, you OK...?
(terse copy/pastes of the well-known propaganda and such isn't really cool)

isn't really a big deal — Tzeentch

timid reaction — Tzeentch

These two ↑ are consistent at least.

Russia simply should exit from Ukraine, including Crimea, and respect the territorial integrity of the country what it has accepted starting when the country became independent.

Having any problem with that? — ssu

Seems like some want to forget that (perhaps not even keep it part of the equation). :zip:

By the looks of it, every week the invaders wreak havoc, forgive-and-forget becomes harder for the defenders, and the invaders have been at it for a year now.

Seems like some want to forget that (perhaps not even keep it part of the equation). :zip: — jorndoe

disagree
verb [ I ]
uk
/ˌdɪs.əˈɡriː/ us
/ˌdɪs.əˈɡriː/
B1
to not have the same opinion, idea, etc.:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disagree

Some seem not to have come across the term before so I thought I'd help with your continuing education. You're welcome.

I am ok, you must be a dull Yank--- lol!! Party line all the way??

Not really surprising, is it? (Anyone?)

Secret document reveals Russia’s 10-year plan to destabilize Moldova
^{— Tim Lister · CNN · Mar 17, 2023}

• Feb 24
• Feb 27

Anyway, I'd find it more surprising if no such plans were around.

Yank — boagie

Heck no. I once lived on Manhattan for half a year (work-related, wife's visits paid for), that's about the extent of my Yankdom. Not about me anyway. (Why do people do that?)

Your statement are you OK, is often used to undermine the opinions of others. It is a passive aggressive negative. If I've misinterpreted you, you have my apology.

By the looks of it, every week the invaders wreak havoc, forgive-and-forget becomes harder for the defenders, and the invaders have been at it for a year now. — jorndoe

Above everything, it's Ukraine's leaderships choice to come to an agreement of a cease-fire or terms for peace. Naturally Russia portrays Ukraine as a lackey of the US and would want to negotiate with the West.

Putin might hope in his wildest dreams he can get something similar "peace-deal" like the Taliban got from the Trump administration: agreement that the Ukrainians aren't part of. That would be devastating for the Western alliance. I guess there would those extremely eager to portray then the Ukrainian government as being "the warmongers" in this scenario and the .

* * *

I have to say that I feel a bit disappointed at my government as they have gotten (I forget how many times it has already happened) promises from both Turkey's Erdogan and Hungary that the will put forward in their parliaments the membership of Finland. So Erdogan has basically now separated the membership bids of Sweden and Finland. I think there was no need for this. That some members opted to haggle about membership process of the two countries was NATO's problem, not actually a problem for Sweden and Finland. The simple fact is that for NATO both Sweden and Finland give to the collective defense, not be just on the receiving end. The more that the two countries waited would have been more ackward to NATO, not the countries that already have been given security assurances for the time of the membership ratification process.

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/17/1164267436/international-criminal-court-arrest-warrant-putin-ukraine-alleged-war-crimes

It is therefore the actions of primarily Western governments about which we protest. That's how politics works. — Isaac

So everyone that opposes Western governments is put on a pedestal and hailed, because they oppose Western governments and their actions are "understood". Right.

Then your outrage is meaningless, because you don't have universal values that you judge people and nations by, but everything is just politics driven by an agenda.

BTW Hersh too candidly admits to lie in his profession whenever he thinks he has a good reason to (https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/). — neomac

In most cases, Hersh attaches a caveat—such as “I’m just talking now, I’m not writing”—before unloading one of his blockbusters, which can send bloggers and reporters scurrying for confirmation. — Sy Hersh Says It’s Okay to Lie (Just Not in Print)

Sy Hersh no longer confines his lies to talks. His latest "blockbuster" has been fact-checked using OSINT and found to be lacking in some crucial details.. I won't be digging that up, but here is an example of just how brazen and stupid his lies can be:

Today, the secretary general of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg, a committed anti-communist, who served as Norway’s prime minister for eight years before moving to his high NATO post, with American backing, in 2014. He was a hardliner on all things Putin and Russia who had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War. — How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline

Vietnam War: 1955 - 1975
Jens Stoltenberg: 1959 -

Well, the real issue here

...is just what those peace terms are. Russia simply should exit from Ukraine, including Crimea, and respect the territorial integrity of the country what it has accepted starting when the country became independent.

