Background
The Nord Stream pipelines (NS-1 and NS-2) were sabotaged on September 26, 2022. Two explosions happened in Denmark’s exclusive economic zone, with two in the Swedish zone (The Telegraph, 2022/10/18). The Swedish National Seismic Network registered two blasts (possibly counting two near-simultaneous explosions as one) as equivalent to an earthquake magnitude of 1.8 at 2:03 a.m. and 2.3 at 7:04 p.m. (WaPo, 2022/09/27). Danish and Swedish scientists estimated that a few hundred kilograms of explosives were used in each explosion (CNBC, 2022/10/16), which happened at a depth of 50–80 meters. At the time of the explosions, not gas was transferred.
One of the NS-2 pipelines was not breached, but NS-2 was not formally commissioned by Germany, so gas delivery by Nord Stream ceased.
Hans Liwång, an associate professor of defense systems at the Swedish National Defense College, said that the charges were probably dropped from a vessel or vessels: “It is not a small precision charge, but rather it is a larger charge that is placed on the bottom next to the pipes.” I would add that any boat equipped with an underwater camera or tethered drone could have been used to lay down the explosives. They could have simple timers. Explosives could be obtained from industrial channels or the black market. No military or military equipment was required.
Three countries—Germany, Sweden, and Denmark—have investigated the Nord Stream sabotage, but neither of them even hinted at the US as a culprit.
What happened?
The sabotage of the Nord Stream was an amateur operation, and, technically, a failed one.
There are four similar pipelines, two in NS-1 and two in NS-2, respectively. The saboteurs breached the pipelines in four places, likely intending to disable all four. Instead, they breached one pipeline twice, leaving one intact. The remaining pipeline’s capacity was sufficient to transfer the same volumes of gas as in prior months.
From the NYT, 2022/12/26: “The pipeline would be vulnerable to even the most rudimentary form of sabotage, analysts wrote, and underwater surveillance would be nearly impossible. The 2007 study, written by the Swedish Defense Research Agency, even posited a scenario: ‘One diver would be enough to set an explosive device.’”
In 2022, no divers were needed. Many widely available remotely controlled underwater drones could deliver improvised explosive devices and placing them on or beside the pipelines.
Despite the ease of sabotaging the pipeline, Seymour Hersh developed a conspiracy theory, involving who is who of the US national security establishment, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, US Navy divers, CIA (of course), Norway navy (why Norway?), and the NATO exercise BALTOPS 22.
Not Russia, either
The only theory more stupid than Seymour Hersh's is that Russia did it. Russia’s Gazprom owns a 51% stake in these pipelines. Russia controls the flow of gas through these pipelines, turning it on and off at will. Why would it blow them up?
The ideation that only a powerful state actor could blow up the pipeline probably originated from the need to blame Russia.
By the way, the adherence to this theory in the “Russia experts’ community” shows that this “community” is more like a unthinking herd than experts.
But Biden said …
Joe Biden is a demented old man. He decides nothing and does not know what he says. When Victoria Nuland threatened to stop NS-2, she meant by economic and diplomatic means, like sanctions. At the time of the sabotage, NS-2 was already stopped—Germany refused to certify it.
Seymour Hersh
Seymour Hersh, 86, was a decent investigative reporter in 1960–1970s who became famous for the exposure of the My Lai massacre. Unfortunately, he received more credit that he deserved. The Army had investigated the massacre and charged William L. Calley, the commander of the unit responsible for this crime, with multiple counts of murder. Hersh had to work hard to meet him in a military prison.
Unable to recreate his success, Hersh became resorted to lying. Even his 2004 Abu Ghraib reporting was a hatchet job. Although Hersh is a complicated character (for example, he laughed off the Russia hoax), his propensity to lie and to hide these lies by referring to “anonymous sources” was acknowledged even by his own team: Sy Hersh’s Loose Relationship with the Literal Truth—Nymag, also titled Sy Hersh Says It’s Okay to Lie (Just Not in Print) by Chris Suellentrop (2005). In fact, he could not lie too outrageously in print because of the editorial oversight. Now he resorted to blogging.
Substack
Hersh’s self-publishing in a blog on Substack itself refutes his claims. Many great men and women publish on Substack because of the current media situation. But to Hersh, all media doors are open. He created a Substack account to blog this fictional story because no editor would have accepted it.
