It's reported in Germany at the same time based on German intelligence leaks. Interesting detail: Scholz once again reiterated the official investigation, performed by Denmark, Russia and Sweden, is not finished and that there are no definitive conclusions.

Damage control from Washington. I'm guessing they couldn't get a lid on Hersh's story, and they figured having a shitty narrative is better than having no narrative. Plausible deniability and all that.

I don't think I've ever seen such a shockingly blatant attempt at bullshitting the public in my lifetime.

The media utterly voids Hersh, and when "anonymous officials" report on "undisclosed information" about "anonymous groups" about which "much is still unclear" they're all reporting in tandem.

Please.

The only thing more concerning than this is the fact that there are people who will actually believe it.

It's reported in Germany at the same time based on German intelligence leaks — Benkei

I didn't get that from the German article (in Zeit https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2023-03/nordstream-2-ukraine-anschlag). all I could find about sources was...

The ARD capital studio, Kontraste, SWR and ZEIT spoke to sources in several countries for their research.

According to information from the ARD capital studio, Kontraste, SWR and ZEIT, a Western secret service is said to have sent a tip to European partner services in the autumn, i.e. shortly after the destruction, according to which a Ukrainian commando was responsible for the destruction.

... the latter suggesting that the source might even be the same "Western secret service".

Or possibly the other way around, I suppose. It seems beyond credibility that they both just happened to come across the exact same incriminating evidence when it's not time-constrained data (boat ownership, cctv footage, passport stamps...) all of this is information available the moment the explosion took place, so the only thing stopping authorities from obtaining it and putting the pieces together is the time it takes to carry out the investigation. Are we to believe that with radically different resources to put to it, both countries just happened to reach the same point in their investigations at the same time?

We'll forever be in the dark about this. I'm more interested in the way it's being portrayed than the actual facts of the case (which we'll simply never know).

What's of interest is the way that intelligence agencies and government spokesman are being treated as acceptable verification for single anonymous sources in storylines which involve state-level actors. That state is not going to honestly admit (or miss opportunities to deny) it's own involvement. In a story about the government, you can't have the government as the only corroboratory source.

when "anonymous officials" report on "undisclosed information" about "anonymous groups" about which "much is still unclear" they're all reporting in tandem. — Tzeentch

I think this has become a really key theme in political discourse over the last few years.

If you can't trust your government (or even if you want to discuss the possibility of not being able to trust your government), then in what way can your rejection of the veracity of government sources be seen as evidence contrary to your argument? It's ridiculous. Yet that's where we find ourselves.

Authors critical of their governments are being dismissed (by liberal pundits no less), on the grounds that government sources contradict their story. And this absurdity is just swallowed by the Twitterati as if it were the most normal thing in the world.

Whether they're coming from Moscow, Beijing or Washington, propaganda narratives all have the same goal: further cementing their foothold in the minds of those who already agree, and sowing doubt in the minds of those who don't.

Among the citizenry of developed nations we see symptoms of this: a complete and utter lack of confidence in their own ability to tell right from wrong and fact from fiction.

This is in essence gaslighting on a societal level, exactly how it was used by the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century.

I'd advise any of our younger readers to check out...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/06/13/first-woodward-bernstein-watergate-scandal/

This is what quality reporting used to look like.

Suspicion, followed up diligently, reported as it came out.

No theatrics, no snivelling sycophancy (given the culture of the era), just basic investigative journalism.

Contrast that with the latest piece of shit from the same paper 40 years on...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/07/intelligence-officials-suspect-ukraine-partisans-behind-nord-stream-bombings-rattling-kyivs-allies/

Literally no investigation, and absolutely no sources other than official government lines. Not even a mention of the alternative explanations. Just blind parroting of White House press releases. They might as well just publish them verbatim and save money on reporters.

This is pretty good still: https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/pro-oekraiense-groep-zou-achter-sabotage-van-gaspijplijn-zitten~b2b05d13/

Well, if it really would be private individuals or entities, then I guess it's an issue for the police to solve. Depth? Recreational diving limit is around 30m or so, but for instance with an atmospheric diving suit, a diver can go to 2000 ft (610 meters). Getting explosives? That's not a problem, steel in concrete casing isn't so difficult to break with explosives. Shaped charges etc aren't technically so difficult to do anyway. Hence it's not so hard to destroy a pipeline.

