Talk:Nord Stream pipelines sabotage

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
[edit]

There is a link to Andromeda, but the article is not about the much smaller yacht used in the attack. It is about a completely different ship.87.143.146.221 (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Guiy de Montfort: Especially when modifying high-importance articles, try to exercise some modicum of caution, so as to avoid introducing incorrect and misleading information. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add reference

[edit]

Please add the following reference when citing Domjahn: https://sprengtechnik.de/sprengung-nordstream/ DaDoKa (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaDoKa: Thanks for the link! It's a WP:BLOG though, so we should be careful. And in the spirit of WP:COI, you should probably disclose that you are David Domjahn, the author of the blog.
But more importantly: In the blog comments, you provide details of your calculations regarding the amount of energy released when the high-pressure pipelines exploded. I'm pretty sure the calculations are off by a factor of about 20, and I think this undermines your claim that the explosions couldn't have been caused by shaped charges. See my comments on your blog. I'm looking forward to clearing this up!
Chrisahn (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden quote was removed

[edit]

This wiki page is clearly biased and is being manipulated.

On Feb 7 2022, President Joe Biden told reporters the following: “If Russia invades [Ukraine], there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it”.

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/video-biden-saying-end-nord-stream-resurfaces-after-pipeline-leak-1747005 Observer157 (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say except WP:CIR. You should be more careful before you embarrass yourself using words like "manipulated". — Chrisahn (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's right there in the background section. Alaexis¿question? 12:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2025

[edit]

Change "two-year-day" to "second anniversary"

This error is located in the Timeline section, under Involvement of the United States. 4th paragraph, second line. I believe this is a literal from Danish. It does not read well and is confusing for English speakers. Thank you WikiEnjoyer356 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Skynxnex (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politiken and Weltwoche

[edit]

@KurtR, @Gotitbro, please avoid edit warring, it doesn't help and can lead to sanctions.

One thing I couldn't understand is whether Politiken is the source of all the added content or whether Weltwoche did some original reporting too. The Politiken article is paywalled and I can't access it.

I'm asking because if the source is Politiken then the reliability of Weltwoche is irrelevant. We shouldn't even mention it in the article, we should just attribute everything to the original source. Alaexis¿question? 08:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis: I was going to take this to RSN but since the discussion has been started here let us continue.
I should note however that the original dispute was between Kurt and Shtove. I only made a recent revert based on the fact that even Politiken was being blanked as well.
I can confirm that this part of the content was reported by Politiken:

an interview given to Danish Politiken by the Christiansø port harbourmaster on the second anniversary of the Nord Stream pipelines sabotage. ... he had sailed out to a fleet of US Navy ships sighted with inactive transponders near the position of the sabotage a few days before the sabotage happened and that the US fleet had requested him to turn around.

Gotitbro (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This part is actually from Søren Thiim Andersen, Christianso's administrator, and not from the harbourmaster (was reported neither by Weltwoche nor Politiken):

While the Danish harbourmaster dismissed the many sabotage accusations as conspiracy theories

I quote from Politiken:

>>Du drømmer ikke om, hvilke konspirationsteorier jeg er blevet præsenteret for; at det var russere, amerikanere, kinesere, ukrainere eller andre interessenter, der stod bag Nord Stream-sabotagen. Jeg er blevet forevist billedmateriale af mulige gerningsmænd, så da 'Andromeda' lagde til her på Christiansø, tænkte jeg, at nu bliver det da helt crazy, forklarer Søren Thiim Andersen.

Gotitbro (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotitbro: You are above misrepresenting the interview to Politiken, instead of quoting the interview to Politiken you have simply quoted Weltwoche's hearsay. Only your second quote is from Politiken, where Søren Thiim Andersen says nothing about US navy ships without transponders. So please take a step back and reconsider your position. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis: et al: The only thing Søren Thiim Andersen is quoted for in Politiken (other than statements related to Andromeda) is (in my direct translation to English): "You cannot imagine, what conspiracy theories I have been presented for; that it was Russians, Americans, Chinese, Ukrainians or other interested parties, who were behind the Nord Stream sabotage". So if Weltwoche is deemed unreliable, then the whole paragraph lacks a WP:RS. Lklundin (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lklundin: The harbourmaster is actually John Anker Nielsen who is the one saying he encountereed USN ships. Andersen, the head of Christianso is only interviewed in the beginning of the article, the rest of it concerns Nielsen.
I quote Polititken in full:

i dag kan havnefogeden John Anker Nielsen godt afsløre, at han en fire-fem dage før Nord Stream-sprængningerne var ude med redningstjenesten på Christiansø, fordi der lå nogle skibe med slukkede radioer. Det viste sig at være amerikanske flådefartøjer, og da redningstjenesten nærmede sig, fik de besked af Søværnskommandoen om at vende om igen. Derfor tror havnefogeden lidt på teorien, som blandt andre den amerikanske stjernejournalist Seymour Hersh har fremført, dog uden nogen former for dokumentation: At USA stod bag sabotagen. Amerikanerne har sådan nogle små ubemandede ubåde, der kan løse alle opgaver, har John Anker Nielsen ladet sig fortælle. Havnefogedens familie har boet på Christiansø i syv generationer, og han kender alt til vejr- og vindforholdene i Østersøen. På den baggrund giver han ikke meget for teorien om en yacht og nogle ukrainere, der dykker ned til 80 meters dybde.

