Seymour Hersh: The U.S. bombed the Nord Stream Pipeline

[TBL]

Hersh is a crackpot coasting on his rep from decades ago. His later years are defined by conspiracy theories and incredibly sad, inept "reporting," including that Al Qaeda is not responsible for 9/11 and currently that President Biden directly ordered the bombing of the pipeline.

Do you have a link to where he claimed that Al Qaeda was not responsible for 9/11?

To answer the previous question, while I'm not "dedicated" to Hersh's claims and I'm open to them being disproven (so far they haven't been), I do think that it's more than possible that the U.S. ordered the bombing of the pipeline. I don't know why it's surprising to think that the U.S would create a pretext for war. We've done it constantly throughout our history. Is Iraq that distant from people's memories?

 

[Pumbaa]

Do you have a link to where he claimed that Al Qaeda was not responsible for 9/11?

To answer the previous question, while I'm not "dedicated" to Hersh's claims and I'm open to them being disproven (so far they haven't been), I do think that it's more than possible that the U.S. ordered the bombing of the pipeline. I don't know why it's surprising to think that the U.S would create a pretext for war. We've done it constantly throughout our history. Is Iraq that distant from people's memories?

Do you think Hersh’s description of how the bombing went down sounds plausible, or are you focused on the “U.S. ordered the bombing” part?

 

[TBL]

Do you think Hersh’s description of how the bombing went down sounds plausible, or are you focused on the “U.S. ordered the bombing” part?

I think it sounds plausible, yes. I think it was a sophisticated, covert operation that likely had state support.

 

[SouprMatt]

Here’s a fairly lengthy article that takes apart Hersh’s claims about the raid that killed bin Laden.

What's Wrong with Seymour Hersh's Conspiracy Theory | History News Network

historynewsnetwork.org

I don’t know if there’s enough information to say he’s definitively wrong about the Nord Stream. But if one is making an audacious claim, they bear the burden of proof. He hasn’t met that burden, and he’s steadily lost enough credibility over time that (IMHO) one must be more skeptical of HIS claims than of the government’s official story.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The Secretary General of NATO, and the EU are both treating this story with considerable caution, and are reserving judgment, but, in Europe, it is considered highly unlikely that this was a US covert operation.

That is not how President Biden chooses to conduct foreign policy, and, for that matter, I very much doubt that this is a "rogue" US operation, carried out by renegades within the US security/intelligence system, in the absence of adequate oversight.

The surprise is that it now seems quite possible that Russia may not have been responsible (although their hands and sticky thumb prints have been over stuff from the Brexit referendum to the 2016 US elections).

However, if the evidence warrants it, I have no difficulty in assigning blame to the US; I was a passionately protesting undergrad in the days of covert US activity in places such as Nicaragua, and El Salvador, and some of my socialist friends have remained forever appalled and traumatised at what had happened in Chile when President Allende was overthrown in 1973.

And, no, Iraq is not all that distant in my memory, where not just the US (under President George W Bush), but the UK, (under Tony Blair, whose reputation has never recovered from the egregious moral compromises he made at the time) both chose to go to war on the basis of what they knew to be lies.

 

[Pumbaa]

I think it sounds plausible, yes. I think it was a sophisticated, covert operation that likely had state support.

I would use the word “convoluted” rather than “sophisticated” when describing Hersh’s depiction of the (alleged) events. It reads like the plot of a Hollywood movie.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

It still doesn't add up: President Biden had no motive whatsoever for driving the price of (and hence profits from) oil and gas in Russia any higher (as happened subsequent to the bombing).

Nor, if the Americans are alleged to have carried this out, does it make sense for them to now paint - or portray - the Ukrainians as possibly responsible for this, unless it was to signal to the Ukrainian authorities that Ukrainian solo-runs - spontaneous or otherwise, run by rogues, renegades or not - are to be actively discouraged.

Now, if Mr Trump was still in office, and still held power, not only would I have no difficulty whatsoever accepting that he was responsible, but I would also completely accept the premise that he had leaked this version of events in order to compromise the position and standing of, and to undermine the credibility of, the Ukrainians, while simultaneously lending some support to Russia's position.

 

[P___X]

I think it sounds plausible, yes. I think it was a sophisticated, covert operation that likely had state support.

The Hersh story reads like speculative fiction where the motivations just don't add up.
1. Why would have Biden needed extra volatility (pun intended) before the Midterms?
2. What would have happened if the sabotage would have gotten immediately uncovered? Especially if the winter were colder (something that not even a CIA can predict)?
3. Wouldn't it have been a very significant interest of Russians to A) Curtail Biden's power by inflicting a major Midterms defeat on him? B) Sow disarray and distrust among NATO allies and prevent coordinated materiel support to Ukraine?
4. So if the story is true, how come Hersh figured this out but Russia didn't? Or did Russia provide Hersh with intel? Why now when before/during the winter with uncertainties about the how the gas supply would have made this news much more impactful? A way to resolve this is that the Russians totally failed to defend or even monitor their own pipeline and failed on the intelligence end as well?