(Parts of Nordstream 2: this picture shows how thin the pipeline actually was)


Definately such underwater thing could be done privately, you just have to have professional divers and not your average mentally unstable terrorist. Yet if this was a "private venture", still the motivation is a question.

A group of 6 individuals, with relevant complementary skills planning a strike like this? With things you call "not so hard" but totally not common knowledge or expertise. The balance of probability isn't a summation of the merely possible.

We now have an intelligence "leak" (officially sanctioned it seems) blaming private individuals. How likely is that really? Getting explosives? Planning? Skills? And no government involved? — Benkei

Private individuals delivering the equivalent of over a metric ton of TNT on underwater pipelines the location of which isn't publicly available and would require elaborate underwater surveys to accurately locate? In multiple locations? Detonated remotely? Without being detected in a body of water that is monitored 24/7 by multiple nations poised to hear a mouse fart?

Fucking zero.

Have we already forgotten about this?



Use your brains, people.

Indeed. My Dutch is entirely reliant on Google translate I'm afraid, but have I got it right that they're citing the 'Western intelligence' source too? It's not clear if there's a genuine second source or if it's just all the intelligence agencies sharing the same information. The German TV stations' investigations seem to spring off the US/European intelligence release about the yacht, so if that's false then all their leads are red herrings.

The telegraph seems to confirm a single (joint agency) source. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/07/nord-stream-pipelines-blown-pro-ukrainian-group-us-intelligence/

it's not so hard to destroy a pipeline. — ssu

Don't be ridiculous. All the intelligence agencies are saying this is a very difficult operation with either state-level actors or those with state training.

Your desperation is showing.

Yeah, all of a sudden there's a flood of murky intelligence leaks in media. What's up with that?

New York Times: Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say
Washington Post: Intelligence officials suspect Ukraine partisans behind Nord Stream bombings, rattling Kyiv’s allies
Die Zeit: Nord-Stream-Ermittlungen: Spuren führen in die Ukraine
The Times: West kept quiet about Nord Stream attack to protect Ukraine

I'm not jumping to any conclusions. Technically, anything is possible, I suppose. The sea is very shallow there, so a diving crew operating off a boat could get to the pipes. The pipelines were not secured or actively monitored in any way. That patch of the sea was heavily trafficked, including by numerous boats that were turning off their tracking devices.

Motive remains difficult to understand though, especially given the timing.

Use your brains guts, people. — Tzeentch

I corrected it for you. For people like you and many others here, the US is the right kind of supervillain whom anybody can ultimately blame for anything in this war. And there is no doubt that the US had motives, means, background history of covert operations, and the good amount of hawkishness to directly or indirectly support such operation.
The point is that this operation didn’t “end” Nord Stream 2 (it can be repaired within months) and most of all we shouldn’t forget other players. Russia too has means, the right amount of hawkishness and a history of false flag operations to directly or indirectly support such operation. Ukraine, Poland, the UK, other nordic states have means and motives to directly or indirectly support such operation.
Here some Russian predictions (or potential alibi?) since October 2021:
https://en.topwar.ru/188140-vozmozhna-li-podvodnaja-diversija-na-gazoprovode-severnyj-potok-2.html

all of a sudden there's a flood of murky intelligence leaks in media. What's up with that? — SophistiCat

Well shit, who knows? Intelligence officials leak a story to the media exculpating the countries they are officials of. What could possibly be going on...? Phew, tough one.

The telegraph seems to confirm a single (joint agency) source. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/07/nord-stream-pipelines-blown-pro-ukrainian-group-us-intelligence/ — Isaac

The incident had been variously blamed on Moscow, Kyiv, and, in one more outlandish theory, the CIA - ...

:rofl: I just can't.

Russia too has means, the right amount of hawkishness and a history of false flag operations to directly or indirectly support such operation. — neomac

And Russia is the only player (that I know of) that has actually done this before. Possibly more than once. But those Georgia incidents made a lot more sense at the time. With Nord Stream it's not obvious.

I assume the number refers to actually the possible group that made the attack. Possibly. Not the sponsors and those who got them together. But the idea of a private non-state actor doing it is in my view remote. But not impossible.

It indeed would be quite incredible if six divers would be having a beer and one of them thought: "You know, we could go and blow up Nordstream 2."

With hard meaning as you referred to only a nation-state having the ability for the strike, sabotage on the high seas is still possible for a private entity to do. It is possible. For example shooting down a satellite is something that only nation-states can do (perhaps with the exception of Elon Musk focusing the attention of SpaceX on the mission, but that wouldn't go unnoticed).

