| Even if the Hersh thesis is completely made up, he still makes more sense than what this guy does. For one thing. The most plausible reason he can't find the plane dropping the buoy he privides himself. -It's a small device.
-Better to use a boat.
-Better to use a non military boat. Yeah? Maybe that is what they did? It's not impossible the source filled in a few gaps in his story? Or was mistaken? Or Hersh himself might have? I don't want to go full conspiracy mode myself here but one thing is for sure. And that is that not finding proof of a covert operation can only mean one of two things. Either that it didn't take place or that it indeed was covert. And why could the source not have said Stoltenberg worked with the Americans since the Vietnam war as a figure of speech? Hersh article is not enough to base an opinion on imo. But it's not precisely worse off after this guys rather hollow arguments. Howrver the analysis is not a bad start. |
You can absolutely still believe the US blew up the pipelines, the same way you could have before Hersh's goofy story ran. But you can't claim to believe Hersh's story while systematically dismantling all of his claims. The story itself is either true or it isn't.
I feel like a lot of people are defending this story because they've independently and axiomatically derived US culpability for the pipeline sabotage. I don't have anything to say about whether the US sabotaged the Nord Stream pipeline. But Seymour M. Hersh has, ever since 2006, been a nutbag, and this story he's telling makes no sense. That's a much more interesting thing to discuss than our rooting interests in geopolitics!
If you think he's right about the particulars, and this analysis is wrong about those particulars, say why! That's an interesting discussion to have!