraordinarily distrustful of news reports using anonymous sources you do have to consider the author here. Ultimately we are deciding if we trust him and, for me personally, he lends a lot of credibility. The other side of this is, duh, of course America blew up the pipeline. I said at 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.
      - ravi-delia 4y ago
        When it happened it was clear that the US, Russia, and Poland were likely the only suspects, except they're all really weird! The US absolutely has not made return on investment, which was obviously going to happen because shipping it over is much more expensive than the pipeline, and in the meantime Biden has to deal with increased gas prices. His incentives go the other way on this. But why the fuck would Russia do it? Poland is like...there, which is why they're worth a mention, but they don't have the same operational capacity and also do not benefit from it at all. But I mean come on, we know it was sabotaged deliberately. Such a weird thing
        somat 4y ago
        Ukraine? I am not sure if they have the means, but they have the motive, the nord stream pipelines bypass the Ukraine pipeline. My knowledge on this is very, very sketchy, but my understanding is the there is still a large amount of Russian gas transiting the Ukraine pipelines, Europe needs the gas so they buy it, Ukraine needs the transit money to defend against Russia so they keep the operation running. and Russia needs the gas money to attack Ukraine so they keep the operation running. Honestly if true it is one of the weirdest situations I have ever heard about in the middle of a war. I deliberately used an RT link because it is probably full of Russian propaganda and yet says basically the same thing as other articles. I originally learned about it via the Perun youtube channel(the best place to start if you want actual information not propaganda) but am unable to find the episode where it is mentioned. https://www.rt.com/business/570805-russia-ukraine-eu-gas-transit-soars/ https://www.rt.com/business/570805-russia-ukraine-eu-gas-tra...
        peppermint_gum 4y ago
        > But why the fuck would Russia do it? Why do so many people act as if it's so unlikely that Russia did it? They had the least to lose, their relations with the west were already ruined at that point and such an incident couldn't make them any worse. What would be their motive? Before the explosion, Russia had illegally shut down the pipeline. Now that the pipeline has exploded, they have plausible deniability and they can say it's not their fault the gas isn't flowing. Because of that, they won't have to pay additional fines when the economic relations with the west are restored. And don't forget that one pipe of NS2 was left intact and, unlike NS1, there was no contractual obligation to pump gas through it.
  - apnew 4y ago
    > Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning. The third paragraph in the article.
    - ajross 4y ago
      FWIW, that doesn't really even make sense. If you had direct knowledge only of the planning, then what's the source for the execution? I don't think anyone would be surprised that there was a plan for doing this. The US plans lots of stuff. Why did "planning" even appear in that sentence? Why not "a source with direct knowledge of the operation"? Again, there's a huge weasel word right there in the only sourcing for the whole article. That just... yikes. Maybe it's a typo. Maybe it's something an editor could have cleaned up. But maybe it's also the sort of thing Hersh's editors simply threw out as unpublishable, which is why it's an uneditted substack blog.
      - newsclues 4y ago
        Someone plans to blow something up. And then it blows up. Makes a lot of sense to connect the dots given that it's a covert activity. Often planning is done by senior members, who get out of the military more frequently (especially recently) and the younger people who are operational stay quiet. The people who were on the operation, aren't going to talk right now, because they are still operating and aren't ready to spill the beans and write a book/movie script.
        ajross 4y ago
        > Makes a lot of sense to connect the dots given that it's a covert activity. "Makes a lot of sense" is hardly the standard for legitimate journalism though. Did it happen or not? How do you know? Does your source know that it happened or just that it was planned? Do you make that clear? Hersh really does not.
- strangattractor 4y ago
  Most News outlets prefer to have more than one source of info. For the life of me I cannot see how this would be a net plus benefit to the US. The potential to destabilize our allies seems likely. If they find out it is true - some of them would be at minimum very pissed.
- beebmam 4y ago
  Well yeah, I think Seymour Hersh's reputation is relevant. He's pretty much a conspiracy theorist in this era.[1] Including his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Criticism_and_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Criticism_and_co...
  - GAN_Game 4y ago
    > his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden You give a link but it is nowhere in that link. I watched an interview where Hersh talked about how the US killed bin Laden. Hersh has always said this. Hersh did do reporting that countered parts of the US government story about bin Laden. Namely the idea no high Pakistani army/intelligence/government official knew where bin Laden was in Pakistan. As well as some other things. The conspiracy theory is believing bin Laden sat in a big compound in Abbottabad with no one important in the Pakistani government knowing this. I guess the US government feels it needs to state this for some diplomatic reason, but it is ludicrous.
    - beebmam 4y ago
      Seymour Hersh regarding the Osama bin Laden raid, in which the terrorist leader was killed in 2011: "Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true". Later on in 2013, he changed his claim, such that he admitted some of the story is true, that is, that the terrorist leader was killed, after he encountered pushback. Source: https://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/hersh-slams-us-media-claims-bin-laden-narrative-is-not-true/ https://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/hersh-slams-us-media-clai...