And those are just the first questions that this raises. Neither the NYT nor the Hersh article provide nothing I'd consider convincing or tangible. So we are stuck with figuring out motivations. I agree with the NYT, from that perspective the cleanest benefit this act provided to was Ukraine. One can monitor this story without making a prejudgement.

 

[lizkat]

All I can say is that to blow up a couple pairs of undersea pipelines with winter coming on was a vile act of terrorism, no matter who did it and no matter what one thinks of the planet's default intent to keep on using fossil fuels until the last barrel of oil turns into air pollutants, greenhouse gases or microplastics from cheap toys.

I'm leaving aside the question -- and it does remain a question, no?-- as to whether the "imperfect sabotage" of leaving one of the Nord 2 pair of pipelines operable or fixable in a pinch was intentional. Even if that was the case, It's no excuse for having committed such a terrible act against both the environment and human beings facing winter with reduced energy supplies.

That Russia had already caused Ukraine to face such a situation --just by Putin's illegal invasion and pitiless assault on civilians and infrastructure-- could not justify Ukraine or any other nation trying to fix Russia's wagon revenue-wise by blowing up pipelines. Russia has ways of avoiding some of the sanctions anyway, and only steps up efforts to do so if and when seeing oil or any other revenue shortfall.

War, even justified wars, always engage full on madness. The forms that that madness take on are both endless and endlessly rationalized by individuals who escalate violence in futile efforts to even the score. There were never winners in graveyards or walking behind coffins on any side of armed conflict, not even when a negotiated settlement has finally been arranged. In the meantime the world itself is at mercy of one or another individual or group with their own ideas of how to "settle" things. The sagas are always unbearably convoluted in their historical details, in the end, especially since overall lessons learned seem so easily forgotten.

It's all starting to remind me (and Russia's war against Ukraine is not the first reminder) of a pretty succinct Peanuts cartoon.

 

[hulugu]

I have a great deal of respect for Sy Hersh and once had dinner with him and several others at a journalism conference, but I don't know about some of his latest pieces. I tend to think he was wrong about the Syrian Sarin gas attack and I don't think his Nordstream story makes much sense. One problem with the Substack era is a lack of editors. Did an editor take a look at the sourcing? What about legal? What facts are nailed down and how are they nailed down? We don't know and have to rely on Hersh and Hersh's credibility alone.

To some extent, I believe the U.S. considered and may have planned to blow up the Nordstream pipes as a matter of training and possibility—in other words, can we do this?
But, that doesn't mean we actually pulled off the maneuver.

And, Hersh's argument the CIA thought the mission was no-longer covert, but highly classified and thus didn't need Congressional read-in because Biden sorta' alluded to it makes me think the CIA lawyers need to hit the next CLE class. Um no. The Gang of Eight is not going to be convinced.

However, the CIA's story via the NYT seems to blame Ukraine, which sorta indicates we might have trained and aided them in a hope they'd act as a fall-guy if they got caught. The whole story makes me itch, because it was a dangerous maneuver with a lot of blowback.

 

[TBL]

However, the CIA's story via the NYT seems to blame Ukraine, which sorta indicates we might have trained and aided them in a hope they'd act as a fall-guy if they got caught. The whole story makes me itch, because it was a dangerous maneuver with a lot of blowback.

Listening to journalists who broke the "freelance saboteur" (their words, not mine) story just makes me even more skeptical of that narrative. They talked about initially believing a government was to blame, like Russia or Ukraine. (Interestingly they omit the U.S. as a possible government that might've had a role in this). Then they said they "started asking the right questions" and that led them to the "right answers", i.e. that a pro-Ukrainian non-state-affiliated group was responsible. It really seems like they are throwing Ukraine under the bus.

This is one of those stories that will likely disappear from the public consciousness for a while and we may get more solid answers many years from now when the war is over and the issue is no longer politically relevant.

 

[TBL]

I haven't forgotten about this:

"The CIA learned last June, through a European spy agency, that a six-person team of Ukrainian special operations forces intended to blow up the Russia-to-Germany project, the [Washington Post] reported."

"The intelligence reporting was shared online on Discord, purportedly by Air National Guard member Jack Teixeira, who was arrested in April and charged in relation to the leak of sensitive U.S. documents. "

US had intelligence of Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream project, Washington Post reports

The United States learned of a Ukrainian plan to attack the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines three months before they were damaged last September by underwater explosions, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday, citing leaked information posted online.

www.reuters.com

From Politico:

"The plotters were to report to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the report said. The intelligence report found the plan was put on hold and there is no proof the attack was carried out by Ukraine."

 

[Pumbaa]

I haven't forgotten about this:

"The CIA learned last June, through a European spy agency, that a six-person team of Ukrainian special operations forces intended to blow up the Russia-to-Germany project, the [Washington Post] reported."

