This has been mentioned in other threads. The article is thorough and does not speculate an answer. It does poke some holes in the Hearsch substack. That piece was written in a way that can impress people who aren’t familiar with explosives and espionage. I learned a few things.
2 Likes
It is quite clear that Nordstream is an attempt to seperate the European Union don’t you see that the Ukraine war is not going to last forever ! It will be stopped only for War of Iran or War in China happens. Here USA is doing what future lies ahead , it might be also the british, or chinese helping either way. Nordstream if built and working would be used to seperate the European Union and make oil prices rise or decrease which will trigger the seperation of EU and create more wars and hunger.
No, people Nordstream was a bad idea to begin with the fossil fuels era will end but the green energy will change all that if push to the max. If every home in europe has one given by the government of solar panels is a solution better.
Heck of an interesting read. I hope Peter, Metalhead and others take the time to read. This is an article worth dissecting, style and substance. Seen a few paragraph worth quoting but am restraining myself, but this one, I couldn’t pass up.
Nielsen adds, “I actually think many people in the West don’t realize how deep the crisis is for Russia.
"At the one moment, we are discussing whether Russia might be on the verge of using nuclear weapons and, then, the next moment, somebody will say that blowing up the pipeline is incompatible with Russia’s long-term economic priorities,
as if normal peace-time logic still applies.”
Since I broke the ice, this was news to me,
… If Biden launched this operation with the express purpose of destroying Russia’s ability to supply Germany with natural gas, why only blow up three of the four Nord Stream pipelines?
Why leave one of the two Nord Stream 2 pipelines intact, when they were the ones that Russia was able to open up at a moment’s notice. … "
All too interesting an article, with the winter storm raging outside, it’s become an extended diversion. Then Oliver Alexander, he’s written a few fascinating articles.
If you found that interesting,
At the end, there’s an email exchange between Alexander and Hersh. Seymour does nothing to improve my previous skeptical impression of his current character and veracity.
This one really gets into the geopolitical weeds.
This research was first published on the analytical platform of the Project.
Author: Mykhailo Gonchar.
29.12.2022The main motivation for cutting off flows is the possibility of declaring force majeure to avoid paying huge penalties because Gazprom defaulted on its gas supply obligations under long-term contracts. Read about this and much more in the article below.
Over loaded me, but for the truly curious, it’s there.
From Wikipedia: “My Lai was first revealed to the American public on November 13, 1969—almost two years after the incident—when Hersh published a story through the Dispatch News Service. The article threatened to undermine the U.S. war effort and severely damage the Nixon presidency. Inside the White House, officials privately discussed how to contain the scandal.
On November 21, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger emphasized that the White House needed to develop a “game plan”, to establish a “press policy”, and maintain a “unified line” in its public response to the incident. The White House established a “My Lai Task Force” whose mission was to “figure out how best to control the problem”, to make sure that administration officials “all don’t go in different directions” when discussing the incident, and to “engage in dirty tricks”.
These included discrediting key witnesses and questioning Hersh’s motives for releasing the story. What soon followed was a public relations offensive by the administration designed to shape how My Lai would be portrayed in the press and understood among the American public.”
Same old strategy. He got some details wrong, so now we must consider the whole story discredited!
Big difference with Mai Lai, there were a lot of soldiers there, willing to talk.
Legally it is called “fruit of the poisoned tree”, i.e. don’t trust the source of the news.
Putin’s distortion of Ukraine’s history lays ground for further operations
The president’s speech denies Ukrainian past, setting up an opportunity to degrade the independence of Russia’s neighbour.
President Vladimir Putin made extensive reference to tsarist Russian, Soviet and postcommunist history on Monday in a speech that sought to justify the Kremlin’s second territorial dismemberment of Ukraine since 2014.
The speech was notable for its distortions of that history and for a number of glaring omissions of the facts surrounding the emergence of Ukrainian national consciousness and independence.
more… Putin’s distortion of Ukraine’s history lays ground for further operations
As someone from the global South I am amazed at the collective delusion among large sections in the West to still be in denial about the US role in Nordstream.
Quibbling over minor points of mis- match to shut up any tracking of facts – if this is what a ” free “Western MSM does- one can only commiserate with the shape- shifted nature of ” truth” in a post Truth Western eco- system.
Only one person has presented these “facts” that left no trace.
Nobody here is in denial. You are.
You are talking as if the US is the worst country in the world but you cannot come up with a single country that has more rights and freedom of expression.
