←back to thread

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

(seymourhersh.substack.com)
688 points hunglee2 | 8 comments | 08 Feb 23 12:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
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 #
LarryMullins ◴[08 Feb 23 19:17 UTC] No.34713289[source]▶
It's not unsourced, the source is being kept private. That may not seem like a meaningful difference but there is a difference. And that difference is the reason Seymour Hersh's reputation is relevant.
replies(4): >>34715240 #>>34716245 #>>34716374 #>>34716483 #
hedora ◴[08 Feb 23 21:11 UTC] No.34715240[source]▶
Does it actually say that anywhere?

I read the first half of the article, and skimmed the second. It doesn't claim to be sourced from anywhere, and the only paragraph that discusses sources and fact checking is when they point out the White House says the entire article is a work of fiction. It doesn't present any evidence that it happened (other than that the US has a big swimming pool that the navy trains in), and summarizes itself by saying that it was a perfect plan (presumably meaning it left behind no evidence), except that they actually did it.

What am I missing?

replies(2): >>34715941 #>>34716270 #
1. ravi-delia ◴[08 Feb 23 21:57 UTC] No.34715941[source]▶
It claims that the info came from someone "with direct knowledge of the operational planning"
replies(1): >>34716154 #
2. AdamJacobMuller ◴[08 Feb 23 22:12 UTC] No.34716154[source]▶
And it includes direct quotes from that person in the last paragraphs. It was clearly someone Hersh spoke to directly.

While I am extraordinarily distrustful of news reports using anonymous sources you do have to consider the author here. Ultimately we are deciding if we trust him and, for me personally, he lends a lot of credibility.

The other side of this is, duh, of course America blew up the pipeline. I said at the time that we were the most likely culprit.

There's a very small subset of groups who have the capability to do this and even fewer who have the motivation. It forces Germany/EU to stop buying NG from Russia and start buying LNG from the US (among others) with exceptionally minimal political risk to the US.

The US will just continue to deny that we did it, this article will get no traction in mainstream media. If incontrovertible proof ever did surface the media will just bury the story and if anyone involved is forced to comment they will just spin it as a good and necessary and just thing that they did to help Ukraine with a dose of natural gas bad because of climate change and all will be forgiven.

replies(1): >>34718734 #
3. ravi-delia ◴[09 Feb 23 01:54 UTC] No.34718734[source]▶
When it happened it was clear that the US, Russia, and Poland were likely the only suspects, except they're all really weird! The US absolutely has not made return on investment, which was obviously going to happen because shipping it over is much more expensive than the pipeline, and in the meantime Biden has to deal with increased gas prices. His incentives go the other way on this. But why the fuck would Russia do it? Poland is like...there, which is why they're worth a mention, but they don't have the same operational capacity and also do not benefit from it at all. But I mean come on, we know it was sabotaged deliberately. Such a weird thing
replies(3): >>34719043 #>>34719172 #>>34735568 #
4. somat ◴[09 Feb 23 02:32 UTC] No.34719043{3}[source]▶
Ukraine? I am not sure if they have the means, but they have the motive, the nord stream pipelines bypass the Ukraine pipeline.

My knowledge on this is very, very sketchy, but my understanding is the there is still a large amount of Russian gas transiting the Ukraine pipelines, Europe needs the gas so they buy it, Ukraine needs the transit money to defend against Russia so they keep the operation running. and Russia needs the gas money to attack Ukraine so they keep the operation running.

Honestly if true it is one of the weirdest situations I have ever heard about in the middle of a war.

I deliberately used an RT link because it is probably full of Russian propaganda and yet says basically the same thing as other articles. I originally learned about it via the Perun youtube channel(the best place to start if you want actual information not propaganda) but am unable to find the episode where it is mentioned.

https://www.rt.com/business/570805-russia-ukraine-eu-gas-tra...

5. peppermint_gum ◴[09 Feb 23 02:51 UTC] No.34719172{3}[source]▶
> But why the fuck would Russia do it?

Why do so many people act as if it's so unlikely that Russia did it? They had the least to lose, their relations with the west were already ruined at that point and such an incident couldn't make them any worse.

What would be their motive? Before the explosion, Russia had illegally shut down the pipeline. Now that the pipeline has exploded, they have plausible deniability and they can say it's not their fault the gas isn't flowing. Because of that, they won't have to pay additional fines when the economic relations with the west are restored.

And don't forget that one pipe of NS2 was left intact and, unlike NS1, there was no contractual obligation to pump gas through it.

replies(1): >>34729400 #
6. licebmi__at__ ◴[09 Feb 23 19:05 UTC] No.34729400{4}[source]▶
>They had the least to lose, their relations with the west were already ruined at that point and such an incident couldn't make them any worse.

>Now that the pipeline has exploded, they have plausible deniability and they can say it's not their fault the gas isn't flowing.

How the hell thinking they have nothing to lose and also worried about a contract at the same time sound or consistent?

replies(1): >>34738115 #
7. lenkite ◴[10 Feb 23 04:20 UTC] No.34735568{3}[source]▶
> The US absolutely has not made return on investment, ...

Umm, the US has made a terrific return on investment. EU supplies have shifted dramatically away from Russia to Norway and the United States following the end of Nordstream.

8. peppermint_gum ◴[10 Feb 23 11:00 UTC] No.34738115{5}[source]▶
As I wrote in my comment, the contractual obligations will matter in the future, when (if) the economic relations are normalized. Settlement of the outstanding financial disputes will be a prerequisite for that.