Two further points re the Hersh story.
[QUOTE=VinDici;2789099]Let me put it simply. There are long term supply contracts in place. If Russia simply stop delivering, they are in breach of contract, and every other country that has contracts with them will see that they are an unreliable partner who cannot be trusted to keep their word.
If suddenly the pipeline fails, then the result is same in that gas is not supplied, but RF is not in breach of contract.
This is why it is RF that did the bombing, so they could apply pressure on Europe without having to be in formal breach of contract.
As with most things, the simplest explanation is most often the truth.[/QUOTE]First, it's interesting that he published the story on his personal substack, not in any media outlet (pro-Russia, pro-Ukraine, or neutral). My thought is that he might have been asked to share details about his anonymous source. It certainly raises questions since he surely could have found a sympathetic website or publication. The obvious conclusion, at least to me, is that he wants to retain full control of things.
Second, critics are starting to pick apart the story and one I found worth reading mentions errors Hersh has made before, and also examines various details in the NordStream story. In fact, the critique makes the point that the amount of detail works against the credibility of the story, because they provide more fact-checking opportunities.
[URL]https://twitter.com/wesleysmorgan/status/1623428680054603776[/URL]
P.S. There's one other reason I've read that supports the Russia bomb theory. It speculates that a working pipeline would have provided leverage, and a potential lifeline, for any successor to Putin. By removing it from the game, Putin eliminated that possibility. So any Russian elites who might have considered a coup are stuck with Putin, at least until conditions change.
Interesting fact further undermines Hersh's credibility
In Nov 2001 Hersh wrote an article in the New Yorker about a post-9/11 US raid in Afghanistan. In that article he quotes his source describing the raid planning process as a "goat fuck," which is a rather specific and colorful phrase.
Fast-forward over 20 years and, in his Nordstream story, lo and behold he quotes his current "source" using the exact same phrase to describe the pipeline attack planning process. Quite the coincidence, right?
[URL]https://twitter.com/wesleysmorgan/status/1626359040652484608[/URL]
What are the odds of two different sources using the same phrase, in the same way, to describe two different (alleged) events? And, for any who think it might have been the same source, what are the odds that the source for the earlier story (who would have needed to be in the upper levels of govt in 2001) would have been in a similar position over 20 years later? Consider that someone at the level required for access to info for the 2001 story would likely have retired by now. Or, if they were at the highest levels of the bureaucracy, they would have been flushed out during the various changes in administrations. The peons in the bureaucracy usually remain, but each new administration usually brings in its own set of chiefs.
My reason for going into extra detail is simply to point out that the most likely explanation for the recurrence of the "goat fuck" phrase is that Hersh likes how it sounds and probably forgot that he'd used it before.
IMO, Hersh's ship of credibility is taking on water and sinking fast!
Interesting fact further undermines Ukraine's interest in this war
Remember all the donations and protests by Ukrainians in the states? Yeah, that's pretty much over. Whenever they plan to organize something, about a quarter of expected folks show up. The church's are avoiding the issue.
IMO, Ukraine's ship of credibility is taking on water and sinking fast.
To all the shills I've smacked before
Zelensky is a major reason Ukraine's not only still standing but winning.
If he did leave Kiev when offered a ride by the USA Diplomats, the scene would've been different. It wouldn't have quelled the resistance, but the aggressor might've taken the capital.
No kidding the putinists hate this comedian. He personifies all heir troubles.
[QUOTE]The 44-year-old former comedian has surprised many by his transformation into a wartime leader.
In a survey conducted in December 2022, the Kyiv Institute of Sociology (KIIS) found that 84 per cent of Ukrainians trust Zelensky, a three-fold jump from the survey it fielded in December 2021. Only Ukraines armed forces have a larger support base, with 96 per cent of Ukrainians trusting them.
The war has entirely changed the attitude of Ukrainians towards Zelensky, KIIS director Volodymyr Paniotto told IWPR.
It was significant for Ukrainians that Zelensky behaved as a true leader at the decisive moment: he did not leave the country despite offers and performed his duties with dignity, Evgeniya Bliznyuk, founding CEO of the Kyiv-based Gradus Research, told IWPR. This became part of his image, ensuring popularity both abroad and inside the country.[/QUOTE]