←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: 1.154s | source | bottom
Show context
stephc_int13 ◴[08 Feb 23 21:31 UTC] No.34715513[source]▶
There is one thing that is really bothering me in this story.

I don't really care who is behind the sabotage, they would certainly not admit it for obvious reasons, and it could be more complex than it seems.

But the press, here in the UK, in France and in the US, has been suspiciously "clueless", avoiding with great care to imply that anyone in the west could be behind it, even if it really seems obvious that it could very well be the case.

Why? Why are they so careful? They usually are not afraid to speculate, especially on such a scale.

I find it disturbing to think that they could either have received instructions from their respective governments or are simply afraid push any inquiries on this subject.

replies(4): >>34715588 #>>34716244 #>>34718516 #>>34719146 #
1. SergeAx ◴[09 Feb 23 02:47 UTC] No.34719146[source]▶
Can you please elaborate how exactly it was obvious (that anyone in the West could be behind the attack)? What is a motivation for the West?
replies(2): >>34719341 #>>34722179 #
2. dmatech ◴[09 Feb 23 03:17 UTC] No.34719341[source]▶
The most straightforward reasons would be:

1. Russia would get income from the pipeline, empowering their economy. 2. This sort of infrastructure would represent increased German dependence on Russia for their energy needs. 3. This would also tend to increase economic and diplomatic ties between Germany and Russia.

Destroying the pipeline (even if it's not being used) could theoretically send the message that these infrastructure projects are not safe and that relying on Russia for energy is strategically unwise.

replies(2): >>34720554 #>>34721746 #
3. hanspeter ◴[09 Feb 23 06:52 UTC] No.34720554[source]▶
Invading Ukraine sent the message that relying on Russia for energy is unwise as well as unethical.

No country in the EU thinks it's a good idea to buy gas from Russia and it's going to end broken pipes or not.

There's really nothing to gain for the US from blowing up the pipe that couldn't easily be accomplished via conversations.

4. SergeAx ◴[09 Feb 23 09:50 UTC] No.34721746[source]▶
North Stream 2 was never started, no gas was transported through it, and by several political announcements - never would.

North Stream 1 was a blackmail tool since June 2022, Russia manipulated EU gas prices by changing the volume, using supposed turbine failure as an excuse. Blowing up the pipe could be just a next move.

At the moment nobody has no illusion of economical feasibility of Russia already.

5. stephc_int13 ◴[09 Feb 23 10:53 UTC] No.34722179[source]▶
Germany was hesitant/not fully committed on Ukraine support because of ongoing discussions with Russia about NordStream.

USA has been pissed off by this project from the start.

This is also a way to send a strong message to Putin.

replies(1): >>34722198 #
6. SergeAx ◴[09 Feb 23 10:56 UTC] No.34722198[source]▶
Anonymous message is never strong. Non-anonymous message is a casus belli.
replies(1): >>34722922 #
7. stephc_int13 ◴[09 Feb 23 12:24 UTC] No.34722922{3}[source]▶
Well, this is not really anonymous.

I am pretty sure that all secret services and governments around the world are perfectly aware of the situation.

Only the press is playing the hypocrisy game, for some reason.

replies(1): >>34729952 #
8. SergeAx ◴[09 Feb 23 19:34 UTC] No.34729952{4}[source]▶
Like in case of aliens in Hangar 18? Don't be ridiculous. Any US news outlet will give arm and leg to break the story like this. Self-publishing on mail list platform means there are so little evidence here, that not a single tabloid was interested.
replies(1): >>34734097 #
9. stephc_int13 ◴[10 Feb 23 00:53 UTC] No.34734097{5}[source]▶
Why? For the sake of the discussion let's say that this story is pure fabulation.

Alright, the internet is full of it, and many newspaper are not afraid of publishing clickbait bullshit, as long as it sells.

What's the risk? Since when is fake news illegal?

This is why I am surprised, why is it such a big deal?