Gotitbro (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lklundin: There also seems to be some misunderstanding about "misrepresenting". Just to be clear the content I initially quoted was the one we have in the article right now from Weltwoche (I did not add it). I am only verifying what waw actually reported by Politiken (beyond Weltwoche) so we can whittle down the actual stuff and cite it directly (per Alaexis).
Note: Weltwoche is not non-RS. But I understand the concerns. Hence, the effort here. Gotitbro (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Andromeda stuff is not attributed to Andersen:

Siden slutningen af 2022 har ’Andromeda’ været de tyske myndigheders bedste bud på, hvorfra sabotageaktionen mod gasrørene Nord Stream 1 og 2 udgik for præcis to år siden. For nylig blev der udstedt en arrestordre mod en 44-årig ukrainsk dykker, der angiveligt var med på sejlskibet, da det lagde vejen forbi Christiansø i dagene omkring gerningstidspunkterne. Sidste sommer viste besætningen sig imidlertid ikke at være frømænd, men tyske journalister fra tv-kanalen ZDF, der havde lejet selvsamme ’Andromeda’ for at rekonstruere bådens sejlrute mellem 6. og 23. september 2022 fra de tyske havne i Rostock og Wiek, til Christiansø, videre til svenske Sandhamn, Kolobrzeg i Polen og tilbage til Tyskland.

Gotitbro (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro: Thanks. Maybe we can come up with something, that does not quote Weltwoche. Since the Politiken article is paywalled and to help ensure a proper translation (with the help of all interested Wikipedians) with the whole context, do you agree that this is what Politiken writes (including what you already quoted):

»I de første par dage måtte havnefogeden efter eget udsagn »ikke sige noget«. Men i dag kan John Anker Nielsen afsløre, at han fire-fem dage før Nord Stream-sprængningerne var ude med redningstjenesten på Christiansø, fordi der var nogle skibe med slukkede radioer. Det viste sig at være amerikanske flådefartøjer, og da redningstjenesten nærmede sig, fik de besked fra Søværnets Operative Kommando om at vende om. »Derfor tror havnefogeden på den teori, som bl.a. den amerikanske stjernejournalist Seymour Hersh har fremsat uden nogen form for dokumentation: at USA stod bag sabotagen. Amerikanerne har de her små ubemandede ubåde, som kan løse enhver opgave, har John Anker Nielsen fået at vide. »Havnefogedens familie har boet på Christiansø i syv generationer, og han kender alt til vejr- og vindforholdene i Østersøen. På den baggrund giver han ikke meget for teorien om en yacht og nogle ukrainere, der dykker ned til 80 meters dybde.”

 ? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lklundin: The stuff from "Seymour Hersh skrev ... teorien om den private ukrainske yacht." is not reported by Politiken. The rest, above it, appears exactly like that. Gotitbro (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro: Thanks, I have shortened my above quote, to match yours. Lklundin (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing quotes. I've amended the article, please take a look at it. Alaexis¿question? 11:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is no good, please take a look at my below attempt at translation. Lklundin (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my attempt at translating the above quote from Politiken:
During the first couple of days the harbourmaster was in his own words not allowed to say anything. But today John Anker Nielsen can reveal that he four-five days before the Nord Stream explosions went out with the Christiansø rescue service, because there were some ships with turned off radios. It turned out to be American naval vessels and when the rescue service approached, they were instructed by Søværnets Operative Kommando to turn around. Therefore the harbourmaster believes the theory, which among others the American star journalist Seymour Hersh has put forward with no documentation: that the USA was behind the sabotage. The Americans have these small, unmanned submarines, which can solve any task, is what John Anker Nielsen has been told. The harbourmasters family has lived on Christiansø for seven generations, and he knows everything about the weather and wind conditions in the Baltic Sea. On that background he does not give much for the theory about a yacht and some Ukrainians, that dive down to 80 meters depth.
PS. I on purpose did not translate the Danish naval command, Søværnets Operative Kommando. The reason is that most translations of this passage interpret the text to mean that the harbourmaster communicated with the silenced ships. But rather, he was instructed by Danish authorities to turn back. Lklundin (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This interview raises some questions. The harbourmaster does not actually say that he communicated with the silenced ships. How close did he get before the Danish naval command ordered him to turn around? When he says, the ships turned out to be American naval ships, when and how did he realize this? Is his interview - given two years after the event - influenced by what he has read from Seymour Hersh? The fact that his family has lived for seven generations on the island and that he knows about the wind and weather, does that make him able to determine the nationality of naval ships (under EMCON) ? Lklundin (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is one more thing I do not understand. The AIS-transponder activity in the area and at the time has been under intense scrutiny by journalists and OSINT-researchers. That's how it was found out that a Danish naval vessel was shadowing a group of six Russian naval vessels (under EMCON). A Swedish naval ship and a Swedish air force surveillance aircraft was also found to be present in the area at the time. So it is curious that no one has noticed the AIS-responder from the Danish rescue ship from Christiansø. Lklundin (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speculating on how the harbourmaster came to know/knew at all they were USN ships, unless supported by RS, is OR and we should leave it at that.
Similarly, no reliance on OSINT people should be made unless supported by RS. But I would note that the AIS of this and others has been noticed by some of these ([1]). But, again, this is outside our scope as editors. Gotitbro (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USS Kearsage