Money, lies, and high stakes
Seymour Hersh by Robert Miraldi (2013) is a hagiography. Yet even it shows Hersh was regularly exposed as lying and not caring about that. He was also financially motivated to produce large scale falsehoods. Seymour Hersh got away with his lies because they conformed to the worldview of the leftist journalism establishment. Some examples:
Money
“Hersh became a college campus sensation. The notoriety of My Lai and the antiwar fervor on campuses put him in great demand, and his speaking fee rose to $1,500 [around 1970; this is more than $10,000 in today’s money].” (p. 125; Kindle edition everywhere)
“His controversial best-selling book, The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House, had come out in the spring [1985], and his speaking fee had doubled, from $2,000 to $4,000, although we got him at the bargain rate. (He now commands $20,000 a speech [2013].)” (Prologue)
“Yes, he likes to make money. Yes, he can be threatening to targets as he researches. Yes, he uses way too many anonymous sources. And, yes, he loves the spotlight. But anger is what fuels Hersh.” (p. 344)
Pakistan
“Upset about a Hersh report that the United States was ready to seize his country’s nuclear weapons, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf flew to America to query the president. Hersh “is a liar,” Bush told him.” (p. 323)
Kissinger
“Kissinger was furious at Hersh’s method: “inference piled on assumption, third-hand hearsay accepted as fact, the self-serving accounts of disgruntled adversaries elevated to gospel, the ‘impressions” of people several times removed from the scene.” His identified sources were “unreliable,” Kissinger decried, “but how about his unidentified ones? Indeed, do we really know they exist?”“ (p. 243)
Flight KAL 007
“In May 1984 he [Hersh] met with Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov and Deputy Foreign Minister Georgi Kornienko in an ornate Moscow conference room. Meetings went on for five days.” (p. 266)
Book about Kennedy
“the Times’ Richard Bernstein called the book “deceitful.” Observed the Washington Post: “a patchwork of conspiracy theories, third-hand rumors, wild conjecture and anecdotal evidence, couched in tones so relentlessly adversarial and vindictive as to render it utterly without credibility.”” (p. 302)
President Clinton
“Joe Lockhart, President Clinton’s spokesman, agreed. After expressing Clinton’s full support for McCaffrey, he added that Hersh was just “a journalist who thinks if you throw enough stuff up against the wall, maybe something will stick.”” (p. 315)
Abu Ghraib
“In a news release responding directly to Hersh’s story (a rarity), the Pentagon called his allegations “outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture,” reflecting “the fevered insights of those with little, if any, connection to the activities in the Department of Defense.” Moreover, it claimed, “With these false claims, the Magazine and the reporter have made themselves part of the story.” Rumsfeld spokesman Lawrence Di Rita defended his boss: “This is the most hysterical piece of journalist malpractice I have ever observed.” Hersh is “one of history’s great conspiracy theorists.”” (p. 334)
Other
“Commented one critic: “If there is one thing that Hersh—known to every aspiring journalist as the greatest investigative reporter of his generation—has been consistent on, it’s his uncanny ability to be utterly wrong.” Nonetheless, to the legion of Hersh’s critics and enemies, errors of fact and judgment are a hallmark of his work. One wrote an entire article on “King Sy’s mistakes” while another wrote in great detail about “the deceits of Seymour Hersh.”” (p. 342)
Who would blow up pipelines?
A group of climate cult followers might have committed this sabotage. The book How to Blow Up a Pipeline by Andreas Malm, a Swedish academic and climate cult follower, has received an enthusiastic reception since its publication in Berlin on January 5, 2021. The book does not explain how (albeit noting that it is easy) but inspires readers to do that. Read the book reviews on Amazon, both by professionals and by readers.
From the book (Kindle edition):
“The need for militancy is unlikely to be diminished. It is thus my hope that the discussion in the following pages will be of some value … even in a phase contemporaneous with COVID-19 or some other future pandemic. Sabotage, after all, is not incompatible with social distancing.” (p. 4)
“‘Pipelines are very easily sabotaged. A simple explosive device can put a critical section of pipeline out of operation for weeks’, the Pipeline and Gas Journal lamented in February 2005.” (p. 70)
“In the mid-1980s, cadres from the ‘anti-imperialist front’ – Action Directe (France), Rote Armee Fraktion (Germany) [the antifa precursor], Cellules Communistes Combattantes (Belgium) – teamed up for a campaign against NATO pipelines traversing their countries; a dozen pipes and pumping stations were blown up.” (p. 78)
Some of the book reviews:
“One of the most important things written about the climate crisis.” — Wen Stephenson, Los Angeles Review of Books
“A profoundly necessary book.” — Scott W. Stern, Los Angeles Review of Books
“Malm offers a critical, passionate and hopeful assessment of where it might go next. Malm’s refreshing humanist ethos combined with his marxist radicalism make him one of the most exciting contemporary writers on the climate crisis...” — Political Economy Research Centre
“How to Blow Up a Pipeline makes a strong case for looking beyond non-violent activism.” —VICE