The Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist has the story from a single high-level anonymous source, and it's not without problems.
What jumped out at me in Hersh’s article is this:
The Americans “...convinced the Sixth Fleet planners to add a research and development exercise to the program. The exercise, as made public by the Navy, involved the Sixth Fleet in collaboration with the Navy’s “research and warfare centers.” The at-sea event would be held off the coast of Bornholm Island and involve NATO teams of divers planting mines, with competing teams using the latest underwater technology to find and destroy them.”
Like Covid, the public was told that the R&D was for the good of mankind, to save lives, on and on.
America has zero credibility. Zero.
These people are doing everything in their power to goad us to war. We are on a runaway train.
I hope and trust you will keep us informed of how the mainstream German media play this story, especially since Hersh reports that the German chancellor went to see Biden and it was after that meeting, that Biden made the public announcements about NS being doomed if Russia invaded Ukraine and was much more public and bombastic. Did Biden tell Scholz anything about this in advance? It only seems logical that the US would forwarn the German government that they are about to shut down a main energy artery.
Hersh may have just opened the first can of worms, in a crate.
I read the Hersch piece earlier today and while all the details might be open to question and further investigation, I believe that the United States had some role (major?) either directly or indirectly in this action. Quite frankly they had the most to gain politically and economically from seeing these pipelines taken off line. I find it fascinating that the MSM in the United States hasn't shown the least bit of interest in this story. Continues to confirm they are completely co-opted by the US security state. I am sure Russia knows exactly who is responsible for this action and has taken it into their continuing calculations on their war strategy/execution in Urkraine.
Do not underestimate the stupidity and utter lack of morals of Nuland, Sullivan, Blinken and Biden. They don't care how many Ukrainians die in their futile war with Russia. They don't care how many Germans suffer and die, if it serves their hegemonic ambitions
The alleged Nuland ploy to use divers to evade Congressional scrutiny that would come of using USSOCOM divers is very plausible to me. Used to work in the building, certain quarters of the government are very inventive in coming up with ways to evade oversight and accountability, and Victoria Nuland is exactly the sort of official who would be well versed in such games.
Certainly could be a wag the dog situation..... where US intelligence puts out a story (which is broadly true and factual) but which they want to allow certain elements to be "debunked" and then can claim the truth is a "conspiracy theory".
I'm glad Hersh landed here on Substack. I'll read the article and share my thoughts, but the most important thing is that this platform is becoming the place to be for free press and free thinkers.
Dispensing with Congressional oversight or notification? I'm shocked that such an upright administration, overflowing with integrity, honesty, and transparency would resort to such conduct.
Captain Renault! Please pick up the white courtesy phone, Captain Renault.
If Americans acted unilaterally, it is tantamount to an act of war.
If German officials knew, it is an act of treason.
I think eugyppius’s characterization of Hersh’s article as “broadly plausible” basically sums up my reaction.
However, far from finding the part where Hersh describes how the planners justified (to themselves) not notifying Congressional leaders to be problematic, as eugyppius seems to, I echo commenter Murray from a few minutes ago in thinking that was maybe the most believable thing in the whole piece.
The sprawling secret state of U.S. so-called “national security” became well-practiced in just that sort of empty legalism during the Global War on Terror, when they wanted some tiny fig leaves to cover the naked lawlessness of their program of worldwide torture and kidnapping.
The flimsy fencing around the U.S. intelligence and covert ops apparatus that was set up in the 1970s was completely blown down during the Bush Jr. administration. They do what they want, and amuse themselves by getting some prostituted legal experts to explain how black is white.
Hersh has a hell of a track record, he's never been caught out on anything, to the best of my knowledge. This would not be the first time he single sourced a story, he did so with the illegal Cambodian bombing (see https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/lessons-thinnest-seymour-hershs-thinly-sourced-claims/), and was completely vindicated. The guy just doesn't do shoddy journalism, though of course caution is warranted, as always, on principle.
Though important, the detail is far less interesting than the complete dissinterest by any country or their media to call this act out as blatant US aggression.
I thought the clever avoidance of congressional oversight was one of the more strikingly plausible aspects of the story, in the "Yes, Minister" sense. You can just imagine Sir Humphrey Appleby musing, "Well, the president has *basically* announced we're doing it, so technically it isn't 'covert' anymore, and that means we can leave Congress out of the loop altogether!"
Hersh's story does fit the available facts, apart from the weird issue with the 17 hour delay between explosions. The mysterious surveillance flights over the area, the naval exercises, the involvement of Norwegian toadies, it all adds up.
But the main takeaway from the story (if true) is the familiar one of the Great Retard Hegemon lumbering across the world stage, casually blowing up its allies' infrastructure because it wants to sell gas to another market. Truly a fitting sign of the times.
It's good to question the story and the sources. But Seymour Hersh is probably going to get very rich, very fast ... by just doing investigative journalism that is off limits to the msm. If he throws in some Covid stories, he'll be a millionaire just from his Substack site in half a year. I see he already has "hundreds" of paid subscribers. I also don't think he'd botch his first big Substack story would he?
Some data points to add as far as Norway goes:
1. Prime minister Støre meets Biden at the White House on January 27th, 2022. Literally the same day, Victoria Nuland at State makes the statement about "one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward".
2. Norway received their first P8 surveillance planes from the US in early 2022. Documentation from the Norwegian armed forces shows by May, the government had accepted a request for more funding for "additional" sonobuoys, even though the P8 planes hadn't yet gone on any official missions.
3. On September 16th, Norwegian media report that a photo ban has been expanded around Evenes Air Station, where the P8 surveillance planes are stationed.
4. Prime minister Støre and defense minister Gram visited the US Navy 2nd Fleet and NATO Joint Force Command in Norfolk, VA on September 19th, one week before Nord Stream blows up.
All of this could be a coincidence, and the details about Norway could be part of a red herring to undermine the entire story about US involvement. Nonetheless, I find the timing on these things a bit unnerving.
Not to mention that Norway would stand to benefit from Nord Stream becoming inoperable, due to gas sales to Europe.
In no way being combative, but I find the skepticism applied here quite strange. Like, this is how this stuff generally gets disclosed. Is the hypothesis that this is some kind of false flag and had nothing to do with what happened? What alternative hypothesis seems more compelling? That it was more involved? More banal?
Whether these details are accurate or not, this is a plausible scenario of how it could have happened, and I don't quite get the fixation on a single source. The media is untrustworthy, journalists are untrustworthy, them having 2-3 sources does not magically make it better. There were 50 sources for the claim that the laptop was russian disinformation, they just happened to be false.
Anyway, I completely get not believing the security state or the journalists covering them. I get being skeptical of a single source. But in this case, why? Do you think this is a wholesale fabrication? Do you think this is a single source misleading a journalist into writing a plausible story that could have happened, but didn't? Why?
I'm not trying to imply these assertions are baseless, I don't quite grasp what the implication is as to what potentially untoward behavior may be happening here. To me, this is consistent with how these things get disclosed, both that it's limited in scope, it has an element of doubt, and it quietly explains what happened and when.