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        That quote doesn't say that the US didn't kill Bin Laden. You're implying that by adding an unnecessary parenthetical "in which the terrorist leader was killed in 2011." There's nothing simpler and better for your case than typing the quote where he said the thing you say he said. Otherwise, you're actively spreading misinformation on social media, and intentionally using rhetorical games to obscure the lack of evidence you're offering to support it. That's conscious spreading of misinformation.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  > Seymour Hersh's reputation Is this satire or what? His reputation is "as a nutcase" nowadays. Most reputable editors, when given a secret-sources story, either reject it outright, or say "OK, tell me their names and let me talk to them." If you're Hersh, maybe you get away with saying, "trust me."
  - garbagecoder 4y ago
    That’s why he’s useful. Enough people associate his name with his wins and either don’t know he’s lost his mind or think it’s just the usual hit pieces. But either he’s being fed this by someone with an agenda or he shares that agenda. Conspiracy thinking ironically always includes blind credulity, just of other things.
vanviegen 4y ago
> What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears to be based on a single, unnamed source "with direct knowledge of the operational planning". Why is that weird? Assuming this is true, there would be rather many people with such knowledge. One of them may feel the need to talk. Would you expect such a source to be named? Also, I find it a lot easier to imagine why the US would want to do this, than why Russia or Germany would want to do this.
- hef19898 4y ago
  You can easily imagine any of the Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine (with some local help) or even Finland, Swede or Norway doing the deed. Or, since the pipelines are well known and not difficult to reach, basically everyone with access to explosives, a boat a divers with explosives skills. None of which is particularly hard to come by.
  - thwayunion 4y ago
    At that moment in the war, even Putin had a lot of strong motivations -- lock out the option of bringing Nord Stream back online and close to door on de-escalation. As a side-benefit, the possibility of driving a wedge into NATO. I also found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713402 interesting. Who knows.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      Well, someone did it. If somebody knows who, they are not telling. Without sources, everything is specilation at best, consiracy theory BS or propaganda at worst. Personally, I don't even believe half of what is reported with connection to the war in Ukraine.
      - thwayunion 4y ago
        Agreed. One of those situations where everyone wants to blame everyone else for a "terrible" thing that happened, but at the same time don't really GAF because all sides were okay with finalizing a clean break between Europe and Russia for a variety of domestic and IR reasons anyways.
thwayunion 4y ago
> 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. I'd bet my last dollar that at least four nations had "blow up Nord Stream to force continued conflict" contingency plans. Who did it? Germany, Russia, USA, Ukraine, or a curve ball from the one of the Nordic or Baltic states? We'll probably never know, and none of those answers would surprise me.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Considering that a lot people came out after the pipeline was blown up, people with the necessary training and experience, saying that it was not a particularly difficult job, it might even have been some rogues having a fun fishing trip. Besides motive, this article doesn't provide anything new. And that the US had at least motive is established fact since basically the day of the explosion.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    There's probably thousands of scuba divers are trained in cold water diving to 300ft/100m depths. That is deep technical diving, but not crazy or stupid deep.
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      (Although it would probably be easier these days to use a pipe bomb and a COTS underwater tethered drone -- depending on what bits of physical evidence you were comfortable leaving behind you could just blow the drone up with it too -- the "hardest" part would probably be dodging the coast guard on the surface)
- linkjuice4all 4y ago
  Why just those countries? Surely some countries in the middle east would be interested in opening and supplying petro products to a new market. What about China? Maybe they're interested in division and weakening their nearest neighbor so they could buy up all the gas? There are too many players with varying interests at different levels to just go off of someone's reputation and an unnamed source. Perhaps Biden or some other head of state needs to come along and blow up this thread so that moderators and commenters alike have to find other outlets for the water they're carrying.
rsync 4y ago
"You could probably write a similar one with Russia ..." I disagree - there is no credible motive here for Russia and, in fact, the outcome was directly opposed to every outcome they are, or were trying, to achieve. Not only do I, as a US citizen, believe that the US perpetrated this act but further: I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most economically. EU states are now buying US natural gas like we always wanted them to. How much pain and suffering were we willing to inflict to make that happen ?
- mmastrac 4y ago
  There are plenty of credible motives for Russia to do this (some even listed in this thread), but they are all just as weakly supported as this theory.
  - jeltz 4y ago