Having any problem with that? — ssu

Well, at least China doesn't. This is #1 in their recent position statement:

1. Respecting the sovereignty of all countries. Universally recognized international law, including the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, must be strictly observed. The sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively upheld. All countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community. All parties should jointly uphold the basic norms governing international relations and defend international fairness and justice. Equal and uniform application of international law should be promoted, while double standards must be rejected. — China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis

China never officially acknowledged Russian territorial acquisitions, including annexation of Crimea. (Of course, they weren't thinking about Ukraine when they were writing this - they were thinking about Taiwan.)

The war is America against Russia, which reads American aggression. This is one regime change the States attempts which will not work, no matter how many people/Ukrainians they kill. Long live the BRICS! Perhaps too, someone could tell me how when Nixon visited China, America had no problem with China and Taiwan being the one China, that wasn't that long ago.

So everyone that opposes Western governments is put on a pedestal and hailed, because they oppose Western governments and their actions are "understood". Right. — ssu

We've gone through this a nearly a hundred times now. We live under Western government, our votes and protesting affect most directly Western governments, our "power", as little as it is, is in the West and we are therefore first and foremost responsible to try to manage Western governments as best as we can. In addition to this power we are responsible for, by virtue of living in the West we understand the West better and so are more able to provide constructive criticism as well as more effective planning.

Of course, this is not some iron clad law, if I felt a calling to become a political activist of some sort in Uganda or China or Russia or Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan wherever, I could go do that, but if your carry the thought experiment out it would require a long learning curve to be of any effect.

Now, there can be arguments for and against such a course of action. The for would be that bringing foreign knowledge and connections can help "shake things up", especially if there are no other white saviours in the region then there is certainly a white saviour optimum quota to get things done anywhere. In economic terms the addition of a new category of resource, in this case the resource of being white and Western, may have outsized impact at the start of the diminishing returns curve.

However, the argument against such a course of action is that first of all white Westerner backpackers and do-gooders are pretty much everywhere nowadays and there are few "Last Samurai" unrealised gains out there, and, perhaps more importantly, the West, despite there being plenty of unsavoury places elsewhere, nevertheless remains the major power centre of the world and affecting policy here has a larger affect on global governance policies, not only in terms of global issues like climate change and biodiversity collapse but also enlightening the national policies of the savages.

Through leading by example / bombing the right people, naturally.

Most Americans do not know the history of their own country; they do not know America's history of imperial aggression. Their government is just fine with that. American mythology works just fine.

So everyone that opposes Western governments is put on a pedestal and hailed, because they oppose Western governments and their actions are "understood". Right. — ssu

Basically, yes. Obviously lunatics are excluded, but since we're talking about experts here we can relieve ourselves of that burden at the outset.. So, yes. Voices which are critical of power are raised up. Do you have any argument against doing so, or did you think rolling your eyes was sufficient?

Then your outrage is meaningless, because you don't have universal values that you judge people and nations by, but everything is just politics driven by an agenda. — ssu

Who said I don't have any universal values? Just because I don't wear my heart on my sleeve?

His latest "blockbuster" has been fact-checked using OSINT and found to be lacking in some crucial details. — SophistiCat

It's like talking to children. It's been 'fact-checked' has it? By whom? and how is it that they have access to 'The Facts'? Has there been some breakdown in military intelligence? Has there been a mass refusal of the Official Secrets Act? Do these 'fact-checkers' possess some supernatural abilities denied to mere mortals like Sy Hersh?

Honestly, this is what we've come to. Someone writes 'fact-checker' in title of their organisation or website and it's all it took to convince idiots like you that they have some special access to truth. Is that really the threshold of your gullibility, is it that easy?

Do you know what we used to call 'fact-checkers'... Journalists. And you know what? They didn't always agree.

