10 ms·

Who Blew Up Nord Stream? Investigators Focus on Mysterious Passengers on a Yacht

32 points by ghshephard 4y ago

sschueller 4y ago
https://archive.ph/SOdWR https://archive.ph/SOdWR
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
> Initial suspicions in many European capitals focused on Russia, which denied any involvement. Analysts speculated that only a state with a sophisticated military would have been able to carry out such a complicated, underwater attack. Investigators now, however, are focused on the Andromeda and the six people it carried. German officials who have been briefed on the probe said they were told some of the people who rented the yacht were Ukrainian. Others had Bulgarian passports since determined to be forgeries, they said. It was obvious from the start to any casual unbiased observer that it was unlikely to be Russia. There was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline. It would be akin to shooting the hostage. Russia wanted to hold Western Europe and especially Germany hostage to natural gas and being able to turn it back on was a big part of their negotiating position. Since they already controlled the input to the pipe, blowing up the pipe did nothing to help the Russians.
- rossdavidh 4y ago
  Easy to imagine a motive for Russia, if you don't imagine it as a unitary block. Some inside the wealthy elite want to go back to the pre-war status quo, where they get to make $$$ selling fossil fuels to Europe. By blowing up NordStream, you do something like Viking raiders burning bridges behind them; it tells everyone on your side there's no going back, it's victory or death. If some of Russia's elite think they could be getting $$$ a month after a peace deal, they might be pushing for a quick end by withdrawing back to 2014 (or even 1991) line of control, which might work for them but not for Putin. Now none of this means it actually was Russia, I don't claim to know any better than anyone else. But there was certainly a motive (for some in) Russia to want NordStream out of the way.
  - maxcan 4y ago
    Exactly. If you imagine Russia as a unitary rational actor, it makes no sense to blow up the pipeline since they would have had the optionality to shut it down anytime they wanted without destroying it. However, as part of an internal power structure, it does start to make sense. For example, you could see someone like Prigozhin (sp?) as potentially having a lot to gain from the attack. It would weaken his rivals with ties to the gas industry, and by "shooting the hostage" make Germany more likely to support Ukraine, leading to a longer, more drawn out war which benefits Wagner in all sorts of ways.
- m0llusk 4y ago
  Anders Puck Nielsen has an under 15 minute video with a compelling explanation for why Russia is most likely to have done it despite the obvious downsides. Just to pick some particular details: At this particular time the primary Russian strategy was to push Europe into a cold and dark winter. Pipelines can be rebuilt and that is not especially difficult when you are making big money from extracting and distributing fossil fuels. Even if you disagree with Anders' conclusions I think the points he raises are generally quite interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido
  - heywherelogingo 4y ago
    Hardly needed to blow it up to stop supplying them.
    - coredog64 4y ago
      Plausible deniability on who blew up the pipeline allows invocation of force majeure clauses in delivery contracts.
  - sschueller 4y ago
    But then why not also destroy the land based ones? - There are two that go via Belarus -> Poland -> Germany and Belarus -> Ukraine -> Slovakia -> Czechia -> Germany - Another two through Ukraine -> Slovakia -> Czechia -> Germany and Ukraine -> Romania -> Bulgaria -> Turkey - Then are two in the Black Sea, South Steam and Blue Stream which go to Turkey
    - HPsquared 4y ago
      Nobody ever talks about all those other pipelines.
    - bionade24 4y ago
      Jamal pipeline was closed by Poland early on in the war. Transgaz is probably more secured on the landside and blowing it up would also limit Ukraine's ability to get gas from western europe. There already were times before the invasion where Gas was pumped towards Ukraine. The Black sea isn't a safe space to operate in, obviously.
- Ultcyber 4y ago
  I disagree - they've kept the pipeline closed since mid last year under (probably false) argument that they cannot repair a turbine due to sanctions, which has been denied by the companies that handle the repairs. So blowing up the pipeline would give them a real reason to not reopen it. I'm not saying they did it, but just wanted to counter your argument that "there was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline"
  - bionade24 4y ago
    This is wrong. Yes, they didn't install the turbine even after it was delivered, but for the most time, there was still heavily throttled throughput. Only a week or so before the explosions Putin shut the pipeline entirely.
  - qeternity 4y ago
