This piece is deeply biased, but masked with a thin veneer of false objectivity. Bremmer cleverly steelmans the case against American involvement in the pipeline attack but strawmans the case for American involvement. He then attempts to discredit Hersh by mischaracterizing his works. Bremmer initially creates a perception of objectivity by acknowledging that (1) it makes little sense for Russia to blow up its own pipeline, (2) there’s no evidence of Russian sabotage, and (3) the U.S. had some motive and the greatest capacity to accomplish the attack. But everyone knows these obvious facts. Far from steelmanning the case against Russian culpability, Bremmer is merely acknowledging obvious truths. Bremmer then strawmans the argument that the U.S. might have been behind the attacks by ignoring several facts that significantly increase the likelihood of U.S. involvement. For example, Bremmer does not mention: - the statements that Nuland and Biden made about ending NS2 shortly before Russia’s invasion; - the bipartisan opposition to the pipeline in Congress; - the statements that Nuland and Blinken made celebrating the attack; - how destruction of NS2 benefits the U.S. by increasing U.S. LNG exports and European reliance on U.S. energy; nor - how destruction of NS2 keeps NATO from fracturing because it reduces the energy price relief that Europe (particularly Germany) would expect to receive from a peace deal. Incredibly, Bremmer acknowledges this last point (increased NATO unity) as a reason why *Ukraine* would want to sabotage the pipelines. But rather than acknowledging that the U.S. would also benefit from such increased NATO unity, Bremmer instead focuses on how U.S. involvement would have risked alienating Germany and *dividing* NATO. Never mind that the U.S. probably assumed that it would not be caught, or may have decided that changing European economic incentives would outweigh any alienating effects. In fact, Bremmer minimizes the U.S.’s motive to increase NATO unity by characterizing “breaking Russia-Germany ties” as being “of very questionable benefit to the United States.” So, according to Bremmer, breaking Russia-Germany ties and unifying NATO against Russia has a substantial benefit to Ukraine but is only of questionable benefit to the United States. 🤔 But where Bremmer really shows his bias is in his attempts to discredit Hersh by blatantly mischaracterizing his work. Let’s examine a couple examples of this: 1) Bremmer states: “That the[] [ship and plane] don't show up on public tracking is critical because Hersh's WHOLE CLAIM is that the reason that the Norwegians were used is so that the flights and ship activity wouldn't need to be covert.” This is an utterly false characterization. Hersh NEVER claims that the U.S. used Norway so that flights and ship activity wouldn’t need to be covert. Instead, Hersh explains the U.S.’s motive for using Norway as follows: “Back in Washington, planners knew they had to go to Norway. ‘They hated the Russians, and the Norwegian navy was full of superb sailors and divers who had generations of experience in highly profitable deep-sea oil and gas exploration,’ the source said. They also could be trusted to keep the mission secret. (The Norwegians may have had other interests as well. The destruction of Nord Stream-if the Americans could pull it off-would allow Norway to sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe.) …. The Norwegians were key to solving other hurdles. The Russian navy was known to possess surveillance technology capable of spotting, and triggering, underwater mines. The American explosive devices needed to be camouflaged in a way that would make them appear to the Russian system as part of the natural background-something that required adapting to the specific salinity of the water. The Norwegians had a fix. The Norwegians also had a solution to the crucial question of when the operation should take place. Every June, for the past 21 years, the American Sixth Fleet, whose flagship is based in Gaeta, Italy, south of Rome, has sponsored a major NATO exercise in the Baltic Sea involving scores of allied ships throughout the region. The current exercise, held in June, would be known as Baltic Operations 22, or BALTOPS22. The Norwegians proposed this would be the ideal cover to plant the mines.” It seems Bremmer is mischaracterizing Hersh’s explanation for the U.S.’s partnership with Norway in order to strengthen his otherwise weak argument that Hersh’s claims are debunked by the absence of corroborating public tracking data on the Norwegian ship and plane in question. Ships and planes can turn off or spoof such trackers, and surely would have done so to pull off a covert operation. 