Well perhaps consider a little more tolerance and a little less childish pedantry. We're talking about the treatment of the article by the mainstream media on a public discussion forum. I don't think there's any chance of me accidentally starting the next Marxist revolution here so you can probably rest easy about my "militant rhetoric”. — Isaac

It’s not about pedantry or Marxist revolutions, it’s about you dishonestly framing things the way it suits you so that e.g. you can flatten relevant differences concerning how independent journalists are treated in Western-like democracies (not suppressing their independent journalists’ pieces against the government) vs Chinese/Russian style authoritarian regimes (suppressing their independent journalists’ pieces against the government). Protecting such kind of differences is what may justify Western democratic regimes' policies against authoritarian regimes’ threats, so I have a good reason to insist on it. Your way of questioning and arguing is highly manipulative and I don’t see why I should “tolerate” such militant rhetoric also in the context of a philosophy forum. I find it intellectually dishonest and deserving to be treated as such.

Then what did they do to it? What's the word you'd prefer we use to describe their smearing and studious avoidance? What word could we put in place of "suppression" which carries a lower risk of inciting the proletariat? — Isaac

Ignored, avoided, dismissed? Even if political interference might have obstructed Hersh’s publication in Western media (which doesn’t automatically imply that the article is accurate though), yet I see another problem: Hersh preferred self-publishing over going to mainstream media. So he might have been served the same cold treatment he himself served to the mainstream media. In the end, he could have always tried to sell his article to mainstream publishers, and after rejection he could have still self-published his article plus take revenge against mainstream publishers by publicly denouncing their refusal to publish his extraordinary piece. Unless, the inconvenient upshot of such a counterfactual might have been to solicit a public report on the reasons why his article got rejected by the mainstream publishers, something Hersh might have been interested to avoid.

I’m simply questioning the idea that Hersh’s story would earn greater credibility by being sponsored by Russian propaganda outlets like TASS relative to alternatives like the BBC. — neomac

An idea nobody espoused. — Isaac

I didn’t assume otherwise. You misunderstood part of my claims when I was considering Hersh’s article credibility wrt his editorial fortune. So I clarified that to you.

I just don’t feel pressed to question a Western government’s deeds when there are so many powerful agents readily doing so — neomac

I must have missed those. Could you provide a couple of links to these 'powerful' agents (a primer on the concept of 'power' in international relations, if you need one - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2151022)? — Isaac

I was making a general point. Here is a list of American media outlets with different political bias: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
Not all of them are supportive of Biden’s administration right?
The same mainstream news outlets publishing experts and academics criticising Nato enlargement, American military aid to Ukraine, American refusing to negotiate with Russia, etc. could have published Hersh’s article as well. And take credit for it, if Hersh’s article turns out to be accurate.

the Russian government is... far from being vocally challenged by competitors internal or external to the government — neomac

...one of the more ridiculous things said today... If only more people would speak out against Russian actions... — Isaac

My point wasn’t about how many people speak out against Russia. But how a pluralistic media and political environment may constrain news agencies’ misinformation more likely than under authoritarian regimes.

If an independent journalist wants to be read by many, he could sell his articles denouncing a government’s misdeeds to a mainstream outlets. If he doesn’t trust any mainstream outlets, he could still publish in some well reputed independent platform like https://www.icij.org/about/ — neomac

Could he? You just assume this on faith, yes? — Isaac

I was making a general argument there, so in the specific case of Hersh’s article about Nord Stream 2, why exactly couldn’t he? Did he try and get rejected by all mainstream news outlets? All the biggest ones? All the ones critical of Biden’s administration too? All the European outlets too? How about icij or propublica? As far as I can tell, there are no evidences of such attempts and rejections (e.g. at 20min03 of this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUTwLiuiNh0 Hersh claims he never thought to approach the mainstream news papers he used to write for, the Washington Post or the NYT, because he never thought they would publish his article about the Nord Stream 2 sabotage). But if you have evidences to the contrary, post them here.

I can keep my doubts in either case and suspend my judgement. — neomac — Isaac

No. Your 'suspended judgement' is just consent to whatever the US (or your own country) are doing. Because they're doing it now. If you don't stop them, you consent. There's no 'suspended judgement' the situation is happening in front of you, right now and you have to decide one way or the other.[/quote]

So there is no third option now? Just either or? So in your case if you don’t support the Ukrainian fight against Russian invasion, then you consent to the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because that is what your attitude performatively equates to?
Anyways, my “suspended judgement” about Hersh’s article credibility, is not consent to whatever the US has done in Nord Stream 2 because, contrary to what we already know about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I still ignore if Hersh’s accusations are accurate. But I get the implied risks of my position and am fine with it. We are reasoning under uncertainties, so risks are part of the game.