    I think this presumes that Russia cares what people think. They don't, they only care about what people will do. They could keep the pipeline shut for as long as the wanted on the most ludicrous of claims.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >There was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline. It would be akin to shooting the hostage. Not true, and not the same thing. When you shoot the hostage you now who did it to put the blame in court, this is still unclear who did what. Russia's motive of destroying the pipeline was to legally shut down gas for Europe during the war without incurring any legal aftermath for it. Simply just cutting off the gas would have made Russia legally liable for damages in court later when it will want to resume business in the future after the war. Having the pipeline mysteriously blow up gives Russia plausible deniability for not being able to supply gas to Europe during the war: "You see your honor, we wanted to fulfill our contractual obligation of supplying gas to Europe, but we couldn't because the pipeline was destroyed. Not our fault."
  - throw_pm23 4y ago
    Do you really think this type of legalistic issue must be considered by global actors at this scale? Who is the "your honor" that Russia would need to address?
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      Yes, it does. Gazprom is a company that has a presence in Europe that can be (and was) sanctioned, and if Gazprom wishes to make money in Europe then it needs to comply to whatever "your honor" in Europe will say about any breaches of contract, so it makes sense they try to burn as little bridges as possible and protect Gazprom from any legal liability to ensure future revenues from this market. Gazprom making money from selling gas to one of the world's most lucrative consumers is completely orthogonal to the war Russia started in Ukraine.
- tgv 4y ago
  In principle I agree that it doesn't seem rational, but it could have been signal to Western Europe of the lengths they would go to if the West kept supporting Ukraine. The message would be delivered under cover of diplomacy and supported by blowing up a pipe line for which there was (still) one backup.
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    It's not a very clear signal though, since there is so much debate and uncertainty over who did it.
    - pwinnski 4y ago
      There is debate and uncertainty online. I doubt there's any debate or uncertainty among the heads of state being sent the message.
    - tgv 4y ago
      The Russian ambassador would have communicated it more clearly to e.g. the German chancellor, but we would only find out 50 years from now.
- modo_mario 4y ago
  >It would be akin to shooting the hostage. It was already announced the hostage was going to be shot at that point tho? Germany said they'd call it quits and then did. The company construct behind it was going to go bankrupt.
- MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
  The same people who tried to sell us the idea that Covid didn't come from one of the very few labs worldwide that were performing research on this virus, but instead came from a wet market a few hundreds of meters away are now trying to tell us it wasn't the US that (directly or indirectly) blew up the pipeline. The same people that tried to establish the insane conspiracy theory that Trump got elected due to Russian interference. And the thing is, it works. Propaganda works. HN is not some enlightened community that is immune, you'll get downvoted for fairly obvious conclusions that run counter to the official narrative.
  - MSFT_Edging 4y ago
    Seymour Hersh came out and put together a fairly convincing argument. The guy who was right about checks notes: The My Lai Massacre Watergate Torture at Abu Ghraib Domestic Spying The secret bombing of Cambodia. But then people come out and go "nonono don't look at that, it was definitely these two guys on a yatch". https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...
    - MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
      To be fair he went a bit off the rails in his later years, but he does seem to have a credible source for at least one of the pipeline explosions. Also he is far from the only one offering a convincing line of reasoning, another good thinker on various issues I can recommend is eugyppius.com. Very sharp mind and very well read.
    - pohl 4y ago
      How’d he do on the Novichok poisoning of Sergei Skripal?
    - pwinnski 4y ago
      It is indeed sad how Hersh started out so strongly and went so bizarrely off the rails in his later years. I want to believe it was a natural progression, that having seen the great evils the US was capable of, he start to see US evil everywhere he looked, and was easily taken in by people with a story that appealed to his priors. But I don't know, he so studiously avoids so many things that indicate Russian malfeasance that it's hard not to wonder if its more than just hope the pattern will hold up. The US is as shady as the day is long, and I wouldn't put this past them if it made any sense, but if you know anything outside of Hersh's article, it doesn't. I fully believe the US is doing much shadier stuff elsewhere, but the article doesn't make a good case. https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-challenging-false-narratives-2/ https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-chall...
