The Ukrainian War V: Tanks For The Memories

[Kingdom of Snoreway]

While certainly well written, the article is based on one anonymous source, who appears to have not provided any supporting documentation. Since he published this on his personal blog that means the story probably wasn't red teamed or checked by anyone else's. I'll wait for some verification before believing it.

Lots of reputable journalists use Substack these days, I don't think it's that weird-- and there certainly seems to be a high degree of alignment between public events/statements and his account of what was going on behind the scenes. I agree more corroboration would be nice, but I'm struggling to see what the means to get it are at this point, because it's not like the White House or the IC are suddenly going to go "haha yeah you got us, we did it" or let any officials speak on the record. It's getting enough pickup online that I'm sure other journalists will start sniffing around or contacting sources though, so hopefully there'll be more to confirm or debunk it soon. I expect not unlike previous stories that he's broken, though, it will take months or years before we get a definitive confirmation (definitive enough for some people, anyways).

Norway has three Alta-class minesweepers, the Alta, the Otra and the Rauma. Only two of these are currently in action; the Otra and the Rauma. These are manned by conscript sailors. It really shouldn't be too difficult to get them to talk, or to confirm their movements.

One bigger thing, though: He claims a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane dropped a sonar buoy. Norway doesn't have those in operation. They hope to get the operational during the beginning of 2023, according to this article from November 2022, after the pipelines burst.

[Senkaku]

for fear of escalation with Russia,

Is this actually the only reason why they’ve done as they have? I have a lot of problems with this assumption that we should take everything the WH and State Department and Pentagon state as their intentions or motives at face value, when there are obvious alternative explanations that just happen to be less PR-friendly (not that avoiding escalation isn’t a reason, but come on).

would plan to directly attack Russian infrastructure is an extraordinary claim. Especially since Germany has put a lot of money and political capital into that infrastructure and there was very little indication before the war that Germany would be ok with completely closing off gas imports from Russia, so not only is it a major escalation against Russia it is potentially a major destabilizing event in NATO when you least want it. Finally it isn't an operation you would likely to be able to keep secret for long, involved countries are going to investigate the destruction of their billion dollar infrastructure projects to see what happened.

What would the Germans have said, exactly? What would be in their interest to reveal, even if they figured out what had happened after the fact? If Hersh’s account is accurate, the mines would’ve already exploded, so what proof would they have to offer the media and the international community, even if they decided to go against their interests and expose the US and Norway? American media quickly adopted the stance that it was a mystery likely attributable to Russian sabotage, and that’s become the de facto explanation, despite there being similarly scanty evidence as for a US-originated plot. No, the NATO exercise happening in the same area does not prove US involvement, but the evidence I’ve seen for Russia being definitively to blame seems similarly circumstantial and based off certain assumptions about Moscow & Washington’s motives.

It's compelling because it is well written. I've read lots of compelling things that are well written and wrong. See above for some more of my thoughts.

I mean, bffr, it’s more than just the style of his prose. There’s also an excellent narrative of circumstantial correlation of events— no, of course it doesn’t prove anything on its own, but it highlights the plausibility of American involvement, at a time when we know just as little about the various Gazprom hypotheses that’ve become the default explanation for the incident. No, his record isn’t totally untainted, and so we shouldn’t uncritically take this as gospel, but his record also has some bombshell reporting, so— as I said— I think this is a story worth keeping an eye on the development of. Whether it ends in the final ruin of Seymour Hersh’s reputation, or the exposure of US involvement in the Nord Stream sabotage, it’s going to be big! Also, this is obviously still speculative, so I wish you’d engage on the points you yourself brought up about the validity of official denials/disavowals or how they should be interpreted by the public when offered explicitly as opposed to the standard procedure of neither confirming nor denying anything about US military or intelligence activity.

These are manned by conscript sailors. It really shouldn't be too difficult to get them to talk, or to confirm their movements.

Presumably the journalists following up on this will be pursuing that avenue of approach— tracking down conscripts (if conscripts were manning the vessel Hersh believes was present) could be a project, and if any of this were true one imagines the Norwegian secret service could interfere, although that itself could be notable enough that they’ll just stay quiet regardless. I have to assume Hersh is being pressed by colleagues to reveal more details even as we speak, so hopefully we’ll soon learn more.

One bigger thing, though: He claims a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane dropped a sonar buoy. Norway doesn't have those in operation. They hope to get the operational during the beginning of 2023, according to this article from November 2022, after the pipelines burst.

Very interesting— either he’s lying/been misled, they’re lying about not having it in service yet, or the Americans gave them one for this operation (none of which seem like a stretch to me). I suspect in 72 hours we’ll be learning some interesting things about how he ended up writing this— about who may have been responsible for feeding it to him, or new/previously undisclosed sources.

In any case, he’s certainly been wrong before, so I won’t be assuming this is the definitive account of events yet and remain entirely open to the idea that the Russians lashed out in a fit of pique (as they’ve been doing since last year)— but he’s also been vindicated by the Church Committee for accusations that were similarly dismissed at the time, so I’m not prepared to dismiss this out of hand, particularly given the self-evident alignment with actual US and Norwegian interests that such an action would represent. Similar criticism in terms of sourcing was leveled at the time, but such problems are simply a reality if you’re reporting on events that the WH and IC actually want to keep secret— getting officials with firsthand knowledge to go on the record, and to both acquire and then turn over verifiable documents, are incredibly hard to do.

[Spirit of Hope]

for fear of escalation with Russia,

Is this actually the only reason why they’ve done as they have? I have a lot of problems with this assumption that we should take everything the WH and State Department and Pentagon state as their intentions or motives as face value when there are obvious alternative explanations that just happen to be less PR-friendly (not that it’s not a reason, but come on).

Absent evidence to the contrary I'm going to take people on their word, especially when their word has been consistent for months and largely in line with their actions. Especially when there is considerable debate in the international community and policy advisor community about what is, and is not, escalatory which would indicate others besides the white house are engaged in this same debate.

would plan to directly attack Russian infrastructure is an extraordinary claim. Especially since Germany has put a lot of money and political capital into that infrastructure and there was very little indication before the war that Germany would be ok with completely closing off gas imports from Russia, so not only is it a major escalation against Russia it is potentially a major destabilizing event in NATO when you least want it. Finally it isn't an operation you would likely to be able to keep secret for long, involved countries are going to investigate the destruction of their billion dollar infrastructure projects to see what happened.