2) Bremmer states: “Hersh's own anti-establishment and specifically anti-intelligence community bias should draw some skepticism. As I mentioned, Hersh, the work he's done on Mỹ Lai was extraordinary and a true public service, and he got a Pulitzer for it. But more recently, he's done work claiming that the Osama bin Laden killing was a coverup, that the Syrian government didn't use chemical weapons.” First, Bremmer makes it sound like Hersh hasn’t done anything major since Mỹ Lai, even though Hersh won four additional Polk Awards since, including one in 2004 for exposing the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. Hersh has too many other journalistic achievements to list here. Second, contrary to Bremmer’s suggestion, Hersh’s reporting on the Osama bin Laden killing has been partially validated, not refuted. Hersh’s central claim that “the CIA did not learn of bin Laden’s whereabouts by tracking his couriers, as the White House has claimed since May 2011, but from a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer who betrayed the secret in return for much of the $25 million reward offered by the US,” was corroborated in May 2015, when the Pakistan-based journalist Amir Mir wrote that the "walk-in" who had provided the CIA with the information about bin Laden's whereabouts was Brigadier Usman Khalid of ISI. Despite this, media personalities like Bremmer continue to imply, without evidence, that Hersh’s refutation of the official narrative was wrong. In fact, in a 2015 article entitled “The media’s reaction to Seymour Hersh’s bin Laden scoop has been disgraceful,” for the Columbia Journalism Review, the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, Trevor Timm, wrote that "barely any follow-up reporting has been done to corroborate or refute his [Hersh's] claims", and that Slate, for example, "ran five hit jobs on Hersh within 36 hours". Finally, contrary to Bremmer’s characterization, Hersh’s did not claim that the Syrian government didn’t use chemical weapons. Rather, he reported that the Obama administration had used "cherry picked intelligence" to try to justify a military strike against Syria after the Ghouta chemical attack and had ignored evidence the Syrian rebels could also have obtained Sarin gas. Much like Hersh’s reporting on the bin Laden killing, Hersh’s report has not been refuted. When watching GeZero content, keep in mind and consider why Bremmer would be so biased in favor of the U.S. establishment and intelligence community.
The real question is: who has the ability to do it the way it was done? There are only 2 or 3 Countries that could. Period. Perhaps the Country, my Country, America that said they were going to blow it up 3 times before it was destroyed might be the ones who did it? Oh, I don't know ... of course it was the U.S. Hersh's piece spells it out. Also, I love how people look for little points here or there in Hersh's article to debunk it without looking at the wider picture. Edit: Syria didn't gas their own people. It amazes me that folks ignore the data. Also, this chap just said Ukraine likely did it. Yeah, no. Ukraine doesn't have near the ability. Nor does Poland as he just said they might have joined up with Ukraine. Jesus Christ. Russia sure as hell didn't do it. So who does that leave?
Highly unlikely Ukraine would do it unless they had permission and help from the US .Way to difficult for a country without any naval capabilities at all .Neither the attack on the bridge in Crimea nor the Moscow assassination speaks to any underwater demolition capacities.US still seems like the most likely in terms of capabilities and motive.Also you need to explain both Victoria Nuland’s and Biden’s statements pre and post pipeline explosion.
POTUS and Victoria Nuland before the explosion, Anthony Blinken following it, "This provides us a great opportunity," (Sell Germany/EU LNG), and then there's the Polish MEP tweeting, "Thank you USA," immediately after the explosion which he later deleted. Every "debunk" of the Hersch story ignores these facts, conveniently.
My understanding is independent content creators on RU-vid have choice over what ads run on their channels, however ... Larger corporate media such as CNN, Fox, MSNBC, operate independent advertising pools outside, but with the operational cooperation of, RU-vid. Where Mr. Bremmer falls on the spectrum, IDK, but we could speculate.
I appreciate Ian has to walk a fine line between truth, facts and BofA sponsorships. Hersh’s story is by far the most plausible. Germany would not sign off on tanks if they had any inclination Ukraine tried to sabotage Germany’s ability to heat their own population’s homes.
Are you seriously saying that the Norwegians will have the transponder ON while doing this? How can you insult people's intelligence like that? I think I will DISMISS your analysis based on how silly and NAIVE it is
It's very simple. Ukraine does not have the financial means, technical know-how or the specialist personnel to carry out something this complicated. If they had already been relying on the west to supply them with weapons and money to fight Russia, there is no way in the world they could destroy the nord streams pipelines. Its just impossible to believe no matter how you spin it. Only the US is capable.