- alwayseasy 4y ago
  > "It would be akin to shooting the hostage." You mean like Beslan or the Moscow theater hostage crisis? Once you stop treating Russia like a monolith prone to only rational geopolitical moves, suddenly motives are everywhere.
sschueller 4y ago
This article goes a little into it but what I don't generally see in most media is explaining just how hard it is do dive at these depths. It isn't just some random guy that has had some scuba time. The pressure alone for many is too much, then you need special mixture of air, for prolonged work you need re-breathers and a decompression chamber on board the vessel in case of an emergency. I am also wondering how this work was performed without Norway or the US noticing it. Edit: Sorry, I meant Sweden not Norway
- duxup 4y ago
  There was an NPR article that had some quotes about the difficulty in pulling off such an operation successfully. The assumption by investigators was these had to be people with specialized expertise. That would seem to limit the number of people who could pull this off.
  - wvh 4y ago
    But every country probably has some of those people and the equipment needed. So it doesn't really bring us closer to figuring out whodunit.
    - duxup 4y ago
      I think if you had a list of suspects, people in the area… if they could do the thing, you’re probably onto something.
- fabian2k 4y ago
  I can't verify this, but when the story broke in Germany there were some diving experts that claimed that you can dive there in those depths without decompression chambers and that people regularly do that. The entire discussion on what exactly you need to perform this operation has resulted in a whole bunch of contradictory opinions.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Divers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Divers is probably worth a read if you have an interest. Basically it's about a group of hobbyist divers who explored a wreck at around that depth. They were definitely pushing the limits of amateur tech at the time, but I believe they also started using different gas mixes around then. What I don't understand is why divers would even be needed at all. Torpedoes and depth charges are hardly new tech. If you asked me to do it, I'd just find a commodity underwater ROV for the job and strap a big bomb to it. Problem solved. It's one of the asymmetries of warfare that it's a lot easier to destroy stuff than to build it.
tony_cannistra 4y ago
I won't lie, I'm a little envious of whomever secured the undoubtedly very exciting job to plan this whole thing. Every new emergence reads like a scene in a movie. I can imagine the scene where the sailboat pulls up in tiny, unsuspecting Wiek and gets loaded with explosives in the middle of the night.
- rossdavidh 4y ago
  In fact, it reads so much like a scene out of fiction that I am wondering if that's what it really is?
  - yeahsure22 4y ago
    [flagged]
- selivanovp 4y ago
  The recent “revelations” definitely looks like an effort to fool people of how it was really done. Too much Hollywood in it.
rossdavidh 4y ago
I don't know who did it, but I do know one thing: the political angle on this is far too strong for me to trust any intelligence agency's conclusion, whether Germany, Denmark, US, or anyone else. Or, for that matter, and private sector news organization's article. Ten years from now, it might be possible to have an objective, just-the-facts investigation into it, but in the middle of a war and a worldwide economic shockwave from the war, there is far too much politics for me to trust any conclusion.
- ifyoubuildit 4y ago
  This is how I've come to feel about almost everything in the news.
- ccn0p 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - bionade24 4y ago
    Claiming the US is too dumb to trigger those bombs with a digitally encoded signal and has to use an analog one which can be triggered accidentally is straightup ridiculous. Additionally, he states that Stoltenberg is the leader of the NATO, which is wrong, same as that he's a strong Anticommunist and was hating Russia already as prime minister. He actually solved the disputes Norway and Russia had and is member of Norway's socialist party.
    - dagw 4y ago
      Norway's socialist party Stoltenberg was never a member of any of Norway's socialist parties, he was a member of the Norwegian Labour Party.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    Nothing about Hersh's story makes any sense at all. Unfortunately, while Hersh developed a strong reputation decades ago, that story reads like Russian propaganda. Embarrassingly so[0]. Not saying the US didn't do it, but that theory makes less sense than any of a few other actors. 0. https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-challenging-false-narratives-2/ https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-chall...
VulgarExigency 4y ago
[flagged]
- Quarrelsome 4y ago
  could be any of the US, Ukraine, Belarus or Russia or even China. They all have vested interests. Furthermore it could even be a resourceful private organisation seeking to have influence on the war.
