This story would be a bombshell if true. A name I haven’t heard much from lately, Seymour Hersh, in a lengthy Substack post claims the United States was responsible for the bombs that took out the Nordstream 1 pipeline several months ago. It will probably not surprise you that he quotes an unnamed source. Here’s the conclusion:
The source had a much more streetwise view of Biden’s decision to sabotage more than 1500 miles of Gazprom pipeline as winter approached. “Well,†he said, speaking of the President, “I gotta admit the guy has a pair of balls. He said he was going to do it, and he did.â€
Asked why he thought the Russians failed to respond, he said cynically, “Maybe they want the capability to do the same things the U.S. did.
“It was a beautiful cover story,†he went on. “Behind it was a covert operation that placed experts in the field and equipment that operated on a covert signal.
“The only flaw was the decision to do it.â€
If true I have pretty strong feeling about this. Suffice it to say that I don’t think the United States should engage in acts of war without an act of Congress. Or without a Security Council resolution. Those are part of the “rules-based order” mentioned in a previous post.
Which source, Hersh, or Hersh’s source?
For what its worth, the White House have issued strong denials — “This is false and complete fiction.â€
If Hersh’s source is not fabricating things — I guess the defense is “You have to break the rules to enforce the rules” and the rules-based order is “the powerful make the rules, and the weak are to obey”. It works because this country will continue to be the most powerful country for long time to come. The most conceivable way that could change is Putin decides to pull the “Sampson option”…
Interesting this comes out the same week former Israeli PM Bennett’s interview where Bennett suggested US/NATO chose war over a viable diplomatic solution last year.
Leaving aside it’s Hersh, it doesn’t pass the smell test for me and there are a lot of red flags and just plain stupid assertions:
– The notion you can avoid Congressional oversight by just “using the military” and by not calling it a covert action.
– The notion the Air Force would recommend dropping bombs.
– This passage made me laugh:
“The Panama City center, which boasts the second largest indoor pool in America, was the perfect place to recruit the best, and most taciturn, graduates of the diving school who successfully did last summer what they had been authorized to do 260 feet under the surface of the Baltic Sea.”
The Dive center is a schoolhouse for training divers. The idea that you’d go there and pick the “best” graduates (ie – people freshly trained with no experience) for a high-profile mission like this is something you only see in movies.
Hersh is getting played again.
I’m skeptical that we did it for one reason: if we had done it, the plot would have leaked out long ago. And I don’t mean via anonymous source.
Leaks are definitely a thing – and one of the many problems with Hersh’s story is that the round-a-bout way would likely increase the potential for leaks.
That’s not to say the US couldn’t have done it – we could have and not everything leaks. But Hersh’s source (and it’s a single source) and narrative do not seem credible to me.
The Soviets used to say that they could learn anything they wanted to know about the U. S. government—all it took was money. If you look back at history, they had reason to believe that. Sometimes it doesn’t even take a lot of money.
I suspect we do some low publicity stuff that never leaks. Hard to believe something of this magnitude would not leak. One of the many reasons I dont buy the vote being stolen claims. The claims of massive voter fraud go back to at least 2000. If there were millions of fraudulent votes some ex-wife/husband, jilted lover, angry neighbor would have ratted someone(s) out by now, many times over.
Steve
That’s why I think the greatest likelihood is that it was the Poles.
“I suspect we do some low publicity stuff that never leaks.”
Stuff that’s not controversial doesn’t usually leak. Maybe that’s what you mean by low publicity. There are a couple of programs I was involved with in the 1990’s, for example, that haven’t leaked other than in super vague speculation. But it’s all stuff that isn’t controversial and wouldn’t be a scandal – at least to Americans.
Blowing up pipelines, by contrast, is the kind of thing that would be a huge scandal. Leaving aside the poor sourcing of this report, I have a hard time believing that Biden would take the risk.
The Hersh substack piece was really a provocative time line of people and events that, IMO, created a credible storyline behind the “who†and “whyâ€behind the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.