Not saying the Hirsch argument is true, but if a Norwegian ship was taking part in a covert operation why could they not keep the location of that ship off public records?
The Ukrainians would also stand to benefit as it would mark another rupture in the relationship between Russia and the EU, and as the EU was already turning to non-Russian energy sources the benefit to the U.S. may be limited (as Bremmer said, the question is Ukrainian capabilities).
Feels a bit like Covid origin: we'll probably never know, unless some whistle-blower comes out. Fascinating to speculate, but also intensely frustrating.
7:30 I haven't seen any of these marine tracking records yet, but that's irrelevant in this case because a) sub marine vessels can switch their tracking devices off & b) many modern sub marines since about two decades ago have so shallow sonar signatures that they are not detectable anymmore. Source for the details of claim b is a recent interview with expert in defence technology Thorsten Pörschmann ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kf_IIf2e0Ek.html
Joe never told us, that is just your assumption, but I hope someone from NATO did it, well done. If it was done by Ukraine I’m in speechless, what heroes.
I am wondering whether it couldn’t have been in the interest of Russia for the following reason: Their company Gazprom had stopped honouring their longterm gas-delivery contracts and German counterparts, sponsored by the German government, incurred billions of cost replacing this gas. I would expect that legally the German counterparts could take recourse were it not for the force majeure event of the blown up pipelines and possibly they could have enforced their claims against foreign investments of Gazprom. I haven’t heard anything about this and would be very interested in an analysis by someone with more knowledge.
I have to say that the US still has the most to gain from this. While Germany is an ally they would be in a corner here. They are now dependent on our LNG.
The case is nobody have any evidence - simply loose ends, things taken out of context to make a point for their own favourite villain. it is really like a Agathe christie novel. several had the motive to do it - but at a very high risk for themselves making it unlikeliy that they did it. . It comes down to speculations until we know more. That may of course be very entertaining, but there is no one who can claim to tell the truth yet. Until then, we are left with diverse theories that all can fin some points for, and yet some against as well.
@IanBremmer, that's a compelling argument, but there is one angle I don't think I heard you address: if in fact the Ukrainians had conducted the sabotage on the Nord stream pipeline, that could be construed as an attack on NATO, or at the very least one NATO member, which would be Germany. Do you really think that the Ukrainians would jeopardize their standing with NATO, for one thing, not to mention that should that scenario be the case that they then would also jeopardize their eligibility for membership with NATO? And I haven't mentioned their desire to join the European Union. Granted, the position they are in leads to desperate times, but somehow I don't think they'd purposefully shoot themselves in the foot.
Great piece but I have 2 issues with your arguments. 1) you quickly dismiss Russia involvement but I see 2 possibilities for their involvement. Attribute blame to the US and try to split NATO. Not that unsuccessful given Hersche article. Or burn the bridges internally withdrawing the possibility that a change of regime would resume normalcy. The difficulty of the US in attributing fault publicly might be not to burn a source for example given that such an operation should have been planned in a very tight circle. I understand your argument for Ukr involvement but for the same reason you are dismissive of US involvement would be the same for Ukr. Risk a backlash from NATO and EU allies given their dependence on both? Even more because Germany had already decided by the time of the explosion not to import gas through Nordstream? Even for a very risk prone actor it doesn’t seem a logical payoff
I think technically it should be easier to do such thing by just putting something in a pipe and let crawl until the right location and then blowup. In this case it should have been done by one of the sides that sits on the ends of the pipelines. So by Russia or Germany. Russia did not behave in a way that would be consistent with an attempt of using this explosion to scare Europe (though it could have done it very well). Why everyone completely dismisses Germany? They have already ditched the pipeline use by that point. Besides that even if the officials in Germany are very risk-averse in terms of escalation with Russia, maybe German secret services do much more than what we can easily see
4:00 FALSE: the US gov staging such an event to harm one of its supposed allies is also not unexpectated or contrary to previous events: indeed there's an entire series of historical cases were the US government false flagged its supposed allies. 5:00 Also FALSE! The benefit of the US gov to blowup Nord Stream pipeline is not questionable but very tangible: namely politically & financially (partial interests of its energy corporations). 6:30 the requirement to notify congress according to Title 50 covert operations exists on paper but is irrelevant in this case because the US fed gov has established a practice of deferring the requirement of its own bureaucracy to substitutes, for example in this case a secret congress within the congress refereed to as the gang of eight, which is of course blatantly unconstitutional but an existing practice. For details: a recent interview of former judge Andrew Napolitano about the subject.