    Yup, there are a lot of motives for many countries but there is no smoking gun or obvious candidate. Too many people potentially benefited from this.
  - coffeebeqn 4y ago
    Just mistrust and finger pointing among the western alliance is one. Turns out everyone wanted it gone- except maybe a few Russian assets like Orban
- foota 4y ago
  I remember reading at the time that the motive would have been to remove the oligarch's desire to end the war. If you can't sell the gas anyway, then you can't complain about it. Seeing as Russia was already using gas supplies as a political tool, it doesn't seem too far fetched.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  > I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most economically. In the scenario where America did it, I think there is a strong argument to be made that it was in the long-term interests of EU citizens, despite causing them some short-term discomfort. They never should have started this pipeline project in the first place, buying energy from Russia made the EU weak. Breaking that relationship permanently will make the EU stronger.
outside1234 4y ago
A single unnamed source also makes this extremely susceptible to being a Russian plant or asset or "influenced".
sampo 4y ago
> It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing. That's why there were several explosions: Everyone was blowing it up at the same time, unbeknownst of each other's plans.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Just imagine the debriefing questions: Why did you guys blow up the wrong pipeline, and two hours before schedule????
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  Semi related darkly humorous daydream: what are the odds of two unrelated school shooters at the same school on the same day?
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    Was it in Illuminatus where there were 3 independent shooters trying to assassinate Kennedy at the same time?
- spacechild1 4y ago
  Just like the JFK assassination in "Illuminatus!" :-)
somethoughts 4y ago
It does seem like the title could use a "might have" as in "How America might have taken out the Nord Stream pipeline."
- mc32 4y ago
  rings of... Orenthal Simpson "If I did it"
drewda 4y ago
Seymour Hersh has decades of credibility from reporting the My Lai Massacre to the abuses at Abu Graib. But he does often rely on sources who remain anonymous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous... I did find it interesting in that Wikipedia article to read that The New Yorker's editor insists on knowing the identify of all of the anonymous sources that Hersh has used when his reporting is published in that magazine. That suggests to me that while Hersh can probably be generally trusted, his work is of a higher quality when it's published in an outlet like The New Yorker, as the editor-in-chief and other staff submit it to a more rigorous internal discussion. That's in comparison to probably no internal review or discussion by Substack.
- btown 4y ago
  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... goes over how his more recent work verges on conspiracy theory. That even that inconsistent Bin Laden story purportedly relied on two distinct sources, and yet his Nord Stream story purportedly relies on only a single anonymous source, should be a significant red flag here. I have no reason to doubt that Hersh heard the quotes in his Nord Stream story from at least someone in government, but that source's motivations and truthfulness were not independently verified even, by his own admission, by Hersh. And that's just... not credible reporting.
  - ccn0p 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    > were not independently verified even, by his own admission, by Hersh. And that's just... not credible reporting since by his own admission, [what you said], that is credible reporting. it might not be a credible source or story
    - evrydayhustling 4y ago
avgcorrection 4y ago
You’re free to not believe his anonymous source, but this vapid “Tom Clancy” nonsense is uncalled for given that you have no counter-arguments whatsoever.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  He is a nutcase, and cites another well known crank - Postol. Its amazing fanfic.
redeeman 4y ago
> The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story. we can also choose to ignore the american material movements in the area at more or less the exact time. Coincidence im sure, after all, the good old uncle sam is an ally to europe and would NEVER do anything against citizens of other countries
klrtwm 4y ago
Initially I had the same reaction. After reading the piece slowly again my impression is: This is not a conspiracy theory. It is very carefully and lucidly written, with so many details, each of which can be refuted. How does he know about all the meetings between the CIA, Sullivan, etc. Why does no one refute individual facts? I think he did have a source who provided all this. If the source lied, tough. Investigative journalism is always a gamble. If mainstream media worked, they'd try to press the government on the myriads of claims presented in Hersh's article. Perhaps this would lead somewhere. But the days when mainstream opposed the U.S. government like in the case of Abu Ghraib are over.
- graedus 4y ago
  Yes, he refers to his source throughout the piece. I believe it's just one anonymous source for the entire thing though.
- _djo_ 4y ago
  > If the source lied, tough. Investigative journalism is always a gamble. That's not how it works. The onus is on the journalist and the editors to ensure that any source they're relying on is credible, in a position to know what they're claiming, and not playing you. That's why most will insist on dual-sourcing any particularly sensational claims unless they really trust the source. In the past journalists have been fired for relying on non-credible sources, most recently James LaPorta, so this is no small thing. If Sy Hersh is not verifying anything about the source he's relying on, he's just being a transcriber not a journalist.
dathinab 4y ago
