Russia Threatens ‘Consequences’ Over Hersh Nord Stream Tale

A “disgusting crime.”

That’s what Russia’s deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov called the “unsolved” mystery of sabotage on the Nord Stream network, which was hit by a series of suspected detonations in September.

The explosions raised fears of additional escalations in the Ukraine conflict and threatened to plunge Europe even further into crisis ahead of what many feared would be an existential winter energy crunch.

At the time, Russian state media alluded to CIA involvement, and the Kremlin’s global network of witting and unwitting propaganda accomplices used a video clip of Joe Biden suggesting America and its allies would “end” the Nord Stream 2 link to perpetuate the idea that the US was behind the apparent vandalism.

Late in October, Russia blamed, in part, “British specialists,” who, the Kremlin intimated, were also involved in the direction of Ukrainian drone attacks on Russia’s Black Sea fleet, which prompted Putin to withdraw from a grain deal brokered by Recep Tayyip Erdogan over the summer.

In my own documentation of the episode, I downplayed the idea of US involvement for several reasons. First readers’ sanity is important to me, and contrary to popular belief in our “post-truth” reality, it’s not healthy to assume that the official Western narrative around geopolitical developments is everywhere and always a nefarious coverup. Skepticism is healthy. Obsessive paranoia isn’t. I suppose it’s “not paranoia if they’re really out to get you,” as the old saying goes, but remember that if “they” are out to get somebody, it surely isn’t “you.” You’re fine. So stay sane out there.

Another, more important, point is that there’s no shortage of confirmed coverups, conspiracies, foreign interventions conducted on false pretenses and misbegotten military adventures to choose from if your goal is to paint an unflattering picture of American foreign policy. And there’s no shortage of reliable, dedicated, well-funded investigative reporters working to lift the curtain on the next big coverup for major international media outlets. That’s the kind of thing that wins awards, drives subscription revenue and secures lucrative book deals for journalists. For example, The New York Times was all over the Biden administration’s tragic drone error in Kabul nearly from the day it was executed. That investigation eventually led to an admission from the Pentagon that the strike was a horrible mistake.

In addition, the reality of the situation in Ukraine is this: There aren’t “good people on both sides,” so to speak. It’s a pretty one-sided affair. Anyone who’s objective is compelled to admit as much. The government in Kyiv isn’t a “Nazi” regime, NATO wasn’t using Ukraine as a staging ground for any sort of aggression against the Russian state and no one in Ukraine needed “liberating,” or at least not at gunpoint, by Russian troops. So, with apologies, if the US decided there was some strategic advantage to sabotaging the Nord Stream… well, then, “all’s fair” I suppose.

Finally, it’s too easy for Russia and the Kremlin’s propaganda machine to co-opt Westerners in the perpetuation of Kremlin-friendly counter-narrative. That’s a fixture of the post-2015 world. Putin capitalized on the wave of populism sweeping Western democracies to sow the seeds of societal discord. Part of that effort is perpetuating conspiracy theories and, more colloquially, driving voters in Western nations to distrust and madness.

It’s with all of that in mind that I felt compelled to mention Seymour Hersh’s lengthy tale of what he says was an intricate American conspiracy that culminated in a “covert sea operation” to sabotage the Nord Stream network.

I’m deliberately and, in my opinion, justifiably, giving this short shrift.

Hersh is a frustrating and controversial character. In some cases, his fantastical claims are impossible to verify and his reputation has suffered for that immeasurably over decades of reporting. At this point in his career, it’s fair to say that many in the journalistic community view Hersh as entirely unreliable, due in no small part to thin, anonymous sourcing and what some critics have described as a penchant for gullibility. To the extent that latter characterization is even a semblance of accurate, it’s supremely ironic: Hersh’s ostensible raison d’être is waking the public up to its own gullibility. If he’s often the gullible one, it’s unfortunate.

Frankly, it’s all quite unfortunate. To call Hersh eminently capable would be an understatement. Given that, his career arc — from Pulitzer to Substack conspiracies — is regrettable. But alas.

I won’t link to Hersh’s Nord Stream piece. As far as I can tell, it’s another example of a his penchant for spinning yarns with what critics say is very thin thread. Besides, you don’t need me to find it. It’s readily accessible to anyone who wants to read it. Hersh is famous.

He did reach the White House and the CIA for comment on his latest claims. The Biden administration told him the story was “complete fiction” and the CIA called it “completely and utterly false.”

I mention Hersh’s counter-narrative here because I’d be remiss not to. I’ve covered the Nord Stream episode extensively, it’s an important piece of the current geopolitical puzzle and Hersh, like him or despise him, is a somebody.

Naturally, Russia was receptive to Hersh’s allegations that the Biden administration attacked the pipelines. “Our assumption was that the US and several NATO allies were involved,” the above-mentioned Ryabkov said, while speaking to reporters in Moscow Thursday. He alluded to “consequences” for the US.

As I put it previously, the public will never know what really happened to the Nord Stream in September, or at least not the details. There are two competing narratives, one “accepted” and one “alternative.” Suffice to say Hersh’s version will never be the accepted account, for better or worse.