Why does the story of the Russian invasion of Ukraine always start in 2022, and never reflect a broader story dating back to 2014, and what was happening in Ukraine since then?
@@hansgustavson2271 cause that would lead all the way back to a US backed coup against a democratically elected government (albeit a very corrupt) government) which placed the far right into power. Funny that doesn't get mentioned much now as background to the conflict. Nor is mentioned the continued and clear demands by Russia that the Minsk accords regarding the Donbas etc be enforced by the Western Stares involved.
@@blitzenfest You sound well informed. Continue spreading the word and laugh at those most likely putting words in your mouth and calling you a Putin apologist.
As the story goes, Cortés burned his ships after reaching the new world. Speaking to motive and making an analog to that story, Putin could want to make it clear that there is no going back. It tells his internal enemies that his quick overthrow now (at least at the time, right after he didn't get the 3-day win he wanted) doesn't get anyone in Russia back to the old normal. This still has me leaning towards Russia as the perpetrator.
@@purcitron : Not sure what to tell you. 🤷 Far more plausible that UKR with the help of POL and maybe ELL blew the pipeline to limit GER/EUR calculus. That scenario is much more explanatory than any alternative I've heard. If West has evidence of RUS sabotage, why haven't they revealed it? Most likely they would. If West has evidence of UKR/POL sabotage, why wouldn't they reveal it? We can imagine several reasons the wouldn't; reasons that don't require any rhetorical gymnastics.
The Russians are the one who is most capable of pulling this off. They are the only one with submarines capable of doing the job with submarines that could do the entire job while submerged. Only Russia has this capability.
What makes you think they didn't tell the Germans they were going to do it beforehand? Do you think they would tell you if they did 🤣 Put on your thinking cap before you make an analysis like this.
I think the idea was that Russia could invoke the vis major clause of their gas contracts while still keeping NS2 operational to some degree (I believe one pipe was not damaged). The Ukrainian theory really needs to plausibly explain how could they do it. The Kerch bridge bombing was impressive, but multiple underwater sabotages in a well-surveilled inland seaway... that seems like a whole different sort of task. But what do I know...
Very good analysis Ian. It is fascinating how well-researched your data is and your evaluations always show all sides of the problem at hand. Lastly, and it has bothered me since it happened, but isn't this detail in the Alexander Dugan assassination attempt intriguing? Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I read, seconds before he was going to take off in his chauffeured car, Dugan apparently suddenly had a change of mind and switched cars with his daughter and she ended up taking his car and becoming the victim. Did he know there was a bomb or was he told?
@@MrThe1234guy GGGGGGGGGGGGGreat to hear from you. Everything is possible, but autocratic regimes have a patent on that way of working... What Ian is doing is giving lay people like myself a look inside of how political systems work. He's not perfect and he makes his opinions based on his research and the data he's collected. Just like you, your research and data says he's a stooge for the US Government, mine says something else, the next guy will say something different...
I don´t believe they haven´t figured out yet who has done it. To me it´s more likely they don´t like what they´ve found. And therefore keep it out of the public. This lines up well with your Ukraine theory. Them blowing up European energy infrastructure would not go down well with their Western allies providing them with aid. At the same time, that also makes the theory more unlikely to me. Would they really risk losing Western support in the immediate term over a pipeline that would only come into play in the long term? That also seems unlikely to me.
