“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

If you could you humor me: if he came out saying Russians blew up the pipeline, would you have the same stance?

These tensions have been brewing between NATO (mostly America) and Russia for at least a decade. It's unfortunate that the situation escalated in Ukraine though, which AFAIK is the victim in the scheming and plotting of those two powers.

I don't support the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it seems like that's the only thing people are focusing on because it makes the situation simple for them, and it's easiest to have a single villain and the rest are the good guys.

I assume most people offended by this submission here are American (or at least heavily support America) and want to think of their current government/country as the good guys.

I don't think there's any good guys in this situation.

If there is no evidence my reaction will be the same no matter who gets blamed or who wrote the article.

> if he came out saying Russians blew up the pipeline, would you have the same stance?

Of course. You don't think there are people claiming to have anonymous sources about Putin doing all manner of things?

> These tensions have been brewing between NATO (mostly America) and Russia for at least a decade. It's unfortunate that the situation escalated in Ukraine though, which AFAIK is the victim in the scheming and plotting of those two powers.

As a person from Eastern Europe this is literal Russian propaganda or in simple words - dogshit. You know why somebody like Baltic countries wanted to get in NATO? Because Russia was/is a genuine threat after these countries were deoccupied from the Soviet Union. Russia thinks that these former Soviet Union countries are still their own property, they can't imagine that these countries don't want to live "the Russian way".

Nothing would be easier than to say "of course we would have the same stance" but I don't want to give you quite that lazy a reply. Your question has too many counterfactual layers to backpropagate an answer through. For example, I doubt that Hersh would publish it in that case. The Hershness of a story depends on it being a blockbuster counter-thing.

Edit: oops, I missed that your question wasn't to me. Sorry!

why is this downvoted/flagged?

Saying what amounts to ‘we’d never be in that position’ comes across as pretty evasive.

Also saying Hersh only writes this kind of thing supports the idea that Hersh is biased enough to be taken for a ride by a source with an agenda.

Sorry to tell you, but the US think-tanks have been saying it for years that the Baltic states are there in their current configuration to only restrain Russia from forming closer ties with Germany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UcXiUYLgbo

They even have a term for it - "Cordon sanitaire": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(internationa...

Ok, if that was too evasive: yes, of course we would have the same stance.

Because a rude word is often used as an excuse to dismiss the whole argument.

Maybe you're right. I honestly don't know. But I only have so much time in a day to veryfy everything. I'm talking from memory of course, but this Ukraine invasion didn't "come out of the blue" AFAIK.

Here's a collection of sources compiled by someone on Quora. I dont know how biased or accurate this person is. However, there were other instances that made me think this isn't so black-and-white or "clean" as I'd like it to be.

https://www.quora.com/If-Putin-is-indeed-the-real-aggressor-...

A lot of the sources he used are from Ukranian websites so you might need to run them through Google Translate. Some are from reputable (for at least some definition of reputable) western media outlets like CNN, BBC, NYT, etc.

The embedded vidoes don't seem to work in Chrome (they just disappear when I click them) so I've extracted the link for one of them here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 - Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer, uploaded by The University of Chicago

Other videos are shorter clips to prove a point, but if anyone's interested they can see the video ID in the embedded image URL when inspecting the element.

Again, maybe this is all dogshit like you say, but I find that too dismissive of the facts presented.

Ah the comment was aimed at the person replying to the reason why this was unflagged.

I do appreciate you replying! Thanks!

I realise it's an incredibly difficult question to answer because of the what-ifs, though.

I would also like to think you'd have the same stance... And for what it's worth I do believe you would.

I'd argue that your stance is currently harder to uphold since it makes the whole situation a lot morally murkier, and also because it goes against popular opinion (one can only be immune to it so much).

Presumably not with just anyone who reported that claiming to have a source, but only because it’s Hersh.

As far as I can see your position evaluates to ‘dang trusts Hersh‘.

Since it’s 2023 and we use machines to do our thinking now, I consulted ChatGPT about this. I draw your attention to the last paragraph.

—————

strawpeople: Can Seymour Hersh’s reporting always be trusted?

chatgpt:

Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has had a long and storied career. While he has been praised for his investigative reporting and his ability to uncover important stories, it is important to note that not all of his reporting can always be trusted. Like any journalist, Hersh is human and may make mistakes or have biases that affect the accuracy of his reporting.

Additionally, some of Hersh's reporting has been called into question, and he has faced criticism for making claims that are not supported by evidence or for relying on sources that are not credible. For example, in 2017, Hersh faced criticism for his reporting on the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, which some experts said was based on unreliable sources and was contradicted by a large body of evidence.

In conclusion, it is important to approach Hersh's reporting with a critical eye and to carefully evaluate the evidence and sources he relies on. While some of his reporting has been praised for its accuracy and impact, it is not always reliable and should be independently verified.

No where do I see dang claiming he trusts Hersh. You're just putting words into their mouth now. If anything, they've exlicitly said otherwise in a few threads, but said Hersh shouldn't be so easily dismissed due to his reputation and history with similar reporting. So, his reporting holds more weight than mine or yours.

