Russia invades Ukraine

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't care about the 'source.'

We talked about the US blowing it up months ago.

My problem is that when someone posts an article talking about it, which they have every right to do, it he instantly gets labelled 'pro-Russian', when in fact there is nothing pro-Russian about saying the US did it.

Just in case everyone forgets, war is not black & white, and propaganda is practiced by both sides.

So any yahoo can claim someone told them something and you'd be okay with it? You're both siding the argument without actually looking at the veracity of the information being posted. Yes, war is not black and white, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof to back things up. Almost all of Hersch's arguments and claims have been thoroughly debunked by OSINT sources and analysts at this point. Why continue to perpetuate an argument that supports the Russian position when the information has been shown to be false? What type of people continue to post and claim something can be true when they've been shown there are clear problems with that position? Its the very stubborn, willfully ignorant, disinformation actor, or bot.

Yea, Firebot may have been a tad aggressive on the initial response and was a bit rude about it, but he did have a point.

In any case, there have been several prominent article pointing out everything fundamentally wrong with Hersch's claims.

Highlights from one of them pointing out Hersch's factually incorrect and near impossible details:

• Claiming Air Force proposed to Biden airdropping timed fuse munitions to destroy the pipeline when no sane person in the airforce would think doing so on an under water target is a good idea
• Claiming that NATO secretary Jens Stoltenberg has been a US Intelligence asset since the Vietnam war, despite the fact that Jens would have only been in his early teens at the time
• Claiming involvement of a specific class of Norwegian navy minesweeper took part in targeting of the pipeline to blow up using a well established training exercise as cover despite no ships of that class having participated in that exercise
• Claiming that said class of minesweeper supported the supposed dive operation despite it not being fitted with equipment to support surface-supplied mixed gas diving. i.e. complicating the mission by requiring 3 dives, when there were readily available alternatives
• Non-sensical claim that Americans had to adapt the explosives to the salinity of local water to "camouflage" them from the Russians. Wtf does that even mean???
• Claiming that Norwegian Navy P-8s aircraft involved in the plot despite the Norwegian Navy not operating any P-8s, that would be the Airforce. And ADS-B flight record data for all planes don't place them anywhere close to the areas involved at the times claimed.
• One of the main points against this. If the purpose was to blow up pipelines was Biden wanting to stop the flow of Russian gas to Germany, why only blow up three of the four pipeline instead of all of them? And why only leave intact the only one Russia can turn back one at a moments notice to supply gas to Germany?

There are so many more, but you can read details from one of these if you are interested. All of this points to a bunch of BS made up by a has been at best.
https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/...ur-hershs-pipe

[opendoor]

I don't know, I think if you looked strictly at motivation, someone allied with Ukraine (other than Germany) would have the most to gain from it. It removes a piece of leverage that Russia has over Europe, it harms the Russian economy, and it likely has long-term effects on European energy that harm Russia.

Now the evidence doesn't seem to point that way, so far at least. And I'm skeptical that a German ally would do something so brazen. But if we found out tomorrow from a reliable source that the US or UK blew it up, I wouldn't be shocked or anything.


All that said, I do think a lot of the people pushing the Hersh story as gospel are probably mostly doing it because they want it to be true. Those exact same people (Taibbi, Carlson, a bunch of people on the left etc.) spent months before the war saying that the US's warnings of an imminent invasion were baseless and the Russia would never invade Ukraine. Here's an example only a few days before the invasion happened:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1495540540330360835

Now Hersh's account allows them to act like they were right all along as it sort of positions the US/NATO as an aggressor who refused to negotiate with Russia, leaving Putin with few options.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't care about the 'source.'

We talked about the US blowing it up months ago.

My problem is that when someone posts an article talking about it, which they have every right to do, it he instantly gets labelled 'pro-Russian', when in fact there is nothing pro-Russian about saying the US did it.

Just in case everyone forgets, war is not black & white, and propaganda is practiced by both sides.

There's nothing pro-Russian about believing the US did it. There's significant issue though posting an article that's very clearly coordinated with Russian talking points from a very clearly unreliable source who very much is pro-Russian. That's the issue here.

If you're going to post something, you are going to have to take responsibility for the authenticity of it. I don't see how that's not fair

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

If you're going to post something, you are going to have to take responsibility for the authenticity of it. I don't see how that's not fair

This line of thinking could be a real game changer for how some posters conduct themselves.