Also Ukraine isn't exactly in the position to conduct covert underwater operations in the Baltic Sea. So while nobody knows who did it, it does seem to be now leaning towards Poland or one of the Baltics states, who are already in NATO, see Russia as an existential threat, have access to the Baltic Sea, and completed the Baltic pipeline from Norway to Poland the day after the pipeline explosion. It does raise the question, did the US know or have any hints about it beforehand? Apparently US intelligence officials warned Germany about a possible attack on the pipeline weeks before it blew up, but didn't specify who would do it.
@@TWE_2000 destroying the pipeline by any NATO member without Germany's approval risks breaking the entire NATO alliance. This is not conceivable when there is a war on NATO's doorstep
@@purcitron true, which is why i think Russia is still a major suspect. However Poland doesn't really trust Germany to come to their defense if Russia attacks them, and since at that point Germany wasn't even thinking about allowing countries to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine, there would be less risk for Poland and more to gain. But I'm not saying it was Poland or the Baltics or Russia for a fact, I just think they are the most likely suspects
@@TWE_2000 it is inconceivable that any NATO member would commit an act a war like this without full participation of the US. Doing so would risk open war between NATO and Russia
My Lai was in 1968, i.e., 55 years ago. Seymour Hersh is 85 years old. His most recent work has been bonkers, which can be an occupational hazard for long-time investigative reporters.
No one would touch his My Lai article either when he first tried to publish it, wasn't until till his third story about it that the Times picked it up. Likewise he was called a piece of crap and a liar when he broke the story about Abu Ghraib, he's not unused to being dismissed, none of his articles have been properly discredited or refuted as far as I know. As more has been revealed his story about the Osama bin Laden assassination has become more and more plausible, it was never given the attention it deserved.
Well if he didn't do it why has he not retaliated and blown up a pipe lined himself.. I would think if someone did that to him he would have equally hitback
One aspect i missed is that the US have the capasity to blow up stuff itself. Involving a not-to-tight nation as Norway in a operation like this would be stupid if you want to keep it hinden.. On the other hand, -if Ukraina is behandling they would ned to bud the services the Norwegians offer… But again, -no possibility to keep it hidden.
FYI. Airplane and ship location data ADS-B and AIS respectively are both self reporting. So operators can just decided to turn off or spoof the signal easily. Btw, this is how Elon's jet was tracked. Whoever did it, it was a brilliant ballsy move, both opportunist and timing wise.
According to Hersh, it was two bombs per pipeline. So there are two unexploded C4 explosives along the single undamaged pipeline. Did anybody look to see if they’re still there?
Analyzing US intention, operational planning and public records won’t refute the storyline. The US and Norway monitored Merkel during the Obama days. Obama actually apologized to Merkel after it was leaked. Therefore, just because there’s no trace in the public record doesn’t mean the NSA is not monitoring your sex life.
Personally, I believe that the Poles (or Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia) are logically the most likely. They have the locality, the have the means (especially Poland) and they were and are vociferously trying to force their EU partners (primarily Germany) to further isolate Russia and prevent any future backsliding/appeasement. This action achieves that, at least in the short term (the damage was fairly easily reparable). Of all the players these Baltic states, whose very existence depends on the defeat and isolation of Russia, have the most to gain from weakening any future rapprochement with Russia from political/economic interests in the west. (and for the record,... Good! Well done guys! F Russia, F German appeasers and fossil fuel profiteers.)
America fears a German/Russia alliance and has so for a century and will do anything to prevent it. Who’s on who’s border? Is it Russia imposing its will on the world? Gzero is just a small part of the propaganda machine that keeps the uneducated uneducated
Glad to see someone actually using their brain instead of just blaming the country that fits their narrative. It would also match their alleged recent modus operandi. Estonia was the only other country besides the US and the UK that fully believed Russia was going to invade because like the US and UK their intelligence apparatus had access to information from the highest levels in the Kremlin. Additionally there were some reports that not only was Ukraine conducting covert sabotage operations in Russia, but also an unnamed "european NATO ally" with backing from the CIA, using sites and human assets that had been in Russia for many years. Also Poland apparently went against the consensus early on in the war, covertly sending disassembled Soviet era jets to Ukraine that it claimed were just extra parts for repairs. Given that before Russia invaded only the Poles and the Baltics were seriously concerned about Russia, my guess is that one of those countries (probably Estonia or Poland) who has been taking the most aggressive approach by using black ops units they had already built up over the years to conduct sabotage in Russia, and to strike the pipeline. One question this does raise is, did the US have any knowledge about the planned nordstream operation before it happened if it was indeed done by one of those countries. Poland and the Baltics have generally always wanted to make sure the US supported or at least tacitly accepted their actions, and given that the US is allegedly supporting their covert operations in Russia; and that before the pipeline blew up US intelligence officials warned Germany about a possible attack on the pipeline, but didn't specify who would do it. On top of all of that, one day after the pipeline explosion, the Baltic pipeline from Norway to Poland began operations. Good for Poland or the Baltics for taking action to cut off Europe from the country that's threatening their existence, if it is in fact the case that they are responsible for it. I hope one day declassified information will come out and reveal how it happened and who made the decisions.