What would the Germans have said, exactly? What would be in their interest to reveal, even if they figured out what had happened after the fact? If Hersh’s account is accurate, the mines would’ve already exploded, so what proof would they have to offer the media and the international community, even if they decided to go against their interests and expose the US and Norway? American media quickly adopted the stance that it was a mystery likely attributable to Russian sabotage, and that’s become the de facto explanation, despite there being similarly scanty evidence as for a US-originated plot.

Explosives leave evidence, from the residue they leave behind to the parts and components used to trigger them. I find it rather unlikely that Berlin would take the destruction of billions of dollars of infrastructure by the US laying down. They did after all fight the US tooth and nail to get the pipelines built in the first place.

Maybe Biden does have that callus disregard for US allies and EU countries are that limp, but it doesn't really track with their previous behavior.

It's compelling because it is well written. I've read lots of compelling things that are well written and wrong. See above for some more of my thoughts.

I mean, bffr, it’s more than just the style of his prose. There’s also an excellent narrative of circumstantial correlation of events— no, of course it doesn’t prove anything on its own, but it highlights the plausibility of American involvement, at a time when we know just as little about the various Gazprom hypotheses that’ve become the default explanation for the incident. No, his record isn’t totally untainted, and so we shouldn’t uncritically take this as gospel, but his record also has some bombshell reporting, so— as I said— I think this is a story worth keeping an eye on the development of.

I don't see the correlated events. Yeah the US said it would shut down Nordstream, but it did that through sanctions and working with partner countries. Yes there was a NATO exercise, but it's a NATO exercise that happens every year. The only hard evidence he gives is one anonymous source.

I'm skeptical about what happened to Nordstream, but that's mostly because there is basically no in depth reporting on what happened.

His bombshell reporting was all with reputable news sources and decades ago. His latest reporting is claiming that the Bin Laden raid was a massive conspiracy between the US and Pakistan because Pakistan had captured Bin Laden years previously, that the US and Turkey backed al-Nusra, which was the real culprit behind the use of chemical weapons in Syria, that Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 US election, and that Sergei Skripal wasn't poisoned by Russia.

[Kingdom of Snoreway]

These are manned by conscript sailors. It really shouldn't be too difficult to get them to talk, or to confirm their movements.

Presumably the journalists following up on this will be pursuing that avenue of approach.

Doesn't matter. The propaganda will be spread even if they talk to all 60+ people, and everybody debunks the notion of a secret sabotage run.

One bigger thing, though: He claims a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane dropped a sonar buoy. Norway doesn't have those in operation. They hope to get the operational during the beginning of 2023, according to this article from November 2022, after the pipelines burst.

Very interesting— either he’s lying/been misled, they’re lying about not having it in service yet, or the Americans gave them one for this operation. I suspect in 72 hours we’ll be learning some interesting things about how he ended up writing this— about who may have been responsible for feeding it to him, or new/previously undisclosed sources.

They're clearly not lying about it not being in service yet. Norway is a small country, we talk about things and know about the three airplanes and three minesweepers (it's why I easily could name them all, and point out that one of the three isn't operational).

Giving Norway a P-8, I would assume with a trained crew since the lack of trained personel is a reason for the Norwegian planes not being operational yet... How would this then be a routine flight by the Norwegian navy?

He thinks Norway is motivated by their "hatred" or Russians as well as greed - "The destruction of Nord Stream—if the Americans could pull it off—would allow Norway to sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe". But there's no analysis of the huge risk Norway would face if their participation in such a scheme was uncovered? Have you seen the amount of underwater infrastructure Norway is dependent on to pump up and sell its oil and gass? Do you think they would easily open the door to potential russian retalliation? Hersh does - or simply ignores it alltogether.

I think it's pretty clear how he came to write it. One person told him an interesting story, and he chose to believe it without any further corobberation. He says as much himself. His failure to pick up on internal inconsistencies may be explained by his age, who knows. Or maybe he was fascinated by this one source who had first-hand knowledge of all these meetings at CIA and the situation room and Biden's natsec briefings and inside diverse government department leadership meetings and the Norwegian navy and security aparatus.

It was a super secret operation so they had to keep it so close and hide it from the gang of eight. So anyway, that's when the Treasury department and the state department and the CIA and the navy and the white house and the dept of energy and the Norwegian Secret Service, Defense department, foreign office, and their conscripted Navy...

...particularly given the self-evident alignment with actual US and Norwegian interests that such an action would represent.

Again, there's no self-evident alignment with Norwegian interests here. On the contrary, it's a high risk, low reward scenario. Norway had no problems selling it's natural gas, and at high prices, already. The risk of Russian retaliation scares the shit out of the entire country, on the other hand. Norway does not have the capabilities to defend itself against a belligerent Russia.

The claim about self-evident alignment with actual Norwegian interests is a surface-grade analysis at best. "Norway sells gas, and must be willing to do anything to sell more gas" isn't a very compelling argument.

[Senkaku]

Is this actually the only reason why they’ve done as they have? I have a lot of problems with this assumption that we should take everything the WH and State Department and Pentagon state as their intentions or motives as face value when there are obvious alternative explanations that just happen to be less PR-friendly (not that it’s not a reason, but come on).

Absent evidence to the contrary I'm going to take people on their word, especially when their word has been consistent for months and largely in line with their actions.

Is the span of your memory only measured in months or something? There is absolutely no reason to take any branch of the American government at their word and indeed vast quantities of evidence to recommend doing otherwise; that elements of it sometimes find it convenient to actually tell the truth doesn’t mean that it’s not a challenge to discern when they’re actually doing it.

Especially when there is considerable debate in the international community and policy advisor community about what is, and is not, escalatory which would indicate others besides the white house are engaged in this same debate.

“Debate” in the “policy advisor community” (lmao) that the public is allowed to see is more often than not just manufacturing consent for whatever the actual regime consensus has settled on, don’t imagine that your favorite TV pundits or Twitter accounts or YouTubers or podcasters are actually movers and shakers.

Explosives leave evidence, from the residue they leave behind to the parts and components used to trigger them.