[dammage79]

If Tucker Carlsons running with it, it's BS. Eff that guy. He's neck and neck with ol Trump as the two most reviled Americans in my book. And there's some real s**tty Americans they beat out to make it to the top of that poop pile.

[JohnnyB]

Who's pushing conspiracy theories and disinformation here?

So far I'm reading that Hersh is just some yahoo with a blog post who is staunchly pro-Russian and completely fabricated everything in very clear coordination with the Russians to promote very clear Russian talking points. Not only that, but this was fed to my friends by a Russian disinformation source. Maybe generating this story to discredit the Americans is even why the Russians really blew the pipeline up in the first place. Either way, if the details of Hersh's account are proven untrue, that disproves any and all accounts positing that the US did it.

I merely shared a link to an article with a description of its claims, meanwhile the response in here has whipped up a whole conspiracy theory of its own.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Guess I dug too deep or something for Musk's liking?

Musk is a goof, but I'm going to guess he or whoever looks into that sort of thing, don't give a #### about your research and digging haha.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

So any yahoo can claim someone told them something and you'd be okay with it? You're both siding the argument without actually looking at the veracity of the information being posted. Yes, war is not black and white, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof to back things up. Almost all of Hersch's arguments and claims have been thoroughly debunked by OSINT sources and analysts at this point. Why continue to perpetuate an argument that supports the Russian position when the information has been shown to be false? What type of people continue to post and claim something can be true when they've been shown there are clear problems with that position? Its the very stubborn, willfully ignorant, disinformation actor, or bot.

Yea, Firebot may have been a tad aggressive on the initial response and was a bit rude about it, but he did have a point.

In any case, there have been several prominent article pointing out everything fundamentally wrong with Hersch's claims.

Highlights from one of them pointing out Hersch's factually incorrect and near impossible details:

• Claiming Air Force proposed to Biden airdropping timed fuse munitions to destroy the pipeline when no sane person in the airforce would think doing so on an under water target is a good idea
• Claiming that NATO secretary Jens Stoltenberg has been a US Intelligence asset since the Vietnam war, despite the fact that Jens would have only been in his early teens at the time
• Claiming involvement of a specific class of Norwegian navy minesweeper took part in targeting of the pipeline to blow up using a well established training exercise as cover despite no ships of that class having participated in that exercise
• Claiming that said class of minesweeper supported the supposed dive operation despite it not being fitted with equipment to support surface-supplied mixed gas diving. i.e. complicating the mission by requiring 3 dives, when there were readily available alternatives
• Non-sensical claim that Americans had to adapt the explosives to the salinity of local water to "camouflage" them from the Russians. Wtf does that even mean???
• Claiming that Norwegian Navy P-8s aircraft involved in the plot despite the Norwegian Navy not operating any P-8s, that would be the Airforce. And ADS-B flight record data for all planes don't place them anywhere close to the areas involved at the times claimed.
• One of the main points against this. If the purpose was to blow up pipelines was Biden wanting to stop the flow of Russian gas to Germany, why only blow up three of the four pipeline instead of all of them? And why only leave intact the only one Russia can turn back one at a moments notice to supply gas to Germany?

There are so many more, but you can read details from one of these if you are interested. All of this points to a bunch of BS made up by a has been at best.
https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/...ur-hershs-pipe

I have read the article.

I found the details he provided to be suspect given the high secrecy of such a mission. The US military conducts off the books operations all the time without anyone ever knowing about them for decades after. A mission like this wouldn't be leaked a few months after.

Or maybe it would, who knows.

I just know the US stands to gain from this war immensely, and given their past 20 year history, they will use Ukraine as a means to an end.

And then end is not JUST to upset Russian order in Eastern Europe. It is also to upset European industry, and force them to be dependent on American resources or not exist at all.

Also guess what? I can say all that and be staunchly pro-Ukraine. Shocker.

[Table 5]

There’s an old NATO maxim that basically says that to keep peace in Europe, you need to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.“

The destruction of Nordstream 2 did exactly that…it weakened Russia’s influence in Europe and eliminated a potential source of energy income (income which amongst other things, helps to funnel war), it weakened the Germans in terms of energy security (and removed a point of hesitancy in action against Russia), and kept the Americans in (by not only keeping influence, but now also benefitting from being the ones who bring in the Gas).