@@JimmyStewpot it is inconceivable that any NATO member would commit an act of war like this without the full participation of the US. It would risk open war between NATO and Russia, in the middle of and ongoing war on NATO's doorstep. Inconceivable
The other possibility not explored is that some rogue Russian elements were responsible. After all, as the Nordstream operators, Russians have the easiest access. And what we see now is real division between the RU military and other private armies controlled by Prigozhin, Kadyrov, and others not directly aligned to the military and / or Rosguardia. In this case, I am presuming that the technical capability to destroy the pipeline merely requires some operator to place explosives on the robot and then send it down the pipe before remote detonation. Obtainable with some payments. Anything more than that might be a stretch.
We know the pipeline was not flowing, so hydrate plugs probably were forming throughout the pipe. Additionally, there were leaks in the pipe so as the gas leaked out, it would thaw the plugs and they would move toward the negative pressure of the leak. If they encountered a bend in the pipe the plug would just keep going in the same direction and smash through the corner of the pipe. It may have been simply a (foreseeable) accident, caused by shutting off the flow and having no way to do maintenance on the pipes. The fact that they both blew up within 17 hours is because the pumps on the Russian side were down for repair.
Hey Ian, not sure if you're reading this or not. It might be worth engaging with Anders Puck Nielsen's analysis on this topic. Specifically on how Russia may be using hybrid warfare in the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline. Check out his video titled: "Nord Stream sabotage and hybrid war on Europe". His channel is superb and I strongly recommend it.
I don't automatically buy that the U.S. was responsible but it would send a message to the EU especially Germany not to look towards Russia as a long-term trading partner but the U.S. instead, while in the short-term increasing EU dependence on US energy (as well as weakening Russia).
thank you, all understood. Indeed why would Russia blow up the pipeline, when they could have just 'closed the tap'? blowing it up seems like a huge extra risk for nothing! Look at motive and opportunity. See it this way: Russia is the drug dealer, and the European countries are the addicts. The dealer can make de junks do a lot of things by just threatening them to withhold. Who has the motive to neutralize that threat? I would say the 'social worker' and maybe the junk, definitely not the drug dealer. I think the motive was to neutralize the threat that the dealer can 'play' with the junks at any time. Who could have such a motive? US, EU, and maybe Germany or Poland. And who of these had the opportunity? I keep coming back to the US. And being from Europe, I almost would be proud if it was the EU... I hope one day we will know.
I am very disappointed in his self-contradicted reasoning. 1) Deep diving is much more difficult than all the other tasks Ukraine did. Especially in the areas that are heavily surveillanced by NATO and Russia. 2) IF Poland or Ukraine did it, there is no way US or Germany intelligent agencies did not know. HE made the same argument against the "Russian did it". 3) CIA has a long track records of hiding from Government Supervision, congress or not. This is not a very convincing argument.
I agree that if any European country did it the U.S. probably would have given the green light, which at some level means the U.S. was responsible (although as Bremmer points out the Ukrainians are certainly desperate enough to do whatever they think they need to).
Channeling my inner Lt. Columbo, when it comes to means AND motive AND opportunity. All three. Then among the suspects, the U.S. and Norway are chief. Also, the lieutenant would have noticed the attitude and the words of several prominent people in Washington. Before and after the undersea demolition of the pipelines. The lieutenant would also take into account the fact that nobody has presented any evidence that someone else did it, including the regime occupying Kiev. Sure, an explicit "I did it" confession on the part of the president would be nice. It would remove any unreasonable doubt, but there is no more reasonable doubt on this story... BTW, the Russians are also facing an existential threat in this war that they did not want.
if you look at the map where the explosion happens it will become crystal clear. the explosion sites are so far removed from Russia, on the other hand they are practically next to Germany, Sweden, Poland and Denmark. Occam's razor and so on.
It is still the russkies that did it. The whole toss up inside NATO about who might have done it increases mistrust and doubt between the allies and benefits Russia. It also gives Russia a credible finger to point in some other direction and says that Russia does not expect relations with the West to get better any time soon.
Ian, spiking energy prices in the EU is a good thing for the US… it goes hand in hand with the Inflation Reduction Act… making business in Europe untenable for many European companies, who would then seek to relocate operations to the U.S.
That's a completely absurd premise for the idea that the U.S. would blow up infrastructure partly owned by key allies. Furthermore, the shift away from Russian gas was already well underway at that time, which left little choice for the EU other than an increased reliance on the U.S. for oil and gas imports. The U.S. didn't need to do anything, and certainly not anything so dramatic as blowing up a pipeline, in order to facilitate that already ongoing shift. Maybe you should be grateful for significant U.S. support as a key partner, when the EU truly needs it, rather than inventing ridiculous conspiracy theories.
@@bsmithhammer you really think the US is moral enough to not harm their allies even when said harm benefits the US??? Bro open a history book and look through the Cold War… the Americans do whatever they want, and Europe just lets them do it
@@prestondobber If you'd rather try an EU that has no U.S. support backing up its security and economic stability, you are more than welcome to, as far as I'm concerned. But then I would recommend that you "open a history book," as you say. Because that didn't work out so well the last several times.
Germans are awfully quiet on this topic. Not peeping a squib. Why? I can't imagine the Germans are secretly happy about this. Or maybe they are secretly thrilled, they are not showing it. I also know people go quiet when they are very emotional inside.
Which ones exactly? If you're alluding to the one about Obama's manipulation of intelligence in Syria or his revelations about the involvement of Pakistan in Osama's assassination then no neither of those stories have been disproved.
Gas in the pipe wouldn't burn. No oxygen. Load explosives onto inspection vehicle and send it down the pipeline. Easy to do, nothing to see, guaranteed to blow a big hole, just like what happened.
Hersh's sources could simply be a different cocktail of what we get through major media: anonymous pentagon sources. The reality is we may never know in our lifetime and that coping with the contradictions and myriad possibilities as you do so well in this is piece is how we have to proceed.
I'm glad you posted this, Ian. I can't believe the amount of attention and psuedo-credibility that certain media outlets having been giving to Hersh's piece. The premise is absurd, basic facts are flat-out wrong and, as you point out, his assertion is ultimately irresponsible. Just because someone did some good reporting decades ago should not be a reason to bolster what they are currently peddling.
Someone did some good reporting decades ago? Try amazing investigative journalism for over four decades which has always been held in the highest regard, not by successive American administrations who all seem to understandable despise him for exposing their crimes and lies, but in the world of real journalism he is a hero. He was considered quite acceptable to publish in credible publications up until 2013 when he challenged Obama's official line on the Sarin gas use in Syria, namely that Obama administration was manipulating the intelligence to justify their attack on Assad. For this and also his disputing the official narrative of the Navy Seal Osama bin Laden assassination he was made persona non grata in the media world. It's more of an indictment of the current journalism landscape that the bigger and more reputable newspapers and publications won't even look at his stories properly nor take the time to properly investigate them. Where are the investigative journalists who have sources within the European governments involved in the investigations of the pipeline bombings? Where are the American journalists who have tracked down his sources to verify or interrogate them and tell us why they should be refuted? Hersh has made not so subtle hints that there are other sources out there to be found about this if people would look properly. It's an absolute disservice to characterise Hersh as someone who did "some good work decades ago". He's always been good at what he does.
@@blitzenfest Sorry, are we talking about the same "journalist" who recently asserted that Assad didn't gas his own people? Same guy who says that Osama bin Laden is still alive? That crackpot?
