This sounds wild, but plausible from what I've read
Doesn't seem to be as much talk about it as I'd expect
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream
A good discussion here:
I heard it was prince andrew.
This sounds wild, but plausible from what I’ve read
So you're posting conspiracy theory stuff, and justifying it by 'things you have read' but not linking to anything?
What a waste of time.
@matt_outandabout, there's two links right there
Hersh is an ex-New York Times and New Yorker staff writer and Pulitzer Prize winner -- the first link is his article
The second is what I felt was a pretty balanced discussion
Here's some info if you don't want to check the first page of google yourself:
Looks like Hersh was at the centre of important US political stuff some decades back -- Watergate, Vietman, Abu Ghraib
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib
Some seem to think he's lost the plot more recently, though
Most of the comments on the New York Post(mainly right wing Americans), think it was the US who blew it up.
I wouldn't go as far as "consiracy theory stuff". A conspiracy theory flies in the face of lots of accepted facts or invents fake facts whilst ignoring the obvious. For example the driver of pricess Di's car was drunk and high is the most likely cause of the accident and actually planning such an accident would be extremely difficult.
Here we have industrial qualtities of explosives used to blow up pipelines. Someone did it, it wasn't an accident and as no-one has been blamed by the investigators you can't really rank theories as conspiracy or plausible. Just about anything is plausible because we haven't been given any information that makes it implausible.
The most implausibel thing is that the investigation failed to find out more. I suspect it did but we aren't being told.
America, Russian, Norway, UK, many other nations, oil companies, "terrorists". Plenty of organisations have the means and would benefit, there aren't many that have the means to do it without getting caught, or silencing everybody if they do get caught.
I'm just happy the ****ing things are bust whoever did it. I cut of my own gas years ago for CO2, methane and geopolitical reasons. And yes, I have a wood burning stove and will use it till it's banned or 100% of electricity is renewable.
I heard it was George Santos in his diving suit with a length of lead pipe.
Or Colonel Mustard for all we'll ever know 😆
@dyna-ti the New York Post is a tabloid rag, basically the Sun for yanks.
@Edukator, very well put
The key thing about the pipeline sabotage is that there isn't really a good theory
I followed the situation at the time, and everyone (including me) seemed to assume it must have been Russia, because who else? But no one could see any reasonable motivation on their part. Then the whole thing just seemed to get forgotten about
Chomsky summarises this well, although I don't agree with his propaganda comments here
the New York Post is a tabloid rag, basically the Sun for yanks.
Yes, but dont you think the one sided outlook is a bit much. To readily dismiss all but the party line is really doing the job of the establishment propagandists.
Question everything is always the order of the day.
Seymour Hersh has been publishing alternative theories for a decade or more and sources range from "A former senior intelligence official" to a "high-level intelligence officer" via "a series of highly classified reports" and "an email to a colleague" ( https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n24/seymour-m.-hersh/whose-sarin ) none of which seems to be verified despite more recent US intelligence leaks
The more detail that Hersh includes gives analysts more detail to pick at. Here's a substack looking at the flaws in Hersh's pipeline theory https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe
I dont doubt the US are perfectly capable of this, but the bit in the article about underwater acoustics is garbage.
🤣
I blame Die Hard for journalists and the like, making out that C4 is a super high tech explosive.
The debunking was perhaps too easy. If we're really into conspiracy then someone could have asked Hersh for a smoke screen.
Going through the nations who lost the most then you have a list of those least likely to have done it: the gas seller, the buyers and investors: So: EU buyers, France and Germany mainly, and Russia.
Those with most to gain: alternative buyers of Russian gas, alternative sellers of gas, enemies of France, Germany and the EU. There's a glaring one there, the UK which is in a trade war with the EU. Liz Trust didn't know if France was "friend or foe" and was confrontational with the EU. A huge fan of Zelenskiy "freedom fighter" Truss wanted to free Crimea.
If America wanted an ally with a regular presence in the Baltic the UK was a better choice than Norway, a country unlikely to want to start a pipeline war.
I don't remember much discussion on STW at the time apart from posts in the main Ukraine thread and in energy threads. In France we had all sorts of theories presented to us, some accusing the UK, but always treated with caution.
Whoever really did it wil rejoice every time a new theory pops up, it just adds to the smokescreen.
Fact is someone did it. Speculate, speculate etc..
This sounds wild, but plausible from what I’ve read
Doesn’t seem to be as much talk about it as I’d expect
Both sides of the stories are valid IMO.
Media can only speculate coz No one is putting their hand up.
I have my suspicious but nothing much more than that.
All i know is my energy cost has gone up. Fact.
Going through the nations who lost the most then you have a list of those least likely to have done it: the gas seller, the buyers and investors: So: EU buyers, France and Germany mainly, and Russia.
