zlacker

>>hungle+(OP)
It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing.

The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story.

What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears to be based on a single, unnamed source "with direct knowledge of the operational planning".

>>mmastr+fu1
It's not unsourced, the source is being kept private. That may not seem like a meaningful difference but there is a difference. And that difference is the reason Seymour Hersh's reputation is relevant.

>>LarryM+wy1
Does it actually say that anywhere?

I read the first half of the article, and skimmed the second. It doesn't claim to be sourced from anywhere, and the only paragraph that discusses sources and fact checking is when they point out the White House says the entire article is a work of fiction. It doesn't present any evidence that it happened (other than that the US has a big swimming pool that the navy trains in), and summarizes itself by saying that it was a perfect plan (presumably meaning it left behind no evidence), except that they actually did it.

What am I missing?

>>hedora+Z32
It claims that the info came from someone "with direct knowledge of the operational planning"

>>ravi-d+if2
And it includes direct quotes from that person in the last paragraphs. It was clearly someone Hersh spoke to directly.

While I am extraordinarily distrustful of news reports using anonymous sources you do have to consider the author here. Ultimately we are deciding if we trust him and, for me personally, he lends a lot of credibility.

The other side of this is, duh, of course America blew up the pipeline. I said at the time that we were the most likely culprit.

There's a very small subset of groups who have the capability to do this and even fewer who have the motivation. It forces Germany/EU to stop buying NG from Russia and start buying LNG from the US (among others) with exceptionally minimal political risk to the US.

The US will just continue to deny that we did it, this article will get no traction in mainstream media. If incontrovertible proof ever did surface the media will just bury the story and if anyone involved is forced to comment they will just spin it as a good and necessary and just thing that they did to help Ukraine with a dose of natural gas bad because of climate change and all will be forgiven.

>>AdamJa+Ji2
When it happened it was clear that the US, Russia, and Poland were likely the only suspects, except they're all really weird! The US absolutely has not made return on investment, which was obviously going to happen because shipping it over is much more expensive than the pipeline, and in the meantime Biden has to deal with increased gas prices. His incentives go the other way on this. But why the fuck would Russia do it? Poland is like...there, which is why they're worth a mention, but they don't have the same operational capacity and also do not benefit from it at all. But I mean come on, we know it was sabotaged deliberately. Such a weird thing

>>ravi-d+lY2
> But why the fuck would Russia do it?

Why do so many people act as if it's so unlikely that Russia did it? They had the least to lose, their relations with the west were already ruined at that point and such an incident couldn't make them any worse.

What would be their motive? Before the explosion, Russia had illegally shut down the pipeline. Now that the pipeline has exploded, they have plausible deniability and they can say it's not their fault the gas isn't flowing. Because of that, they won't have to pay additional fines when the economic relations with the west are restored.

And don't forget that one pipe of NS2 was left intact and, unlike NS1, there was no contractual obligation to pump gas through it.