4 ms·

It does seem like what happened is that Hersh got a legitimate source (probably in the US or Norwegian intelligence community) who was willing to talk about an

by ajross 4y ago

It does seem like what happened is that Hersh got a legitimate source (probably in the US or Norwegian intelligence community) who was willing to talk about an existing plan for this kind of operation, and then spun it into a story just declaring that it happened that way. In point of fact probably every major player in the region had a plan like this. Nord Stream 2 was a huge football for everyone with interest. We just don't know who did it. Maybe we never will. But reporting on a plan doesn't tell us much of anything. My own opinion: I think it probably wasn't the US, simply because the Biden folks are being so cautious in so many other ways. I mean, you know this kind of thing will eventually get out. Why blow up a gas line but not sent ATACMS? Just doesn't make strategic sense. If we wanted to roll the dice and push harder there are so many more effective ways to do it. I still think the "Putin did it to silence internal dissent" theory sounds best. Could also be more hawkish European governments trying to keep the Germans from waffling. Edit to note: the fact that the two replies are immediately jumping back into the essentially false[1] "Biden said he would blow up Nord Stream 2" canard in response tells us how uninformative Hersh's story turns out to be. It's not proof of anything. [1] It was a statement in the press conference before the war started about possible consequences and responses. The context was sanctions and international condemnation, literally no one at the time, even the most Russophilic pundits and anti-imperialist tankies, interpreted this as a military threat.