I’m hardly a plastic explosives chemist, but I imagine being deep underwater would be a factor, along with thousands of tons of methane rushing over the site after the blasts, and that it wouldn’t be terribly difficult to formulate mines with chemical mixtures similar to those used in Russian munitions.

I find it rather unlikely that Berlin would take the destruction of billions of dollars of infrastructure by the US laying down. They did after all fight the US tooth and nail to get the pipelines built in the first place.

They’re not taking it laying down, they’re blocking or delaying arms shipments to Ukraine at every chance they get. I think it’s quite clear why they wouldn’t feel comfortable with open confrontation, though: with Nord Stream gone, they’re more reliant now on Norway and the US for gas whether they like it or not, and on top of that, any public claims would be dismissed as hysteria or pro-Russian sentiment by most media outlets, which have subscribed wholeheartedly to the view that Russia was responsible for the explosions despite the relative dearth of evidence.

Maybe Biden does have that callus disregard for US allies and EU countries are that limp, but it doesn't really track with their previous behavior.

The Obama administration was tapping Merkel’s phone, it’s entirely in keeping with our historical relationship.

I don't see the correlated events. Yeah the US said it would shut down Nordstream, but it did that through sanctions and working with partner countries.

Well, no, it didn’t, the pipeline still got built and we were increasingly giving up on sanctions over it. How much had you followed that whole saga? It’s recounted fairly briefly and dispassionately in the Hersh story, if you want to give it another look.

Yes there was a NATO exercise, but it's a NATO exercise that happens every year.

So it’s the perfect cover for NATO to do shady things in the Baltic every year; no, it’s not proof they did anything last year, but it’s not irrelevant.

The only hard evidence he gives is one anonymous source.

Sometimes that’s all someone can provide, and sometimes it’s a sign that stuff is a total fake. I wouldn’t be open to it if there weren’t other factors that make this theory seem plausible, but yes, it’s certainly a shortcoming. However, I would submit that the contrary explanation— that this was either a Russian plot, or an accident resulting from Gazprom incompetence— have similarly thin bases in actual publicly known fact.

I'm skeptical about what happened to Nordstream, but that's mostly because there is basically no in depth reporting on what happened.

To be frank, you don’t seem all that skeptical— you only seem skeptical of accounts that don’t align with official WH, IC, and Pentagon statements, and it’s not like the media accounts heralding those as the sole explanations for this event have a much deeper evidentiary basis.

His bombshell reporting was all with reputable news sources and decades ago.

He’s done plenty of independent reporting; while his work on Iraq is now decades old, I think enough of it holds up to scrutiny that this is worth taking into consideration.

His latest reporting is claiming that the Bin Laden raid was a massive conspiracy between the US and Pakistan because Pakistan had captured Bin Laden years previously, that the US and Turkey backed al-Nusra, which was the real culprit behind the use of chemical weapons in Syria, that Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 US election, and that Sergei Skripal wasn't poisoned by Russia.

I mean, I could bicker about one of these, but— maybe this is just a gullible old crank posting conspiracy theories, it’s possible. However, as I’ve said— given the alignment of US & Norwegian interests in carrying out such an operation, and the equally thin evidence for any contrary explanations, I think we should maintain an open mind and see how the story develops, rather than assuming just yet that either the Hersh version or the White House version are the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[Kingdom of Snoreway]

How vulnerable Norway is to Russian retaliation? Here's some pictures.

[Senkaku]

Presumably the journalists following up on this will be pursuing that avenue of approach.

Doesn't matter. The propaganda will be spread even if they talk to all 60+ people, and everybody debunks the notion of a secret sabotage run.

I suppose we’ll have to see how a bunch of American journalists do in getting their hands on Norwegian naval records in the coming days.

Very interesting— either he’s lying/been misled, they’re lying about not having it in service yet, or the Americans gave them one for this operation. I suspect in 72 hours we’ll be learning some interesting things about how he ended up writing this— about who may have been responsible for feeding it to him, or new/previously undisclosed sources.

They're clearly not lying about it not being in service yet. Norway is a small country, we talk about things and know about the three airplanes and three minesweepers (it's why I easily could name them all, and point out that one of the three isn't operational).

Giving Norway a P-8, I would assume with a trained crew since the lack of trained personel is a reason for the Norwegian planes not being operational yet... How would this then be a routine flight by the Norwegian navy?

Lol my bad I assumed you meant the sonar buoys, since I can’t read Norwegian. It’s not like P-8s would be that hard to send over, though, we’ve got plenty of them. It’s certainly a big hole in his story and cause for doubt.

He thinks Norway is motivated by their "hatred" or Russians as well as greed - "The destruction of Nord Stream—if the Americans could pull it off—would allow Norway to sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe". But there's no analysis of the huge risk Norway would face if their participation in such a scheme was uncovered? Have you seen the amount of underwater infrastructure Norway is dependent on to pump up and sell its oil and gass? Do you think they would easily open the door to potential russian retalliation? Hersh does - or simply ignores it alltogether.

My response would be: why, and more importantly how, would the Russians retaliate, either against Norway or the US? They haven’t retaliated to us giving lethal aid to Ukraine or training their soldiers, a German pipeline that they themselves were strangling doesn’t seem plausible for them to risk opening a second front against NATO over.

I think it's pretty clear how he came to write it. One person told him an interesting story, and he chose to believe it without any further corobberation. He says as much himself. His failure to pick up on internal inconsistencies may be explained by his age, who knows. Or maybe he was fascinated by this one source who had first-hand knowledge of all these meetings at CIA and the situation room and Biden's natsec briefings and inside diverse government department leadership meetings and the Norwegian navy and security aparatus.

It was a super secret operation so they had to keep it so close and hide it from the gang of eight. So anyway, that's when the Treasury department and the state department and the CIA and the navy and the white house and the dept of energy and the Norwegian Secret Service, Defense department, foreign office, and their conscripted Navy...

Atp that explanation strikes me as about as plausible as any other, he is an old dude and has clearly lost some of his luster in recent years. My only point is that we don’t really have much evidence for the official CIA/Navy/WH/Norwegian/DoD explanation either, despite it having been taken as gospel by pretty much all US media. With what we currently know, I don’t think one necessarily makes more sense than the other.

...particularly given the self-evident alignment with actual US and Norwegian interests that such an action would represent.

