Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bruce Wolman's avatar

Blowing Holes in Oliver Alexander’s story on Seymour Hersh’s article:

As to relying on Elliot Higgins of Bellingcat for a correct takes on Hersh’s Syria gas attacks & the Skripal poisonings, I only refer to Hersh’s retort, "I can’t be worried about a Bellingcat - with its associations with certain intelligence agencies - is saying about me."

If one had any familiarity with Hersh’s investigative methodology, one would know that he doesn’t write articles based on a “single unnamed source.” What he does - especially considering the nature of his sources, many higher-up insiders, is protect his sources. So other sources, who don’t want to be named or can’t afford to be named - especially since the Obama Adm started the US going after any nat sec whistleblower for prosecution - do not get even an unnamed mention by Hersh. Does this method work? How many times has Hersh’s stories been proven right? How many major stories has Oliver broken?

Hersh did not state that using the Panama City divers, rather than the SEALS or SOCOM units, “would bypass reporting of the operation to members of Congress ….” He only reported that his source said that is what the planners of the mission thought. How many times in the past have nat sec apparatchiks believed they had deniable plausibility or a justification for a twisted interpretation of the rules or laws, and then it turned out those rationalizations didn’t hold up? Alexander doesn’t know one way or the other what the planners thought.

As for how crazy initial proposals may sound once subject to more thorough technical examination, does anyone need to be reminded of how many hundreds of crazy intel ideas have surfaced in the past that even Tom Clancy wouldn’t have come up with?

That Hersh's and his source's description of the operation implies that "the CIA and entire interagency group were unaware of the fact that the NordStream pipelines were in fact pipelines” is only Alexander’s opinion. That the Norwegians were chosen as a partner, despite the high risk to the Norwegians, indicates the planners knew they were dealing with pipelines. In fact, Hersh in an interview says if anyone wants to unpack the story, starting with people in the pipeline business would be a good place to start. Hmmm, I wonder if Hersh did that? It also explains why the Norwegians had to be brought into the project. After all, Norway is the most loyal of US/NATO allies and has the competency. The US has relied on Norway for numerous other top secret projects in the past, which usually end up leaked by the Americans, not the Norwegians.

That Hersh was not fully accurate about Generalissimo Stoltenberg is a trivial error. Yes, Jens was only a teenager protesting the Vietnam war with his older sister’s friends during the war (well documented in Norwegian media), but he also turned out to be a committed proponent of NATO as leader of the Social Democrat’s (AP) Youth Organization, despite claiming otherwise on his way to election to that position. He managed almost single-handedly to maneuver an overturn of the Youth orgs long-standing position of “Norway out of NATO." Always willing to please the party Elders, they fast-tracked him to move up and take over leadership of the Party. Hersh was also incorrect to write that Jens was anti-communist. Politically he was not ideologically committed, just an ambitious son of the Party, and he recognized fully supporting NATO as a necessary ticket to advancement. In fact, he was the first Norwegian PM to move Norway towards complete loyalty and subservience to the Americans. US intelligence did and does completely trust him.

There is nothing in the way BALTOPS 22 was described by the US Navy and sector trade magazines and Hersh’s article which are fundamentally inconsistent:

https://seapowermagazine.org/baltops-22-a-perfect-opportunity-for-research-and-resting-new-technology/

That Alexander tries to make something of this is honestly laughable. Without knowing whom within the Sixth Fleet and STRIKFORNATO command were informed of the requested changes, it is impossible to infer to what extent more people were brought into the loop.

Moreover, that Hersh "makes it sound like the explosions all took place in close vicinity of each other” is just an interpretation of Alexander. He doesn’t offer any evidence to contradict the assertion that the Norwegians located the spots to blow up the pipelines.

According to the Norwegians, no Alta-class minesweepers participated in BALTOPS, only the Oksøy-class Hinnøy. The Norwegian military failed to mention that the Alta-class & Oksøy-class ships are almost identical, while Alexander fails to mention that the main difference is that the Oksøy-class ships have an extra ROV for divers. Whether Joe Galvin’s analysis of the Hinnøy’s movements are inconsistent with such a diving operation needs further and independent consideration. What auxiliary equipment and vehicles were used in the operation is not discussed or revealed so far.

Alexander claims he found no evidence that the Oksøy-Class can support surface-supplied mixed gas diving. I’m not an expert, but as I understand this requires tethered diving capabilities. Here is another Oksøy-Class ship, the Karmøy, engaged in tethered diving:

https://www.reddit.com/r/submechanophobia/comments/ie77wz/norwegian_navy_divers_extract_sting_ray_torpedoes/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

I don't read of any great difficult further outfitting an Oksøy-class ship for mixed-air capabilities.

I don’t know what Alexander’s expertise in these matters are, but if he does not have the direct knowledge, then he should inform us who provided him with his talking points. Also, is his HeO2 Decompression table for the older technology or the new MK 29 diving equipment invented at Panama City?

https://www.secnav.navy.mil/innovation/Documents/2017/09/MK29UBA.pdf

Considering the detection resources the Danes and the Swedes had in the area of Bornholm, is it really surprising that top defense and intel echelons of these countries were informed in some manner of the operation? At least in the case of the Danes, they’ve been trusted with more secret operations. When you use expressions such as "This I do not in anyway understand” you are adopting a rhetorical technique or displaying your own limited comprehension abilities.

It does not matter that the Norwegian P-8s are operated by the Norwegian Air Force. They are under the command of the ‭Norwegian Joint Headquarters located in Bodø, which integrates the Air Force and Navy on maritime defense:

https://www.forsvaret.no/en/organisation/norwegian-joint-headquarters

Norwegian P-8 pilots trained all last year with the US Navy in Florida. “We can fly faster, higher, longer and do air-to-air refueling. The aircraft carries many more sonobuoys and more weapons,” Lt Sprott said. Onboard, he added, there is software “lightyears beyond” what the P-3 Orion has.

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/node/9725

Although the Norwegian P-8s were not put into general or routine service at the time of BALTOPs 22, they had been operationally tested by that time. Why not use a far more advanced plane, especially one equipped with advanced sonobuoys in a top-secret and important mission? Who wouldn’t use them? Anderson seems more confused by the status of the Norwegian P-8s than Hersh or his source.

Open-source tracking does not tell us what was the path of a plane if its transponder is turned off or masked and mixed. Is it really so unusual in such a large exercise that some of the planes would not be publicly locatable, especially if the exercise was also trying to determine Russian tracking capabilities? Would the Russians be surprised by any of this? Moreover, we know there was at least one open-source traceable P-8 in the area soon after the explosions. That plane is claimed to be American.

Maybe Alexander needs to go back and do as much investigative reporting with as many well-connected sources as Hersh. Meanwhile, I’d be quiet if I was him.

Expand full comment
Jonas Kofod's avatar

Very pragmatic and convincing analysis.

In offshore drilling the subsea blow out preventer (BOP) can be controlled at much deeper locations and a more complex set of regulation modes using acoustic signals, than a detonation command.

It would be extremely worrying if whales, man made marine noise, earthquakes etc. could interfere with the well control of the several dozens deep water hydrocarbon wells under construction at any given time.

I choose to believe military technology is minimum at par with commercial offshore drilling.

Expand full comment
238 more comments...

No posts