3 ms·

Some details in Hershs story were weird and made be cautious, but here is some more info that put some of that into new light: "It looks for all the world like

Some details in Hershs story were weird and made be cautious, but here is some more info that put some of that into new light: "It looks for all the world like somebody organised two totally separate operations, involving two separately triggered pipeline attacks, and that Hersh’s source only knows about one of them." https://www.eugyppius.com/p/nord-stream-update-in-lengthy-interview https://www.eugyppius.com/p/nord-stream-update-in-lengthy-in...

EdwardDiego 4y ago
I find that write-up dubious. > The fear, however, was that the bombs wouldn’t work if they stayed in the water too long. This is actually what happened with two of the bombs. Seriously? The world's largest military hasn't developed explosive devices that are sufficiently waterproof? > There were still active explosives on the sea bed as the pipes were leaking their gas, which explains why partially complicit Denmark and Sweden closed the whole area and denied all access, until they themselves had removed everything. This is just silly, and ignores Occam's Razor in order to fit a fact into a pre-determined narrative. Bubbles reduce the density of water, thus potentially reducing buoyancy (in research based around oil rigs and the like, it was found that a large enough leak pushed enough water upwards to compensate, but this wasn't a large leak). Aerated water is a known drowning hazard for workers in water treatment plants for this reason, now add enough gas into the ocean beneath a boat, see what happens. The leakage of residual gas in the pipeline into the water column posed a maritime hazard but sure, it was to remove the faulty bombs, that's why. They could have at least had the decency to mention and then explain away the buoyancy issue, at least insult my intelligence to my face.
- ninjagoo 4y ago
  >> The fear, however, was that the bombs wouldn’t work if they stayed in the water too long. This is actually what happened with two of the bombs. > Seriously? The world's largest military hasn't developed explosive devices that are sufficiently waterproof? The OP might be referring to the triggering mechanism running out of battery and thus unable to receive the triggering signal, rather than to water exposure.
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    Perhaps, but again I'd posit that the world's most advanced military wouldn't mind slapping on a few more batteries, just to be sure.
    - linkjuice4all 4y ago
      Or a drone submarine or some crap like that. The problem with this story is that there are so many ways any capable not-even-super-power could do something like this. There’s also all the 4D chess about Putin keeping his oligarchs trapped since they can’t sell the nation’s largest commodity. Or that’s what insert country with special forces wants you to think. It’s possible Hersh is 100% correct but without anyone else corroborating him we’re just left with speculation.
      - KMag 4y ago
        Right. The most plausible explanation, given the number of Russian petrochemical executives critical of Putin who have died under suspicious circumstances, is that Putin wanted to greatly reduce the incentive of petrochemical oligarchs to stage a coup in order to re-open the pipeline. Putin has shown he's very wary of the petrochemical oligarchs. If removing Putin from power doesn't open Nord Stream back up, then that's one less incentive for the petrochemical oligarchs to move on Putin, at least in the short term. Presumably, Putin also wanted to make threats against the new Norway-Poland Baltic Pipe in a way that kept plausible deniability. He wanted to show he could destroy that pipeline, but without committing an act of war against a Nato member, so instead he blew up an unused pipeline owned by Russia.
        gerikson 4y ago
        This is my theory too. Putin blowing up the pipeline serves a number of purposes: - removes options from a potential opposition within Russia - reminds nations around the Baltic that Russia has undetectable underwater assets - serves to potentially split NATO members (Hersh's story is obviously part of that)

EdwardDiego 4y ago

I find that write-up dubious. > The fear, however, was that the bombs wouldn’t work if they stayed in the water too long. This is actually what happened with two of the bombs. Seriously? The world's largest military hasn't developed explosive devices that are sufficiently waterproof? > There were still active explosives on the sea bed as the pipes were leaking their gas, which explains why partially complicit Denmark and Sweden closed the whole area and denied all access, until they themselves had removed everything. This is just silly, and ignores Occam's Razor in order to fit a fact into a pre-determined narrative. Bubbles reduce the density of water, thus potentially reducing buoyancy (in research based around oil rigs and the like, it was found that a large enough leak pushed enough water upwards to compensate, but this wasn't a large leak). Aerated water is a known drowning hazard for workers in water treatment plants for this reason, now add enough gas into the ocean beneath a boat, see what happens. The leakage of residual gas in the pipeline into the water column posed a maritime hazard but sure, it was to remove the faulty bombs, that's why. They could have at least had the decency to mention and then explain away the buoyancy issue, at least insult my intelligence to my face.

ninjagoo 4y ago
>> The fear, however, was that the bombs wouldn’t work if they stayed in the water too long. This is actually what happened with two of the bombs. > Seriously? The world's largest military hasn't developed explosive devices that are sufficiently waterproof? The OP might be referring to the triggering mechanism running out of battery and thus unable to receive the triggering signal, rather than to water exposure.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  Perhaps, but again I'd posit that the world's most advanced military wouldn't mind slapping on a few more batteries, just to be sure.
  - linkjuice4all 4y ago
    Or a drone submarine or some crap like that. The problem with this story is that there are so many ways any capable not-even-super-power could do something like this. There’s also all the 4D chess about Putin keeping his oligarchs trapped since they can’t sell the nation’s largest commodity. Or that’s what insert country with special forces wants you to think. It’s possible Hersh is 100% correct but without anyone else corroborating him we’re just left with speculation.
    - KMag 4y ago
      Right. The most plausible explanation, given the number of Russian petrochemical executives critical of Putin who have died under suspicious circumstances, is that Putin wanted to greatly reduce the incentive of petrochemical oligarchs to stage a coup in order to re-open the pipeline. Putin has shown he's very wary of the petrochemical oligarchs. If removing Putin from power doesn't open Nord Stream back up, then that's one less incentive for the petrochemical oligarchs to move on Putin, at least in the short term. Presumably, Putin also wanted to make threats against the new Norway-Poland Baltic Pipe in a way that kept plausible deniability. He wanted to show he could destroy that pipeline, but without committing an act of war against a Nato member, so instead he blew up an unused pipeline owned by Russia.
      - gerikson 4y ago
        This is my theory too. Putin blowing up the pipeline serves a number of purposes: - removes options from a potential opposition within Russia - reminds nations around the Baltic that Russia has undetectable underwater assets - serves to potentially split NATO members (Hersh's story is obviously part of that)