Follow us on social

Sy Hersh: No follow-up to explosive Nord Stream story

Sy Hersh: No follow-up to explosive Nord Stream story

Update: the longtime investigative journalist says alternative theories in NYT and German press were 'concocted' by CIA.

Analysis | QiOSK

UPDATE 3/22: In a new posting on his Substack, investigative journalist Sy Hersh contends that the CIA concocted a cover story about the source of the Nord Stream pipelines in order to discredit his own reporting, which charges the Biden Administration with the dirty deed.

He writes Wednesday about the media "black out"of his reporting (which we covered here) and more:

Two weeks ago, after a visit by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to Washington, US and German intelligence agencies attempted to add to the blackout by feeding the New York Times and the German weekly Die Zeit false cover stories to counter the report that Biden and US operatives were responsible for the pipelines’ destruction...

...There have been no statements or written understandings made public since then by either government, but I was told by someone with access to diplomatic intelligence that there was a discussion of the pipeline exposé and, as a result, certain elements in the Central Intelligence Agency were asked to prepare a cover story in collaboration with German intelligence that would provide the American and German press with an alternative version for the destruction of Nord Stream 2. In the words of the intelligence community, the agency was “to pulse the system” in an effort to discount the claim that Biden had ordered the pipelines’ destruction.

Read more on his paid Substack here.


Don't expect a part-two to Sy Hersh's explosive expose in which he accuses the Biden Administration of plotting and carrying out the September 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. At least not anytime soon.

When I asked Tuesday night if he would have a follow up, the 85-year-old investigative journalist said simply, "no."

The audience at the National Press Club seemed to deflate, just a bit. He suggested it was about not further exposing his sources. "It just comes down to protecting people," he added, "that's the priority, even if it means not telling everything I know."

He seemed to tease otherwise in his post, "Crap on the Wall," on Feb. 15, in which he ruminated on the casual way the administration was dismissing his Nord Stream reporting. He concluded with this:

There may be more to learn about Joe Biden’s decision to prevent the German government from having second thoughts about the lack of cheap gas this winter.

Stay tuned. We are only on first base . . .

But the issue of his anonymous sourcing, which appears in the story as one individual, has been a point of contention since he published his 5300-word exposé on Feb. 8. He mentioned several times in his wide ranging remarks Tuesday night that he had never exposed his sources and hadn't planned to now. "I was at a restaurant the other day and someone came up to me and said, 'who were your sources?' I'm not going to say."

"Nobody is going to jail for talking to me, nobody has gone to jail for me in 50 years."

Which appears to mean that he has said all that he wants to right now on the U.S. Navy diver team that supposedly set the explosives and rigged them to go off in three places on two pipelines last September. Even when the New York Times and German press seem to be cajoling him to prove their own alternative stories wrong. Both have been pushing a loosely detailed, altogether thin theory that a group of five pro-Ukrainian rogues on a chartered yacht were responsible for the sabotage (some have suggested that a "false flag" or a cover-story is at work to deflect from Hersh's reporting, or just plainly, away from the truth).

"It's such a crazy story. It's such a bad story," he said, noting that of all the sturm und drang about his own sourcing, the NYT had based its own reporting on several unnamed U.S. intelligence officials.

"That story — I know more about that than I can say. I just can't talk about it," he told the audience. He noted a number of obvious holes and lack of detail, however, as well as the New York Times reporters' own admission that they have very little insight into what really transpired.

He did seem tempted to say more but changed the subject, something he did quite often, at one point joking that he was reticent to attend Tuesday's Committee for the Republic event (the group had given him an award just four years ago for his lifetime of investigative journalism) likely because he knew he would be pummeled with such questions. But he was nonetheless game, talking jovially for over an hour about the old days at the Times and the sycophantic Washington press corps, and then more seriously about what he called Biden's dangerous policies in Ukraine and Washington's warmongering in East Asia.

"We did stupid things then and I'm worried we are going to do something else now," he said, fast-forwarding from Vietnam to today.

"I do know that we are in a real crisis here with the leadership we have on foreign policy."


Sy Hersh (Reuters)||
Analysis | QiOSK
Elbridge Colby
Top image credit: Elbridge Colby is seen at Senate Committee on Armed Services Hearings to examine his nomination to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Dirksen Senate office building in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, March 4, 2025. (Photo by Mattie Neretin/Sipa USA).

Elbridge Colby: I won't be 'cavalier' with U.S. forces

QiOSK

In his senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Elbridge Colby, nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, stood out as one of the few people auditioning for a Pentagon job who say they may want to deploy fewer U.S. troops across the globe, not more.

“If we’re going to put American forces into action, we’re gonna have a clear goal. It’s going to have a clear exit strategy when plausible,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top image credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Ukraine aid freeze: Trump's diplomatic tightrope path to peace

Europe

Transatlanticism’s sternest critics all too often fail to reckon with the paradox that this ideology has commanded fervent devotion since the mid-20th century not because it correctly reflects the substance of U.S.-European relations or U.S. grand strategy but precisely because it exists in a permanent state of unreality.

We were told that America’s alliances have “never been stronger” even as the Ukraine war stretched them to a breaking point. Meanwhile, Europeans gladly, if not jubilantly, accepted the fact that Europe has been rendered poorer and less safe than at any time since the end of WWII as the price of “stopping Putin,” telling themselves and their American counterparts that Russia’s military or economic collapse is just around the corner if only we keep the war going for one more year, month, week, or day.

keep readingShow less
Nigerian soldier Boko Haram
Top Image Credit: A Nigerien soldier walks out of a house that residents say a Boko Haram militant had forcefully seized and occupied in Damasak March 24, 2015 (Reuters/Joe Penny)

Nigeria’s war on Boko Haram has more than a USAID problem

Africa

Insinuations by a U.S. member of Congress that American taxpayers’ money may have been used to fund terrorist groups around the world, including Boko Haram, have prompted Nigeria’s federal lawmakers to order a probe into the activities of USAID in the country’s North East.

Despite assurances by the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Richard Mills, who said in a statement that “there was no evidence that the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, was funding Boko Haram or any terrorist group in Nigeria,” Nigeria’s lawmakers appear intent on investigating.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.