I'll speak not for, but as one of, the agitated.

People are not agitated at the suggestion that the US did it. People are agitated because the claims are coming from Cy Hersh without remotely compelling evidence, who in the past decade or so has turned to spouting off unsubstantiated claims to carry water for Assad and Putin and shilling ridiculous Bin Laden theories and 9/11 trutherism.

I'm personally agitated because a community that is generally pretty grounded in fact and falsifiability somehow turns into a bunch of edge lord schoolboys around certain foreign affairs subjects. And it comes from the "adults" in our industry (Elon and Sacks) modeling the behavior and a lot of people in our industry mirroring it back. I'm sick of innuendo being passed off as critical thinking. Innuendo is cheap evasive sleight of hand that pollutes the information space and encourages bad faith bullshit. /rant

So should everyone shut up until they have hard evidence to present? That doesn't sound like a very interesting way to live. Even in court circumstantial evidence is a valid form of evidence and plausible scenarios can be presented to try and convince. What is wrong with that?

If you don’t bother to fact check your evidence before making serious accusations then yes, one should shut up.

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence yes, but this is just a bunch of shit that is observably false followed by salacious assertions.

Presenting claims that are trivially falsifiable as true without bothering to apply skepticism because it plays into your favored narrative is not journalism. It’s whatever the hell Hersh is doing now.

I don't understand how it is "observably false". It seems at least like a plausible story, although without hard evidence no one can say for sure. Calling the whole story "observably false" and "trivially falsifiable" seems to way overstate the case, and I wonder what the motivation and emotion behind that is.

The overarching accusation is plausible but many of the claims to support the story are observably false, as outlined in the linked article. And yes, as per your innuendo I’m clearly an agent of the state here to shut down your free thinking.

I think you might be misreading alienicecream's tone. Maybe I'm naive, but I'd like to think that he wasn't accusing you of being a shill. I think he was genuinely wondering about your reasoning. At the least, I am. I appreciated (and upvoted) your answer higher in the thread.

I find it interesting that different people have very different reactions to this. I don't think it's just national politics, although that often plays a role. For me, I was bothered by the way the news coverage immediately after the event converged to "Russia did it". It wasn't that I was in any way sure that they were wrong, but I was sure that they were absurdly overconfident.

I'd like to know what caused them to take this stance so universally and so strongly. My would guess would be tribalism and fear of offending the US government. Since then, I've been pleased to see that some recent articles that are moving more to the "we don't really know yet" stance. The New York Times had such an article in late December (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/26/world/europe/nordstream-p...), and the London Times had a similar one about a week ago (https://archive.is/A35Ce).

Hersh's article doesn't bother me in the way that it seems to bother you. It's not at all that I'm sure it's right. It seems possible, maybe even likely, that Hersh is being fooled by a bullshitter or even a foreign agent. He presumably published it on a brand new Substack because every more reputable outlet refused. But despite this, I think it's good to discuss its strengths and weaknesses. Many people (possibly including you) think it's better that we ignore it, but I think this is more likely to cause problems in the long term. I think it's interesting and useful to look at why our reactions are so different.

I would also add. If you claim to be respectable journalist or an objective observer, I, as a reader would expect you to have done your research and have a higher standard of your publications. Given your past accolades, presenting anything less without substantial support just tells me you are just trying to make yourself relevant with contrarian views

> So should everyone shut up until they have hard evidence to present?

And let the narrative given by "trusted US officials" stand unchallenged, yes.

This is one of the most infuriatingly disingenuous argument devices: "People keep doing this irresponsible thing and get traction!" "Oh, so you mean everyone should not do a thing???"

Yeah, buddy. The most absurd interpretation of the opposite is what we mean...

It's not about any of the details at all, really.

It's about questioning the mainstream media narrative. Mainstream media is politically affiliated. So questioning it becomes a political act.

Once it gets political, people lose all reason, form up into tribes, and things get rough.

Hersh didn't just question some narrative. He presented a fanciful story as fact that is full of holes and does not stand up to scrutiny. Those who are motivated to see the US blamed for it seem to be uninterested in whether his story actually is true or not. The truth of what happened and how it happened doesn't seem to matter. They believe the US did it, so they believe Hersh's story.