Pretty much any country bordering the baltic sea + US + China + Ukrain have groups which a) have interest in it being destroyed b) have the capabilities to do so.
- lambdasquirrel 4y ago
  I don’t reckon that the leaks are accidental either. The Biden Administration waited until the tide of public opinion turned further against Russia. They waited until the rest of the West had committed MBTs to Ukraine before allowing this to be leaked. There’s a message being sent here.
  - _djo_ 4y ago
    You're saying the US government is leaking a message to Sy Hersh, of all people, for him to publish on his Substack? That strains credibility quite extraordinarily.
  - dathinab 4y ago
    I don't think so. Assuming this is an blog from Sy Hersh and it's not made up by Sy Hersh and it's not made up by the person Sy Hersh interviewed (all of which might be possible and can't be easily claimed to be unlikely (or likely)): The US still doesn't need to send a message now and it's still not profitable for them for the article to go public now. More likely is that both Sy Hersh and the informant didn't want to risk it before. E.g. due to fear of personal consequences or due to fear of causing political consequences in ways they don't want to cause. Wrt. the the normal citizens in the EU the US doesn't need to send a message, nor would it be received. Wrt. politicians messages already have been send clear enough.
elif 4y ago
It's certainly a better story than the one told by Washington, of an unknown coincidental accident with unknown actors. I would be surprised if anyone outside the US media sphere even gives that implausible happenstance a serious consideration.
HillRat 4y ago
And one should be skeptical of a single source who somehow knows the entire story, from White House deliberations to technical details; all the more so when it's a supposed secret squirrel story that allegedly was hidden from Congressional oversight on a technicality. The fact is, Hersh has gotten deeper and deeper into the conspiracy-theory weeds over the past few decades, with his most recent work tending towards outright disinformation -- from suggesting al-Qa'ida wasn't behind the 9/11 attacks, to whitewashing Syrian chemical attacks (and Ted Postol makes a cameo appearance in this piece as well), to denying Russian involvement in the Skripal poisoning, to being one of the motive forces behind the Seth Rich conspiracy theories. Increasingly it seems that he doesn't even care about the credibility of his "sources."
neycoda 4y ago
If there's a reasonable motive, a reasonable story makes a reasonable connection.
coryfklein 4y ago
Perhaps some folks care very much that it was the US that executed the plan instead of Sweden or the UK or some other country, but for me you could swap out all the names of entities in the reporting and it would still be very interesting reading. For me, I take the story as, "this is a plausible explanation for how a modern nation state plans and executes targeted subterfuge as part of a web of global politics". It's not entirely fiction such as, "And then Biden sacrificed a peahen, waved his magic wand, and spoke the incantation and the pipeline exploded!" The events, organizations, equipment, and strategy described in the document is all real-life stuff!
berniedurfee 4y ago
I agree, very well written and full of detail, but with no shred of evidence, it’s just a theory. The credibility of the author should never be taken for granted, especially with stories of this sensitive nature. The veracity also depends on an anonymous source, which will likely never be revealed nor verified or verifiable. I think the danger here is that many people will take the author’s credibility for granted and will be influenced to take some action based on their belief. I guess that’s okay, but it feels like people ought to come to the conclusion that this is nothing more than an interesting theory, then move on.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  He’s protecting his source. You can think what you want, but the circumstantial evidence that supports the assertions is voluminous. And it certainly makes more sense than any of the other “theories”, especially the absurd idea that Russia blew up its own pipeline.
  - berniedurfee 4y ago
    That’s my point though. Voluminous circumstantial evidence is still just that, circumstantial. The most likely theory is still just that, a theory. With great credibility comes great responsibility. Many people will read this and other stories as fact. It’s been an issue since the dawn of man, but with the reach a single voice has today, it has far more impact. I had read a comment on HN once that said a course on critical thinking ought to be mandatory in school. I agree with that more and more. I also think an author with this degree of influence ought to include a disclaimer reminding people to think critically about what is the truth and what could be the truth. A warning before using these words in anger would be the right thing to do.
    - miguelazo 4y ago
      Critical thinking would make one far more skeptical of a government that has lied repeatedly to its own people about every armed conflict, foreign policy intrigue, etc., rather than doubt a legendary journalist who has repeatedly exposed that government’s lies and has provided enough operational detail to make a very convincing case. I don’th think we should accept anything at face value, but weighing the credibility of the two parties and the evidence provided, it’s pretty easy to determine which story is closest to the truth.
graderjs 4y ago
Top comment of course is reassuring nothing-to-see-here platitude, definitively framing this thoroughly-sourced investigation by a Pulitzer winner (whatever that means) as a harmless entertaining fabrication (mad props to the mmastrac, it's quite a skill to deftly dismiss and trivialize months of work with two sentences)...aahhhh, so reassured....because we want to be "soothed and comforted, not challenged and confronted" and anything against the mainstream narrative and Chinese-spy-balloon-distraction is clearly "not anchored in reality". SMH...expect more from you HN.