Again, there's no self-evident alignment with Norwegian interests here. On the contrary, it's a high risk, low reward scenario. Norway had no problems selling it's natural gas, and at high prices, already. The risk of Russian retaliation scares the shit out of the entire country, on the other hand. Norway does not have the capabilities to defend itself against a belligerent Russia.

The claim about self-evident alignment with actual Norwegian interests is a surface-grade analysis at best. "Norway sells gas, and must be willing to do anything to sell more gas" isn't a very compelling argument.

It’s not that high-risk, as I mentioned earlier, because there’s no practical way Russia could retaliate atm— as for gas sales, Germany was going to be getting a huge proportion of its gas from Russia, and now with the gas crunch and the move to diversify supplies, Norway benefits. Again: circumstantial, but it makes at least as much sense as Gazprom accidentally blowing their own pipeline and then blaming the Americans, or the GRU cutting off the gas industry’s nose to spite their own face.

[Spirit of Hope]

Absent evidence to the contrary I'm going to take people on their word, especially when their word has been consistent for months and largely in line with their actions.

Is the span of your memory only measured in months or something? There is absolutely no reason to take any branch of the American government at their word and indeed vast quantities of evidence to recommend doing otherwise; that elements of it sometimes find it convenient to actually tell the truth doesn’t mean that it’s not a challenge to discern when they’re actually doing it.

Especially when there is considerable debate in the international community and policy advisor community about what is, and is not, escalatory which would indicate others besides the white house are engaged in this same debate.

“Debate” in the “policy advisor community” (lmao) that the public is allowed to see is more often than not just manufacturing consent for whatever the actual regime consensus has settled on, don’t imagine that your favorite TV pundits or Twitter accounts or YouTubers or podcasters are actually movers and shakers.

Explosives leave evidence, from the residue they leave behind to the parts and components used to trigger them.

I’m hardly a plastic explosives chemist, but I imagine being deep underwater would be a factor, along with thousands of tons of methane rushing over the site after the blasts, and that it wouldn’t be terribly difficult to formulate mines with chemical mixtures similar to those used in Russian munitions.

I find it rather unlikely that Berlin would take the destruction of billions of dollars of infrastructure by the US laying down. They did after all fight the US tooth and nail to get the pipelines built in the first place.

They’re not taking it laying down, they’re blocking or delaying arms shipments to Ukraine at every chance they get. I think it’s quite clear why they wouldn’t feel comfortable with open confrontation, though: with Nord Stream gone, they’re more reliant now on Norway and the US for gas whether they like it or not, and on top of that, any public claims would be dismissed as hysteria or pro-Russian sentiment by most media outlets, which have subscribed wholeheartedly to the view that Russia was responsible for the explosions despite the relative dearth of evidence.

Maybe Biden does have that callus disregard for US allies and EU countries are that limp, but it doesn't really track with their previous behavior.

The Obama administration was tapping Merkel’s phone, it’s entirely in keeping with our historical relationship.

I don't see the correlated events. Yeah the US said it would shut down Nordstream, but it did that through sanctions and working with partner countries.

Well, no, it didn’t, the pipeline still got built and we were increasingly giving up on sanctions over it. How much had you followed that whole saga? It’s recounted fairly briefly and dispassionately in the Hersh story, if you want to give it another look.

Yes there was a NATO exercise, but it's a NATO exercise that happens every year.

So it’s the perfect cover for NATO to do shady things in the Baltic every year; no, it’s not proof they did anything last year, but it’s not irrelevant.

The only hard evidence he gives is one anonymous source.

Sometimes that’s all someone can provide, and sometimes it’s a sign that stuff is a total fake. I wouldn’t be open to it if there weren’t other factors that make this theory seem plausible, but yes, it’s certainly a shortcoming. However, I would submit that the contrary explanation— that this was either a Russian plot, or an accident resulting from Gazprom incompetence— have similarly thin bases in actual publicly known fact.

I'm skeptical about what happened to Nordstream, but that's mostly because there is basically no in depth reporting on what happened.

To be frank, you don’t seem all that skeptical— you only seem skeptical of accounts that don’t align with official WH, IC, and Pentagon statements, and it’s not like the media accounts heralding those as the sole explanations for this event have a much deeper evidentiary basis.

His bombshell reporting was all with reputable news sources and decades ago.

He’s done plenty of independent reporting; while his work on Iraq is now decades old, I think enough of it holds up to scrutiny that this is worth taking into consideration.

His latest reporting is claiming that the Bin Laden raid was a massive conspiracy between the US and Pakistan because Pakistan had captured Bin Laden years previously, that the US and Turkey backed al-Nusra, which was the real culprit behind the use of chemical weapons in Syria, that Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 US election, and that Sergei Skripal wasn't poisoned by Russia.

I mean, I could bicker about one of these, but— maybe this is just a gullible old crank posting conspiracy theories, it’s possible. However, as I’ve said— given the alignment of US & Norwegian interests in carrying out such an operation, and the equally thin evidence for any contrary explanations, I think we should maintain an open mind and see how the story develops, rather than assuming just yet that either the Hersh version or the White House version are the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I'm deeply skeptical of a guy who's past decade of work is conspiracy theories posting to his blog about what happened to Nordstream, where the principal actors all behave very differently than I have any evidence to expect they would and has no proof to back it up, yes. I don't necessarily know what happened to Nordstream, nor have I presented any argument on what happened.


Germany hasn't been holding arms shipments to Ukraine up, they agreed to send tanks as soon as the US said it would send tanks. The only country that had previously sent western tanks was the UK. Germany said it was sending western IFVs at about the same time the US said it would send IFVs. Germany has been a major supplier to Ukraine

[Senkaku]

How vulnerable Norway is to Russian retaliation? Here's some pictures.

The Russians are simply not in a position to risk anything that could possibly trigger Article 5. Unless the sabotage were occurring in Russian territorial waters, there’s no way they’d risk such retaliation. I understand why you, and surely some elements of the Norwegian government, would conclude that this was an ongoing vulnerability, but I think cutting those communication lines last year was the height of their abilities, not a foreshadowing. Sending subs into a NATO member’s territorial waters to blow up critical infrastructure is something they don’t have the leeway for right now, or frankly probably the budget.

