X Close

OSINT picks holes in Seymour Hersh’s Nord Stream claims

The Nord Stream gas leak seen from a Danish interceptor in September 2022. Credit: Danish Defence via Getty.

February 16, 2023 - 5:00pm

Since he published an explosive Substack piece earlier this month, arguing — in great detail — how the United States was responsible for the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipeline between Russia and Germany last year, the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has received both enthusiastic support and dismissal. The White House responded quickly to label Hersh’s claims ‘utterly false and complete fiction’, an assessment which the CIA and State Department echoed. Russian state representatives have, unsurprisingly, been more open to the theory. Indeed, the State Duma today proposed an urgent UN investigation into the attack based on the article. 

Where some rebuttals of the Substack post have used as their reasoning Hersh’s supposed history of conspiracism, as well as his reliance on anonymous sources, more substantial and evidence-based criticisms have now emerged, based on the use of open-source intelligence, or OSINT.  

One such response was published, also on Substack, by Denmark-based OSINT analyst Oliver Alexander at the end of last week. While insisting that he makes no accusations himself as to who was responsible for the pipeline explosion under the Baltic Sea, Alexander writes that Hersh’s account has ‘massive glaring holes’, such as the suggestion that the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, ‘had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War’. Stoltenberg had, as it happened, just turned 16 when the conflict ended. 

Alexander also takes issue with Hersh’s implication that the pipeline explosions took place in close proximity to one another, when really there was 80 km between the Nord Stream 1 blasts and the area targeted along Nord Stream 2. What’s more, Hersh’s claim that the Biden administration colluded with the Norwegian Navy doesn’t stand up to scrutiny either, given the ‘exceptionally high level of secrecy for this operation’. 

Hersh argues that the Nord Stream attack was executed on 26th September 2022 when a Norwegian aircraft dropped a sonobuoy (a ‘sonar buoy’) to trigger detonators allegedly earlier planted by a team of US Navy divers during the NATO BALTOPS 22 exercise in June of that year. But the Alta ship which, in a filmed interview earlier this week, Hersh says carried out the mission last actively moved under its own power — as opposed to being towed — over a decade ago. 

In Alexander’s words, ‘if we argue that Hersh misspoke and means one of the other ships in the Alta or similar Oksøy class, we need to also look at those’. Yet the analyst’s data shows that all of these possible alternatives were accounted for at the time of the operation. His post builds on an earlier Twitter thread, posted by OSINT journalist Joe Galvin, which displays vessel tracking data to explain how Hersh’s account is inaccurate. For Galvin, the suggested involvement of Norwegian P-8 Poseidon aircraft is contradicted by open-source analysis of the area on the day of the sabotage, while the minesweepers cited by Hersh were apparently not present in the vicinity of the pipeline at the time of the BALTOPS mission in June.

After Western leaders were quick to point the finger of blame at the Kremlin, in December American and EU officials conceded there was no conclusive evidence that Russia was the Nord Stream culprit. Hersh has claimed both in his Substack piece and in subsequent interviews that, besides American and Norwegian involvement, Sweden and Denmark were partially briefed about the sabotage in advance. The Norwegians, in his view, are ‘anxious to increase the amount of natural gas they can sell to Western Europe and Germany’. As with the US, they were also, he claims, motivated by an animosity towards Russia. Speaking to New Left Review about the establishment media’s reluctance to cover his story, Hersh said:

If the big boys want to cosy up to the state, if their idea of an ‘exclusive source’ is a presidential spokesman who whispers something to them after a press conference, then they can continue publishing in their outlets and real investigative journalism can happen elsewhere.
- Seymour Hersh

Oliver Alexander, in his Substack post, had another explanation for the suspicion directed at a writer he elsewhere labels ‘a liar at best or a Kremlin asset at worst’:

Seymour Hersh’s story would have been a lot harder to pull apart, had he decided to be more sparing with the details instead of going into depth with meaningless details that make little sense. A simpler story could have been believable, but this piece of Tom Clancy fan fiction is subpar.
- Oliver Alexander

is UnHerd’s Deputy Editor, Newsroom.