  - oneshtein 4y ago
    For EU, US, Ukraine, it better to blow up pipeline at Spring or Summer, to have more time for preparation, to avoid price spike. For RF, and other natural gas producers or holders, it better to blow up pipeline at winter, to raise prices.
    - Quarrelsome 4y ago
      I don't think its easy to categorically state it isn't anyone, everyone had a vested interest within each nation and each nation is so large it has many competing interests making it hard to call in any direction, especially if you consider the potential for private interest groups. The action prevented gas shipments to the EU so it could have been used as an excuse by Russia to weaponise gas supply. While blowing up the pipe seems a little extreme compared to any other action it was within the context of several 'maintenance issues' in the preceding months that prevented the EU from stocking up for the winter, so gave Russia more plausible deniability. It could be the US, Ukraine or any private organisation within Ukraine or the EU seeking to force EU governments to no longer pay Russia for their gas. It could even (4D chess time) be China realising that the loss of EU funds would result in much better negotiations with Russia for its natural resources.
      - vogre 4y ago
        > The action prevented gas shipments to the EU so it could have been used as an excuse by Russia to weaponise gas supply Russia is increasing LNG gas supply after this pipeline break. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/russia-boosts-lng-exports-europe-by-20-2022-refinitiv-2023-01-31/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/russia-boosts-ln... The profit from EU gas market actually covers any possible costs of any EU involvement in Ukrainian crysis, except maybe nuclear strike by France.
realworldperson 4y ago
[dead]
motohagiography 4y ago
What was doubtful about the Hersh article?
- pwinnski 4y ago
  Most things, but mostly by omission. For some examples: https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-challenging-false-narratives-2/ https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-chall...
  - motohagiography 4y ago
    That article is persistent criticism, but it only dilutes aruguments instead of showing counter evidence. The arguments reduce to, "it's complicated, we're on your team, he's just wrong, trust us."
whatever1 4y ago
The obvious answer is that the one who did it was expecting to benefit from it. The thing is that at that point almost everyone would benefit from it (maybe everyone except Europeans). Russia because they could put pressure on Europe by cutting gas supply during winter, US because they wanted to convert Europe to LNG and put pressure on the gas revenues of Russia. So my conclusion is that an international task force did it lol
- charlysisto 4y ago
  > Russia because they could put pressure on Europe. That doesn't really hold because they could just turn off the tap
  - whatever1 4y ago
    Not without contractual ramifications.
    - charlysisto 4y ago
      You have a point but that would mean Russia cares about contractual ramifications - not sure about that ! On the other hand blowing up the pipe means giving up on : 1. blackmailing the europeans if they don't comply to some demands. 2. A huge revenue - because BTW there's no way it can be repaired. So I don't think contractual ramifications weighs much in that context
      - whatever1 4y ago
        Both points are fair, not sure how Putin is thinking. But from historical perspective, the one thing that outlives wars, is Debt and Contracts. Specially if they are owned by the winner.
    - jacknews 4y ago
      lol, seriously? They can just tear up the contract, what's everyone going to do, there's a war on. In any case, Russia could 'turn the gas off' by having 'irrepairable turbine failures' or various other technicalities.
freitzkriesler2 4y ago
I really don't know why this is a question at this point because it's obvious that it was a NATO country at America's behest.
diimdeep 4y ago
[flagged]
- JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago
  And Radio War Nerd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLpGH0BpOnk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLpGH0BpOnk
  - diimdeep 4y ago
    This is a very good podcast with articulate critiques of popular politics and mass media narrative, and interestingly it is Seymour first interview after publication. I also enjoyed their last podcast episode on what is happening in Georgia, seams insightful and with trustworthy guest. @dang might there be a reason of why my earlier comment is flagged?
alienicecream 4y ago
How does a small group of terrorists that's not anyone's radar even get this much explosive and how are they able to transport it through Europe without anyone noticing?
vogre 4y ago
This version is very convenient. If Russia loses the war then it was false flag attack by Russia. Russia will pay. If Ukraine loses the war, then it is terrorist nazi state, who fooled Western governments and blew up German Infrastructure. Ukraine will pay. Either way it's not US elites blowing up they allies' infrastructure to capture EU gas market and to increase dependence of EU from US.