[Picairn]

He thinks Norway is motivated by their "hatred" or Russians as well as greed - "The destruction of Nord Stream—if the Americans could pull it off—would allow Norway to sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe". But there's no analysis of the huge risk Norway would face if their participation in such a scheme was uncovered? Have you seen the amount of underwater infrastructure Norway is dependent on to pump up and sell its oil and gass? Do you think they would easily open the door to potential russian retalliation? Hersh does - or simply ignores it alltogether.

I think it's pretty clear how he came to write it. One person told him an interesting story, and he chose to believe it without any further corobberation. He says as much himself. His failure to pick up on internal inconsistencies may be explained by his age, who knows. Or maybe he was fascinated by this one source who had first-hand knowledge of all these meetings at CIA and the situation room and Biden's natsec briefings and inside diverse government department leadership meetings and the Norwegian navy and security aparatus.

It was a super secret operation so they had to keep it so close and hide it from the gang of eight. So anyway, that's when the Treasury department and the state department and the CIA and the navy and the white house and the dept of energy and the Norwegian Secret Service, Defense department, foreign office, and their conscripted Navy...

So secret it got leaked by some dude "who seems to know quite a bit about what was going on", that's what he said to TASS.

Hersh has been a great investigative journalist in the past (his reporting of My Lai massacre and Abu Graib for example) but recently he has gone downhill by denying the Syrian government's involvement in gassing its own people and claiming the Pakistanis held OBL as a prisoner for years, then gave him up for a cash reward. In other words, Greyzone-tier conspiracies based on thin "anonymous sources" without corroboration. As a reviewer notes about his overreliance on them:

By my count Hersh has anonymous 'sources' inside 30 foreign governments and virtually every department of the U.S. government.

https://tass.com/world/1573519/amp
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/boo ... -meat.html

[Senkaku]

I'm deeply skeptical of a guy who's past decade of work is conspiracy theories posting to his blog about what happened to Nordstream, where the principal actors all behave very differently than I have any evidence to expect they would and has no proof to back it up, yes. I don't necessarily know what happened to Nordstream, nor have I presented any argument on what happened.

Fair. As I said, I’m very curious what’s going to happen in the next 72 hours-2 weeks as other journalists try to corroborate (although there are obviously plenty whose loud denunciations and dismissals I will take with just as much of a grain of salt as I took the original piece).

Germany hasn't been holding arms shipments to Ukraine up, they agreed to send tanks as soon as the US said it would send tanks. The only country that had previously sent western tanks was the UK. Germany said it was sending western IFVs at about the same time the US said it would send IFVs. Germany has been a major supplier to Ukraine

Come on, they’ve dragged their feet at every step when it comes to weapons shipments— Germany is a reluctant follower, not a leader or even a particularly enthusiastic participant. The only reason they’re a “major supplier” is because Germany’s such a big country that if it’s a supplier at all it’s sort of necessarily a “major supplier,” but I hardly think the German defense sector or government have been pulling their weight in terms of lethal aid. (If the US was involved with Nord Stream, though, I’d say the relative lack of fuss besides this foot-dragging is in keeping with their responses to previous US skullduggery— it’s not like they broke off diplomatic relations over us listening in to Merkel’s calls, because what the fuck could they do anyways?)

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So secret it got leaked by some dude "who seems to know quite a bit about what was going on", that's what he said to TASS.

Hersh has been a great investigative journalist in the past (his reporting of My Lai massacre and Abu Graib for example) but recently he has gone downhill by denying the Syrian government's involvement in gassing its own people and claiming the Pakistanis held OBL as a prisoner for years, then gave him up for a cash reward. In other words, Greyzone-tier conspiracies based on thin "anonymous sources" without corroboration. As a reviewer notes about his overreliance on them:

By my count Hersh has anonymous 'sources' inside 30 foreign governments and virtually every department of the U.S. government.

https://tass.com/world/1573519/amp
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/boo ... -meat.html

pierre sprey tier smh...

[Senkaku]

So secret it got leaked by some dude "who seems to know quite a bit about what was going on", that's what he said to TASS.

Hersh has been a great investigative journalist in the past (his reporting of My Lai massacre and Abu Graib for example) but recently he has gone downhill by denying the Syrian government's involvement in gassing its own people and claiming the Pakistanis held OBL as a prisoner for years, then gave him up for a cash reward. In other words, Greyzone-tier conspiracies based on thin "anonymous sources" without corroboration. As a reviewer notes about his overreliance on them:

By my count Hersh has anonymous 'sources' inside 30 foreign governments and virtually every department of the U.S. government.

https://tass.com/world/1573519/amp
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/boo ... -meat.html

The US government, when dealing with zany old conspiracists, is usually perfectly comfortable issuing a cool “we neither confirm nor deny” statement and moving on without creating any kind of public stir; I find the response here strange even though I share your desire for a more substantial source. I have half-formed thoughts on ISI’s relationship or lack thereof with OBL that are not relevant here, but related to the actual topic at hand one has to ask— if his anonymous sources are all bullshit, then is he fabricating these sources entirely out of vainglory/dementia, being baited for use as a useful idiot by various intel agencies who want to trade off his reputation, or (and obviously least likely) actually some kind of comical postmodern Cassandra?

I also have sympathy for the lack of evidence for the story that it was a Russian accident or sabotage— it’s hard to do investigative reporting during a war, when militaries and intelligence agencies on both sides have very strong interests in preventing dissemination of information for reasons that aren’t immediately apparent to most journalists or citizens. I hope some of the journalists engaging with this post will do followup investigations that produce more information, but I suspect this is going to be something we’ll be learning more about a decade from now.

[Kingdom of Snoreway]

He thinks Norway is motivated by their "hatred" or Russians as well as greed - "The destruction of Nord Stream—if the Americans could pull it off—would allow Norway to sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe". But there's no analysis of the huge risk Norway would face if their participation in such a scheme was uncovered? Have you seen the amount of underwater infrastructure Norway is dependent on to pump up and sell its oil and gass? Do you think they would easily open the door to potential russian retalliation? Hersh does - or simply ignores it alltogether.

My response would be: why, and more importantly how, would the Russians retaliate, either against Norway or the US? They haven’t retaliated to us giving lethal aid to Ukraine or training their soldiers, a German pipeline that they themselves were strangling doesn’t seem plausible for them to risk opening a second front against NATO over.