RobLownie

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

40 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim R
Jim R
1 year ago

From Wikipedia: “My Lai was first revealed to the American public on November 13, 1969—almost two years after the incident—when Hersh published a story through the Dispatch News Service. The article threatened to undermine the U.S. war effort and severely damage the Nixon presidency. Inside the White House, officials privately discussed how to contain the scandal. On November 21, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger emphasized that the White House needed to develop a “game plan”, to establish a “press policy”, and maintain a “unified line” in its public response to the incident. The White House established a “My Lai Task Force” whose mission was to “figure out how best to control the problem”, to make sure that administration officials “all don’t go in different directions” when discussing the incident, and to “engage in dirty tricks”. These included discrediting key witnesses and questioning Hersh’s motives for releasing the story. What soon followed was a public relations offensive by the administration designed to shape how My Lai would be portrayed in the press and understood among the American public.”
Same old strategy. He got some details wrong, so now we must consider the whole story discredited!

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim R

He didn’t get “some” details wrong, he got the most important details of his theory wrong in that the ships and planes he says were used to destroy the pipeline weren’t in the area. Therefore I think it’s reasonable to suggest he may be mistaken in this instance

Jim R
Jim R
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

I thought the most important detail was that the US ordered it, not what ship they used or what they had for breakfast. This reasoning reminds me of OJ getting off because the gloves didn’t fit. And I’m sure the US will leave no stone unturned trying to find the real culprits – just like OJ.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim R

However I’ve not seen any real proof the US did order it. They may well have done, it is in their interests after all, but to me it’s just speculation. Until somebody shows me proof that isn’t immediately debunked then it’s just a theory

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Well it was theory enough to make msm today, check out the comments section, consensus is, America did it. We need to rethink our ‘special relationship.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11760473/As-Pultizer-prize-winning-journalist-points-CIA-DID-blow-Nord-Stream-pipeline.html#article-11760473

The bit in that article about truss – sounds like someone made it look like it was us?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Well it was theory enough to make msm today, check out the comments section, consensus is, America did it. We need to rethink our ‘special relationship.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11760473/As-Pultizer-prize-winning-journalist-points-CIA-DID-blow-Nord-Stream-pipeline.html#article-11760473

The bit in that article about truss – sounds like someone made it look like it was us?

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim R

A blatant and facile conflation of the premises with the conclusion.

Jim R
Jim R
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

The name of the ship is not a ‘premise’ of an argument, its simply a detail. Could the witness have got the name wrong? Or could the records showing the ships were not there have been altered? Certainly not beyond the capability of the main suspects. Like supporters of OJ – you simply like the US position more than you dislike the crime. So rather than pick at their story, you prefer to pick at anyone who challenges their story. Blatant and facile indeed.

Jim R
Jim R
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

The name of the ship is not a ‘premise’ of an argument, its simply a detail. Could the witness have got the name wrong? Or could the records showing the ships were not there have been altered? Certainly not beyond the capability of the main suspects. Like supporters of OJ – you simply like the US position more than you dislike the crime. So rather than pick at their story, you prefer to pick at anyone who challenges their story. Blatant and facile indeed.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim R

However I’ve not seen any real proof the US did order it. They may well have done, it is in their interests after all, but to me it’s just speculation. Until somebody shows me proof that isn’t immediately debunked then it’s just a theory

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim R

A blatant and facile conflation of the premises with the conclusion.

Jim R
Jim R
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

I thought the most important detail was that the US ordered it, not what ship they used or what they had for breakfast. This reasoning reminds me of OJ getting off because the gloves didn’t fit. And I’m sure the US will leave no stone unturned trying to find the real culprits – just like OJ.

Terry M
Terry M
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim R

What made Hersh believable about My Lai was the publication of photographs of the dead in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Nov 20, 1969 by a guy who was there. Without those, Hersh may not ever have been believed.
Find some physical evidence of US involvement – particularly the order to destroy the pipeline, not just Biden’s meandering comments – and Hersh will be vindicated. Until then, I have an open mind as to whether the US did it.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim R

He didn’t get “some” details wrong, he got the most important details of his theory wrong in that the ships and planes he says were used to destroy the pipeline weren’t in the area. Therefore I think it’s reasonable to suggest he may be mistaken in this instance

Terry M
Terry M
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim R

What made Hersh believable about My Lai was the publication of photographs of the dead in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Nov 20, 1969 by a guy who was there. Without those, Hersh may not ever have been believed.
Find some physical evidence of US involvement – particularly the order to destroy the pipeline, not just Biden’s meandering comments – and Hersh will be vindicated. Until then, I have an open mind as to whether the US did it.