. All the intelligence agencies are saying this is a very difficult operation with either state-level actors or those with state training. — Isaac

Yet not impossible for someone without the training. Professional Scuba divers on the private market exist. Yet there come the difficulties of just who would gather them without state backing. The motivation of someone else than a non-state actor would be confusing.

Operating in that depth isn't impossible. For example the CIA-operation of trying to lift a Soviet nuclear submarine from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean in 1974, Project Azorian, was partly successful. The sub K-129 was at the depth of 4900 meters. The pipeline on the bottom of the Baltic Sea is something like 54 to 75 meters, at the deepest 210 meters or so (and not so deep where the sabotage happened). Hence Project Azorian would be an operation that you need a state-level actor, and an Superpower actor, even if Howard Hughes was brought as a disguise to the CIA operation.

Your desperation is showing. — Isaac

Yeah right. I think we know who is desperate here...

And Russia is the only player (that I know of) that has actually done this before. Possibly more than once. But those Georgia incidents made a lot more sense at the time. With Nord Stream it's not obvious. — SophistiCat

Russians might have been also behind explosions/sabotage attempts against the Ukrainian gas pipelines: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/06/17/323011294/pipeline-explosion-in-ukraine-could-be-act-of-terrorism
https://geostrategy.org.ua/en/media/articles/putins-streams-perpetuum-mobile-of-state-terrorism-how-girkin-and-malofeev-contributed-to-the-nord-stream-2

Yet not impossible for someone without the training. — ssu

You don't know anything about diving, do you?

actually — SophistiCat

Do you even know the meaning of the word "actually"?

It isn't 'stuff I reckon'.

Some absolute classics from those two articles though.

The first...

Saakashvili [Georgian President] said Russian officials have tendered veiled threats in the past, and given the natural gas crisis created in Ukraine earlier this month when Russia temporarily shut off the flow, the president said it "just looks fishy."

Now I remember hearing about some "veiled threats" from one of the countries in this latest case... I can't quite remember...@Tzeentch, do you have any recollection of 'veiled threats' coming from anyone? Because it seems to be a very important piece of evidence in establishing likely culprits.

I particularly like...

The connection to Russia is solely circumstantial. "U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Russian government was behind the Refahiye explosion, according to two of the people briefed on the investigation. The evidence is circumstantial, they said, based on the possible motive and the level of sophistication

Oh yes, Russia's story about a local terrorist group is utterly ridiculous - it takes a state to carry out something that sophisticated... or, of course, a "group", which as we all know are far more well-equipped and well-trained than any state.

As Caitlin Johnstone put it...

They literally wrote an entire article without ever addressing how bizarre it is to just keep referring to the alleged perpetrators as just a "group". Like that's a thing. "Yeah you know, one of those Groups we've all been hearing about in the news. You know Groups, they sail around the world destroying international undersea energy infrastructure." — Caitlin Johnstone

Yet not impossible for someone without the training. — ssu

Who's suggesting it's impossible? Why on earth would we be contemplating theories which are merely "not impossible"? Is that seriously your threshold for even so much as doubting your governments - "well, if it's not absolutely impossible that they're telling the truth, then I'll believe them".

I'd love to know. You, @SophistiCat, @neomac... What have your governments done recently to deserve such unreserved faith? I just can't fathom it. What, over the last decade, say, has lead you to believe that US intelligence agencies are trustworthy, that government sources tell you the truth, that the official version of events is pretty much how things are... I'd love to know what string of successes has given you all such unwavering faith in the system. Do you look around at the world and think "Yep, this is all going really well, good job guys"? (@SophistiCat - feel free to answer as if in reply to someone else and refer to me obliquely, like, "people who think..." so you can continue to pretend any dissent is beneath response)

I can't quite remember...@Tzeentch, do you have any recollection of 'veiled threats' coming from anyone? — Isaac

I do seem to recall something...

(December, 2021)



And...

(January, 2022)




But why would they ever do that? What could be the possible motive?!

Oh, I recall something about that too...

(2014)




It seems we have a public admission of intent and motive, and an independent investigative source providing a detailed account of events.

I just can't for the life of me figure out how this fits into the picture that Russia probably did it, and that the US certainly didn't do it. :chin:

Why on earth would we be contemplating theories which are merely "not impossible"? — Isaac

On a more serious note, we're seeing the effectiveness of plausible deniability at work.