Two of our communication cables were mysteriously cut before the start of the war. They can repeat that action, for a significant disruption of Norwegian infrastructure. There's also a lot of norwegian subsea and offshore infrastructure which could suffer mysterious accidents. Norway is vulnerable, and it would not be the most difficult job in the world to retaliate with plausible deniability.

I think it's pretty clear how he came to write it. One person told him an interesting story, and he chose to believe it without any further corobberation. He says as much himself. His failure to pick up on internal inconsistencies may be explained by his age, who knows. Or maybe he was fascinated by this one source who had first-hand knowledge of all these meetings at CIA and the situation room and Biden's natsec briefings and inside diverse government department leadership meetings and the Norwegian navy and security aparatus.

It was a super secret operation so they had to keep it so close and hide it from the gang of eight. So anyway, that's when the Treasury department and the state department and the CIA and the navy and the white house and the dept of energy and the Norwegian Secret Service, Defense department, foreign office, and their conscripted Navy...

Atp that explanation strikes me as about as plausible as any other, he is an old dude and has clearly lost some of his luster in recent years. My only point is that we don’t really have much evidence for the official CIA/Navy/WH/Norwegian/DoD explanation either, despite it having been taken as gospel by pretty much all US media. With what we currently know, I don’t think one necessarily makes more sense than the other.

The official Norwegian story is that this makes no sense and is patently unreasonable. Based on the article itself, it's a line of argument I find persuasive.

Again, there's no self-evident alignment with Norwegian interests here. On the contrary, it's a high risk, low reward scenario. Norway had no problems selling it's natural gas, and at high prices, already. The risk of Russian retaliation scares the shit out of the entire country, on the other hand. Norway does not have the capabilities to defend itself against a belligerent Russia.

The claim about self-evident alignment with actual Norwegian interests is a surface-grade analysis at best. "Norway sells gas, and must be willing to do anything to sell more gas" isn't a very compelling argument.

It’s not that high-risk, as I mentioned earlier, because there’s no practical way Russia could retaliate atm

Are you kidding, or do you just not realize where Norway is situated?

In addition to direct attacks on pipelines and communication cables, as I've mentioned before, Russia could retaliate by jamming GPS signals in the northernmost part of the country, creating huge obstacles for air traffic in the region. They could funnel human waves of asylum seekers towards Norway, as they did in 2015. They could sabotage critical infrastructure inside the country, as the security services has already warned of the danger of. The infrastructure in the north is particularly vulnerable.

There are a multitude of ways Russia could retaliate, and Norwegian government officials spend a lot of time talking about this. Which, again, is one of the reasons that it's unbelievable that they would agree to an overtly hostile act on a whim.

— as for gas sales, Germany was going to be getting a huge proportion of its gas from Russia, and now with the gas crunch and the move to diversify supplies, Norway benefits. Again: circumstantial, but it makes at least as much sense as Gazprom accidentally blowing their own pipeline and then blaming the Americans, or the GRU cutting off the gas industry’s nose to spite their own face.

So "Norway sells gas, and therefor must be willing to do anything to sell more gas"

[Spirit of Hope]

Germany hasn't been holding arms shipments to Ukraine up, they agreed to send tanks as soon as the US said it would send tanks. The only country that had previously sent western tanks was the UK. Germany said it was sending western IFVs at about the same time the US said it would send IFVs. Germany has been a major supplier to Ukraine

Come on, they’ve dragged their feet at every step when it comes to weapons shipments— Germany is a reluctant follower, not a leader or even a particularly enthusiastic participant. The only reason they’re a “major supplier” is because Germany’s such a big country that if it’s a supplier at all it’s sort of necessarily a “major supplier,” but I hardly think the German defense sector or government have been pulling their weight in terms of lethal aid. (If the US was involved with Nord Stream, though, I’d say the relative lack of fuss besides this foot-dragging is in keeping with their responses to previous US skullduggery— it’s not like they broke off diplomatic relations over us listening in to Merkel’s calls, because what the fuck could they do anyways?)

Wow the US listened to a head of states phone calls? How much you want to bet that Germany did some similar spying of its own? News flash, allies spy on one another, not to the same level as they spy on enemies but they still do it. Always great to know what the other side is thinking before you sit down for the next trade negotiating or whatever.

Conducting an act of war, that destroyed billions in investment, is a slightly different deal.

While German aid is on the low end, it's comparable, as a percentage of GDP, with several other countries aid. Which considering Germany is a rather pacifist country who's military was deeply hollowed out and lacking in investment is saying something. Plus German laws for shipping equipment are also not as conducive as other countries. Germany has also been a major contributor of non lethal aid to Ukraine and has worked through the EU to provide substantial aid.

[Durius]

Come on, they’ve dragged their feet at every step when it comes to weapons shipments— Germany is a reluctant follower, not a leader or even a particularly enthusiastic participant. The only reason they’re a “major supplier” is because Germany’s such a big country that if it’s a supplier at all it’s sort of necessarily a “major supplier,” but I hardly think the German defense sector or government have been pulling their weight in terms of lethal aid. (If the US was involved with Nord Stream, though, I’d say the relative lack of fuss besides this foot-dragging is in keeping with their responses to previous US skullduggery— it’s not like they broke off diplomatic relations over us listening in to Merkel’s calls, because what the fuck could they do anyways?)

Wow the US listened to a head of states phone calls? How much you want to bet that Germany did some similar spying of its own? News flash, allies spy on one another, not to the same level as they spy on enemies but they still do it. Always great to know what the other side is thinking before you sit down for the next trade negotiating or whatever.

Very likely way less than the US. Germany was (or it still is) very naive geopolitically. Furthermore, unless you are suggesting that German spying is much more competent than the US, the later would have likely divulged that German spying on them that they aware of, during the heat of the scandal. You seem to simply be attempting to normalize an action that is completely unacceptable between so-called allied nations. I hope that normalization fails, as it doesn't do anything else other than eroding the trust that allied nations can place on each other.

[Senkaku]

My response would be: why, and more importantly how, would the Russians retaliate, either against Norway or the US? They haven’t retaliated to us giving lethal aid to Ukraine or training their soldiers, a German pipeline that they themselves were strangling doesn’t seem plausible for them to risk opening a second front against NATO over.

Two of our communication cables were mysteriously cut before the start of the war. They can repeat that action, for a significant disruption of Norwegian infrastructure. There's also a lot of norwegian subsea and offshore infrastructure which could suffer mysterious accidents. Norway is vulnerable, and it would not be the most difficult job in the world to retaliate with plausible deniability.

The Russians also do risk-reward analysis of covert military actions; given that the risk is that they’re caught committing acts of war inside the waters of a NATO member, I just can’t see them risking it under the current circumstances. As I said, I think the cable-cutting represented the height of their present abilities, not a foreshadowing of worse to come. Underwater sabotage is technically demanding, and the Black Sea campaign has made it clear that the Russian Navy is not in as superb shape as it let on prior to the war’s start.

Atp that explanation strikes me as about as plausible as any other, he is an old dude and has clearly lost some of his luster in recent years. My only point is that we don’t really have much evidence for the official CIA/Navy/WH/Norwegian/DoD explanation either, despite it having been taken as gospel by pretty much all US media. With what we currently know, I don’t think one necessarily makes more sense than the other.

The official Norwegian story is that this makes no sense and is patently unreasonable. Based on the article itself, it's a line of argument I find persuasive.

I have no idea how much oversight you all have of your security apparatus over there— I agree if it did happen it surely would’ve been controversial among those who knew about or debated it, but I don’t think it’s “patently unreasonable,” people do risky things all the time. With the Americans cajoling and doing most of the work, and the promise of some reward if it was pulled off, I could see decisionmakers going for it.

It’s not that high-risk, as I mentioned earlier, because there’s no practical way Russia could retaliate atm

Are you kidding, or do you just not realize where Norway is situated?

In addition to direct attacks on pipelines and communication cables, as I've mentioned before, Russia could retaliate by jamming GPS signals in the northernmost part of the country, creating huge obstacles for air traffic in the region. They could funnel human waves of asylum seekers towards Norway, as they did in 2015. They could sabotage critical infrastructure inside the country, as the security services has already warned of the danger of. The infrastructure in the north is particularly vulnerable.

There are a multitude of ways Russia could retaliate, and Norwegian government officials spend a lot of time talking about this. Which, again, is one of the reasons that it's unbelievable that they would agree to an overtly hostile act on a whim.

They could interfere with air traffic? They could rustle up some asylum seekers? Maybe cut some comms cables again? These are damaging and annoying, but manageable disturbances— the Russians are not going to start knocking out key economic functions like internet or electricity (if they even have the means to), because again, the last thing they need is a second front with direct NATO involvement. Giving the Americans cover to take out Nord Stream just wouldn’t have been that high-risk, and I would imagine even the policymakers coming up with these sort of worst-case retaliation scenarios would’ve realized that they seem far preferable to having an angry & thwarted (or rogue & unilateral) America sulking around the Baltic and the Arctic.

— as for gas sales, Germany was going to be getting a huge proportion of its gas from Russia, and now with the gas crunch and the move to diversify supplies, Norway benefits. Again: circumstantial, but it makes at least as much sense as Gazprom accidentally blowing their own pipeline and then blaming the Americans, or the GRU cutting off the gas industry’s nose to spite their own face.

So "Norway sells gas, and therefor must be willing to do anything to sell more gas"

I guess when you’ve met American gas industry people, it’s easier to believe— maybe you’re nicer over there?

[Senkaku]

Wow the US listened to a head of states phone calls? How much you want to bet that Germany did some similar spying of its own?

I would bet everything I own that Germany did not do anything comparable for the President, anyone of importance in the line of succession, and nearly any high-ranking military and intelligence officials. Being a world empire is a one-way street, the satraps don’t get to spy back— Germany doesn’t have the technology, the personnel, or the political will to create a globe-spanning security and intelligence apparatus like ours. (Look how we reacted to one measly balloon— do you really think Berlin would be standing if we’d caught the Germans listening to Obama’s calls? )

News flash, allies spy on one another, not to the same level as they spy on enemies but they still do it. Always great to know what the other side is thinking before you sit down for the next trade negotiating or whatever.

I’m sure now and then the federal police peek at low-level American diplomats’ texts or whatever before big meetings, but the idea that the Germans have penetrated the highest levels of American government and can run similarly sweeping surveillance programs is laughably out of touch with reality. Spying on chancellors is not, in fact, normal among allies; there’s a reason the story caused such a media firestorm when it leaked (iirc the US ambassador was summoned over it?).

Conducting an act of war, that destroyed billions in investment, is a slightly different deal.

It’s not— we all but told them we were going to do it if they didn’t stop! It’s just part of a pattern of US disinterest in the sovereignty of our allies when it doesn’t suit our needs. We’re happy to interfere in our ostensible allies’ elections and finances when it suits us as well, to plot against governments and assassinate people— please don’t act like this would be some huge unprecedented thing for the US to have done, if it turns out to be true. It certainly seems just as plausible as the idea that the Russians would set fire to both billions of dollars of their own money and one of their best energy levers against Western Europe, either by accident or on purpose (which to be clear, I do also find extremely plausible, given the breathtaking strategic stupidity Moscow has displayed since last year).

While German aid is on the low end, it's comparable, as a percentage of GDP, with several other countries aid. Which considering Germany is a rather pacifist country whose military was deeply hollowed out and lacking in investment is saying something. Plus German laws for shipping equipment are also not as conducive as other countries. Germany has also been a major contributor of non lethal aid to Ukraine and has worked through the EU to provide substantial aid.

Blah blah, yes, they haven’t done nothing, but again— they’ve been a reluctant follower, not a leader.

[Kingdom of Snoreway]

Two of our communication cables were mysteriously cut before the start of the war. They can repeat that action, for a significant disruption of Norwegian infrastructure. There's also a lot of norwegian subsea and offshore infrastructure which could suffer mysterious accidents. Norway is vulnerable, and it would not be the most difficult job in the world to retaliate with plausible deniability.

The Russians also do risk-reward analysis of covert military actions; given that the risk is that they’re caught committing acts of war inside the waters of a NATO member, I just can’t see them risking it under the current circumstances. As I said, I think the cable-cutting represented the height of their present abilities, not a foreshadowing of worse to come. Underwater sabotage is technically demanding, and the Black Sea campaign has made it clear that the Russian Navy is not in as superb shape as it let on prior to the war’s start.

The official Norwegian story is that this makes no sense and is patently unreasonable. Based on the article itself, it's a line of argument I find persuasive.

I have no idea how much oversight you all have of your security apparatus over there— I agree if it did happen it surely would’ve been controversial among those who knew about or debated it, but I don’t think it’s “patently unreasonable,” people do risky things all the time. With the Americans cajoling and doing most of the work, and the promise of some reward if it was pulled off, I could see decisionmakers going for it.

Not according to Hersh. According to what he wrote, it was the Norwegians doing the bulk of the work - from providing ships, planning the location, providing their deep sea expert divers (who had "generations of experience in highly profitable deep-sea oil and gas exploration", which was never a military venture in Norway), providing airplanes, and flying out to dropping the buoys which triggered the explosions... Damn warmongering greedy vikings.

Are you kidding, or do you just not realize where Norway is situated?

In addition to direct attacks on pipelines and communication cables, as I've mentioned before, Russia could retaliate by jamming GPS signals in the northernmost part of the country, creating huge obstacles for air traffic in the region. They could funnel human waves of asylum seekers towards Norway, as they did in 2015. They could sabotage critical infrastructure inside the country, as the security services has already warned of the danger of. The infrastructure in the north is particularly vulnerable.

There are a multitude of ways Russia could retaliate, and Norwegian government officials spend a lot of time talking about this. Which, again, is one of the reasons that it's unbelievable that they would agree to an overtly hostile act on a whim.

They could interfere with air traffic? They could rustle up some asylum seekers? Maybe cut some comms cables again? These are damaging and annoying, but manageable disturbances

It is events that could topple the government. The events of 2015 almost paralysed the government, as vital law enforcement, border enforcement, and bureaucratic resources had to be reallocated quickly. The current government, unlike the one in 2015, is a minority government, and such "manageable disturbances" could cause a huge political crisis.

Interfering with air trafic in the North is not a joke either. That could mean people dying because they can't be flown to hospitals. The distances are vast up there. Let's say you live a two hour drive from Kirkenes, and you need something more than the emergency room there can provide, you'll have to take a one hour plane ride to Tromsø in order to survive. If there is no planes, you're looking at a 15 hour drive from Mehamn via Kirkenes to Troms (or 11 hours if you go directly from Mehamn to Troms). You may not survive if the problem is serious enough.

— the Russians are not going to start knocking out key economic functions like internet or electricity (if they even have the means to), because again, the last thing they need is a second front with direct NATO involvement.

They have the means and opportunity to do it without opening themselves up to that second front.

Giving the Americans cover to take out Nord Stream just wouldn’t have been that high-risk, and I would imagine even the policymakers coming up with these sort of worst-case retaliation scenarios would’ve realized that they seem far preferable to having an angry & thwarted (or rogue & unilateral) America sulking around the Baltic and the Arctic.

Who knows? In Hersh'es telling, there was no opposition, but no evaluation of how important this was either. The fictional narrative doesn't give us that information, everybody just claps and is automatically on board.

So "Norway sells gas, and therefor must be willing to do anything to sell more gas"

I guess when you’ve met American gas industry people, it’s easier to believe— maybe you’re nicer over there?

That is undoubtably true. The government owns a huge chunk of the gas industry, and the profits are used to fuel the welfare state.

[The Two Jerseys]

In Vuhledar, a Russian assault went wrong and a retreat happened as a result of the failure.

Well the Russians there ridiculously inept, but that artillery fire was pretty useless too. Not a round came within 50 yds.

Can't see the video, but optimist me thinks the artillery is firing wide to keep them funneled through the minefield. And maybe avoid accidental detonations.

[Northern Seleucia]

Well the Russians there ridiculously inept, but that artillery fire was pretty useless too. Not a round came within 50 yds.

Can't see the video, but optimist me thinks the artillery is firing wide to keep them funneled through the minefield. And maybe avoid accidental detonations.

Spoiler on the video:

There is no running man on fire like that last one.

Curb your enthusiasm.

[Picairn]

Also I just noticed that Hersh wrote Stoltenberg has been cooperating with American intelligence since the Vietnam War. In particular:

Today, the supreme commander of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg, a committed anti-communist, who served as Norway’s prime minister for eight years before moving to his high NATO post, with American backing, in 2014. He was a hardliner on all things Putin and Russia who had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War.

Stoltenberg was born in 1959. When the US formally involved itself in Vietnam in 1968, he was 9 years old. When US involvement ended in 1973, he was 14.

Clown reporting.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Also I just noticed that Hersh wrote Stoltenberg has been cooperating with American intelligence since the Vietnam War. In particular:

Today, the supreme commander of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg, a committed anti-communist, who served as Norway’s prime minister for eight years before moving to his high NATO post, with American backing, in 2014. He was a hardliner on all things Putin and Russia who had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War.

Stoltenberg was born in 1959. When the US formally involved itself in Vietnam in 1968, he was 9 years old. When US involvement ended in 1973, he was 14.

Clown reporting.

yep
Pierre Sprey tier nonsense right there.

[Kingdom of Snoreway]

Also I just noticed that Hersh wrote Stoltenberg has been cooperating with American intelligence since the Vietnam War. In particular:

Today, the supreme commander of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg, a committed anti-communist, who served as Norway’s prime minister for eight years before moving to his high NATO post, with American backing, in 2014. He was a hardliner on all things Putin and Russia who had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War.

Stoltenberg was born in 1959. When the US formally involved itself in Vietnam in 1968, he was 9 years old. When US involvement ended in 1973, he was 14.

Clown reporting.

As an aside to this, I would also ask how the socialist/social democrat Jens Stoltenberg is "a committed anti-communist"? (And why would that matter? Russia is not a communist country). And a hardliner on all things Russia? As Prime Minister, he entered into a compromise about a contested area of sea in the artic region, allowing Russia to gain control of an area with huge natural gas deposits.

I agree. It's trash.

[Picairn]

yep
Pierre Sprey tier nonsense right there.

It gets even funnier, he participated in anti-Vietnam War protests in Norway as a teen and one of which broke the US Embassy's windows, leading to the arrests of some of his friends. He was also intensely recruited by the KGB until 1990, by a Soviet agent masquerading as a diplomat. They gave him the codename "Steklov" as a potential target. It's the opposite of what Hersh claims.