It's frustrating because having a theory that the US did it isn't unreasonable, and could be discussed. My initial reaction was that the US probably did it, it was only later after more details came out and really thinking it through I came to realize it wouldn't make sense. Though if they did it certainly would not have occurred in the fanciful way Hersh presented. I do not know who did it, while I could put a good theory together why Russia did it and can see they had some motivation, I could also make a good Hershesque story about how some criminal environmentalist group from Germany did it. Or why Poland did it. Or Sweden.

EDIT: Actually when you think about it, with the alternative Yamal pipeline through Poland, and Poland's distrust of Germany. Poland had plenty of motivation! Much more than the US. They have the explosives, they can whip together a few tech divers for an easy 80-100m dive, and they have easy access to the Baltic. But motivation and opportunity is not enough.

Not agitated, but I believe it would be incredibly unwise for the US to have done this, in particular regarding the trust relationship with Germany. It’s also naive to think that who did it wouldn’t come out sooner or later. Those things have a way to not stay secret.

The US was tapping Angela Merkel's phone. IMO that is as bad for the relationship as blowing up the pipeline. I don't think there is much trust there, just a we have to work together because of NATO and the 50k US troops on Germany's soil.

er...no, tapping every phone of value in the world is not as bad as secretly bombing something.

you can trivially know this by comparing the US's response to e.g. every hack china and russia have ever done leading to mean words and maybe economic sanctions, vs the US literally invading two countries - which had nothing to do with the person who did the bombings - after 11/9.

Poor trust in Germany of American intent has been ongoing for some time. The US has done much to repair it, although the quiet diplomacy has been more effective than the public diplomacy. The preservation of this trust, despite what conspiracy seekers believe, would strongly militate against this event - its benefit would in no way be perceived in USG circles as greater than the cost.

It is because they are supposed to be the "good guys". Empty heads filled with hollywood lies.

Because it makes no sense, blowing up NS would achieve nothing the EU was already cutting itself off Russian gas and oil.

This operation has no upsides and the downsides are so big that this is probably the only time where the meme of the guy being thrown out of the window for suggesting something in a meeting is actually appropriate…

If there was even a whiff of credible evidence that the US was behind it it would’ve set back US-EU relations by decades if not more and if there was actual undeniable proof it could’ve been the end of NATO.

> the EU was already cutting itself off Russian gas and oil

Which in practice only meant gorging on it and storing like crazy, while initiating years-long process of establishing alternative routes (x10 priced LNG obviously doesn't count)

> If there was even a whiff of credible evidence that the US was behind it it would’ve set back US-EU relations by decades if not more and if there was actual undeniable proof it could’ve been the end of NATO

"Could"/"would", yeah, but this is hardly the first time US doing stuff that SHOULD have ended with totally ruined relations, but in fact would be swept under the rug even if credible evidence had resurfaced publicly. They'll just say that it was a private initiative of a few rouge CIA officers, acting independently of the higher command, as it was with operation Gladio.

EU is simply too dependent on US: economically (through trade), in military (EU has no serious military of its own, and almost no military industrial complex of its own - NATO standard is American standard), and in politics (through "international" political organizations).

It's just realpolitik. Burning down a pipeline is bad, but making a fuss about it would be worse.

Regarding what could be achieved, irregardless of who is the culprit:

- There is now no incentive to turn the tap directly to Russia back on

- There is now a ton of incentive to keep Ukrainian gas transportation pipeline safe (which also transports Russian gas to Europe, while Russia is still paying Ukraine for it) - both to Russia and EU.

Superb analysis. Especially liked the reference to GLADIO.

> Which in practice only meant gorging on it and storing like crazy, while initiating years-long process of establishing alternative routes (x10 priced LNG obviously doesn't count)

None of which required NordStream 2, right?

Some Americans are proud of their country and believe it is always in the right. When given stories to the contrary, they will fight hard against what they do not want to see or believe. It is more than just uncomfortable to accept. It shatters their foundational beliefs.