It's like seeing a man with a gun about to shoot another. You can't 'suspend judgement' about who's guilty, who's attacking whom. You either act (and protect the one being shot at) or you don't act (and let him get shot). 'Suspending judgement' is just performatively identical to the latter. — Isaac

Or it's like seeing Russia invading Ukraine. You can't 'suspend judgement' about who's guilty, who's attacking whom. You either act (and protect the one being invaded) or you don't act (and let him get invaded). 'Suspending judgement' is just performatively identical to the latter.

Sy Hersh no longer confines his lies to talks. His latest "blockbuster" has been fact-checked using OSINT and found to be lacking in some crucial details. — SophistiCat

Maybe he is not lying just making false claims. Anyways, talking about OSINT, I was aware of Oliver Alexander's review of Hersh's article: https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe

Or are you referring to somebody else?

In the past Bellingcat was critical about Hersh's claims: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/06/25/will-get-fooled-seymour-hersh-welt-khan-sheikhoun-chemical-attack/
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/07/28/khan-sheikhoun-seymour-hersh-learned-just-write-know-move/

(Of course, they weren't thinking about Ukraine when they were writing this - they were thinking about Taiwan.) — SophistiCat

And with Taiwan, the question is about the Chinese civil war. Interestingly, only 13 countries (which are usually tiny states) have full diplomatic relations with the Republic of China.

Of course, this is not some iron clad law, if I felt a calling to become a political activist of some sort in Uganda or China or Russia or Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan wherever, I could go do that, but if your carry the thought experiment out it would require a long learning curve to be of any effect. — boethius

Right, this argument is basically that the only thing important to us is to influence our own governments and since we aren't nationals of foreign countries, it's needless to talk about them, think about them at all and hence we can totally disregard them.

The problem with this thinking is that it leads simplistic navel gazing where absolutely everything evolves around in the end the US and everyone else is either a pawn or a victim of the Superpower. And people thinking like this don't understand just how condescending they are toward others and how it leads to faulty conclusions.

First of all, to have a good understanding of international relations, politics and the overall international situation is by itself a valuable thing. It's worth wile discussing by itself. Not to discuss Russia and it's actions, because we don't have a way to influence the country, is a quite absurd idea.

And if for you this thing, the war in Ukraine, is something comparable to being a political activist or caring about Uganda, the war in Ukraine is quite real for me as it has had effects on my life with the Finnish military training on an intensity never seen even during the Cold War. And I've never seen the Russian border here so empty of any traffic.

it’s about you dishonestly framing things the way it suits you — neomac

I'm not 'dishonestly' framing things the way it suits me. I'm doing so openly and honestl. The only difference between us is your dishonesty in pretending that you're doing otherwise. You defend the status quo and your rhetoric is designed to do that, just as mine is designed to oppose it.

Ignored, avoided, dismissed? Even if political interference might have obstructed Hersh’s publication in Western media (which doesn’t automatically imply that the article is accurate though), yet I see another problem: Hersh preferred self-publishing over going to mainstream media. So he might have been served the same cold treatment he himself served to the mainstream media. — neomac

Might he? And what would posses mainstream media to act like a bunch of teenage girls in that respect? Is this the credible institution you laud? One which does not investigate serious allegations against the government because they came from someone who turned them down as a publication route? What are they, twelve?

In the end, he could have always tried to sell his article to mainstream publishers, and after rejection he could have still self-published his article plus take revenge against mainstream publishers by publicly denouncing their refusal to publish his extraordinary piece. — neomac

Yep, could have. Or, could not have. What difference does that make?

I was making a general point. Here is a list of American media outlets with different political bias: — neomac

I was asking you which of those had power? Which of those can cause the US government to act in a way it wouldn't otherwise?