If you give people who desperately do not want to face the obvious something to latch onto, they will. No matter how improbable it is.

As they say: man is not a rational, but a rationalizing animal.

You, SophistiCat, @neomac... What have your governments done recently to deserve such unreserved faith? I just can't fathom it. What, over the last decade, say, has lead you to believe that US intelligence agencies are trustworthy, that government sources tell you the truth, that the official version of events is pretty much how things are... I'd love to know what string of successes has given you all such unwavering faith in the system. — Isaac

As usual “unwavering faith” or “unreserved faith” are ways to caricature my views (and others’, I’d say). The one who is pretty much categorically sure about what happened in the Nord Stream 2 case and related Western propaganda is your new sidekick [1], not me. Indeed, I didn’t dismiss Hersh’s report, nor argued against Hersh’s credibility.
Where I deeply disagree with you both, is your helpless craving for pinning roughly everything bad is happening primarily on the US. And to me this has to do more with our assumptions about power struggles in politics and geopolitics than on circumstantial “hard facts” (most of which we may be uncertain about). Your and Tzeentch’s frustration to present your reasons in a persuasive way to your opponents leads you both to caricature your opponents’ views. This attitude is intellectually dishonest and repulsive to me.
Ironically, your attempts to discredit the US is what makes people like me feel like sympathising with the US leadership more than our brains would recommend.


[1]

The reality is, when the US bombed Nord Stream 2, a piece of major infrastructure critical to the German economy, all Scholz asked was how many tanks the US wanted him to send. He's an absolute tool. — Tzeentch

As Hersh said himself about his report on Nord Stream: all he did was dissect the obvious. And the only reason obvious things aren't said out loud is because of deafening US propaganda basically gas lighting the entire western world. — Tzeentch

The only reason these things aren't yet part of the western common sense is because of a relentless propaganda campaign.

For example, the defense on Kiev has been framed as a heroic Ukrainian defense and a huge failure of the Russian armed forces. However, the order of battle on the Ukrainian side was never disclosed which means it's hard to tell what exactly happened.
Recently, Seymour Hersh gave an interview in which he named the figure of 60,000 Ukrainian defenders at the battle of Kiev. Assuming that's true, and I suspect that it is (and probably the reason why the order of battle remains undisclosed), this means the defense of Kiev was a successful Russian attempt at diverting forces away from the east. The Russians attacked Kiev with ~21,000 troops. This is a small amount for a city as large as Kiev, but against a defending force of 60,000 there's simply no way this force was meant to capture the capital. One would have expected the Russians to aim for a local numerical advantage of at least 3:1, especially for the type of urban fighting the capture would have involved. This would have required roughly 180,000 troops - basically the entire Russian invading force.

In other words, the western media spin was pure bullshit to influence the public perception of Ukraine's chances in this war.

Let me end by saying, I find no pleasure in these hard facts. — "Tzeentch

All of what I said is supported by hard facts and expert opinions (which I will happily share if you're interested).


I'm laying out the painful reality of the situation, because cheerleading and sugar coating aren't going to change it, and the price of ignorance is paid every day by the young men dying on the frontline, and civilians suffering under the war. — Tzeentch

I just can't for the life of me figure out how this fits into the picture that Russia probably did it, and that the US certainly didn't do it. — Tzeentch

Indeed, that will have to remain a mystery. Fortunately for us amateur sleuths, we do have one piece of crystal clear evidence. Despite knowing nothing about their origins, methods, motives, or training... We do know for absolute certain that they were not acting on the authority of the US, the UK or Ukraine.

How do we know this...? Why, the authorities of those countries told us so... So that should completely satisfy our curiosity in that regard.

On a separate note. It's good to keep track of our respective governments' recent improvements in imagination. Only in September....

But one senior US official and a US military official both said Russia is still the leading suspect – assuming that the European assessment of deliberate sabotage is borne out – because there are no other plausible suspects with the ability and will to carry out the operation.

“It’s hard to imagine any other actor in the region with the capabilities and interest to carry out such an operation,” the Danish military official said. — https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-leak-russian-navy-ships/index.html

Now, they seem to be finding that leap of imagination so much easier. Seeming to have no trouble imagining six blokes in a boat did it, just because of how much they liked Ukraine. Funny how impossible it previously was to imagine anyone but Russia in September, but now some jingoistic yachtsmen are considered likely. What might have happened between now and then...?