Those with most to gain: alternative buyers of Russian gas, alternative sellers of gas, enemies of France, Germany and the EU. There’s a glaring one there, the UK which is in a trade war with the EU.
Why would the UK sabotage NS?
Why would the UK double the risk of getting caught by damaging NS2, a pipeline that wasn't certified by Germany because of the declaration of war and hadn't pumped gas into Europe?
Why would the UK leave one of the two NS2 pipelines untouched?
The fact is that four NS pipelines were unnecessary in the face of world climate change agreements to reduce reliance on fossil fuel and cause a significant inspection and maintenance drag on the companies involved. Destroying the pipes caused the price of gas to increase everywhere in Europe, except Russia.
An explosion occurred on a gas pipeline in Russia that supplies Europe just before Christmas, gas prices rose on that one too. Who benefits most in Europe? Russia due to unchanged local gas prices. It leads to dithering support for Ukraine amongst other European countries during winter and an increase in gas revenues for Russia (3/4 of Russia's population lives in Eastern Europe)
I seem to remember something the Americans said about hindering Russia's ability to pipe gas to the west. It was a while ago, but maybe someone else has a link/quote.
Even Russia's Foreign Ministry admits that it's, "...circumstantial evidence obtained by journalists..."
I still think it was the Russians, it was most likely an act to weaken the resolve of the northern European public rather than politicians directly, the political fallout would come later as the public unrest was made clear. However it is quite clear that Russia have underestimated the wests resolve on pretty much every level.
However while that would be the most probable, a US "false flag" would come second in my guesses of likely actors who would perform such an action, I certainly wouldn't dismiss speculation about the possibility.
America is not a benign power championing freedom and democracy on the world stage, it is a greedy manipulative bully, and I wish European politics were more active in resisting its effect on world politics. It is however not as bad as Putin's Russia or the current Chinese regime.
In answer to the "why" questions, reread my post.
Wherever you look for more than speculation you'll find nohting so I've speculated. Which brings us back to my original point. In the absence of anything tangible being published by "the investigation" or any hard facts it's a free for all. One theory is as good as another so long as you don't get into enough detail to get debunked. I've given no detail so my vague finger pointing is as good as anyone else's and better than some - I can point to Biden's statements that Nord stream 2 would be stopped and Truss's hatred of Europe, and no-one would deny that both countries have the means.
Just before the explosions Liz Truss:
< She will also tell fellow leaders that they must put an end to Putin’s economic blackmail by removing all energy dependence on Russia. Earlier this month Russia again closed off the Nord Stream pipeline, with restrictions on supply leading to further spikes in energy prices. Truss said: “By turning off the taps of Nord Stream gas pipeline, Putin has consigned millions of people in Europe to a colder and more difficult winter.
“Too many lives – in Ukraine, in Europe and around the world – are being manipulated by a dependence on Russian energy. We need to work together to end this once and for all.”
The prime minister wants to use the diplomatic visit to encourage global efforts to stop Russia from profiting off its energy exports while ending energy dependence on authoritarian regimes. >
People really say a lot about themselves in their willingness to entertain idiotic conspiracy theories.
And some people don't seem to realise that one of those "idiotic conspiracy theories" has to be right. You only consider some of the theories "idiotic conspiracy theories" because of where you are sitting, the media you use and your preconceptions. Go on, thecaptian, choose one of the many possible perpetrators and try to do a better job of convincing me that they did it. It'll be far easier to debunk than my efforts.
Try having an open mind untill you have some evidence, which is notable for its absence.
Some people just want to believe. I suspect aliens.
Try having an open mind untill you have some evidence, which is notable for its absence.
Hardly open-minded to mention the UK as "...enemies of France, Germany and the EU. There’s a glaring one there, the UK which is in a trade war with the EU."
The question of gas supply to Europe has caused dithering in France, Germany and the EU, which isn't in the interests of anyone apart from Russia. ""Oh FFS (omitted)," former Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves said on Twitter, encapsulating the general feeling among many of France's eastern allies." https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/macrons-mixed-messages-ukraine-unnerve-some-western-allies-2022-12-08/
Perhaps President Macron could have been persuaded to remove President Putin's Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour before he made the same award to President Zelensky, but no, more dithering. Macron was very decisive when he removed Lance Armstrong's award for cheating in the TDF
Yes, "one of those “idiotic conspiracy theories” has to be right" and I know where my money is
< and I know where my money is > but you're not prepared tell us to where your money is. I'm not a gambling man and wouldn't put my money anywhere.
I absolutely agree that European dithering was pathetic. Macron wanting to talk was good but appeasing was bad. The answer to high energy prices in France was to subsidise the electorate whilst crippling industry. The opposite of what was needed. Subsidise fine but only the poorest 10%, not those able to pay and also capable of cutting consumption.