When you consider past historical action and ask yourself the old “cui bono”, there’s really only one country that make sense. I’m just not really seeing any one else having the incentive, covert ability, and political balls to do this:
• The Russians? Why would a resource-based country that relies on energy exports for income and political influence, do this? Nordstream and cheap gas is what they had over the Germans and Europe. This would be like a drug dealer eliminating the network to his best customers.
• The Germans? They were addicted to cheap Russian energy for years (all while reducing their own resources). Why would the worlds 4th largest economy sacrifice themselves, and put their country into an energy crisis? For Ukraine? What drug addict would willingly do this?
• The Ukrainians? I guess I could see some incentive there to punish Russia, and eliminate German hesitancy. But I don’t really seem them being able to pull this off on their own.
• Anyone else in Europe? I’m not really seeing the incentive either. Norway has some incentive as they get to supply more gas to Europe…so I’m not completely surprised they’d be involved, but definitely not on their own.
• The Chinese? I guess they are someone who could technically pull this off, but I’m not sure why they want to get involved. They are too busy reaping the benefits of this conflict as-is. This also doesn’t seem like their style.

If people want to go the ad hominem route with the author, that’s fine I guess, but to dismiss the idea of the article because “Putin talking point!” seems naive to history. The CIA has been willing to get dirty around the world for decades…I’m not sure why now would be any different. Putin being evil, and the Americans being involved in the muck, are not mutually exclusive.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Table 5

There’s an old NATO maxim that basically says that to keep peace in Europe, you need to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.“

The destruction of Nordstream 2 did exactly that…it weakened Russia’s influence in Europe and eliminated a potential source of energy income (income which amongst other things, helps to funnel war), it weakened the Germans in terms of energy security (and removed a point of hesitancy in action against Russia), and kept the Americans in (by not only keeping influence, but now also benefitting from being the ones who bring in the Gas).

When you consider past historical action and ask yourself the old “cui bono”, there’s really only one country that make sense. I’m just not really seeing any one else having the incentive, covert ability, and political balls to do this:
• The Russians? Why would a resource-based country that relies on energy exports for income and political influence, do this? Nordstream and cheap gas is what they had over the Germans and Europe. This would be like a drug dealer eliminating the network to his best customers.
• The Germans? They were addicted to cheap Russian energy for years (all while reducing their own resources). Why would the worlds 4th largest economy sacrifice themselves, and put their country into an energy crisis? For Ukraine? What drug addict would willingly do this?
• The Ukrainians? I guess I could see some incentive there to punish Russia, and eliminate German hesitancy. But I don’t really seem them being able to pull this off on their own.
• Anyone else in Europe? I’m not really seeing the incentive either. Norway has some incentive as they get to supply more gas to Europe…so I’m not completely surprised they’d be involved, but definitely not on their own.
• The Chinese? I guess they are someone who could technically pull this off, but I’m not sure why they want to get involved. They are too busy reaping the benefits of this conflict as-is. This also doesn’t seem like their style.

If people want to go the ad hominem route with the author, that’s fine I guess, but to dismiss the idea of the article because “Putin talking point!” seems naive to history. The CIA has been willing to get dirty around the world for decades…I’m not sure why now would be any different. Putin being evil, and the Americans being involved in the muck, are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think a single poster has disputed that the Americans could have done it. What's being disputed is the 'facts' in the article, which look to have all been fabricated by an author who now has an almost 20 year history of making things up and being a conspiracy nutjob.

The article (propaganda really) was crap and sheds no light on who actually blew up the pipes. The suspects remain: USA, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, someone else. If we ever find out, it will probably be decades from now.

All people are mad about is giving a known conspiracy hack more exposure and presenting him as a reliable reporter when he is fully discredited. He certainly could be right that the Americans did it, but he isn't privy to any information that proves it, so it's just one guy who has suspicious motives opinion.

[Table 5]

Well let me say that I have no idea whether Hersh is legit, a full on quack, or somewhere in between. His Pulitzer Prize suggests that at some point he was a highly-respected investigative journalist who went against the powers that be, so you’d imagine there was still something valid there, but I am by no means here to vouch for the guy. I’m Eastern European, my default is to be highly skeptical of pretty much everything and everyone…it’s what gives us our sunny disposition!

My post was basically to say 1) I think it’s highly likely that this was a US operation, considering the incentive and historical precedent. 2) Not everything that comes up for discussion that doesn’t paint Russia in the evilest of lights is some sort of propagandist talking point. In the end, we are talking about deeply complex issues involving countries with suspect histories and overlapping interests. Stories like this could very well have elements of propaganda and accuracy at the same time.