If you give people who desperately do not want to face the obvious something to latch onto, they will. No matter how improbable it is. — Tzeentch

Yep, the interest then, really, is in why anyone would so desperately want to preserve the status quo. Can anyone really think it's that great.

As usual “unwavering faith” or “unreserved faith” are ways to caricature my views — neomac

Yes. We'd want to avoid such loaded terms as "unwavering faith", being, as you say, mere caricatures...

Now, unrelated, to your substantive and dispassionate assessment of my position...

your helpless craving for pinning roughly everything bad is happening primarily on the US. — neomac

Good job we're avoiding loaded terms and caricatures, otherwise that might have come across badly....

I've already explained. The US and it's allies are our governments. It is they who we must hold to account and they to whose electorate we are speaking. As such it is their faults and strategies which are our primary concern. It's not rocket science.

Ironically, your attempts to discredit the US is what makes people like me feel like sympathising with the US leadership more than our brains would recommend. — neomac

An odd response, but I appreciate the honesty.

Your and Tzeentch’s frustration to present your reasons in a persuasive way to your opponents leads you both to caricature your opponents’ views. This attitude is intellectually dishonest and repulsive to me. — neomac

You are projecting so hard I could point you at a wall to show off a PowerPoint presentation.


I don't need absolute certainty to be sure of something. Absolute certainty doesn't exist, and the pretention that such is necessary to take a strong stance towards something, that is intellectually dishonest, especially when that standard is applied one-sidedly to the narrative you happen to disagree with.


Moreover, outside of philosophical debate this type of approach to worldly affairs is, in one word, weak. We're dealing with actors that will take every opportunity to bullshit you, and here we are waiting for that distant moment when we arrive at crystalline certainty (a pipe dream) to call out said bullshit.

That's crippling insecurity masquerading as intellectual rigor.

As I said before, it's a sign of the times. Propaganda has so thoroughly gaslit and intellectually neutered citizens that now they need an "official" story to be sure of anything. Whatever happened to independent and critical thought?

outside of philosophical debate this type of approach to worldly affairs is, in one word, weak. We're dealing with actors that will take every opportunity to bullshit you, and here we are waiting for that distant moment when we arrive at crystalline certainty (a pipe dream) to call out said bullshit.

That's crippling insecurity masquerading as intellectual rigor. — Tzeentch

Exactly. I was having this exact conversation with a student only yesterday (whilst bolshily inserting myself into a seminar I was only supposed to be sitting in on!). Powerful actors will act powerfully, that's in the definition. So if they are not resisted powerfully, then the effect is consent to whatever it is they are doing. They will not wait for us to make up our minds whether we consent. They will not temper their force in line with our uncertainty. Least of all in war.

When events are moving powerfully and with speed, responses have to match both or else fail.

Good job we're avoiding loaded terms and caricature — Isaac

The US and it's allies are our governments. It is they who we must hold to account and they to whose electorate we are speaking. As such it is their faults and strategies which are our primary concern. — Isaac

I don't feel compelled to refrain from sarcasm, caricature and insults against my opponents if my opponents persist with their intellectually dishonesty as you are. Besides I don't think it was much of a caricature, unless you are a caricature of yourself. Indeed, as long as "primary concern" leads you and your new sidekick to believe that the genesis of this war, the failure of peace talks, and now the bombing of Nord Stream 2 is primarily US responsibility because of some alleged "hard facts" and anti-system expert source, and to insult, caricature, or paint as gaslighted by Western propaganda whoever disagrees with you because you have anger management issues, that objection of mine against your attitude is not much of an exaggeration.

An odd response, but I appreciate the honesty. — Isaac

There is something to appreciate in its own merits though. To the extent I don't trust the judgement of people like you, you are not part of the solution, but more likely part of the problem. Indeed, all your beliefs and arguments can be instrumental to Russian ambitions, as much as mine can be instrumental to the American ambitions. So if I trust Russia less than America and your judgement on the topic less than mine, then I see you just as a vector of pro-Russian toxic memes.

Powerful actors will act powerfully, that's in the definition. So if they are not resisted powerfully, then the effect is consent to whatever it is they are doing. They will not wait for us to make up our minds whether we consent. They will not temper their force in line with our uncertainty. Least of all in war. — Isaac

:100: