Whistle Blower Comes Forward: US Navy responsible for Nord Stream 2 Sabotage

[sharkman]

Seymour Hersh, the renowned journalist, has released a jaw dropping story on his sub stack.  In it he accuses the US military of taking out the Nordstream 2 pipeline last fall.

He has an unnamed whistle blower who has the receipts, apparently.  This is no joke.  All hell is going to break loose on Sleepy Joe.

His threats to, “bring an end to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline”, were the single dumbest thing a president has ever uttered.

So now the powers that be are trying to take  down Seymour, cancel him, let’s just watch this develop.

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web

“Last June, the Navy divers,operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.”

[Nationalist]

Start at 37 minutes.

Enjoy...

[sharkman]

The New York Post has covered this story:

https://nypost.com/2023/02/08/seymour-hersh-claims-us-navy-behind-nord-stream-2-pipeline-explosion/

“Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in response to Hersh’s report that Moscow has “repeatedly expressed” its belief that the US and NATO were involved in the explosions.

Prior to the invasion, President Biden had threatened that the Nord Stream 2 project connecting Russia and Germany would not move forward if an attack took place, causingsome to suspect US involvement when the pipelines exploded seven months later.”

…“Hersh’s report suggested Biden ordered the explosions to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin from “weaponiz[ing] natural gas for his political and territorial ambitions,” as Germany — and the rest of Europe — relied heavily on Russia for natural gas. 

Without the pipelines, Europe would be forced to end its reliance on Moscow, starving Russia of billions of dollars that could have been contributed to its war effort, the report alleged.

Hersh, a former reporter for the Associated Press and New York Times as well as a longtime contributor to the New Yorker, quoted White House spokesperson Adrienne Watson as calling his report “false and complete fiction.” Hersh also quoted CIA spokesperson Tammy Thorp, who wrote in an email: “This claim is completely and utterly false.”

 

[Moonlight Graham]

This has massive implications.  This was an act of war against Russia, and will damage US relations with Germany.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This has massive implications.  This was an act of war against Russia, and will damage US relations with Germany.

Except... Hersh isn't exactly flying with a perfect record these days.  

"False flags" can happen, but the cost of this one compared to the political impact (which I assume would be the goal) makes it seem pretty unlikely to me.

It's not on the scale of a completely retarded theory like "911 was an inside job" but I would say this one is sketchy at best.  

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Except... Hersh isn't exactly flying with a perfect record these days.  

"False flags" can happen, but the cost of this one compared to the political impact (which I assume would be the goal) makes it seem pretty unlikely to me.

It's not on the scale of a completely retarded theory like "911 was an inside job" but I would say this one is sketchy at best.  

There's a lot of specific detail in his account here.  But sure it could still be fake I guess.  But somebody blew up those pipelines.

If it were real I question why a journalist would report a story that would damage the interests of their country with no real good coming out of it.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

There's a lot of specific detail in his account here.  But sure it could still be fake I guess.  But somebody blew up those pipelines.

If it were real I question why a journalist would report a story that would damage the interests of their country with no real good coming out of it.

At what point should the interests of the country come before the responsibilities of the country?  Should he have kept quiet about My Lai, too?

If he has a story, it's a bombshell.  If he's jumping the gun, he'll pay with his reputation.

It's tough to find any serious coverage by real news organisations, so maybe he doesn't have it all down.  I guess we'll see.

[Moonbox]

11 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If it were real I question why a journalist would report a story that would damage the interests of their country with no real good coming out of it.

That's what Seymour Hersh has been doing his whole life.  He had some home runs in the past but if nothing else is clear about him it's that he really, really hates the US government and is very, very anti-western. 

Now he spends his time promoting stories like the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden was fake/staged (with no evidence), that the chemical weapons attacks in Syria were Turkish false flags (again, no evidence), or that the Novichock poisonings were just everyday mob hits rather than state-sponsored (ignoring the blurred lines between the Kremlin and the mob, or how hard it would presumably be for organized criminals to get access to military-grade nerve agents).

He has no evidence for any of the above, nor does he have any for the Nordstream story.  This has been the unfortunate turn his career has taken within the last ~15 years...just a lot of "anonymous sources" supporting the narratives of Assad or Putin.  Russia Today loves the guy.  

 

[sharkman]

And it’s clear that Hersh has become an enemy of the State., as I inferred above.  Apparently some of his views are out there, but when one considers what regime changes(or ‘nonsense’ if you prefer) the CIA has been involved in, one can understand some of his ire directed at the US government.

And I’m pretty sure we will never get the inside knowledge on why the US military was so abruptly pulled out of Afghanistan, leaving personnel and over 80 billion in equipment.  Military equipment that Putin is now apparently picking up on the cheap from the Taliban.

If nothing else, the US does not have a great track record or reputation.  They could actually be guilty of such sabotage if they thought it was in the best interests.

[Moonlight Graham]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

At what point should the interests of the country come before the responsibilities of the country?  Should he have kept quiet about My Lai, too?

If he has a story, it's a bombshell.  If he's jumping the gun, he'll pay with his reputation.

It's tough to find any serious coverage by real news organisations, so maybe he doesn't have it all down.  I guess we'll see.

My Lai and Abu Ghraib meant serious human rights abuses.  Nobody died blowing up the pipelines, but the fallout from the leak could result in people dying.

Some of these leakers like Julian Assange release stuff that can risk lives and its irresponsible.

What good will come from this story?

[sharkman]

38 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

My Lai and Abu Ghraib meant serious human rights abuses.  Nobody died blowing up the pipelines, but the fallout from the leak could result in people dying.

Some of these leakers like Julian Assange release stuff that can risk lives and its irresponsible.

What good will come from this story?

Well, they are about to go to all out war.  Knowing that the US may have sabotaged pipelines that precipitated the escalation, may give Germany and NATO a needed pause to consider their ally.

It might not be worth fighting along side an ally who would do such a thing.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

My Lai and Abu Ghraib meant serious human rights abuses.  Nobody died blowing up the pipelines, but the fallout from the leak could result in people dying.

Some of these leakers like Julian Assange release stuff that can risk lives and its irresponsible.

What good will come from this story?

I have no idea.  Is that the criteria for reporting the news?  A journalist who has what he considers verifiable information on a crime committed by one country against another should keep it under his hat unless he can see some good coming from the report?

As I said, I can't find any serious news outlet that takes the story seriously right now, but I find the idea that a journalist should not report on it, if they do have verifiable information, nonsensical.  That's why they are there.

[Moonbox]

24 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

As I said, I can't find any serious news outlet that takes the story seriously right now, but I find the idea that a journalist should not report on it, if they do have verifiable information, nonsensical.  That's why they are there.

If you don't have verifiable information, you're just speculating and/or playing make-believe.  Without it, you're not reporting the news.  You're just doing theatre.  

 

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

If you don't have verifiable information, you're just speculating and/or playing make-believe.  Without it, you're not reporting the news.  You're just doing theatre.  

 

Sure.

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by bcsapper

[sharkman]

From the story as reported by Seymour Hersh:

 

”In December of 2021, two months before the first Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Jake Sullivan convened a meeting of a newly formed task force—men and women from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the State and Treasury Departments—and asked for recommendations about how to respond to Putin’s impending invasion.

It would be the first of a series of top-secret meetings, in a secure room on a top floor of the Old Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House, that was also the home of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). There was the usual back and forth chatter that eventually led to a crucial preliminary question: Would the recommendation forwarded by the group to the President be reversible—such as another layer of sanctions and currency restrictions—or irreversible—that is, kinetic actions, which could not be undone?

What became clear to participants, according to the source with direct knowledge of the process, is that Sullivan intended for the group to come up with a plan for the destruction of the two Nord Stream pipelines—and that he was delivering on the desires of the President.”

Those sound like pretty specific facts.  The kind that only a participating member could come up with.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I have no idea.  Is that the criteria for reporting the news?  A journalist who has what he considers verifiable information on a crime committed by one country against another should keep it under his hat unless he can see some good coming from the report?

As I said, I can't find any serious news outlet that takes the story seriously right now, but I find the idea that a journalist should not report on it, if they do have verifiable information, nonsensical.  That's why they are there.

He's reporting top secret covert operations of his government during a proxy war against an enemy who means their country harm.  I don't think reporting protected government secrets should be a free-for-all.  They have a right to do it, but if I were an American journalist sitting on the story I would at least ask if I should blow this whistle. 

Sometimes there's a good reason things are kept secret, and sometimes there isn't.  I'm not 100% sure where this story falls, but it has serious implications and journalists should realize the responsibility for potential harm their release of top secret government info may cause, as well as the good it can cause from revealing wrongdoing.

I'm sure there's journalists who care more about their career and the awards & praise they'd get breaking these types of stories than the security of their country.

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

He's reporting top secret covert operations of his government during a proxy war against an enemy who means their country harm. 

Or...he's making up his anonymous sources, or those anonymous sources are making up their stories an he's publishing them.  

This isn't like Snowden, where he actually blew the whistle and leaked the documents and the NSA was caught red-handed.

These are anonymous "sources".  Oooh.  

Edited February 9, 2023 by Moonbox

[Moonlight Graham]

17 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Or...he's making up his anonymous sources, or those anonymous sources are making up their stories an he's publishing them.  

This isn't like Snowden, where he actually blew the whistle and leaked the documents and the NSA was caught red-handed.

These are anonymous "sources".  Oooh.  

I give 50% odds Snowden was paid by the Russians to spy.  Quite a coincidence that "the US revoked my passport as I was in transit in a Russian airport so I couldn't travel anymore and why I had to stay there" as he claims.  I smells a lie.

[sharkman]

“I'm sure there's journalists who care more about their career and the awards & praise they'd get breaking these types of stories than the security of their country.”

If there are journalists with such proclivities, surely there are politicians capable of the same.  And remember, Joe Biden threatened to end Nord Stream 2.  And if you’ll recall, he also threatened to withhold a billion in aid from Ukraine.  Unless they fired an investigator who was investigating Hunter Biden’s company.

Would Seymour Hersh make it all up?  Would he put himself in the center of a political hurricane just to ruin his reputation and career?  It doesn’t seem likely.

[bush_cheney2004]

U.S. and other NATO member opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is not a new development...both Trump and Obama administrations were trying to kill the project long before the invasion of Ukraine because of wider, long term security ramifications for Europe.   Biden just continued U.S. policy with a plausibly deniable, "kinetic" solution.

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-plays-trump-card-in-pursuit-of-russian-nord-stream-2-pipeline-dream/

All Biden has to do is distract attention with the threat of more Chinese spy balloons !

[August1991]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Except... Hersh isn't exactly flying with a perfect record these days.  

"False flags" can happen, but the cost of this one compared to the political impact (which I assume would be the goal) makes it seem pretty unlikely to me.

It's not on the scale of a completely retarded theory like "911 was an inside job" but I would say this one is sketchy at best.  

Seymour Hersh has a reputation for claiming the truth - which many contrarian Leftists agreed with at the time. But in fact Hersh's claims were proved to be false.

Let's wait and see.

I am reminded of I F. Stone. Stone also supposedly exposed the truth about society.

Rob Reiner is another example

According to Reiner, Republicans are WASP country-club people who control the country.

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by August1991

[Moonbox]

16 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I give 50% odds Snowden was paid by the Russians to spy.  Quite a coincidence that "the US revoked my passport as I was in transit in a Russian airport so I couldn't travel anymore and why I had to stay there" as he claims.  I smells a lie.

Maybe, but he still leaked legit proof and the US had verifiable egg on its face.  
 

Hersh stopped providing any evidence for his increasingly bizarre theories ages ago, and has relied on nothing but anonymous source, or testimonials from random uninvolved people promoting their own anonymous sources.  

[sharkman]

So, who was paying Assange.  That operation didn’t just happen on its own.

Edited February 10, 2023 by sharkman

[Moonlight Graham]

13 hours ago, August1991 said:

Seymour Hersh has a reputation for claiming the truth - which many contrarian Leftists agreed with at the time. But in fact Hersh's claims were proved to be false.

Let's wait and see.

I am reminded of I F. Stone. Stone also supposedly exposed the truth about society.

Rob Reiner is another example

According to Reiner, Republicans are WASP country-club people who control the country.

 

What about Abu Ghraib?

[Moonbox]

31 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

What about Abu Ghraib?

They had evidence.