First the three main players – Victoria Nuland, Tom Blinken, Jake Sullivan – were the advisory people behind how to handle the pipeline. All three were for blowing it up. It was May ‘21 when Trump’s sanctions were suddenly lifted. In the Fall Russian troops were amassing on the border. Germany was still benefiting from Russia’s cheap oil, and there were fears it would impede their willingness to participate in weaponing Ukraine. In Dec ‘21 more meetings were held with the above boosters behind offing the pipeline. Finally, in Fed ‘22 Biden “leaked†a rather prescient statement saying if “Russia invades there will no longer be a need for Nord Stream.†Shortly thereafter Russia crossed over into Ukraine and the pipeline was destroyed. The puzzle pieces, when put together, create tangible reasons as to why the US could be seen as the culprit behind the pipeline’s demise.
The US was in this up to its snout. No country in Europe would dare do it without the explicit approval of the US.
The important point here is that the bombing of Nord Stream was an attack on Germany, not Russia. It was intended to bring the Germans to heel, and it did. That Germany was the target does increase the probability that Poland was involved, but, again, they would not act without US permission.
Hersh’s story is entirely believable, and the American denials are not. Washington is a rogue, terrorist state that has gone berserker since the fall of the Soviet Union. After all, a country that murders its own citizens basically for spite cannot be trusted (Ruby Ridge, Waco, al-Awlaki and children…)
Dave Schuler: Sometimes it doesn’t even take a lot of money.
The mightiest fortification can fall to a well-placed bribe. And what is a lot of gold for the gatekeeper is only a sliver of what a siege would cost—with all its uncertainty.
Jan: The puzzle pieces, when put together, create tangible reasons as to why the US could be seen as the culprit behind the pipeline’s demise.
bob sykes: Hersh’s story is entirely believable, and the American denials are not.
Neither of you even attempted to overcome the problem of leaks or the risks of potential leaks in the modern era.
I have a hard time believing that Biden would take the risk.
Andy, why do you give so much undeserved credit to Biden’s Administration for not “taking risks?†Wasn’t their leaving Afghanistan departure lacking strategy and full of risk? How they handled the recent balloon episode – covering up the real time it was observed – a “dithering†risky decision? What about Biden’s loose-lips approval of disabling the pipeline should Russia invade Ukraine? Prescient statements, coming true by Biden, have been made before. Just before the 2020 election he shockingly stated, “We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.†Finally, if Hersh’s investigative reporting had yielded the same conclusions, except under a Trump Presidency, would you still think such a risk was unlikely?
Neither of you even attempted to overcome the problem of leaks or the risks of potential leaks in the modern era
There are far fewer “leaks,†in recent years, by a Washington bureaucracy whose partisan allegiances reside with the Democrat party. Even Democrat- aligned whistleblowers are far more protected than those trying to reveal the corruption and collusion within a democrat-aligned administration, intelligence community, and DOJ, who is supported by a dem-supportive press.
jan: Wasn’t their leaving Afghanistan departure lacking strategy and full of risk?
What risk? Most analysts already knew that the Afghan government couldn’t survive, though most were also surprised by the suddenness of the collapse.
jan: Just before the 2020 election he shockingly stated, “We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.â€
Yeah, and police departments have a homicide division. Then there are all those fire departments.
jan: There are far fewer “leaks,†in recent years, by a Washington bureaucracy whose partisan allegiances reside with the Democrat party.
There’s plenty of leaks. It’s just they apparently don’t tickle your fancy.
“Andy, why do you give so much undeserved credit to Biden’s Administration for not “taking risks?†Wasn’t their leaving Afghanistan departure lacking strategy and full of risk? ”
I’m talking about the risk of getting caught, of the public finding out. Leaving Afghanistan is nothing like that. While it’s true that the administration screwed up the pull-out, leaving Afghanistan wasn’t that controversial.