What you seem to forget is that, except for the indiginous Indians the US has no native race. The US is representative of every race, creed, and color on earth and the US Constitution grants equal rights to everyone.
Name another country that can make that claim. If you cannot then you cannot single out the US as somehow being worse than anywhere else in the world, while the opposite is factually true.
It is you who is in denial of an overall perspective and making purely selective criticisms that in and of themselves amount to very little in a historical perspective.
A lot of years have passed between that Seymour and today’s 85 year old trying to remain relevant.
Hey and it did get reported and read by millions of Americans.
NO! Those two stories are very different from each other.
Did you read about the many basic flaws in Seymour story? Go back to the top a couple very interesting links worth getting to understand.
What about other complaints about Seymour Hersh’s reporting?
That sound like a refrain that played out in this story about Seymour and his attitude towards American officials.
Whatever happened to Seymour Hersh?
Whatever happened to Seymour Hersh?
The strange story of how a legendary investigative journalist came to echo Assad’s propaganda
By Steve Bloomfield - July 17, 2018…Written seven years into the Syrian war, which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, Reporter contains no criticism of Assad—not once does Hersh reflect on whether his early impressions of the dictator were naive.
In person, Hersh goes further. “I liked Assad,” he says. “I thought he improved a lot as I met him. He never did enough on human rights but he was moving.” Hersh cites the arrival of cash machines and the broadcast of a Turkish soap opera about an unmarried mother as evidence. “He was getting better. He was much more confident every year. You could speak out against him a little bit.”
Please lay out your facts.
Mismatching of minor points?
Please specific which mismatching of fact are you talking about?
Let’s get specific.
It would be interesting to understand why you reject the article Lausten shared and the other by Oliver Alexander reporting and logic.
Ray McGovern and Jeffrey Sachs addressed the U.N. Security Council on the sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines in light of Sy Hersh’s reporting.
The YT livestreamed vid spans too long a period to easily locate Jeffrey’s and Ray’s presentations, so the linked UN media video is better.
Denmark, Sweden and Germany pulling sickies so that they wouldn’t have to explain their stalled investigations.
Didn’t Sweden refuse to share their findings with Germany on national security grounds?
LOL at the American representative putting his eyes back in/replenishing his store of crocodile tears.
It seems you missed a minor detail that throws an entirely different light on this situation.
Who caused the Nord Stream explosion?
European and U.S. officials who continue to believe that Russia is the most likely culprit say it had at least one plausible motive: Attacking Nord Stream 1 and 2, which weren’t generating any revenue to fill Russian coffers, demonstrated that pipelines, cables and other undersea infrastructure were vulnerable and that …Dec 21, 2022
If the US is capable of exploding pipelines, you’d think that they would be smart enough to explode the pipelines that are owned by Russia.
OTOH, which country would like to destroy pipelines that they don’t own and don’t get any revenue from? Russia!!!
Which indicates there was nothing substantive added to Hersh’s demonstrably inaccurate account.
(Ships activities actives, and such, which are easily verified )
Compare Hersh’s account with Oliver Alexander’s critique - make list of items that support your contention.
Here’s some of the stuff that stands out to me:
When first reading through Hersh’s account of the events, the level of detail he provides could add credence to his story. Unfortunately for Hersh’s story, the high level of detail is also where the entire story begins to unravel and fall apart. It is often stated that people who lie have a tendency to add too much superfluous detail to their accounts. … Extra details add extra points of reference that can be crosschecked and examined. In Hersh’s case, this is exactly what appears to have happened. On the surface level, the level of detail checks out to laymen or people without more niche knowledge of the subject matter mentioned. When you look closer though, the entire story begins to show massive glaring holes and specific details can be debunked.
¶7, meaning Jens had just turned 16 when Saigon fell (April 30th 1975)
¶8, Norway’s main motivations is financial,
¶12 +, war games
diving details, ordinance details
Finally, through this entire detailed account there is one key thing Seymour Hersh neglects to mention or provide reasoning for. If Biden launched this operation with the express purpose of destroying Russia’s ability to supply Germany with natural gas, why only blow up three of the four Nord Stream pipelines? Why leave one of the two Nord Stream 2 pipelines intact, when they were the ones that Russia was able to open up at a moments notice?
JONATHAN MS PEARCE article in OnlySky, covers a lot of bases. Too many to mention and it tends to be self-consistent.