LarryMullins 4y ago

It'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 ago
Does 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 ago
  It claims that the info came from someone "with direct knowledge of the operational planning"
  - AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
    And it includes direct quotes from that person in the last paragraphs. It was clearly someone Hersh spoke to directly. While I am extraordinarily distrustful of news reports using anonymous sources you do have to consider the author here. Ultimately we are deciding if we trust him and, for me personally, he lends a lot of credibility. The other side of this is, duh, of course America blew up the pipeline. I said at 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.
    - ravi-delia 4y ago
      When it happened it was clear that the US, Russia, and Poland were likely the only suspects, except they're all really weird! The US absolutely has not made return on investment, which was obviously going to happen because shipping it over is much more expensive than the pipeline, and in the meantime Biden has to deal with increased gas prices. His incentives go the other way on this. But why the fuck would Russia do it? Poland is like...there, which is why they're worth a mention, but they don't have the same operational capacity and also do not benefit from it at all. But I mean come on, we know it was sabotaged deliberately. Such a weird thing
      - somat 4y ago
        Ukraine? I am not sure if they have the means, but they have the motive, the nord stream pipelines bypass the Ukraine pipeline. My knowledge on this is very, very sketchy, but my understanding is the there is still a large amount of Russian gas transiting the Ukraine pipelines, Europe needs the gas so they buy it, Ukraine needs the transit money to defend against Russia so they keep the operation running. and Russia needs the gas money to attack Ukraine so they keep the operation running. Honestly if true it is one of the weirdest situations I have ever heard about in the middle of a war. I deliberately used an RT link because it is probably full of Russian propaganda and yet says basically the same thing as other articles. I originally learned about it via the Perun youtube channel(the best place to start if you want actual information not propaganda) but am unable to find the episode where it is mentioned. https://www.rt.com/business/570805-russia-ukraine-eu-gas-transit-soars/ https://www.rt.com/business/570805-russia-ukraine-eu-gas-tra...
      - peppermint_gum 4y ago
        > But why the fuck would Russia do it? Why do so many people act as if it's so unlikely that Russia did it? They had the least to lose, their relations with the west were already ruined at that point and such an incident couldn't make them any worse. What would be their motive? Before the explosion, Russia had illegally shut down the pipeline. Now that the pipeline has exploded, they have plausible deniability and they can say it's not their fault the gas isn't flowing. Because of that, they won't have to pay additional fines when the economic relations with the west are restored. And don't forget that one pipe of NS2 was left intact and, unlike NS1, there was no contractual obligation to pump gas through it.
- apnew 4y ago
  > Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning. The third paragraph in the article.
  - ajross 4y ago
    FWIW, that doesn't really even make sense. If you had direct knowledge only of the planning, then what's the source for the execution? I don't think anyone would be surprised that there was a plan for doing this. The US plans lots of stuff. Why did "planning" even appear in that sentence? Why not "a source with direct knowledge of the operation"? Again, there's a huge weasel word right there in the only sourcing for the whole article. That just... yikes. Maybe it's a typo. Maybe it's something an editor could have cleaned up. But maybe it's also the sort of thing Hersh's editors simply threw out as unpublishable, which is why it's an uneditted substack blog.
    - newsclues 4y ago
      Someone plans to blow something up. And then it blows up. Makes a lot of sense to connect the dots given that it's a covert activity. Often planning is done by senior members, who get out of the military more frequently (especially recently) and the younger people who are operational stay quiet. The people who were on the operation, aren't going to talk right now, because they are still operating and aren't ready to spill the beans and write a book/movie script.
      - ajross 4y ago
        > Makes a lot of sense to connect the dots given that it's a covert activity. "Makes a lot of sense" is hardly the standard for legitimate journalism though. Did it happen or not? How do you know? Does your source know that it happened or just that it was planned? Do you make that clear? Hersh really does not.
strangattractor 4y ago
Most News outlets prefer to have more than one source of info. For the life of me I cannot see how this would be a net plus benefit to the US. The potential to destabilize our allies seems likely. If they find out it is true - some of them would be at minimum very pissed.
beebmam 4y ago
Well yeah, I think Seymour Hersh's reputation is relevant. He's pretty much a conspiracy theorist in this era.[1] Including his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Criticism_and_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Criticism_and_co...
- GAN_Game 4y ago
  > his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden You give a link but it is nowhere in that link. I watched an interview where Hersh talked about how the US killed bin Laden. Hersh has always said this. Hersh did do reporting that countered parts of the US government story about bin Laden. Namely the idea no high Pakistani army/intelligence/government official knew where bin Laden was in Pakistan. As well as some other things. The conspiracy theory is believing bin Laden sat in a big compound in Abbottabad with no one important in the Pakistani government knowing this. I guess the US government feels it needs to state this for some diplomatic reason, but it is ludicrous.
  - beebmam 4y ago
    Seymour Hersh regarding the Osama bin Laden raid, in which the terrorist leader was killed in 2011: "Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true". Later on in 2013, he changed his claim, such that he admitted some of the story is true, that is, that the terrorist leader was killed, after he encountered pushback. Source: https://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/hersh-slams-us-media-claims-bin-laden-narrative-is-not-true/ https://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/hersh-slams-us-media-clai...
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      That quote doesn't say that the US didn't kill Bin Laden. You're implying that by adding an unnecessary parenthetical "in which the terrorist leader was killed in 2011." There's nothing simpler and better for your case than typing the quote where he said the thing you say he said. Otherwise, you're actively spreading misinformation on social media, and intentionally using rhetorical games to obscure the lack of evidence you're offering to support it. That's conscious spreading of misinformation.
AlbertCory 4y ago
> Seymour Hersh's reputation Is this satire or what? His reputation is "as a nutcase" nowadays. Most reputable editors, when given a secret-sources story, either reject it outright, or say "OK, tell me their names and let me talk to them." If you're Hersh, maybe you get away with saying, "trust me."
- garbagecoder 4y ago
  That’s why he’s useful. Enough people associate his name with his wins and either don’t know he’s lost his mind or think it’s just the usual hit pieces. But either he’s being fed this by someone with an agenda or he shares that agenda. Conspiracy thinking ironically always includes blind credulity, just of other things.

