←back to thread

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

(seymourhersh.substack.com)
688 points hunglee2 | 4 comments | 08 Feb 23 12:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.023s | source
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 #
dragonwriter ◴[08 Feb 23 15:22 UTC] No.34709265[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.

I disagree.

The most logical explanation is tha Russia did it as a capacity demonstration and threat against Baltic Pipe to pressure contries in the region regarding Ukraine, but that, like all their threats against the West over Ukraine policy so far, the threat was hollow.

replies(4): >>34710195 #>>34712818 #>>34712819 #>>34731175 #
mytailorisrich ◴[08 Feb 23 16:16 UTC] No.34710195[source]▶
The US have been overtly against those pipelines and the close relations between Germany and Russia, including and especially energy dependency. In fact, a major win of the US so far in the Ukraine war has been the Europeans' and especially Germany's shift in gas supplies from Russia to themselves.

Russia destroying their own pipelines (both NS 1 and the new NS 2 were sabotaged) looks like them shooting themselves in both feet at once. Like doing 'capacity demonstration' by nuking the Kremlin... They could, but would that be a likely scenario?

Many, if not most, expert observers strongly suspect the US for a reason.

replies(1): >>34710608 #
syzarian ◴[08 Feb 23 16:39 UTC] No.34710608[source]▶
Germany gets its gas natural gas from Norway now. It would be unlikely that the U.S. would attack the gas supplies of a major NATO ally. Especially when that ally has been less than enthusiastic in helping Ukraine.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/where-does-germany-s...

replies(2): >>34710855 #>>34712916 #
mytailorisrich ◴[08 Feb 23 16:54 UTC] No.34710855[source]▶
They get a lot from Norway because it is near and there are pipelines, but US' LNG exports to the EU are through the roof and will keep growing as things get organised.

Joe talks a lot:

"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 bring an end to it." -- Joe Biden, Feb 2022, with the German's Chancellor standing next to him! [1]

So at the very least the US thought that they indeed had control over that "major NATO ally" and could make thinly veiled threats to their face. Why you think that the US would be above sabotage on a matter of strategic national interests is unclear.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-vladimir...

replies(1): >>34711144 #
syzarian ◴[08 Feb 23 17:10 UTC] No.34711144[source]▶
On February 22, 2022 German Chancellor Scholz suspended certification of Nordstream2 following Russia formally recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk as republics. I believe that, but can’t find a confirming source, that Russia was obligated to make deliveries via Nordstream1 even though it did not have access to SWIFT. By it no longer being operational it was no longer required to make deliveries.

It is inconceivable that Biden made that comment without consulting Germany. Also it was primarily Nordstream1 that was attacked.

Gas prices spiked and it seems likelier that Russia was behind it. At least to me. I don’t know the truth of the matter.

replies(1): >>34712589 #
pphysch ◴[08 Feb 23 18:36 UTC] No.34712589[source]▶
Washington, under Obama, was caught spying directly on Angela Merkel and her government. What leads you to believe that Washington has ever respected Germany, which it occupies with tens of thousands of troops, as a sovereign equal?
replies(3): >>34712957 #>>34712988 #>>34713248 #
syzarian ◴[08 Feb 23 18:59 UTC] No.34712957[source]▶
It requires one to be fairly detached from political reality to describe U.S. military forces in German as an occupation. You lose credibility by saying such a thing. You should reconsider the sources of your information.
replies(1): >>34713112 #
pphysch ◴[08 Feb 23 19:08 UTC] No.34713112[source]▶
On the contrary, it is an objective portrayal of the facts which is not clouded by political smoke and mirrors.

Washington defeated Germany and Japan in the 1940s and proceeded to demilitarize them and occupy them with its own forces. This is historically standard military practice. It is not a "nice gesture" from Washington. It was all part of a coherent strategy to contain and confront the rival USSR, around which Germany and Japan represent critical nodes.

replies(3): >>34713293 #>>34713630 #>>34722279 #
jonnybgood ◴[08 Feb 23 19:17 UTC] No.34713293[source]▶
The US pays Germany to be there. Germany leases the land US military bases are on to the US. For Germany this provides security guarantees as Germany doesn’t want to increase funding to its own military and provides economic booms to the local areas. This is far from an occupation.
replies(1): >>34713567 #
1. pphysch ◴[08 Feb 23 19:32 UTC] No.34713567{3}[source]▶
British Monarchists made the same arguments about royal troops in the soon-to-be United States of America.
replies(1): >>34714494 #
2. vinay427 ◴[08 Feb 23 20:28 UTC] No.34714494[source]▶
British taxation of the colonies (e.g. the Stamp Act and others) was in the opposite direction. The British government was not paying the colonies for its presence in what would become the US.
replies(1): >>34714613 #
3. pphysch ◴[08 Feb 23 20:35 UTC] No.34714613[source]▶
And yet Trump threatened to pull out US troops from Germany because the Germans weren't contributing enough. What did he mean by that?
replies(1): >>34715622 #
4. reducesuffering ◴[08 Feb 23 21:38 UTC] No.34715622{3}[source]▶
Are you listening to yourself? Trump threatened to pull out US troops, which the Germans didn't want. How is it an occupation when Germans are saying "please don't leave." Germans weren't contributing enough is 100% uncontroversially about German contribution to their own military / defense. US wants European countries to spend their own money on their own defense, at least 2% of GDP. Of course EU countries don't want to spend that money if they don't have to, because they're more than comfortable outsourcing it to the US having to spend $ on those countries' defense in the interest of Pax Americana.