Cui bono?
One of the most important questions to ask is “Who stood to gain the most from this?”
… The Nord Stream pipelines had been controversial from the outset insofar as the US was deadset against them. Donald Trump, in 2019, claimed their construction and use would hold Europe hostage to Russia. Joe Biden then confirmed this idea saying the US were “unwavering” in opposition to Nord Stream 2, but that it was “in the national interest of the United States” to waive the sanctions.
Why that method?
In his analysis of the sabotage, Anders Puck Nielsen (military analyst at the Royal Danish Defence College) says that we need to look beyond the immediate question of who can benefit from the Nord Stream pipelines being sabotaged, and more consider why the operational choices were made to destroy the pipelines in this way and not in some other way.”
Fascinating that the news source of choice for this forum - the WP has concluded that there is evidence to back Bidens claim that Russia blew up these pipelines is not there
““There is no evidence at this point that Russia was behind the sabotage,” said one European official, echoing the assessment of 23 diplomatic and intelligence officials in nine countries interviewed in recent weeks.”
Some went so far as to say they didn’t think Russia was responsible. Others who still consider Russia a prime suspect said positively attributing the attack — to any country — may be impossible."
Pretty good article. Doesn’t really go anywhere, but the guy says he is trying to be rational and that’s how it reads.
So you just gotta blame the US?
Dude, I was asking you about a couple specific articles, with some specific facts and evidence in support of those facts they discuss. No one is saying the mystery is solved!
Lighten up, focus.
I don’t know that it was supposed to go anywhere. But it sure did add a lot of realistic facts to my understanding. And having the business with boats clarified and Hersh having that wrong.
The whole thing is going nowhere anywho, in the greater scheme of things, I’ll grant you that. Sort of like Hersh, the one time heavy weight, needing to stay relevant, in a world that’s passed him by.
dude-its coming.
so then who? Has to be a state actor.
Hey I’m just a spectator, the world is a crazy place.
I do know, this isn’t a heads or tails thing.
From your article,
Some went so far as to say they didn’t think Russia was responsible. Others who still consider Russia a prime suspect said positively attributing the attack — to any country — may be impossible.
Them insane sociopathic billionaires can do anything they want, fuk the consequences. Plus these days the line between private interest and the government is almost impossible to establish in many places. Especially dictatorships.
there is no private army equipped for this
Scroll through the comments of Alexander’s article and you will find a comprehensive rebuttal from Bruce Wolman with references to primary sources to backup what he is saying.
Blowing Holes in Oliver Alexander’s story on Seymour Hersh’s article:
As to relying on Elliot Higgins of Bellingcat for a correct takes on Hersh’s Syria gas attacks & the Skripal poisonings, I only refer to Hersh’s retort, “I can’t be worried about a Bellingcat - with its associations with certain intelligence agencies - is saying about me.”
If one had any familiarity with Hersh’s investigative methodology, one would know that he doesn’t write articles based on a “single unnamed source.” What he does - especially considering the nature of his sources, many higher-up insiders, is protect his sources. So other sources, who don’t want to be named or can’t afford to be named - especially since the Obama Adm started the US going after any nat sec whistleblower for prosecution - do not get even an unnamed mention by Hersh. Does this method work? How many times has Hersh’s stories been proven right? How many major stories has Oliver broken?
Hersh did not state that using the Panama City divers, rather than the SEALS or SOCOM units, “would bypass reporting of the operation to members of Congress ….” He only reported that his source said that is what the planners of the mission thought. How many times in the past have nat sec apparatchiks believed they had deniable plausibility or a justification for a twisted interpretation of the rules or laws, and then it turned out those rationalizations didn’t hold up? Alexander doesn’t know one way or the other what the planners thought.
As for how crazy initial proposals may sound once subject to more thorough technical examination, does anyone need to be reminded of how many hundreds of crazy intel ideas have surfaced in the past that even Tom Clancy wouldn’t have come up with?
That Hersh’s and his source’s description of the operation implies that "the CIA and entire interagency group were unaware of the fact that the NordStream pipelines were in fact pipelines” is only Alexander’s opinion. That the Norwegians were chosen as a partner, despite the high risk to the Norwegians, indicates the planners knew they were dealing with pipelines. In fact, Hersh in an interview says if anyone wants to unpack the story, starting with people in the pipeline business would be a good place to start. Hmmm, I wonder if Hersh did that? It also explains why the Norwegians had to be brought into the project. After all, Norway is the most loyal of US/NATO allies and has the competency. The US has relied on Norway for numerous other top secret projects in the past, which usually end up leaked by the Americans, not the Norwegians.