akira2501 4y ago
> simply because the Biden folks are being so cautious in so many other ways. Biden said publicly they were going to "end it." The reporter who asked the question was even baffled and asked how they could make that claim when the pipeline was in foreign territory. Biden further confirmed that we would have a way to do it if needed. If they didn't do it, then that press conference and that answer was exceptionally incautious.
ALittleLight 4y ago
I think it's overwhelmingly obvious that the US, or US-aligned forces, were responsible. It's not clear to me who else even has a motive to do this. US has capable forces in the region at the time, a clear motive (remove the temptation for Germany to use the pipeline). The other possibilities are Russia, they could just turn off the pipeline rather than blow it up, Germany, they could just turn off their end of the pipeline without blowing it up, or... Ukraine, Poland, etc I count as "US-aligned" forces. Then, when you add in that Biden explicitly threatened unilaterally stopping the pipeline, and that threat was subsequently reiterated by the head of the State Department... I have to wonder what evidence would convince people that the US was probably behind the action.
- mopsi 4y ago
  > It's not clear to me who else even has a motive to do this. Putin. Blow up the pipeline so no-one can offer cheap gas in exchange for being recognized as the next legitimate leader of Russia behind his back. It's one of the simplest explanations and falls into the overall pattern. False-flag terrorism[1] is how Putin got into power in the first place. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    What? You could repair the damage to the pipeline. If someone could replace Putin by promising to sell gas to the Germans, the fact that the pipeline is currently damaged would not be an obstacle. It's also not the case that Putin needs false flag terrorism. For one, he is already in power and has already started the war. Two, if he needed an example of US or Ukrainian forces blowing something up to galvanize his position - he has plenty of real world examples of Russian things getting destroyed - he doesn't need to manufacture a new one.
    - mopsi 4y ago
      It was damaged beyond repair, certainly beyond a quick repair. If the plan with gas extortion was to break the will of Europe over this winter, then no alternative to Putin could offer any relief after it was blown up, decreasing the value of backchannel negotiations.
  - pseudo0 4y ago
    Cheap gas or not, the west would welcome any new Russian leader with open arms if they withdrew from Ukraine. That explanation does not seem very compelling at all.
    - chii 4y ago
      The west is not the only party that would have to welcome a new russian leader - the russian oligarchs, as well as people interested in making money selling to the west, needs to be on board. Putin can remove the temptation to overthrow him, and restoring normal relations with the EU (gas pipes included), by blowing it up - something that is currently not being used and serves to short to medium term value for putin. However, blowing it up, but hiding who did it, can sow mistrust in the NATO alliance. He might be betting that the germans would think the americans did it (or at least be suspicious). And if he was found out, russia can claim that they're within their rights to blow up a pipeline that belongs to them (aka, no real bad consequences).
aredox 4y ago
Do you think any US or Norwegian would say that Soltenberg is "the glove that fits America's hand"? (Hat tip to the Grugq for pointing out this weirdness)
pphysch 4y ago
> Why blow up a gas line but not sent ATACMS? Because the strategic goal is is not to militarily defeat Russia, which would probably be impossible, but to drive a hard geopolitical wedge between the EU and the rising Russia-Iran-India-China Eurasian multipolar order, and thereby secure EU dependence on Washington (rather than losing it to the gravitational pull of Eurasia). A limited proxy war, and blowing up economic links between the two, are two ways of achieving that.
- notafraudster 4y ago
  It's not clear to me why Iran is a part of this multipolar order. It's true that the U.S. has backed Saudi Arabia/GCC and more or less taken the Sunni side in the Sunni-Shi'a split, but why is Iran considered an independent world power in the multipolar world but Saudi is not? In the same way, Cuba and Yugoslavia were not powers in a multipolar world in the 1960s just because they stood against a U.S. The hegemony but were nevertheless not explicitly owned by the Soviet Union. The U.S. definitely has an interest in an isolated and weak Russia, but the polarity of this situation is totally unclear. Isolating Russia has already empowered China. It may strengthen the EU and EU-central/eastern European ties, but it may also cause a further loss of influence in Africa and SE Asia for the west. It's definitely possible to make the math shake out for this to be strategically useful for the U.S., but I don't think it's as foregone a conclusion as you expect it is, and for that reason I don't see how this is any more likely an explanation than any contradicting explanation.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    Washington was on track to lose ALL of Eurasia to the inevitable force of China-Russia-led integration. So they opted to carve out the EU.
marcusverus 4y ago
> The context was sanctions and international condemnation, How odd that you would consider her second question--which wasn't directed at Biden--to be the relevant context for Biden's answer, and not the actual question that was posed to Biden! Watch the video.[1] The reporter asks Biden if he's received assurances that Germany will pull the plug on the project if Germany invades (then continues to pose a separate question to Sholz). Biden answered "If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine, again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will put an end to it." Beyond that, his word choice only makes sense as a direct threat on the pipeline. It makes no sense as an oblique threat of sanctions or "international condemnation". > literally no one at the time, even the most Russophilic pundits and anti-imperialist tankies, interpreted this as a military threat. You don't remember headlines like "Biden warns "there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2" if Russia invades Urkaine"?[0] They were everywhere. [0] https://theweek.com/joe-biden/1009898/biden-warns-there-will-be-no-longer-a-nord-stream-2-if-russia-invades-ukraine https://theweek.com/joe-biden/1009898/biden-warns-there-will... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKoPA3M7x2o&t=610s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKoPA3M7x2o&t=610s

by ajross 4y ago

akira2501 4y ago

> simply because the Biden folks are being so cautious in so many other ways. Biden said publicly they were going to "end it." The reporter who asked the question was even baffled and asked how they could make that claim when the pipeline was in foreign territory. Biden further confirmed that we would have a way to do it if needed. If they didn't do it, then that press conference and that answer was exceptionally incautious.

ALittleLight 4y ago

I think it's overwhelmingly obvious that the US, or US-aligned forces, were responsible. It's not clear to me who else even has a motive to do this. US has capable forces in the region at the time, a clear motive (remove the temptation for Germany to use the pipeline). The other possibilities are Russia, they could just turn off the pipeline rather than blow it up, Germany, they could just turn off their end of the pipeline without blowing it up, or... Ukraine, Poland, etc I count as "US-aligned" forces. Then, when you add in that Biden explicitly threatened unilaterally stopping the pipeline, and that threat was subsequently reiterated by the head of the State Department... I have to wonder what evidence would convince people that the US was probably behind the action.