vanviegen 4y ago

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

hef19898 4y ago
You can easily imagine any of the Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine (with some local help) or even Finland, Swede or Norway doing the deed. Or, since the pipelines are well known and not difficult to reach, basically everyone with access to explosives, a boat a divers with explosives skills. None of which is particularly hard to come by.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  At that moment in the war, even Putin had a lot of strong motivations -- lock out the option of bringing Nord Stream back online and close to door on de-escalation. As a side-benefit, the possibility of driving a wedge into NATO. I also found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713402 interesting. Who knows.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Well, someone did it. If somebody knows who, they are not telling. Without sources, everything is specilation at best, consiracy theory BS or propaganda at worst. Personally, I don't even believe half of what is reported with connection to the war in Ukraine.
    - thwayunion 4y ago
      Agreed. One of those situations where everyone wants to blame everyone else for a "terrible" thing that happened, but at the same time don't really GAF because all sides were okay with finalizing a clean break between Europe and Russia for a variety of domestic and IR reasons anyways.

thwayunion 4y ago

> 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. I'd bet my last dollar that at least four nations had "blow up Nord Stream to force continued conflict" contingency plans. Who did it? Germany, Russia, USA, Ukraine, or a curve ball from the one of the Nordic or Baltic states? We'll probably never know, and none of those answers would surprise me.

hef19898 4y ago
Considering that a lot people came out after the pipeline was blown up, people with the necessary training and experience, saying that it was not a particularly difficult job, it might even have been some rogues having a fun fishing trip. Besides motive, this article doesn't provide anything new. And that the US had at least motive is established fact since basically the day of the explosion.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  There's probably thousands of scuba divers are trained in cold water diving to 300ft/100m depths. That is deep technical diving, but not crazy or stupid deep.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    (Although it would probably be easier these days to use a pipe bomb and a COTS underwater tethered drone -- depending on what bits of physical evidence you were comfortable leaving behind you could just blow the drone up with it too -- the "hardest" part would probably be dodging the coast guard on the surface)
linkjuice4all 4y ago
Why just those countries? Surely some countries in the middle east would be interested in opening and supplying petro products to a new market. What about China? Maybe they're interested in division and weakening their nearest neighbor so they could buy up all the gas? There are too many players with varying interests at different levels to just go off of someone's reputation and an unnamed source. Perhaps Biden or some other head of state needs to come along and blow up this thread so that moderators and commenters alike have to find other outlets for the water they're carrying.

rsync 4y ago

"You could probably write a similar one with Russia ..." I disagree - there is no credible motive here for Russia and, in fact, the outcome was directly opposed to every outcome they are, or were trying, to achieve. Not only do I, as a US citizen, believe that the US perpetrated this act but further: I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most economically. EU states are now buying US natural gas like we always wanted them to. How much pain and suffering were we willing to inflict to make that happen ?