[edit]

So do I understand correctly that the second part of the passage in question (starting from The Swiss newspaper went on to note that the USS Kearsarge) comes originally from Weltwoche? Alaexis¿question? 11:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In fact, the article as it currently stands misrepresents the information related to the US navy in relation to the sabotage. Lklundin (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't really be a bother to me if Weltwoche content is removed but what exactly does it misrepresent? Gotitbro (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the actual text from Politiken, I have rewritten that part of the article. That the harbourmaster believes in Hersh's controversial theory is not relevant (he is no authority on that topic), so there is not so much from him to quote. In fact, given that the interview was given two years after the fact and given that the harbourmaster is influenced by Hersh's undocumented and discredited theory and that we don't know how and from when on the harbourmaster knew that the ships were American, I would be inclined to drop the whole paragraph as undue. Lklundin (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already don't include Nielsen's beliefs in the article and needn't delve into it further here. But a wholescale removal of his comments about USN ships is something we should not be doing. If he is misstating/misremebering etc. then RS challenging it should be brought forth and inserted after it. Blanking investigative reports by high-quality RS, based on our convictions, is not how we should go about this. Gotitbro (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. We had an edit conflict here, so my below comment came in a bit late. But as I argue below, it really makes no sense to accept the connection that Weltwoche makes between what the harbourmaster said he saw and to USS Kearsarge (LHD-3), so I removed that part. Lklundin (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken a moment to actually read about USS Kearsarge (LHD-3), it becomes clear that this ship is made for launching hovercraft and conventional, amphibious Landing craft mechanized for naval infantry that is going ashore where no harbour exists. The ship has self-evidently no capabilities relevant to placing hundreds of kilograms of explosives accurately at 80 meter depth. Also, having a 1200+ crew and 1600+ marines on board makes it utterly unsuitable for inconspicuously performing a clandestine military operation against a target in the EEZ of an allied nation. As such I am separating the frankly lame attempt from Weltwoche to create a connection between whatever it was that the Danish harbourmaster said he had seen two years ago and the USS Kearsarge, leaving Weltwoche's speculation to stand on it own. Lklundin (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weltwoche appears to have built up its own speculations based on Hersh's account. Hersh has always been a controversialist with his anon sources and reporting but I really wouldn't call Seymour Hersh#Nord Stream pipeline and Ukraine discredited. Flaws have been shown by OSINT researchers from his original article but the major allegation that the US was involved is not something OSINT is capable of either proving or disproving. Though Hersh's reporting was still the first to put a serious dent into the theory that Russia was involved, despite concerns of it during the larger 2022–2023 Russia–European Union gas dispute, national investigations now point directly point towards Ukrainian involvement and US involvement remains open to questions. Gotitbro (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro: First, I would like to thank you for insisting on and helping to clear up our reporting on the harbourmaster statements. It is really quite a different matter that he was instructed to head back by the Danish naval command and not as incorrectly reported by international media (and consequently here) by a US naval officer (strengthening therefore the impression that the US navy was present in the Danish waters). Lklundin (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seymour Hersh's single, anonymous source for the claim that the US Navy sabotaged Nord Stream is in all likelihood a Russian posing as a US intelligence officer. This is (unwillingly) revealed by Hersh himself, who along with the Nord Stream claim quotes his source for a description of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a "poor waif in his underwear". Until Hersh wrote this, the Internet had never before seen that phrase - which turned out to be a direct translation of a Russian idiom. See also Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous_sources. Lklundin (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that is true or perhaps the source themselves picked it up from Russian speakers. I doubt Hersh would've put out a giant allegation like this without his own due diligence, on the person being cited for it. The source could be biased themselves but that is quite a different issue than them being a literal Russian spy. Gotitbro (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the article as it is now is alright. If other RS express their opinions on this we'll add it to the article as well. Alaexis¿question? 17:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good, glad we got to collaboratively resolve this. Gotitbro (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]