"The intelligence reporting was shared online on Discord, purportedly by Air National Guard member Jack Teixeira, who was arrested in April and charged in relation to the leak of sensitive U.S. documents. "

US had intelligence of Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream project, Washington Post reports

The United States learned of a Ukrainian plan to attack the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines three months before they were damaged last September by underwater explosions, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday, citing leaked information posted online.

www.reuters.com

From Politico:

"The plotters were to report to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the report said. The intelligence report found the plan was put on hold and there is no proof the attack was carried out by Ukraine."

Unlike Hersh’s bad movie plot, a small special ops team sabotaging the pipelines would be entirely plausible.

 

[lizkat]

Unlike Hersh’s bad movie plot, a small special ops team sabotaging the pipelines would be entirely plausible.

So too would be a long list of mercenaries willing to give it a shot for the right price -- if those on the list of potential principals (Russia, Ukraine, maybe the US) felt that possible exposure for having done it might carry too many negative consequences. Weird if everyone ever contemplating it figured that there were enough alternate scenarios to afford one the chance to do it and then point the finger elsewhere. I do think it was not accidental that damage was not irreparable, implying that whoever did it understood there should remain option to fix it and restart operations. Madness, the whole thing.

 

[TBL]

Germany seeks arrest of Ukrainian man for sabotage of Nord Stream pipeline:

Germany zeroes in on Ukrainian suspect in Nord Stream pipeline explosions

Nord Stream gas pipelines running from Russia to Germany blew up in September 2022.

www.politico.eu

 

[Scubachap]

Germany seeks arrest of Ukrainian man for sabotage of Nord Stream pipeline:

Germany zeroes in on Ukrainian suspect in Nord Stream pipeline explosions

Nord Stream gas pipelines running from Russia to Germany blew up in September 2022.

www.politico.eu

It does look like the Ukrainians are in the frame for this.

There's a US Journalist who outlines how it was planned - link here, he was interviewed on UnHerd (link here), his account to me is somewhat convincing.

As a keen diver I'd add a couple of observations.

He maintains this was a group of military (bomb makers etc) who used civilian divers. That makes perfect sense to me. Many amateur divers are more experienced and competent than their military equivalents. I know of people who are regularly diving wrecks on rebreathers in the 80m range. An 80m dive isn't that unusual, huge pub bragging rights, but being regularly carried out in the somewhat more challenging (diving wise) UK. They're also used to working at depth (pulling up portholes, grabbing lobsters etc). So placing charges at 80m would be perfectly feasible. But...

What does puzzle me though is that a yacht was allowed to stooge around repeatedly over such a sensitive site. (They apparently dropped off charges at a couple of locations). Finding stuff underwater is hard. Landing on it is even harder. It often takes a few goes and can be very, very hit or miss. Lots of runs over the target and several attempts to shot / grapple it. Divers can't swim down in such a situation - they would have had to descend either the anchor line (so the yacht would have to anchor into the pipeline) or a separate shot line. They wouldn't have had to contend with our (UK) tides so could probably dive whenever they liked but Its the most surveilled sea in the World, and surely even a yacht stooging around looking for a 1 > 2m high cable on an echo sounder would have rung alarm bells in Sweden, Denmark or the US. Either a blind eye was turned or well, there's no surveillance after all.

I personally suspect that as the poem goes 'some people looked at the wall while the gentlemen went by'...

 

[MarkusL]

It does look like the Ukrainians are in the frame for this.

There's a US Journalist who outlines how it was planned - link here, he was interviewed on UnHerd (link here), his account to me is somewhat convincing.

As a keen diver I'd add a couple of observations.

He maintains this was a group of military (bomb makers etc) who used civilian divers. That makes perfect sense to me. Many amateur divers are more experienced and competent than their military equivalents. I know of people who are regularly diving wrecks on rebreathers in the 80m range. An 80m dive isn't that unusual, huge pub bragging rights, but being regularly carried out in the somewhat more challenging (diving wise) UK. They're also used to working at depth (pulling up portholes, grabbing lobsters etc). So placing charges at 80m would be perfectly feasible. But...

What does puzzle me though is that a yacht was allowed to stooge around repeatedly over such a sensitive site. (They apparently dropped off charges at a couple of locations). Finding stuff underwater is hard. Landing on it is even harder. It often takes a few goes and can be very, very hit or miss. Lots of runs over the target and several attempts to shot / grapple it. Divers can't swim down in such a situation - they would have had to descend either the anchor line (so the yacht would have to anchor into the pipeline) or a separate shot line. They wouldn't have had to contend with our (UK) tides so could probably dive whenever they liked but Its the most surveilled sea in the World, and surely even a yacht stooging around looking for a 1 > 2m high cable on an echo sounder would have rung alarm bells in Sweden, Denmark or the US. Either a blind eye was turned or well, there's no surveillance after all.

I personally suspect that as the poem goes 'some people looked at the wall while the gentlemen went by'...

Here in Sweden we have not even thrown our former minister for foreign affairs in jail for the bribes he took related to the construction of Nord Stream...