mmastrac 4y ago
There are plenty of credible motives for Russia to do this (some even listed in this thread), but they are all just as weakly supported as this theory.
- jeltz 4y ago
  Yup, there are a lot of motives for many countries but there is no smoking gun or obvious candidate. Too many people potentially benefited from this.
- coffeebeqn 4y ago
  Just mistrust and finger pointing among the western alliance is one. Turns out everyone wanted it gone- except maybe a few Russian assets like Orban
foota 4y ago
I remember reading at the time that the motive would have been to remove the oligarch's desire to end the war. If you can't sell the gas anyway, then you can't complain about it. Seeing as Russia was already using gas supplies as a political tool, it doesn't seem too far fetched.
LarryMullins 4y ago
> I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most economically. In the scenario where America did it, I think there is a strong argument to be made that it was in the long-term interests of EU citizens, despite causing them some short-term discomfort. They never should have started this pipeline project in the first place, buying energy from Russia made the EU weak. Breaking that relationship permanently will make the EU stronger.

outside1234 4y ago

A single unnamed source also makes this extremely susceptible to being a Russian plant or asset or "influenced".

sampo 4y ago

> It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing. That's why there were several explosions: Everyone was blowing it up at the same time, unbeknownst of each other's plans.

hef19898 4y ago
Just imagine the debriefing questions: Why did you guys blow up the wrong pipeline, and two hours before schedule????
IIAOPSW 4y ago
Semi related darkly humorous daydream: what are the odds of two unrelated school shooters at the same school on the same day?
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  Was it in Illuminatus where there were 3 independent shooters trying to assassinate Kennedy at the same time?
spacechild1 4y ago
Just like the JFK assassination in "Illuminatus!" :-)

somethoughts 4y ago

It does seem like the title could use a "might have" as in "How America might have taken out the Nord Stream pipeline."

mc32 4y ago
rings of... Orenthal Simpson "If I did it"

drewda 4y ago

Seymour Hersh has decades of credibility from reporting the My Lai Massacre to the abuses at Abu Graib. But he does often rely on sources who remain anonymous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous... I did find it interesting in that Wikipedia article to read that The New Yorker's editor insists on knowing the identify of all of the anonymous sources that Hersh has used when his reporting is published in that magazine. That suggests to me that while Hersh can probably be generally trusted, his work is of a higher quality when it's published in an outlet like The New Yorker, as the editor-in-chief and other staff submit it to a more rigorous internal discussion. That's in comparison to probably no internal review or discussion by Substack.

btown 4y ago
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... goes over how his more recent work verges on conspiracy theory. That even that inconsistent Bin Laden story purportedly relied on two distinct sources, and yet his Nord Stream story purportedly relies on only a single anonymous source, should be a significant red flag here. I have no reason to doubt that Hersh heard the quotes in his Nord Stream story from at least someone in government, but that source's motivations and truthfulness were not independently verified even, by his own admission, by Hersh. And that's just... not credible reporting.
- ccn0p 4y ago
  [flagged]
- fsckboy 4y ago
  > were not independently verified even, by his own admission, by Hersh. And that's just... not credible reporting since by his own admission, [what you said], that is credible reporting. it might not be a credible source or story
  - evrydayhustling 4y ago

avgcorrection 4y ago

You’re free to not believe his anonymous source, but this vapid “Tom Clancy” nonsense is uncalled for given that you have no counter-arguments whatsoever.

nibbleshifter 4y ago
He is a nutcase, and cites another well known crank - Postol. Its amazing fanfic.

redeeman 4y ago

> The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story. we can also choose to ignore the american material movements in the area at more or less the exact time. Coincidence im sure, after all, the good old uncle sam is an ally to europe and would NEVER do anything against citizens of other countries

klrtwm 4y ago

Initially I had the same reaction. After reading the piece slowly again my impression is: This is not a conspiracy theory. It is very carefully and lucidly written, with so many details, each of which can be refuted. How does he know about all the meetings between the CIA, Sullivan, etc. Why does no one refute individual facts? I think he did have a source who provided all this. If the source lied, tough. Investigative journalism is always a gamble. If mainstream media worked, they'd try to press the government on the myriads of claims presented in Hersh's article. Perhaps this would lead somewhere. But the days when mainstream opposed the U.S. government like in the case of Abu Ghraib are over.

graedus 4y ago
Yes, he refers to his source throughout the piece. I believe it's just one anonymous source for the entire thing though.
_djo_ 4y ago
> If the source lied, tough. Investigative journalism is always a gamble. That's not how it works. The onus is on the journalist and the editors to ensure that any source they're relying on is credible, in a position to know what they're claiming, and not playing you. That's why most will insist on dual-sourcing any particularly sensational claims unless they really trust the source. In the past journalists have been fired for relying on non-credible sources, most recently James LaPorta, so this is no small thing. If Sy Hersh is not verifying anything about the source he's relying on, he's just being a transcriber not a journalist.

dathinab 4y ago

Pretty much any country bordering the baltic sea + US + China + Ukrain have groups which a) have interest in it being destroyed b) have the capabilities to do so.

