Or a drone submarine or some crap like that. The problem with this story is that there are so many ways any capable not-even-super-power could do something like this. There’s also all the 4D chess about Putin keeping his oligarchs trapped since they can’t sell the nation’s largest commodity. Or that’s what insert country with special forces wants you to think.
It’s possible Hersh is 100% correct but without anyone else corroborating him we’re just left with speculation.
Right. The most plausible explanation, given the number of Russian petrochemical executives critical of Putin who have died under suspicious circumstances, is that Putin wanted to greatly reduce the incentive of petrochemical oligarchs to stage a coup in order to re-open the pipeline.
Putin has shown he's very wary of the petrochemical oligarchs. If removing Putin from power doesn't open Nord Stream back up, then that's one less incentive for the petrochemical oligarchs to move on Putin, at least in the short term.
Presumably, Putin also wanted to make threats against the new Norway-Poland Baltic Pipe in a way that kept plausible deniability. He wanted to show he could destroy that pipeline, but without committing an act of war against a Nato member, so instead he blew up an unused pipeline owned by Russia.
> - serves to potentially split NATO members (Hersh's story is obviously part of that)
this is the big one. I can't see a reason why the US even the UK would blow the pipelines, esp. when they already have a very strong NATO rallying cry, and Putin turning off the gas already means N. American Oil & Gas will be making big money.
Like, you're already winning, why risk a disaster and blowback? Meanwhile Putin has shown, consistently, that he's capable and willing to play dirty like that, and can actively spite the Baltics and Scandinavia.
It’s possible Hersh is 100% correct but without anyone else corroborating him we’re just left with speculation.