It should still be approached critically, though.

People here seem largely seem dismissive of this story because they don't like it (or the author).

I've addressed in another thread why the sources are unnamed, but it's plausible it's to protect their safety, and lack of presentable evidence could also be the same reason. Information could be somehow fingerprintes to identify leaks. Hollywood did/does it; printers do it too.

---

> Since it’s 2023 and we use robots now, I consulted ChatGPT about this

On a lighter note, this made me laugh. Somehow makes it seem like we're in 3023, not 2023... but also like it's 2023. What a time to be alive.

Just by peaking over the Quora article it is enough to say it is a Russian propaganda piece, things like some UA nazis (Russians also have some nazi admirers), the "referendums" and so on. Even if these referendums were legit, does it really trump a nations sovereignty (I am talking from my own experience as a lot of Russians were imported and locals deported in my country during the Soviet occupation and these people never integrated and probably even today there are regions where the population is mainly these Russian imports who would gladly be part of Russia). The main issue is that Russia has the view of "either you are with us or against us" so if you don't play ball we will going to "fuck you". Personally, i think that nobody understand Russia better than Eastern Europeans and the West is pretty much failing (at least the EU West who thought that playing ball with Russia will get them to back off) - https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-that-warned-about-... The Baltics have pretty much lived all their freedom years under Russian propaganda, let it be claims that we are nazis, russophobes and any other type of oppressors of the Russian people or even a threat of Russia itself. So seeing how many in the West are falling for Russian bullshit is just sad.

Lol I totally missed that. I often read the threads in a weird order and obviously missed the context this time!

> No where do I see dang claiming he trusts Hersh. You're just putting words into their mouth now.

I’m not putting words in anyone’s mouth.

Given that it’s clear he wouldn’t give this post special treatment if it wasn’t from Hersh, we can reasonably infer that dang trusts Hersh more than a random poster as you suggest he should.

I don’t think you represent dang, and at question here is dang’s reasons for giving the story special treatment, which unless you are a dang sock puppet you don’t have special insight into.

Oh yes, the mighty Baltic states who are able to somehow lock down Russian ties to Germany. By that logic the NS2 should have never happened or German reliance to Russian gas in general. This sounds like the same stuff Russians were claiming at some point - that the Baltics are the main players in West geopolitics or what not. What that think tank is saying make no sense, as invading/controlling Ukraine is not making a buffer zone as you can't really call something a buffer zone when it is pretty much in Russias pocket. Something like Belarus today is not a buffer zone.

To be frank, they don't mention a thing about the Baltics' might or political prowess, they only enumerate a preferred political alignment in foreing policies of such states so that it becomes instrumental to the US in their own foreign relations with both Germany and Russia.

Well, they mention Baltics as buffer states simply because Russia wants that. So that is exactly my point earlier - Russia still thinks they have the right to control these states. It is like your neighbour saying that you cannot install a camera on your property (because you have experienced theft from your neighbour) so when you do it, he comes and beats you up for it.

Ah, I am still not fully convinced the situation is so clear even after reading the BI article...

There is definitely propganda on both sides (and how much of it is true is hard to tell). Russia isn't the only one with a propaganda machine, if anything the US is much more successful at it than Russia could ever hope to be.

I encourage you to read more of the Quora article, even if I appreciate that some of the stuff in the article might be hard to stomach, since you seem emotionally closer to the issue than I do. I believe a lot of it is very unlikely to stem from Russian propaganda.

Some of the stuff you attributed (eg you mentioned tribalism and spite) to Russia isn't unique to them or their politics; it's just a very primitive part of human nature that we still struggle with.

And to close with a tangent: it's always good to keep in mind that nobody (neither you or I) is immune to propagand; especially when it's pushed by state actors with a larger agenda. This is why I often indulge in reading stuff I don't agree with (within reason). Does give me a bit of cognitive dissonance occasionally, but alas.

I apologise for responding on their behalf. You're right that they can speak for themselves, it was uncalled for on my side.

... And since we're indulging in unnecessary snide comments: They've outlined their reasoning already in a few places. Maybe if you read this thread instead of conversed with ChatGPT, we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.

I completely understand that there is a "big boys table" and everybody else, but the hard facts are that Russia occupied territories of a sovereign nation (Crimea/Donbass/Lugansk) and now is waging a full on war with that nation while stating random reasons (nazis/biolabs/Russian integrity/etc.). So i feel that anyone who tries to reason "Russia attacked because of X" is pretty much a Russian supporter. And it hits close to home because potentially unless we are in NATO, we would be next.

I assume that wasn’t meant as a sincere apology.

If that is what you are up to, let’s end at this point.

If Catalonia decided to join France and France went and carpetbombed Madrid, I think we'd all be equally horrified.

There's zero excuse for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I don't even see how this is semi-debatable.

While that Quora article has some important references to see the whole picture better it's still very biased and the conclusion that Russia invaded Ukraine to defend itself from WW3 is pretty wild. Because otherwise NATO would've attacked Russia (a country with nuclear weapons) or what?