The same mainstream news outlets publishing experts and academics criticising Nato enlargement, American military aid to Ukraine, American refusing to negotiate with Russia, etc. could have published Hersh’s article as well. And take credit for it, if Hersh’s article turns out to be accurate. — neomac

Yep. they could have. Or, again, they could not have. I don't see where this line of enquiry is going. What does it matter that Hersh could have not self-published? Editorial oversight is not the same as peer review. It's not like a scientific journal. Editors publish stories they think will sell papers, their decision is based on that and that alone, they're not Gods, there's no Secret Society of Editors dedicated to Truth. They have no special insight, no tools to get at the truth denied ordinary folk. They're just people, like Hersh.

a pluralistic media and political environment may constrain news agencies’ misinformation more likely than under authoritarian regimes. — neomac

Yes. I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. Are you suggesting the only two choices we have are Western corporate-infused media as we have it now, or authoritarianism? Is that really the limit of your imagination?

in the specific case of Hersh’s article about Nord Stream 2, why exactly couldn’t he? — neomac

Simply put, all mainstream media is either directly owned by, or relies on revenue from, large corporations whose interests drive the editorial agenda. If it's in no corporate interest to publish a highly speculative story about US involvement in the Nord Stream bombings, then none will. Hersh seems to have concluded that to be the case sufficiently often to choose to rely on his own income stream. That decision having been made, he's hardly in a position to sacrifice it by giving the scoop to someone else. Self-employment isn't nefarious, it's not some oddity in need of explanation.

So in your case if you don’t support the Ukrainian fight against Russian invasion, then you consent to the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because that is what your attitude performatively equates to? — neomac

Yes, that would be right. If I didn't support Ukrainian resistance then I'd be consenting to Russian occupation since that is what the most powerful actor in that group is going to do if unresisted.

it's like seeing Russia invading Ukraine. You can't 'suspend judgement' about who's guilty, who's attacking whom. You either act (and protect the one being invaded) or you don't act (and let him get invaded). 'Suspending judgement' is just performatively identical to the latter. — neomac

Yes. That's right.

The problem with this thinking is that it leads simplistic navel gazing where absolutely everything evolves around in the end the US and everyone else is either a pawn or a victim of the Superpower. And people thinking like this don't understand just how condescending they are toward others and how it leads to faulty conclusions. — ssu

You confuse what is said with what is understood.

I don't have to talk about my disgust at Russia's actions in order to feel disgust at Russia's actions.

I don't have to discuss the role Russian politics played in initiating this war in order to understand the role Russian politics played in initiating this war.

the war in Ukraine is quite real for me as it has had effects on my life — ssu

Exactly. So why don't we have a grown up conversation which accepts our biases and motives rather than one where you pretend to be a dispassionate analyst, rather than admit that you have a strong vested interest in promoting a narrative which increases the chances of a resounding military defeat of Russia?

I don't have to discuss the role Russian politics played in initiating this war in order to understand the role Russian politics played in initiating this war. — Isaac

If you aren't willing to discuss the role of Russian politics, Ukrainian politics or other European countries, then just step aside then when others do.

Your views can be put into a nutshell with the following remark you made:

Yes. I'm ignoring (largely) the role of the Nordic countries, the Eastern European nations and the Ukrainians. Not because they don't have a role, but because it's not radically different to the US's. Big industry lobbyists push political agendas which serve their interests. they do so in the US, Europe, Sweden and Ukraine. Influence over media agendas manipulates a proletariat, the support of which is then used to justify the original objective. There's little point in discussing which flag they operate under, especially considering most are multi-national companies.

The notion of independent nation states with their own culture and unique objectives belongs to a colonial era of World Wars and imperialism. But it's hellish convenient when the arms industry needs another war.

So if you think it's an error, argue the case. Why do you still believe in nation states? — Isaac

We've heard your point.

So steer clear if others want to discuss the actions of nation state governments in this crisis. You yourself can delve in your tankist world of big industry lobbyists, multinational companies and proletariats. Others can debate about a world that actually does look quite similar to what it looked like in the 19th and the 20th Century with imperialism and wars between nation states.

If you aren't willing to discuss the role of Russian politics, Ukrainian politics or other European countries, then just step aside then when others do — ssu

This is a public forum. If you don't want unsolicited responses to your posts, then you're in the wrong place. Echo chambers of the type you're seeking can be created with invite-only groups on Mastodon or Discord, or similar. You can set up such a group and invite only people who agree with you. This is not such a place, this is a place where a diversity of opinions are allowed and you should expect dissent if you post here.

