Frankly, I think that’s by design. Hersh broke a couple of important American wartime scandals (My Lai Massacre, Abu Ghraib torture) that controverted government narratives and made the US government look bad and made it clear they were lying to the American people and to the world. They don’t want you to know who Hersh is or to consider him credible. Could he be wrong here? Yes. But the fact that the US government, in the wake of Hersh’s initial story, is now admitting it wasn’t Russia who did this is very telling.
Hersh is a distraction, in fact, Hersh is a misdirection, and to insist that he - or his story - have any credibility in this matter, and to retain the current thread title for it reflects this - for he and his story are both, to my mind, an example of misrepresentation, and misdirection.
It is not that "they don't want us to know" - rather, it is that he doesn't matter, any more than any other journalist matters.
This is yet another attempt to make this about an American, one who was busy spinning a frankly incredible tale to a gullible, or credulous, audience.
There is no credible reason for the US to have undertaken such an action, and that such a story was allowed to gain traction - as your misleading thread title implies - misses the point completely. Who would stand to benefit from such an action?
However, one can argue that there are reasons for "elements" within the Ukrainian government, or groups with some sort of links to the Ukrainian government, who were responsible for this - and whether they were accountable to, answerable to, or commanded by, that government - are all matters that merit investigation, and evidently, pose questions that require an answer.
Now, if the late Robert Fisk (whose reliability as a reporter was impeccable, whose professionalism re sources was meticulous) wrote such a story, I would treat the story seriously.
Your thread title compels us to focus on a commentator, - rather than the actual event, which is what is far more important - and - because of the way that the thread title is phrased assumes that his account is an authoritative account.
Hersh is not the story (or, rather he may well be the story in the US, but, he is not remotely the story in Europe, and nor should he be the story; likewise, The (London) Times is a very flawed source, and not one I would consider credible at all, do please remember, that Mr Murdoch owns it), and to stress the (subjective) source at the expense of the story is to misrepresent what is really of importance, and - once again - to view the world through the particular prism of an uniquely American perspective.
Now, what I find interesting is that both US intelligence (and, or at least, of equal relevance), German intelligence seem to think that there is a connection between some "groups" of Ukrainians and the fact that Nord Stream was bombed.
However, what I find of even greater significance is the fact that both intelligence sources (US and German) have chosen to make their thoughts publicly known.
This begs questions of why?
And, why now?
Officially, the Ukrainain Government have denied this, and it will be interesting to see what links exist (if any) between the group alleged to have carried out this bombing, and the Government in Kyiv.
Of interest (to me, at any rate), are what some of the commentators who have been writing about this stuff have to say on some of the sites I keep an eye on.
One of those commentators, Michael Weiss, (senior correspondent on YahooNews, among other activities), has commented on Twitter as follows: "No doubt the Hersh bullshit prompted the U.S. to leak this to the NYT now. The Germans almost certainly knew/know. And it's worth reviewing Scholz's antics in the last few months over Ukraine and Leos, etc. in the that light."
The adjective to describe Hersh's material (and, of course, needless to say, Hersh and his story have been cited approvingly both today and earlier in parts of the Russian media), is instructive, for nobody, anywhere, (in Europe), has taken seriously the idea that the (current) US government have been behind this.
He also wrote - and this, I think, is also relevant, for it suggests a reason why the US leaked this story- as they apparently did - to the NYT (a more credible publication than the deeply flawed London Times), and why they leaked it now: "I'd also retrospectively read the Dugina assassination attribution (also leaked to NYT) as a warning from the IC (International Community) to vested interests in Ukraine not to go off-script in so dramatic a fashion again."
For what it is worth, this would be my own personal reading of why this leak (from the US government) occurred in this precise fashion today.
www.thetimes.co.uk
seymourhersh.substack.com