32 points by ghshephard 4y ago

https://archive.ph/SOdWR https://archive.ph/SOdWR

> Initial suspicions in many European capitals focused on Russia, which denied any involvement. Analysts speculated that only a state with a sophisticated military would have been able to carry out such a complicated, underwater attack. Investigators now, however, are focused on the Andromeda and the six people it carried. German officials who have been briefed on the probe said they were told some of the people who rented the yacht were Ukrainian. Others had Bulgarian passports since determined to be forgeries, they said. It was obvious from the start to any casual unbiased observer that it was unlikely to be Russia. There was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline. It would be akin to shooting the hostage. Russia wanted to hold Western Europe and especially Germany hostage to natural gas and being able to turn it back on was a big part of their negotiating position. Since they already controlled the input to the pipe, blowing up the pipe did nothing to help the Russians.

rossdavidh 4y ago
Easy to imagine a motive for Russia, if you don't imagine it as a unitary block. Some inside the wealthy elite want to go back to the pre-war status quo, where they get to make $$$ selling fossil fuels to Europe. By blowing up NordStream, you do something like Viking raiders burning bridges behind them; it tells everyone on your side there's no going back, it's victory or death. If some of Russia's elite think they could be getting $$$ a month after a peace deal, they might be pushing for a quick end by withdrawing back to 2014 (or even 1991) line of control, which might work for them but not for Putin. Now none of this means it actually was Russia, I don't claim to know any better than anyone else. But there was certainly a motive (for some in) Russia to want NordStream out of the way.
- maxcan 4y ago
  Exactly. If you imagine Russia as a unitary rational actor, it makes no sense to blow up the pipeline since they would have had the optionality to shut it down anytime they wanted without destroying it. However, as part of an internal power structure, it does start to make sense. For example, you could see someone like Prigozhin (sp?) as potentially having a lot to gain from the attack. It would weaken his rivals with ties to the gas industry, and by "shooting the hostage" make Germany more likely to support Ukraine, leading to a longer, more drawn out war which benefits Wagner in all sorts of ways.
m0llusk 4y ago
Anders Puck Nielsen has an under 15 minute video with a compelling explanation for why Russia is most likely to have done it despite the obvious downsides. Just to pick some particular details: At this particular time the primary Russian strategy was to push Europe into a cold and dark winter. Pipelines can be rebuilt and that is not especially difficult when you are making big money from extracting and distributing fossil fuels. Even if you disagree with Anders' conclusions I think the points he raises are generally quite interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido
- heywherelogingo 4y ago
  Hardly needed to blow it up to stop supplying them.
  - coredog64 4y ago
    Plausible deniability on who blew up the pipeline allows invocation of force majeure clauses in delivery contracts.
- sschueller 4y ago
  But then why not also destroy the land based ones? - There are two that go via Belarus -> Poland -> Germany and Belarus -> Ukraine -> Slovakia -> Czechia -> Germany - Another two through Ukraine -> Slovakia -> Czechia -> Germany and Ukraine -> Romania -> Bulgaria -> Turkey - Then are two in the Black Sea, South Steam and Blue Stream which go to Turkey
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    Nobody ever talks about all those other pipelines.
  - bionade24 4y ago
    Jamal pipeline was closed by Poland early on in the war. Transgaz is probably more secured on the landside and blowing it up would also limit Ukraine's ability to get gas from western europe. There already were times before the invasion where Gas was pumped towards Ukraine. The Black sea isn't a safe space to operate in, obviously.
Ultcyber 4y ago
I disagree - they've kept the pipeline closed since mid last year under (probably false) argument that they cannot repair a turbine due to sanctions, which has been denied by the companies that handle the repairs. So blowing up the pipeline would give them a real reason to not reopen it. I'm not saying they did it, but just wanted to counter your argument that "there was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline"
- bionade24 4y ago
  This is wrong. Yes, they didn't install the turbine even after it was delivered, but for the most time, there was still heavily throttled throughput. Only a week or so before the explosions Putin shut the pipeline entirely.
- qeternity 4y ago