Oh, and... The OP

The situation in Ukraine is becoming more dire by the minute. NATO is implying Russia is planning to invade Ukraine, whereas Russia denies this. Russia claims it will not allow Ukraine to enter NATO, as this would effectively put a hostile military alliance - NATO - right at the borders of Russia.

There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies - soon after the disaster in Afghanistan. And Putin is wanting to shift attention away from pretty bad conditions in Russia do to the COVID pandemic and rising prices. — Manuel

It is you who are off topic if you want to restrict discussion to Russia. Feel free to start a thread focusing on Russia's role, but that is not the topic of this thread.

Maybe he is not lying just making false claims. Anyways, talking about OSINT, I was aware of Oliver Alexander's review of Hersh's article: https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe

Or are you referring to somebody else? — neomac

I read something else, less comprehensive. And one can find more with a quick google. For my part, I wasn't all that interested in fact-checking Hersh's story, because I didn't take it seriously in the first place. But I knew that it would make a splash, especially in far-right/left circles. I think the real story here is not in what Hersh wrote, but in how it was received.

But I take your point. We can't take it for granted that he made up all or some of the story himself. He may have just laundered the story that he was handed by his "anonymous source" without doing any of the things that are routinely done in the corrupt western mainstream media - you know, like doing his own research and fact-checking. But my guess is that he at least contributed his own embellishments.

I think the real story here is not in what Hersh wrote, but in how it was received. — SophistiCat

We agree on that much, but probably for different reasons.

Again this just promotes the unquestioned narrative that anything mainstream must be normal and anything opposing it 'extreme'. Nicely ensuring nothing ever changes, the oppressed remain oppressed, the marginalised remain marginalised, and the powerful remain in power.

Here it's media. The 'normal' corporate media just respond always in normal, harmless ways which are unworthy of comment. This despite them being the single most powerful force in influencing people's understanding of the situation.

No. The real important response, the one that it is vital we discuss, is the all important lunatic fringe. Because we all know how much power and influence a few tinfoil hat wearing rednecks have on global socioeconomic development.

Do let's spend the next eight months analysing in tremendous depth the reactions of the utterly powerless, those whose actions count for virtually nothing.

Let's just leave those corporate behemoths, big enough to dwarf most small countries, out of our analysis, they hardly matter.

I hear mouthwash gets the taste of boot polish out sufficiently.

You should understand that this thread is the general thread about the war.

So I'll rephrase my point that you understand. We others can talk about what decision the nation states are doing, you can repeat your narrative of the military-industrial complex and the proletariat. If you don't care about actors like European coiuntries or Russia's objectives in this war, let others talk about them.

If you don't care about actors like European coiuntries or Russia's objectives in this war, let others talk about them. — ssu

I'm not preventing anyone from talking about anything. I don't have the capability to censor or remove posts.

For my part, I wasn't all that interested in fact-checking Hersh's story, because I didn't take it seriously in the first place. — SophistiCat

In the examples what @neomac gave about the Bellingcat critique on Sy Hersh, I noticed the following.

Until July 26th, both Welt and Hersh have been quiet about the obvious contradictions between their claims and the OPCW FFM report. This changed when Charles Davis, editor at ATTN.com, emailed Hersh and asked him to comment on the fact the OPCW FFM report contradicted his claims published in Welt. Hersh offered no defence of his work, stating that he had “learned just to write what I know, and move on”, and recommended that Davis contact two individuals: Ted Postol, and former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter.

Small world, isn't it.

Well, I think Sy Hersh, after reporting about My Lai and Abu Grhaib, is simply a journalist whose career won't get bulldozed over if he makes contrary articles that the US government hates. Hence basically Sy is the guy to go when you have a really explosive news to publish. Yet knowing how leaky the US system is, if the issue is true, then it's going to be difficult to hide the operation for decades from historians, at least.

I assume that it will become at least something like the USS Liberty Incident if it really was a CIA operation. And if it was as Hersh says it was, it's really a panicky bad choice for Biden to make: Germany wasn't going to go for Nordstream gas anyway as there was no energy Armageddon or even one blackout in Germany this winter.