←back to thread

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

(seymourhersh.substack.com)
688 points hunglee2 | 2 comments | 08 Feb 23 12:50 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mmastrac ◴[08 Feb 23 19:03 UTC] No.34713024[source]▶
It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing.

The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story.

What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears to be based on a single, unnamed source "with direct knowledge of the operational planning".

replies(18): >>34713169 #>>34713289 #>>34713318 #>>34713618 #>>34714956 #>>34715192 #>>34715760 #>>34716271 #>>34716360 #>>34717677 #>>34717883 #>>34718313 #>>34718875 #>>34719021 #>>34719781 #>>34727938 #>>34730841 #>>34835658 #
thwayunion ◴[08 Feb 23 19:18 UTC] No.34713318[source]▶
> The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story.

I'd bet my last dollar that at least four nations had "blow up Nord Stream to force continued conflict" contingency plans.

Who did it? Germany, Russia, USA, Ukraine, or a curve ball from the one of the Nordic or Baltic states? We'll probably never know, and none of those answers would surprise me.

replies(6): >>34713557 #>>34715727 #>>34715988 #>>34716507 #>>34718390 #>>34719089 #
hef19898 ◴[08 Feb 23 19:31 UTC] No.34713557[source]▶
Considering that a lot people came out after the pipeline was blown up, people with the necessary training and experience, saying that it was not a particularly difficult job, it might even have been some rogues having a fun fishing trip.

Besides motive, this article doesn't provide anything new. And that the US had at least motive is established fact since basically the day of the explosion.

replies(1): >>34714645 #
1. lamontcg ◴[08 Feb 23 20:36 UTC] No.34714645[source]▶
There's probably thousands of scuba divers are trained in cold water diving to 300ft/100m depths. That is deep technical diving, but not crazy or stupid deep.
replies(1): >>34717504 #
2. lamontcg ◴[08 Feb 23 23:50 UTC] No.34717504[source]▶
(Although it would probably be easier these days to use a pipe bomb and a COTS underwater tethered drone -- depending on what bits of physical evidence you were comfortable leaving behind you could just blow the drone up with it too -- the "hardest" part would probably be dodging the coast guard on the surface)