Jim R
Jim R
1 year ago

From Wikipedia: “My Lai was first revealed to the American public on November 13, 1969—almost two years after the incident—when Hersh published a story through the Dispatch News Service. The article threatened to undermine the U.S. war effort and severely damage the Nixon presidency. Inside the White House, officials privately discussed how to contain the scandal. On November 21, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger emphasized that the White House needed to develop a “game plan”, to establish a “press policy”, and maintain a “unified line” in its public response to the incident. The White House established a “My Lai Task Force” whose mission was to “figure out how best to control the problem”, to make sure that administration officials “all don’t go in different directions” when discussing the incident, and to “engage in dirty tricks”. These included discrediting key witnesses and questioning Hersh’s motives for releasing the story. What soon followed was a public relations offensive by the administration designed to shape how My Lai would be portrayed in the press and understood among the American public.”
Same old strategy. He got some details wrong, so now we must consider the whole story discredited!

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago

“Open Source Intelligence” just means western spook asset so this isn’t terribly surprising.
Also, is it unfathomable that a ships tracking device/software was tampered with or just shut down? I’m no spy, but if I was sabotaging something, I wouldn’t leave the GPS on…

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

If it’s open source intelligence it should be open for us to examine, right? That is what those words mean. A different spook does not equal open source. Authenticated satellite footage might.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

If it’s open source intelligence it should be open for us to examine, right? That is what those words mean. A different spook does not equal open source. Authenticated satellite footage might.

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago

“Open Source Intelligence” just means western spook asset so this isn’t terribly surprising.
Also, is it unfathomable that a ships tracking device/software was tampered with or just shut down? I’m no spy, but if I was sabotaging something, I wouldn’t leave the GPS on…

Neil Cheshire
Neil Cheshire
1 year ago

The obvious question, who has benefitted from the sabotage? If there was a scintilla of evidence that implicated Russia it would have been broadcast far and wide as propaganda.

Jeff Watkins
Jeff Watkins
1 year ago
Reply to  Neil Cheshire

Spot on. Why don’t the USA and Norway back the proposed UN Security Council motion to investigate the allegations. I think the meeting is on the 22nd.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Neil Cheshire

Well, if Russia did do it & has managed to point the finger at the USA, it seems to be working out quite nicely for them.

Neil Cheshire
Neil Cheshire
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Farrell

Very likely with today’s sophisticated satellite surveillance and communications technology there is evidence to point the finger at the culprit(s). For some reason it has not been released.

Neil Cheshire
Neil Cheshire
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Farrell

Very likely with today’s sophisticated satellite surveillance and communications technology there is evidence to point the finger at the culprit(s). For some reason it has not been released.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Neil Cheshire

Because Ukraine first claimed Russia did it, the whole world had to believe it. I read comments in the msm with increasing disbelief. Maybe 95% of comments believed it was Russia. One splendid explanation was that Russia blew up its own pipeline to scare the West: showing that they could do it. Obviously the West does not have a troll factory like the one in St Petersburg. They just have a docile population who enthusiastically believe what they are told without critical thought.

Robert Cameron
Robert Cameron
1 year ago
Reply to  Neil Cheshire

Russia was contractually obligated to supply Germany, which they stopped to pressure Europe from supporting the Ukraine. This is why they initially claimed maintenance issues were the reason for supply being turned off.

Possibly by bombing the pipeline the Russians have avoided a damages claim for non supply post the Ukraine war. In addition they are hoping to damage the western alliance with the US copping the blame through a false flag operation

Jeff Watkins
Jeff Watkins
1 year ago
Reply to  Neil Cheshire

Spot on. Why don’t the USA and Norway back the proposed UN Security Council motion to investigate the allegations. I think the meeting is on the 22nd.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Neil Cheshire

Well, if Russia did do it & has managed to point the finger at the USA, it seems to be working out quite nicely for them.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Neil Cheshire

Because Ukraine first claimed Russia did it, the whole world had to believe it. I read comments in the msm with increasing disbelief. Maybe 95% of comments believed it was Russia. One splendid explanation was that Russia blew up its own pipeline to scare the West: showing that they could do it. Obviously the West does not have a troll factory like the one in St Petersburg. They just have a docile population who enthusiastically believe what they are told without critical thought.

Robert Cameron
Robert Cameron
1 year ago
Reply to  Neil Cheshire

Russia was contractually obligated to supply Germany, which they stopped to pressure Europe from supporting the Ukraine. This is why they initially claimed maintenance issues were the reason for supply being turned off.

Possibly by bombing the pipeline the Russians have avoided a damages claim for non supply post the Ukraine war. In addition they are hoping to damage the western alliance with the US copping the blame through a false flag operation

Neil Cheshire
Neil Cheshire
1 year ago

The obvious question, who has benefitted from the sabotage? If there was a scintilla of evidence that implicated Russia it would have been broadcast far and wide as propaganda.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

There’s no proof the Yanks did it, but no one had greater motive. It might be speculation, but if I’m a betting man…

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Especially since both Victoria Nuland and Joe Biden are on video saying Nordstream will *ahem* be no more.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Russia is currently benefiting from the growing belief in the west that the USA did it.

That isn’t proof Russia did it, but the increasingly common refrain of “why would Russia have blown up their own pipeline” doesn’t really ring true.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Farrell

I may be wrong, but at least my opinion is based on logic.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Farrell

I may be wrong, but at least my opinion is based on logic.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Especially since both Victoria Nuland and Joe Biden are on video saying Nordstream will *ahem* be no more.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Russia is currently benefiting from the growing belief in the west that the USA did it.

That isn’t proof Russia did it, but the increasingly common refrain of “why would Russia have blown up their own pipeline” doesn’t really ring true.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

There’s no proof the Yanks did it, but no one had greater motive. It might be speculation, but if I’m a betting man…

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
1 year ago

I’m struggling to see how it would have benefited the Russians to have done it. Presumably there’s a great big tap at the Russian end they could have just turned off. Although I’m often accused of over-simplification.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago

But surely the confusion & suspicion around the explosion benefits Russia? It’s not inconceivable that Russia would have created this situation.

Andrew Holmes
Andrew Holmes
1 year ago

Putin limiting supplies through “maintenance” and other ploys resulted in him being the bad guy. “Turning off the tap” with two explosions met two goals: threatening to stop deliveries didn’t end European support for Ukraine, so explosions got Russia out of the mix and threw suspicion on Ukraine’s main supporter. Seeing that Germany had already withdrawn Nordstream 2’s permit, this hypothesis makes more sense to me.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago

But surely the confusion & suspicion around the explosion benefits Russia? It’s not inconceivable that Russia would have created this situation.

Andrew Holmes
Andrew Holmes
1 year ago

Putin limiting supplies through “maintenance” and other ploys resulted in him being the bad guy. “Turning off the tap” with two explosions met two goals: threatening to stop deliveries didn’t end European support for Ukraine, so explosions got Russia out of the mix and threw suspicion on Ukraine’s main supporter. Seeing that Germany had already withdrawn Nordstream 2’s permit, this hypothesis makes more sense to me.

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
1 year ago

I’m struggling to see how it would have benefited the Russians to have done it. Presumably there’s a great big tap at the Russian end they could have just turned off. Although I’m often accused of over-simplification.

JJ Parks
JJ Parks
1 year ago

Oliver Alexander labels Hersh a liar, refers to him as a ‘Pulitzer Price’ (sic) winner (he can’t even get that right) misinterprets the article, relying on Twitter ‘evidence’ in an attempt to debunk Hersh, at which he fails miserably. Thank goodness he isn’t a lawyer. No doubt Alexander thought taking on Hersh would get him some headlines and increase his Substack audience. It worked. Sadly UnHerd wasn’t the only outlet to promote this grandiose narcissist drivel.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Parks

More important than the misspelling of “Prize” for assessing the Pulitzer Prize — after all, the critic is Norwegian — might be that it has been given to some very undeserving characters. The worst was the sleazy Walter Duranty, who was being paid by the Russians to conceal and deny the Stalin-organized famine in Ukraine, in 1932/33. And ever since that was revealed, the PP Committee has ignored calls for posthumously revoking that honor.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Parks

More important than the misspelling of “Prize” for assessing the Pulitzer Prize — after all, the critic is Norwegian — might be that it has been given to some very undeserving characters. The worst was the sleazy Walter Duranty, who was being paid by the Russians to conceal and deny the Stalin-organized famine in Ukraine, in 1932/33. And ever since that was revealed, the PP Committee has ignored calls for posthumously revoking that honor.

JJ Parks
JJ Parks
1 year ago

Oliver Alexander labels Hersh a liar, refers to him as a ‘Pulitzer Price’ (sic) winner (he can’t even get that right) misinterprets the article, relying on Twitter ‘evidence’ in an attempt to debunk Hersh, at which he fails miserably. Thank goodness he isn’t a lawyer. No doubt Alexander thought taking on Hersh would get him some headlines and increase his Substack audience. It worked. Sadly UnHerd wasn’t the only outlet to promote this grandiose narcissist drivel.

Martin Johnson
Martin Johnson
1 year ago

Accusing someone of being a “Kremlin asset” or “Putin stooge” is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Martin Johnson
Martin Johnson
1 year ago

Accusing someone of being a “Kremlin asset” or “Putin stooge” is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Dermot O'Sullivan
Dermot O'Sullivan
1 year ago

We don’t know and we may never know; that’s the beauty of an action like this. The Russians are also not in the clear: a message of ‘to hell with you’ would not be out of character from the current regime.

Dermot O'Sullivan
Dermot O'Sullivan
1 year ago

We don’t know and we may never know; that’s the beauty of an action like this. The Russians are also not in the clear: a message of ‘to hell with you’ would not be out of character from the current regime.

Sayantani Gupta Jafa
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
1 year ago

As someone from the global South I am amazed at the collective delusion among large sections in the West to still be in denial about the US role in Nordstream.
Quibbling over minor points of mis- match to shut up any tracking of facts – if this is what a ” free “Western MSM does- one can only commiserate with the shape- shifted nature of ” truth” in a post Truth Western eco- system.

Last edited 1 year ago by Sayantani Gupta Jafa
Andrew McDonald
Andrew McDonald
1 year ago

‘Minor points of mismatch’ is a bit of a stretch. Which ones do you refer to, and what are the major evidential points to which you are comparing them?

Andrew McDonald
Andrew McDonald
1 year ago

‘Minor points of mismatch’ is a bit of a stretch. Which ones do you refer to, and what are the major evidential points to which you are comparing them?

Sayantani Gupta Jafa
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
1 year ago

As someone from the global South I am amazed at the collective delusion among large sections in the West to still be in denial about the US role in Nordstream.
Quibbling over minor points of mis- match to shut up any tracking of facts – if this is what a ” free “Western MSM does- one can only commiserate with the shape- shifted nature of ” truth” in a post Truth Western eco- system.

Last edited 1 year ago by Sayantani Gupta Jafa
Noel Chiappa
Noel Chiappa
1 year ago

It is impossible to say, simply from considering quality of motives, who did it. If X has a good motive, then Y has a good motive to actually do it, and blame X. And in a situation this complex, one can construct a motive for just about anyone.
My personal favourite tongue-in-cheek ‘motive’ theory: the Israelis did it! Why? To help convince the European market that Russian gas isn’t reliable, so they will turn to Israeli gas that is about to come online. See, wasn’t that easy?

Noel Chiappa
Noel Chiappa
1 year ago

It is impossible to say, simply from considering quality of motives, who did it. If X has a good motive, then Y has a good motive to actually do it, and blame X. And in a situation this complex, one can construct a motive for just about anyone.
My personal favourite tongue-in-cheek ‘motive’ theory: the Israelis did it! Why? To help convince the European market that Russian gas isn’t reliable, so they will turn to Israeli gas that is about to come online. See, wasn’t that easy?

Martin Johnson
Martin Johnson
1 year ago

As if the CIA and other Western intel agencies couldn’t manipulate OSINT data?
I do not know what happened to Nordstream, but I do know that in looking at a crime you start with Motive, Means and Opportunity, all of which point to NATO, esp. the US and/or maybe the UK, and given the lack of motive and the location in NATO waters, do not point to Russia. Hersh’s source provides details that may or may not be true, but conflicts with easily manipulable OSINT sources is hardly a strong case against it.