  I think this presumes that Russia cares what people think. They don't, they only care about what people will do. They could keep the pipeline shut for as long as the wanted on the most ludicrous of claims.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>There was no motive for Russia to blow up the pipeline. It would be akin to shooting the hostage. Not true, and not the same thing. When you shoot the hostage you now who did it to put the blame in court, this is still unclear who did what. Russia's motive of destroying the pipeline was to legally shut down gas for Europe during the war without incurring any legal aftermath for it. Simply just cutting off the gas would have made Russia legally liable for damages in court later when it will want to resume business in the future after the war. Having the pipeline mysteriously blow up gives Russia plausible deniability for not being able to supply gas to Europe during the war: "You see your honor, we wanted to fulfill our contractual obligation of supplying gas to Europe, but we couldn't because the pipeline was destroyed. Not our fault."
- throw_pm23 4y ago
  Do you really think this type of legalistic issue must be considered by global actors at this scale? Who is the "your honor" that Russia would need to address?
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Yes, it does. Gazprom is a company that has a presence in Europe that can be (and was) sanctioned, and if Gazprom wishes to make money in Europe then it needs to comply to whatever "your honor" in Europe will say about any breaches of contract, so it makes sense they try to burn as little bridges as possible and protect Gazprom from any legal liability to ensure future revenues from this market. Gazprom making money from selling gas to one of the world's most lucrative consumers is completely orthogonal to the war Russia started in Ukraine.
tgv 4y ago
In principle I agree that it doesn't seem rational, but it could have been signal to Western Europe of the lengths they would go to if the West kept supporting Ukraine. The message would be delivered under cover of diplomacy and supported by blowing up a pipe line for which there was (still) one backup.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  It's not a very clear signal though, since there is so much debate and uncertainty over who did it.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    There is debate and uncertainty online. I doubt there's any debate or uncertainty among the heads of state being sent the message.
  - tgv 4y ago
    The Russian ambassador would have communicated it more clearly to e.g. the German chancellor, but we would only find out 50 years from now.
modo_mario 4y ago
>It would be akin to shooting the hostage. It was already announced the hostage was going to be shot at that point tho? Germany said they'd call it quits and then did. The company construct behind it was going to go bankrupt.
MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
The same people who tried to sell us the idea that Covid didn't come from one of the very few labs worldwide that were performing research on this virus, but instead came from a wet market a few hundreds of meters away are now trying to tell us it wasn't the US that (directly or indirectly) blew up the pipeline. The same people that tried to establish the insane conspiracy theory that Trump got elected due to Russian interference. And the thing is, it works. Propaganda works. HN is not some enlightened community that is immune, you'll get downvoted for fairly obvious conclusions that run counter to the official narrative.
- MSFT_Edging 4y ago
  Seymour Hersh came out and put together a fairly convincing argument. The guy who was right about checks notes: The My Lai Massacre Watergate Torture at Abu Ghraib Domestic Spying The secret bombing of Cambodia. But then people come out and go "nonono don't look at that, it was definitely these two guys on a yatch". https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...
  - MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
    To be fair he went a bit off the rails in his later years, but he does seem to have a credible source for at least one of the pipeline explosions. Also he is far from the only one offering a convincing line of reasoning, another good thinker on various issues I can recommend is eugyppius.com. Very sharp mind and very well read.
  - pohl 4y ago
    How’d he do on the Novichok poisoning of Sergei Skripal?
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    It is indeed sad how Hersh started out so strongly and went so bizarrely off the rails in his later years. I want to believe it was a natural progression, that having seen the great evils the US was capable of, he start to see US evil everywhere he looked, and was easily taken in by people with a story that appealed to his priors. But I don't know, he so studiously avoids so many things that indicate Russian malfeasance that it's hard not to wonder if its more than just hope the pattern will hold up. The US is as shady as the day is long, and I wouldn't put this past them if it made any sense, but if you know anything outside of Hersh's article, it doesn't. I fully believe the US is doing much shadier stuff elsewhere, but the article doesn't make a good case. https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-challenging-false-narratives-2/ https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-chall...
alwayseasy 4y ago
> "It would be akin to shooting the hostage." You mean like Beslan or the Moscow theater hostage crisis? Once you stop treating Russia like a monolith prone to only rational geopolitical moves, suddenly motives are everywhere.