mopsi 4y ago
> It's not clear to me who else even has a motive to do this. Putin. Blow up the pipeline so no-one can offer cheap gas in exchange for being recognized as the next legitimate leader of Russia behind his back. It's one of the simplest explanations and falls into the overall pattern. False-flag terrorism[1] is how Putin got into power in the first place. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  What? You could repair the damage to the pipeline. If someone could replace Putin by promising to sell gas to the Germans, the fact that the pipeline is currently damaged would not be an obstacle. It's also not the case that Putin needs false flag terrorism. For one, he is already in power and has already started the war. Two, if he needed an example of US or Ukrainian forces blowing something up to galvanize his position - he has plenty of real world examples of Russian things getting destroyed - he doesn't need to manufacture a new one.
  - mopsi 4y ago
    It was damaged beyond repair, certainly beyond a quick repair. If the plan with gas extortion was to break the will of Europe over this winter, then no alternative to Putin could offer any relief after it was blown up, decreasing the value of backchannel negotiations.
- pseudo0 4y ago
  Cheap gas or not, the west would welcome any new Russian leader with open arms if they withdrew from Ukraine. That explanation does not seem very compelling at all.
  - chii 4y ago
    The west is not the only party that would have to welcome a new russian leader - the russian oligarchs, as well as people interested in making money selling to the west, needs to be on board. Putin can remove the temptation to overthrow him, and restoring normal relations with the EU (gas pipes included), by blowing it up - something that is currently not being used and serves to short to medium term value for putin. However, blowing it up, but hiding who did it, can sow mistrust in the NATO alliance. He might be betting that the germans would think the americans did it (or at least be suspicious). And if he was found out, russia can claim that they're within their rights to blow up a pipeline that belongs to them (aka, no real bad consequences).

aredox 4y ago

Do you think any US or Norwegian would say that Soltenberg is "the glove that fits America's hand"? (Hat tip to the Grugq for pointing out this weirdness)

pphysch 4y ago

> Why blow up a gas line but not sent ATACMS? Because the strategic goal is is not to militarily defeat Russia, which would probably be impossible, but to drive a hard geopolitical wedge between the EU and the rising Russia-Iran-India-China Eurasian multipolar order, and thereby secure EU dependence on Washington (rather than losing it to the gravitational pull of Eurasia). A limited proxy war, and blowing up economic links between the two, are two ways of achieving that.

notafraudster 4y ago
It's not clear to me why Iran is a part of this multipolar order. It's true that the U.S. has backed Saudi Arabia/GCC and more or less taken the Sunni side in the Sunni-Shi'a split, but why is Iran considered an independent world power in the multipolar world but Saudi is not? In the same way, Cuba and Yugoslavia were not powers in a multipolar world in the 1960s just because they stood against a U.S. The hegemony but were nevertheless not explicitly owned by the Soviet Union. The U.S. definitely has an interest in an isolated and weak Russia, but the polarity of this situation is totally unclear. Isolating Russia has already empowered China. It may strengthen the EU and EU-central/eastern European ties, but it may also cause a further loss of influence in Africa and SE Asia for the west. It's definitely possible to make the math shake out for this to be strategically useful for the U.S., but I don't think it's as foregone a conclusion as you expect it is, and for that reason I don't see how this is any more likely an explanation than any contradicting explanation.
- pphysch 4y ago
  Washington was on track to lose ALL of Eurasia to the inevitable force of China-Russia-led integration. So they opted to carve out the EU.

marcusverus 4y ago

> The context was sanctions and international condemnation, How odd that you would consider her second question--which wasn't directed at Biden--to be the relevant context for Biden's answer, and not the actual question that was posed to Biden! Watch the video.[1] The reporter asks Biden if he's received assurances that Germany will pull the plug on the project if Germany invades (then continues to pose a separate question to Sholz). Biden answered "If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine, again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will put an end to it." Beyond that, his word choice only makes sense as a direct threat on the pipeline. It makes no sense as an oblique threat of sanctions or "international condemnation". > literally no one at the time, even the most Russophilic pundits and anti-imperialist tankies, interpreted this as a military threat. You don't remember headlines like "Biden warns "there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2" if Russia invades Urkaine"?[0] They were everywhere. [0] https://theweek.com/joe-biden/1009898/biden-warns-there-will-be-no-longer-a-nord-stream-2-if-russia-invades-ukraine https://theweek.com/joe-biden/1009898/biden-warns-there-will... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKoPA3M7x2o&t=610s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKoPA3M7x2o&t=610s