Martin Johnson
Martin Johnson
1 year ago

As if the CIA and other Western intel agencies couldn’t manipulate OSINT data?
I do not know what happened to Nordstream, but I do know that in looking at a crime you start with Motive, Means and Opportunity, all of which point to NATO, esp. the US and/or maybe the UK, and given the lack of motive and the location in NATO waters, do not point to Russia. Hersh’s source provides details that may or may not be true, but conflicts with easily manipulable OSINT sources is hardly a strong case against it.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

Where are photographs of pipeline? If explosives did damage metal should be pushed inwards if faulty workmanship metal should be pushed outwards. It is odd that today we have no facts either way, only opinions.

Noel Chiappa
Noel Chiappa
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

If in fact it’s external damage, that won’t help narrow the field. Actually, now that I think about it, neither would internal – a cunning operator would use a method that would cast blame somewhere else.
We’ll probably never know. All we do know for sure is that the Germans poured a vast pot of money into a hole in the ocean.
Actually, that brings up another whole raft of suspects – what nations are competing with the Germans for leadership in Europe? Maybe the French did it!
Whee, isn’t this ‘game’ fun?

Noel Chiappa
Noel Chiappa
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

If in fact it’s external damage, that won’t help narrow the field. Actually, now that I think about it, neither would internal – a cunning operator would use a method that would cast blame somewhere else.
We’ll probably never know. All we do know for sure is that the Germans poured a vast pot of money into a hole in the ocean.
Actually, that brings up another whole raft of suspects – what nations are competing with the Germans for leadership in Europe? Maybe the French did it!
Whee, isn’t this ‘game’ fun?

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

Where are photographs of pipeline? If explosives did damage metal should be pushed inwards if faulty workmanship metal should be pushed outwards. It is odd that today we have no facts either way, only opinions.

Alice Andrew
Alice Andrew
1 year ago

I think that if US and the West didn’t know who did it or they would think it was Russia, the investigation would be on any front page of any news paper and we would have seen speculation and bits of information everywhere. Right now it seems to me, they are completely ignoring it. It is strange considering that this was an important part of infrastructure for the West and whoever did it has incredible means.

Alice Andrew
Alice Andrew
1 year ago

I think that if US and the West didn’t know who did it or they would think it was Russia, the investigation would be on any front page of any news paper and we would have seen speculation and bits of information everywhere. Right now it seems to me, they are completely ignoring it. It is strange considering that this was an important part of infrastructure for the West and whoever did it has incredible means.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

Sleepy Joe orders secret espionage that risks fracturing NATO and the Ukrainian alliance. The secret doesn’t then leak out.
Come on, get real. It’s cobblers.

JJ Parks
JJ Parks
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

The US wants to cause fractures. That’s how they’ve survived so long: Division. You can’t have a One World Government if Russia and Germany are benefiting hugely from each other. There is no Ukrainian alliance. They’re all rats fighting in a sack.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

America does not want us depending on the east. Its that simple.

Jim R
Jim R
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Don’t look know, but it appears the secret is leaking out.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim R

Along with the biggest methane cloud released in history….. The Americans progressive green lobby is going to have to pipe down for a while I think.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim R

Along with the biggest methane cloud released in history….. The Americans progressive green lobby is going to have to pipe down for a while I think.

Noel Chiappa
Noel Chiappa
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

You’re forgetting that Trump also was unhappy about the pipeline. So, it was a conspiracy between Trump and Biden to blow it up – to increase the demand for US-supplied LNG!

JJ Parks
JJ Parks
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

The US wants to cause fractures. That’s how they’ve survived so long: Division. You can’t have a One World Government if Russia and Germany are benefiting hugely from each other. There is no Ukrainian alliance. They’re all rats fighting in a sack.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

America does not want us depending on the east. Its that simple.

Jim R
Jim R
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Don’t look know, but it appears the secret is leaking out.

Noel Chiappa
Noel Chiappa
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

You’re forgetting that Trump also was unhappy about the pipeline. So, it was a conspiracy between Trump and Biden to blow it up – to increase the demand for US-supplied LNG!

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

Sleepy Joe orders secret espionage that risks fracturing NATO and the Ukrainian alliance. The secret doesn’t then leak out.
Come on, get real. It’s cobblers.