sschueller 4y ago

This article goes a little into it but what I don't generally see in most media is explaining just how hard it is do dive at these depths. It isn't just some random guy that has had some scuba time. The pressure alone for many is too much, then you need special mixture of air, for prolonged work you need re-breathers and a decompression chamber on board the vessel in case of an emergency. I am also wondering how this work was performed without Norway or the US noticing it. Edit: Sorry, I meant Sweden not Norway

duxup 4y ago
There was an NPR article that had some quotes about the difficulty in pulling off such an operation successfully. The assumption by investigators was these had to be people with specialized expertise. That would seem to limit the number of people who could pull this off.
- wvh 4y ago
  But every country probably has some of those people and the equipment needed. So it doesn't really bring us closer to figuring out whodunit.
  - duxup 4y ago
    I think if you had a list of suspects, people in the area… if they could do the thing, you’re probably onto something.
fabian2k 4y ago
I can't verify this, but when the story broke in Germany there were some diving experts that claimed that you can dive there in those depths without decompression chambers and that people regularly do that. The entire discussion on what exactly you need to perform this operation has resulted in a whole bunch of contradictory opinions.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Divers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Divers is probably worth a read if you have an interest. Basically it's about a group of hobbyist divers who explored a wreck at around that depth. They were definitely pushing the limits of amateur tech at the time, but I believe they also started using different gas mixes around then. What I don't understand is why divers would even be needed at all. Torpedoes and depth charges are hardly new tech. If you asked me to do it, I'd just find a commodity underwater ROV for the job and strap a big bomb to it. Problem solved. It's one of the asymmetries of warfare that it's a lot easier to destroy stuff than to build it.

tony_cannistra 4y ago

I won't lie, I'm a little envious of whomever secured the undoubtedly very exciting job to plan this whole thing. Every new emergence reads like a scene in a movie. I can imagine the scene where the sailboat pulls up in tiny, unsuspecting Wiek and gets loaded with explosives in the middle of the night.

rossdavidh 4y ago
In fact, it reads so much like a scene out of fiction that I am wondering if that's what it really is?
- yeahsure22 4y ago
  [flagged]
selivanovp 4y ago
The recent “revelations” definitely looks like an effort to fool people of how it was really done. Too much Hollywood in it.

rossdavidh 4y ago

I don't know who did it, but I do know one thing: the political angle on this is far too strong for me to trust any intelligence agency's conclusion, whether Germany, Denmark, US, or anyone else. Or, for that matter, and private sector news organization's article. Ten years from now, it might be possible to have an objective, just-the-facts investigation into it, but in the middle of a war and a worldwide economic shockwave from the war, there is far too much politics for me to trust any conclusion.

ifyoubuildit 4y ago
This is how I've come to feel about almost everything in the news.
ccn0p 4y ago
[flagged]
- bionade24 4y ago
  Claiming the US is too dumb to trigger those bombs with a digitally encoded signal and has to use an analog one which can be triggered accidentally is straightup ridiculous. Additionally, he states that Stoltenberg is the leader of the NATO, which is wrong, same as that he's a strong Anticommunist and was hating Russia already as prime minister. He actually solved the disputes Norway and Russia had and is member of Norway's socialist party.
  - dagw 4y ago
    Norway's socialist party Stoltenberg was never a member of any of Norway's socialist parties, he was a member of the Norwegian Labour Party.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  Nothing about Hersh's story makes any sense at all. Unfortunately, while Hersh developed a strong reputation decades ago, that story reads like Russian propaganda. Embarrassingly so[0]. Not saying the US didn't do it, but that theory makes less sense than any of a few other actors. 0. https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-challenging-false-narratives-2/ https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-chall...

