←back to thread

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

(seymourhersh.substack.com)
688 points hunglee2 | 9 comments | 08 Feb 23 12:50 UTC | HN request time: 1.239s | source | bottom
Show context
syzarian ◴[08 Feb 23 13:07 UTC] No.34707465[source]▶
Seymour doesn’t provide any proof or any evidence. It’s argument by assertion. What he writes is plausible but without any sources or other corroborating evidence. I think it more believable that Seymour has been paid to write this by a Russian aligned entity.

I don’t know the truth of the matter and Seymour could be right. We just can’t tell from the evidence provided.

replies(9): >>34707570 #>>34708763 #>>34709046 #>>34710161 #>>34712925 #>>34712963 #>>34715214 #>>34715699 #>>34757270 #
mytailorisrich ◴[08 Feb 23 15:08 UTC] No.34709046[source]▶
If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. Of course this is not evidence but this the sort of operation where success means no evidence (at least no evidence available to the public at large as it is possible and, one might hope, likely that neighbouring countries know).
replies(5): >>34709242 #>>34709265 #>>34712642 #>>34712780 #>>34712891 #
partiallypro ◴[08 Feb 23 18:39 UTC] No.34712642[source]▶
> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it.

How so? The pipeline(s) was/were already off, so the US and Norway already had a new customer because of this. If the US risked blowing up the pipeline(s) (which was already not delivering,) it would put NATO in jeopardy which is explicitly against US interests and WAY more valuable than natural gas. The entire theory doesn't even make sense from the standpoint of US needs/wants.

replies(2): >>34712716 #>>34712972 #
1. cpursley ◴[08 Feb 23 18:44 UTC] No.34712716[source]▶
It absolutely does. Blowing up the pipeline took away Russias ability to hold the EU hostage with the energy card.
replies(1): >>34712804 #
2. partiallypro ◴[08 Feb 23 18:49 UTC] No.34712804[source]▶
The pipeline was already not operational. What are you missing? If you think the US had a profit motive (which it seems you are saying this), NATO is much much more profitable than gas which will be diversified over time. So why would they risk the entire NATO alliance for this? Again, the theory makes no sense.
replies(3): >>34712926 #>>34715068 #>>34715945 #
3. cpursley ◴[08 Feb 23 18:57 UTC] No.34712926[source]▶
I didn’t say a thing about US profit motive. I was very clear: Russia can’t blackmail the EU with energy if they don’t have a way to deliver it. Why would they want to lose that leverage (and their billions in investment)?

And EU industry very much depends on low cost gas (chemical manufacturing, vehicle and other industrial manufacturing, greenhouse heating, etc). There’s report after report of vital industrial facilities shuttering due to high gas prices.

replies(2): >>34713054 #>>34713391 #
4. partiallypro ◴[08 Feb 23 19:05 UTC] No.34713054{3}[source]▶
> Russia can’t blackmail the EU with energy if they don’t have a way to deliver it. Why would they want to lose that leverage (and their billions in investment)?

Because the pipeline was already off. The second pipeline was not operational. They already had no leverage.

> And EU industry very much depends on low cost gas (chemical manufacturing, vehicle and other industrial manufacturing, greenhouse heating, etc). There’s report after report of vital industrial facilities shuttering due to high gas.

So, your theory is that the US not only endangered the entire NATO alliance, but also sought to weaken NATO members? Again, how does that make any sense? You also fail to mention that gas prices currently are actually pretty low relative to before this event occurred and Europe never ran out of gas.

replies(2): >>34713595 #>>34714561 #
5. ◴[08 Feb 23 19:23 UTC] No.34713391{3}[source]▶
6. LarryMullins ◴[08 Feb 23 19:34 UTC] No.34713595{4}[source]▶
> Because the pipeline was already off.

There is a substantial difference between the pipeline being off and the pipeline being off the table.

7. pillefitz ◴[08 Feb 23 20:32 UTC] No.34714561{4}[source]▶
Gas prices are low due to American LNG imports. The US have fought entire wars for profit motives and are certainly willing to weaken any country for it, NATO or not.
8. IshKebab ◴[08 Feb 23 21:00 UTC] No.34715068[source]▶
There's a huge difference between "off" and "destroyed".
9. Animatronio ◴[08 Feb 23 21:58 UTC] No.34715945[source]▶
You are missing the very, very obvious fact that NS could have become operational at any point. Taking it out physically means that it's impossible without lengthy and costly repairs. The profit motive is there - diversification (if possible) takes time. Companies can and do take advantage of that.