Published at 08:16 on 10 March 2023
By which I mean, either the government of Ukraine, or the some of the governments of its Western allies, were involved in some fashion in blowing up the pipeline. The involvement might be as direct as agents on the staff payolls of one or more governments doing the job themselves, or as indirect as knowing about a plot by some non-government group and deciding to sit on that knowledge and let it happen. Or just about anything in between.
Firstly, this makes a lot more sense that Russia blowing up its own pipeline, a piece of infrastructure important to its largest economic sector, and part of the ties between Russia and Western Europe that complicate the ability of the latter to confront the former.
Secondly, the invasion of Ukraine provides a motive.
Thirdly, we have Seymour Hersh’s claims. Now, Hersh is not a reliable source, many of his past claims have gone nowhere, and his particular story has some major holes in it. But that merely means that if Hersh claims something, it is not necessarily true. It says nothing about it being definitively false. And in fact, some of Hersh’s previous claims have turned out to be true. When Hersh’s claims came out, my reaction was not to believe them, but not to completely disbelieve them either, and to be alert for future evidence that might corroborate or refute them.
Fourthly, such evidence is now starting to emerge. Now, the story in the Post is still just someone speaking off the record, but the fact the Post thought it newsworthy indicates it comes from a reliable source in a position to know. This is especially the case given how the existence of this story conflicts with the Post’s (and my own) bias in favour of the Ukranian side in this conflict.
The takeaway is still rather vague, however. Revisit the leading paragraph: it simply means that Ukraine or some of its Western allies were involved in some way. It says nothing about the details of the involvement. As reliable as the Post judged their source, there is no way to know how much of the details that source accurately knows. Secrets within government organizations are shared on a strictly need to know basis, and if this source did not need to know many details, he could be in the dark (or even have been fed misinformation) about them.
More details, however, are likely to continue leaking out. This is how actual government conspiracies work: they don’t stay secret for long. The world that conspiracy kooks live in, where all-powerful governments prevent all leaks of consequence, the kook and his friends somehow know it all, and those all-powerful governments at the same time sit on their hands and do nothing to stop the kooks from running their mouths off, simply does not exist.
And the reaction of Ukraine and its supporters to this newfound knowledge also fits the pattern perfectly. Note that the truth is leaking out. Note also how it is rapidly getting buried by other stories. It is not considered important enough to be given feature coverage. (If equivalent evidence in favour of Russia being behind it all had come out, you had better believe we would all be hearing about it nonstop.) This is the way bias works in our media.
None of this means that Russia is in the right and Ukraine deserved to get invaded. The world is not composed solely of angels and devils; a refutation of Ukraine’s angel status does not prove it a devil. The world is a messy place where all actors are a mix of good and evil in various degrees. (If you think Russia does not support terrorism, think again.)
It is still far better for the world if Russia loses this war. As such, I still support helping Ukraine so as to maximize the chance of Russia losing. I would have rather have Russia lose to a Ukraine that does not back ecologically-destructive acts of terrorism than to have it lose to one that does, but I would also rather have Russia lose than win.