That Hersh was not fully accurate about Generalissimo Stoltenberg is a trivial error. Yes, Jens was only a teenager protesting the Vietnam war with his older sister’s friends during the war (well documented in Norwegian media), but he also turned out to be a committed proponent of NATO as leader of the Social Democrat’s (AP) Youth Organization, despite claiming otherwise on his way to election to that position. He managed almost single-handedly to maneuver an overturn of the Youth orgs long-standing position of “Norway out of NATO." Always willing to please the party Elders, they fast-tracked him to move up and take over leadership of the Party. Hersh was also incorrect to write that Jens was anti-communist. Politically he was not ideologically committed, just an ambitious son of the Party, and he recognized fully supporting NATO as a necessary ticket to advancement. In fact, he was the first Norwegian PM to move Norway towards complete loyalty and subservience to the Americans. US intelligence did and does completely trust him.
There is nothing in the way BALTOPS 22 was described by the US Navy and sector trade magazines and Hersh’s article which are fundamentally inconsistent:
That Alexander tries to make something of this is honestly laughable. Without knowing whom within the Sixth Fleet and STRIKFORNATO command were informed of the requested changes, it is impossible to infer to what extent more people were brought into the loop.
Moreover, that Hersh "makes it sound like the explosions all took place in close vicinity of each other” is just an interpretation of Alexander. He doesn’t offer any evidence to contradict the assertion that the Norwegians located the spots to blow up the pipelines.
According to the Norwegians, no Alta-class minesweepers participated in BALTOPS, only the Oksøy-class Hinnøy. The Norwegian military failed to mention that the Alta-class & Oksøy-class ships are almost identical, while Alexander fails to mention that the main difference is that the Oksøy-class ships have an extra ROV for divers. Whether Joe Galvin’s analysis of the Hinnøy’s movements are inconsistent with such a diving operation needs further and independent consideration. What auxiliary equipment and vehicles were used in the operation is not discussed or revealed so far.
Alexander claims he found no evidence that the Oksøy-Class can support surface-supplied mixed gas diving. I’m not an expert, but as I understand this requires tethered diving capabilities. Here is another Oksøy-Class ship, the Karmøy, engaged in tethered diving:
I don’t read of any great difficult further outfitting an Oksøy-class ship for mixed-air capabilities.
I don’t know what Alexander’s expertise in these matters are, but if he does not have the direct knowledge, then he should inform us who provided him with his talking points. Also, is his HeO2 Decompression table for the older technology or the new MK 29 diving equipment invented at Panama City?
Considering the detection resources the Danes and the Swedes had in the area of Bornholm, is it really surprising that top defense and intel echelons of these countries were informed in some manner of the operation? At least in the case of the Danes, they’ve been trusted with more secret operations. When you use expressions such as "This I do not in anyway understand” you are adopting a rhetorical technique or displaying your own limited comprehension abilities.
It does not matter that the Norwegian P-8s are operated by the Norwegian Air Force. They are under the command of the Norwegian Joint Headquarters located in Bodø, which integrates the Air Force and Navy on maritime defense:
Norwegian P-8 pilots trained all last year with the US Navy in Florida. “We can fly faster, higher, longer and do air-to-air refueling. The aircraft carries many more sonobuoys and more weapons,” Lt Sprott said. Onboard, he added, there is software “lightyears beyond” what the P-3 Orion has.
Although the Norwegian P-8s were not put into general or routine service at the time of BALTOPs 22, they had been operationally tested by that time. Why not use a far more advanced plane, especially one equipped with advanced sonobuoys in a top-secret and important mission? Who wouldn’t use them? Anderson seems more confused by the status of the Norwegian P-8s than Hersh or his source.
Open-source tracking does not tell us what was the path of a plane if its transponder is turned off or masked and mixed. Is it really so unusual in such a large exercise that some of the planes would not be publicly locatable, especially if the exercise was also trying to determine Russian tracking capabilities? Would the Russians be surprised by any of this? Moreover, we know there was at least one open-source traceable P-8 in the area soon after the explosions. That plane is claimed to be American.
Maybe Alexander needs to go back and do as much investigative reporting with as many well-connected sources as Hersh. Meanwhile, I’d be quiet if I was him.