As you say, the real details of this operation probably won’t be know for a few decades, because the story is still too fresh and the people involved are alive and active. If somebody is expecting hard evidence or open confession to believe any story…they are going to be waiting a really long time. Nobody of worth is going to risk exposing themselves. Of course that means that articles like this leave a lot of room for error and compromise.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I don't think a single poster has disputed that the Americans could have done it. What's being disputed is the 'facts' in the article, which look to have all been fabricated by an author who now has an almost 20 year history of making things up and being a conspiracy nutjob.

The article (propaganda really) was crap and sheds no light on who actually blew up the pipes. The suspects remain: USA, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, someone else. If we ever find out, it will probably be decades from now.

All people are mad about is giving a known conspiracy hack more exposure and presenting him as a reliable reporter when he is fully discredited. He certainly could be right that the Americans did it, but he isn't privy to any information that proves it, so it's just one guy who has suspicious motives opinion.

Lots of posters have not only disputed that the Americans could have done it, but they labelled everyone in the camp that believes that they could have as pro-Russian.

Is the article propaganda? Sure, it could be. Or he actually did do some investigative reporting in this story, just like he has on stories that were also true.

And please spare me the 'oh you are giving the story more exposure' stupidity. The whole incident is possibly the biggest story in decades, with ramifications that will last decades. How dare people talk about a major news article that talks about it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Well let me say that I have no idea whether Hersh is legit, a full on quack, or somewhere in between. His Pulitzer Prize suggests that at some point he was a highly-respected investigative journalist who went against the powers that be, so you’d imagine there was still something valid there, but I am by no means here to vouch for the guy. I’m Eastern European, my default is to be highly skeptical of pretty much everything and everyone…it’s what gives us our sunny disposition!

My post was basically to say 1) I think it’s highly likely that this was a US operation, considering the incentive and historical precedent. 2) Not everything that comes up for discussion that doesn’t paint Russia in the evilest of lights is some sort of propagandist talking point. In the end, we are talking about deeply complex issues involving countries with suspect histories and overlapping interests. Stories like this could very well have elements of propaganda and accuracy at the same time.

As you say, the real details of this operation probably won’t be know for a few decades, because the story is still too fresh and the people involved are alive and active. If somebody is expecting hard evidence or open confession to believe any story…they are going to be waiting a really long time. Nobody of worth is going to risk exposing themselves. Of course that means that articles like this leave a lot of room for error and compromise.

Of course, none of us really know. NATO countries have admitted that there is no clear evidence that Russia did it. For me, it just seems like it would do more damage to Russia and help countries like Ukraine and Poland who never wanted Nordstream operational to begin with citing national security concerns.

I hope it was a U.S. or other NATO country that did it, because getting rid of that pipeline serves Ukrainian and Eastern European interests quite well. If it was Russia, then they are stupider than I thought. Either way, glad that Russia has one less string to manipulate European politicians with, especially Germany as only they and Russia actually wanted the thing to begin with.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Azure

Lots of posters have not only disputed that the Americans could have done it, but they labelled everyone in the camp that believes that they could have as pro-Russian.

Is the article propaganda? Sure, it could be. Or he actually did do some investigative reporting in this story, just like he has on stories that were also true.

And please spare me the 'oh you are giving the story more exposure' stupidity. The whole incident is possibly the biggest story in decades, with ramifications that will last decades. How dare people talk about a major news article that talks about it.

It's not a 'major news article', it's self published trash. If you can't tell the difference, you're part of the problem.

[afc wimbledon]

The US didnt do this for the simple reason that it would be pointless for them, the pipelines were already closed down so no gas was being sent through them, on top of that it would take at most a few weeks to fix the holes, replacing a few hundred feet of a pipe in shallow water is a tiny repair that all pipes have to go through at times anyway, the action does no long term damage to Russia what so ever, the US would get nothing at all out of blowing them up.

I could see the Ukrainians doing it to send a message to Russia, that their arm was long enough to hit them anywhere, it not them then Russia is the only player, but there is no way the US bothers to do something that economically inconsequential to Russia with the level of risk it brings

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The US didnt do this for the simple reason that it would be pointless for them, the pipelines were already closed down so no gas was being sent through them, on top of that it would take at most a few weeks to fix the holes, replacing a few hundred feet of a pipe in shallow water is a tiny repair that all pipes have to go through at times anyway, the action does no long term damage to Russia what so ever, the US would get nothing at all out of blowing them up.