lambdasquirrel 4y ago
I don’t reckon that the leaks are accidental either. The Biden Administration waited until the tide of public opinion turned further against Russia. They waited until the rest of the West had committed MBTs to Ukraine before allowing this to be leaked. There’s a message being sent here.
- _djo_ 4y ago
  You're saying the US government is leaking a message to Sy Hersh, of all people, for him to publish on his Substack? That strains credibility quite extraordinarily.
- dathinab 4y ago
  I don't think so. Assuming this is an blog from Sy Hersh and it's not made up by Sy Hersh and it's not made up by the person Sy Hersh interviewed (all of which might be possible and can't be easily claimed to be unlikely (or likely)): The US still doesn't need to send a message now and it's still not profitable for them for the article to go public now. More likely is that both Sy Hersh and the informant didn't want to risk it before. E.g. due to fear of personal consequences or due to fear of causing political consequences in ways they don't want to cause. Wrt. the the normal citizens in the EU the US doesn't need to send a message, nor would it be received. Wrt. politicians messages already have been send clear enough.

elif 4y ago

It's certainly a better story than the one told by Washington, of an unknown coincidental accident with unknown actors. I would be surprised if anyone outside the US media sphere even gives that implausible happenstance a serious consideration.

HillRat 4y ago

And one should be skeptical of a single source who somehow knows the entire story, from White House deliberations to technical details; all the more so when it's a supposed secret squirrel story that allegedly was hidden from Congressional oversight on a technicality. The fact is, Hersh has gotten deeper and deeper into the conspiracy-theory weeds over the past few decades, with his most recent work tending towards outright disinformation -- from suggesting al-Qa'ida wasn't behind the 9/11 attacks, to whitewashing Syrian chemical attacks (and Ted Postol makes a cameo appearance in this piece as well), to denying Russian involvement in the Skripal poisoning, to being one of the motive forces behind the Seth Rich conspiracy theories. Increasingly it seems that he doesn't even care about the credibility of his "sources."

neycoda 4y ago

If there's a reasonable motive, a reasonable story makes a reasonable connection.

coryfklein 4y ago

Perhaps some folks care very much that it was the US that executed the plan instead of Sweden or the UK or some other country, but for me you could swap out all the names of entities in the reporting and it would still be very interesting reading. For me, I take the story as, "this is a plausible explanation for how a modern nation state plans and executes targeted subterfuge as part of a web of global politics". It's not entirely fiction such as, "And then Biden sacrificed a peahen, waved his magic wand, and spoke the incantation and the pipeline exploded!" The events, organizations, equipment, and strategy described in the document is all real-life stuff!

berniedurfee 4y ago

I agree, very well written and full of detail, but with no shred of evidence, it’s just a theory. The credibility of the author should never be taken for granted, especially with stories of this sensitive nature. The veracity also depends on an anonymous source, which will likely never be revealed nor verified or verifiable. I think the danger here is that many people will take the author’s credibility for granted and will be influenced to take some action based on their belief. I guess that’s okay, but it feels like people ought to come to the conclusion that this is nothing more than an interesting theory, then move on.

miguelazo 4y ago
He’s protecting his source. You can think what you want, but the circumstantial evidence that supports the assertions is voluminous. And it certainly makes more sense than any of the other “theories”, especially the absurd idea that Russia blew up its own pipeline.
- berniedurfee 4y ago
  That’s my point though. Voluminous circumstantial evidence is still just that, circumstantial. The most likely theory is still just that, a theory. With great credibility comes great responsibility. Many people will read this and other stories as fact. It’s been an issue since the dawn of man, but with the reach a single voice has today, it has far more impact. I had read a comment on HN once that said a course on critical thinking ought to be mandatory in school. I agree with that more and more. I also think an author with this degree of influence ought to include a disclaimer reminding people to think critically about what is the truth and what could be the truth. A warning before using these words in anger would be the right thing to do.
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    Critical thinking would make one far more skeptical of a government that has lied repeatedly to its own people about every armed conflict, foreign policy intrigue, etc., rather than doubt a legendary journalist who has repeatedly exposed that government’s lies and has provided enough operational detail to make a very convincing case. I don’th think we should accept anything at face value, but weighing the credibility of the two parties and the evidence provided, it’s pretty easy to determine which story is closest to the truth.

graderjs 4y ago

Top comment of course is reassuring nothing-to-see-here platitude, definitively framing this thoroughly-sourced investigation by a Pulitzer winner (whatever that means) as a harmless entertaining fabrication (mad props to the mmastrac, it's quite a skill to deftly dismiss and trivialize months of work with two sentences)...aahhhh, so reassured....because we want to be "soothed and comforted, not challenged and confronted" and anything against the mainstream narrative and Chinese-spy-balloon-distraction is clearly "not anchored in reality". SMH...expect more from you HN.