Leaks in the pipeline - Nord Stream 1 & 2
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2023, 12:55 last edited by
Wait, what?
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2023, 12:58 last edited by
Maybe the Chinese paid The Big Guy, so the Russians would sell them cheap natural gas.
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2023, 13:07 last edited by
Jesus, he’s still alive?
Could be true, but to be honest I haven’t put much stock in his writings in decades.
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2023, 13:08 last edited by
Biden writes?
Coherently?
-
Jesus, he’s still alive?
Could be true, but to be honest I haven’t put much stock in his writings in decades.
wrote on 8 Feb 2023, 13:17 last edited by George K 2 Aug 2023, 13:18@jon-nyc said in Leaks in the pipeline - Nord Stream 1 & 2:
Jesus, he’s still alive?
I was surprised to see his name also. He's 85 years old.
I haven’t put much stock in his writings in decades.
Hersh first gained recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai Massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. During the 1970s, Hersh covered the Watergate scandal for The New York Times and revealed the clandestine bombing of Cambodia. In 2004, he reported on the U.S. military's mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. He has also won two National Magazine Awards and five George Polk Awards. In 2004, he received the George Orwell Award.
Critics have accused Hersh of being a conspiracy theorist. He has been criticised for contradicting the official account of the killing of Osama Bin Laden and for questioning the claim that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on Syrian civilians.In 2015, Vox's Max Fisher wrote that "Hersh has appeared increasingly to have gone off the rails. His stories, often alleging vast and shadowy conspiracies, have made startling — and often internally inconsistent — accusations, based on little or no proof beyond a handful of anonymous "officials".
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2023, 14:51 last edited by
If nothing else it’s quite an entertaining yarn. Besides, in the words of the late Menachem Begin in the wake of Isreal’s air strike on the French nuclear reactor under construction in Iraq;
”Who’s to criticise?”
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2023, 15:34 last edited by
Lots of assertions, little attribution. Where's this top secret info coming from?
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2023, 15:35 last edited by
@Mik said in Leaks in the pipeline - Nord Stream 1 & 2:
Where's this top secret info coming from?
The same unnamed sources that asserted 3 Chinese balloon crossings 2017-2020?
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2023, 16:20 last edited by
@Mik said in Leaks in the pipeline - Nord Stream 1 & 2:
Where's this top secret info coming from?
The corvette
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2023, 02:27 last edited by
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2023, 03:13 last edited by
-
wrote on 10 Feb 2023, 05:16 last edited by
Well the Kremlin is applauding Hersh’s attempt at “investigative journalism” with this report:
Who knows, but perhaps the Kremlin commissioned the report?
-
wrote on 10 Feb 2023, 12:34 last edited by
Germany: No evidence the Russians did it.
German investigators currently have no evidence that Russia is behind the explosions on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines, German Attorney General Peter Frank told Die Welt.
Frank said Russian involvement couldn’t be proven "at the moment" as the investigations are ongoing.
On Sept. 26-28, four leaks were discovered in the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in the Baltic sea that were built to supply natural gas from Russia to Europe. Following the leaks, several Western officials, including U.S. President Joe Biden, called them a “deliberate act of sabotage.”
Russian submarines were seen on Sept. 24-25 near the areas where the leaks were discovered, CNN reported, citing an unnamed Western intelligence official. Russia denied its responsibility for the explosions.
-
wrote on 10 Feb 2023, 12:46 last edited by
From the FT:
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2023, 01:02 last edited by
Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
Seymour Hersh’s recent Substack post claims to provide a highly detailed account of a covert US operation to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines in order to ensure that Russia would be unable to supply Germany with natural gas through them. All the information in Hersh’s post reportedly comes from a single unnamed source, who appears to have had direct access to every step of the planning and execution of this highly secretive operation.
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. This attempt to “cover all bases” is in many cases what trips these people up. 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.
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2023, 02:07 last edited by
Yeah, that’s an awful lot of detail for one person to know.
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2023, 02:11 last edited by
@Mik said in Leaks in the pipeline - Nord Stream 1 & 2:
Yeah, that’s an awful lot of detail for one person to know.
The less any one person knows, the more secure the information is.
-
wrote on 14 Feb 2023, 14:54 last edited by
-
wrote on 15 Feb 2023, 13:46 last edited by
First of all, the problem(s) with Sy Hersh:
Hersh’s biography of John F. Kennedy has been harshly criticized for errors of fact and interpretation.
Hersh also narrowly avoided a scandal when papers in his possession relating to the extramarital affairs of John F. Kennedy were assessed to be forgeries shortly before they were to become the core of an ABC documentary on the late President.
In 2015, Hersh published an account of the death of Osama bin Laden that contradicted nearly every official and unofficial account of the raid, proposing that, in fact, the terrorist leader was simply turned over to the United States by the Pakistani government.
Like the latest exposè, Hersh’s account of the Bin Laden raid relied heavily on a very small number of sources, a particularly serious problem because the story directly contradicted mountains of eyewitness testimony regarding the planning for, execution of, and aftermath of the raid.
Hersh’s reporting on the Syrian Civil War has similarly run into a firestorm of criticism.
And this:
Hersh’s reporting on the Nord Stream 2 attack relies heavily on a single source within the U.S. government who provided details not only of the deliberations behind the decision but also of the attack itself.
The operation involved a complex train of events in which divers installed explosives on the underwater pipeline, which were then detonated at a much later date. It implicates not only the U.S. government but also the Norwegian government and associates the attack with long-running U.S. government criticism of the pipelines.
The story has a veneer of plausibility; the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline remains unsolved. It is not difficult to imagine the motive, means, and opportunity for the United States government to carry out the operation. It also includes many small details, although this barrage eventually starts to pose questions in the mind of the reader about how a single-source could be privy to all of the evidence in question.
Unlike previous exposès, Hersh was unable to find a publisher for the piece, instead posting on his Substack. This is not necessarily cause for dismissing the story (editors can make poor decisions). Still, it is surely relevant that no major journalistic organization was capable of confirming the essence and details of the story, or willing to put its prestige behind the account.
The account also has some critical gaps. One surprising omission from Hersh’s reporting is a discussion of the legal reasoning behind the purported attack. It is not exactly true to say that the United States government never does anything illegal, but it is most certainly true that the executive branch invariably goes to great lengths to interpret the law in such a way that its actions appear legal from an internal perspective; lawyers are always present in major decisions about the use of force on the international stage, and can almost always offer an account of how any particular operation accords with domestic law.
In this case, Hersh offers only very thin gruel regarding how Biden’s public statements about the Nord Stream pipeline “ending” provided legal cover for the attack, a justification that executive branch lawyers are unlikely to find particularly compelling.
No one should trust an account of a massive conspiracy at the highest levels of government that relies on a single source. Moreover, Seymour Hersh’s reporting for the last decade has hardly earned him unequivocal trust from the reading public. That Hersh could not find a publisher for his explosive Nord Stream 2 story suggests that he has lost the confidence of the journalistic and editorial communities, communities that worshipped Hersh for decades.