I could see the Ukrainians doing it to send a message to Russia, that their arm was long enough to hit them anywhere, it not them then Russia is the only player, but there is no way the US bothers to do something that economically inconsequential to Russia with the level of risk it brings

The U.S. may not have had a personal interest, but as the senior NATO partner, their interests would have been the same as other European NATO countries who were concerned with the potential Russian influence the pipeline had. It wasn't being used at that moment, but it was charged and ready to go. The fear was that if the winter became harsh on Germany, that Russia could entice them by opening the taps for them.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The U.S. may not have had a personal interest, but as the senior NATO partner, their interests would have been the same as other European NATO countries who were concerned with the potential Russian influence the pipeline had. It wasn't being used at that moment, but it was charged and ready to go. The fear was that if the winter became harsh on Germany, that Russia could entice them by opening the taps for them.

Russia has plenty of land pipelines to supply Germany, blowing the pipelines did nothing to alter its ability to supply Europe, it did increase the price of Natural Gas and so make Russia some extra money though

[GGG]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The US didnt do this for the simple reason that it would be pointless for them, the pipelines were already closed down so no gas was being sent through them, on top of that it would take at most a few weeks to fix the holes, replacing a few hundred feet of a pipe in shallow water is a tiny repair that all pipes have to go through at times anyway, the action does no long term damage to Russia what so ever, the US would get nothing at all out of blowing them up.

I could see the Ukrainians doing it to send a message to Russia, that their arm was long enough to hit them anywhere, it not them then Russia is the only player, but there is no way the US bothers to do something that economically inconsequential to Russia with the level of risk it brings

I’d suggest you don’t know anything about pipelines if your comment is a few tiny holes in shallow water is a tiny repair.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’d suggest you don’t know anything about pipelines if your comment is a few tiny holes in shallow water is a tiny repair.

The NYT reported back in late December that Russia was already looking into rebuilding the pipeline to restore gas flow and the cost estimate from a consultant on the project was $500M USD.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Russia has plenty of land pipelines to supply Germany, blowing the pipelines did nothing to alter its ability to supply Europe, it did increase the price of Natural Gas and so make Russia some extra money though

The gas that flowed overland from Russia to Europe was through Ukraine, so hardly a secure delivery method for them at this point.

You're also unreasonably dismissing the benefits to the US of getting rid of Nord Stream. You can go back and read plenty of articles pre-2022 on why Nord Stream was a strategic problem for the US and why they wanted to stop it. It's not like those reasons disappeared.

Furthermore, there is a big difference between a pipeline that can just be turned back on again and no pipeline at all. Germany might have had a different political calculus a couple of months back when they were complaining about US price gouging on gas if it had been possible to just open the taps again. It certainly would have given them leverage in negotiations with the US and made their complaints more than just hapless pleas from a now-captured market. The same leverage gained by the US in energy pricing extends to other relations between the two countries now. The whole fear regarding Nord Stream was that Russia would be able to exert influence on Germany and Europe via energy supply. Of course the US can now do the same.

I also think the concept of risks involved for the US in blowing it up is somewhat exaggerated. What are the risks really? What consequences would they actually suffer? Everyone knows that 20 years ago they orchestrated a massive lie, even bringing a prop into the UN to make the theatrics more convincing, to get countries to support them in an illegal invasion that ended up with a million dead Iraqis. I don't really see them having suffered any consequences for that. It seems an awful lot like influential American industries did pretty well out of that invasion while the US has never suffered any consequences even after the lies became transparent to the world. Sure, an action like blowing up a pipeline if it were public at the time would potentially cause a public uproar in Europe that would cause political pressure against the US, but if it could be obfuscated a for even a couple of years I don't really see what consequences they're going to suffer. I'm sure lots of people would view it as Azure does anyways, that it was the right thing to do.

They don't recognize the ICC. They have veto power in the security council. They now have Europe more dependent on them for energy. They are the principal actors of NATO. The list goes on... If they did do it, they're not going to suffer any consequences for it, because whoever did it has only increased American influence by doing so.

None of us know who did it. Maybe it was Ukraine, Russia, the US, or someone else, but I find your arguments that it categorically was not the US really unconvincing.