As for Scholz he was happy to continue buying until he couldn't.
So yes, the destruction of the pipelines forced their hands which was IMO a good thing, Biden's wish was fulfilled, and he got to sell a load of shale gas.
Biden’s wish was fulfilled, and he got to sell a load of shale gas.
So… are you’re saying Biden ordered the bombing of a European pipeline to increase the amount/cost of shale gas the USA sells…?
My aliens hypothesis is more plausible.
I'm not saying that, you are Kelvin.
Biden and his administration members made statements about Nord Stream, some of them have been linked, watch the vids. The Ukraine war is the most obvious priciplal justification for the destruction of the pireline whoever did it, not profit. The Americans wanted to stop the supply of Russian gas to Europe and said as much, an obvious bonus that wasn't stated was that they would benefit from selling shale gas at high prices. I could link a load of articles about the negotiation of US gas supply to Europe and the UK but you're a well read man so I'm sure you remember.
Think back over your lifetime, I've followed the US meddling around the world for as long as I've followed the news. Ruling out US meddling would be as daft as the daftest conspiracy theory.
Why then blow up an unused pipeline?
We assumed a Russian show of strength to show how tough they were.. pretty crude, easy for them. That's why we had extra anti-sub patrols and missiles on platforms
Perhaps because someone thought they were still being used, it was after all at full pressure, 105bar, when it blew.. I have no idea I'm just wildly speculating, just as you "assumed a Russian show of strenghth". An assumption is speculation you think is more than just speculation. Blowing up your own unused pipeline is hardly a show of strength, and there's an obvious thing the extra subs were there for. 🙂
You think the americans didn't know it was disused? They could always look at the volume thro' it. It was pressurised to keep the water out.
I said "someone thought".
It only requires 20bar to keep the water out at 200m, it was at full operating pressure before the blasts.
"Who benefits?" is at the heart of most conspiracy theories.
The Reichstag Fire, 9-11 etc.
Reichstag fire. So which theory do you consider the conspiracy theory? The communist party were blamed but it certainly didn't benefit them. Then the Nazis themselves and it definitely benefitted them, or "unknown" and we have no idea if it benefitted them.
Below is what Biden said last year (it's in the first discussion link I posted, but this is the statement alone). Watching that after reading the Hersh article I find it hard to stop my brain going 'jesus of course is was the Americans!', but I know that's not a rational response
That said, the USA have done crazy things around the world for decades, that's no secret, and hence I feel it is plausible they are behind this
It would have been a senseless thing for the Russians to do -- destroying leverage when they already have the ability to switch off the gas at will -- but on balance I still think it's more likely to have been them
Reichstag fire. So which theory do you consider the conspiracy theory?
The Nazis pushed the conspiracy theory that the Communist Party organised it, so they could get rid of them.
The Communists claimed that the Nazis did it, so they could rid of them.
The Nazi Party definitely benefitted from it.
However, all of the real world evidence points to the Dutchman van der Lubbe acted alone. Something which he also claimed in court.
I know we are all just spouting unevidenced theories, so here's mine. Russia did it to demonstrate to the West how easy it is for them to cut undersea infrastructure covertly and deniably. A warning that if sanctions or military support for Ukraine went too far, they could easily sever the internet and other communications links across the Atlantic seabed and elsewhere that would create chaos and cripple economies.
I have no idea I’m just wildly speculating
It was aliens, for sure.
The advantage of my wild speculation is it doesn’t make me another useful idiot for Putin.
Now the big question to speculate about… which aliens…?
which aliens?
We can rule out the trisolarans - their methods are much more subtle.
Rule none of them out… keep an “open mind”.
Ignoring the theories for a moment, does anyone think the pipeline being out of use is a bad thing? I don't, I'd rather it had never been built. And I'm not sure who that makes me a useful idiot to? Even if Putin pulled out of Ukraine tomorrow I'd object to it being repaired - France has done more to reduce it's reliance on gas in the last six months than in the previous 6 years.
Its an interesting theory, but I am not buying it. Seymour Hersh quotes one "Anonymous Source" and has few additional facts to back it up. There would be much more evidence if it was true.
This is worth a read (both the Substack article and the twitter replies)
https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1624102357746298881
Also whilst Hersh is a Pullitzer Prize winning journalist for work in the 60's and 70's he has form for increasingly wild and unsubstantiated theories. Its all on Wikepedia and Bellingcat
I still think its an open verdict until more evidence surfaces.
does anyone think the pipeline being out of use is a bad thing?
Well, it’s been great for Shell and BP. The big worry has to be that extraction just increases elsewhere, rather than a reduction in use becomes bedded in. I hope it’s the latter though.