VulgarExigency 4y ago

[flagged]

Quarrelsome 4y ago
could be any of the US, Ukraine, Belarus or Russia or even China. They all have vested interests. Furthermore it could even be a resourceful private organisation seeking to have influence on the war.
- oneshtein 4y ago
  For EU, US, Ukraine, it better to blow up pipeline at Spring or Summer, to have more time for preparation, to avoid price spike. For RF, and other natural gas producers or holders, it better to blow up pipeline at winter, to raise prices.
  - Quarrelsome 4y ago
    I don't think its easy to categorically state it isn't anyone, everyone had a vested interest within each nation and each nation is so large it has many competing interests making it hard to call in any direction, especially if you consider the potential for private interest groups. The action prevented gas shipments to the EU so it could have been used as an excuse by Russia to weaponise gas supply. While blowing up the pipe seems a little extreme compared to any other action it was within the context of several 'maintenance issues' in the preceding months that prevented the EU from stocking up for the winter, so gave Russia more plausible deniability. It could be the US, Ukraine or any private organisation within Ukraine or the EU seeking to force EU governments to no longer pay Russia for their gas. It could even (4D chess time) be China realising that the loss of EU funds would result in much better negotiations with Russia for its natural resources.
    - vogre 4y ago
      > The action prevented gas shipments to the EU so it could have been used as an excuse by Russia to weaponise gas supply Russia is increasing LNG gas supply after this pipeline break. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/russia-boosts-lng-exports-europe-by-20-2022-refinitiv-2023-01-31/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/russia-boosts-ln... The profit from EU gas market actually covers any possible costs of any EU involvement in Ukrainian crysis, except maybe nuclear strike by France.

realworldperson 4y ago

[dead]

motohagiography 4y ago

What was doubtful about the Hersh article?

pwinnski 4y ago
Most things, but mostly by omission. For some examples: https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-challenging-false-narratives-2/ https://newpol.org/the-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions-chall...
- motohagiography 4y ago
  That article is persistent criticism, but it only dilutes aruguments instead of showing counter evidence. The arguments reduce to, "it's complicated, we're on your team, he's just wrong, trust us."

whatever1 4y ago

The obvious answer is that the one who did it was expecting to benefit from it. The thing is that at that point almost everyone would benefit from it (maybe everyone except Europeans). Russia because they could put pressure on Europe by cutting gas supply during winter, US because they wanted to convert Europe to LNG and put pressure on the gas revenues of Russia. So my conclusion is that an international task force did it lol

charlysisto 4y ago
> Russia because they could put pressure on Europe. That doesn't really hold because they could just turn off the tap
- whatever1 4y ago
  Not without contractual ramifications.
  - charlysisto 4y ago
    You have a point but that would mean Russia cares about contractual ramifications - not sure about that ! On the other hand blowing up the pipe means giving up on : 1. blackmailing the europeans if they don't comply to some demands. 2. A huge revenue - because BTW there's no way it can be repaired. So I don't think contractual ramifications weighs much in that context
    - whatever1 4y ago
      Both points are fair, not sure how Putin is thinking. But from historical perspective, the one thing that outlives wars, is Debt and Contracts. Specially if they are owned by the winner.
  - jacknews 4y ago
    lol, seriously? They can just tear up the contract, what's everyone going to do, there's a war on. In any case, Russia could 'turn the gas off' by having 'irrepairable turbine failures' or various other technicalities.

freitzkriesler2 4y ago

I really don't know why this is a question at this point because it's obvious that it was a NATO country at America's behest.

diimdeep 4y ago

[flagged]

JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago
And Radio War Nerd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLpGH0BpOnk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLpGH0BpOnk
- diimdeep 4y ago
  This is a very good podcast with articulate critiques of popular politics and mass media narrative, and interestingly it is Seymour first interview after publication. I also enjoyed their last podcast episode on what is happening in Georgia, seams insightful and with trustworthy guest. @dang might there be a reason of why my earlier comment is flagged?

alienicecream 4y ago

How does a small group of terrorists that's not anyone's radar even get this much explosive and how are they able to transport it through Europe without anyone noticing?

vogre 4y ago

This version is very convenient. If Russia loses the war then it was false flag attack by Russia. Russia will pay. If Ukraine loses the war, then it is terrorist nazi state, who fooled Western governments and blew up German Infrastructure. Ukraine will pay. Either way it's not US elites blowing up they allies' infrastructure to capture EU gas market and to increase dependence of EU from US.