Who Blew Up Nord Stream?

As the editors of The Morning Dispatch eloquently put it, Nord Stream went boom. But ...

By , and

As the editors of The Morning Dispatch eloquently put it, Nord Stream went boom. But who’s responsible? Sarah, David, and Jonah leave no conspiracy theory unexamined. Turning to the midterms, they discuss the power of low expectations, ask when spending money stops being useful, and wonder what it takes to be a good leader (or at least a good politician) during natural disasters. Also: the trio displays heroic restraint in today’s Not Worth Your Time, as they refrain entirely from making any kind of double entendre.

Show Notes:

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By , and
Comments (85)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. A. Huff

    No evidence that the US might have sabotaged the pipeline? What about the fact that Biden said he would put an end to it if Russia invaded the Ukraine?

    Collapse
  2. JFE

    There's this: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM
    and then this, which is kind of obviously read by Biden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02DnfkitHJg
    Biden said there would be no more Nord Stream.

    Collapse
  3. Todd

    Normally I find Sarah Isgur witty, insightful, and usually correct. Today is not that day.

    On this podcast, she asks (I assume) somewhat rhetorically if congressional democrats in 2024 will refuse to certify the election results sent in by potential state SOS election deniers who are running on the GOP ticket this fall. She seems to miss the point entirely which, to her credit, is very much unusual for her. Her intellectual honesty cup runneth over but this position seemed odd.

    The point about the election deniers is that they had no PROOF. Not that they chose to, considered, or talked about refusing to certify the election. The overarching conclusion from every.single.source is that every.single.branch of government gave multiple opportunities for those claiming sufficient fraud to show their work……and they came up empty every time. Beyond the 60+ lawsuits, let’s not forget Rusty Bowers testimony where he asked Rudy twice for proof, and got nothing. Barr testifying that the DOJ was running down all kinds of allegations and finding nothing sufficient to change the outcome.

    The criticism of the GOP plan to refuse to certify election results in 2020–let’s not forget too that it involves submitting alternate slates of electors that were.not.chosen by the states—is based upon a lack of PROOF.

    So, in 2024, if the Dems have a similar absence of proof, you can complain Sarah. If, however, the SOS election deniers send results that aren’t accurate and reflect a victory by someone who didn’t win, then let’s stand on principle—and hope principle reigns. Dem or GOP.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      But that WAS my point. In my hypo, the Dems are actually correct that the election certifications are false. But a whole rhetorical world has been built in the last two years which is based on the superficial idea that challenging election results undermines democracy. When, as you point out, it’s actually more nuanced than that. It’s challenging election results when the election wasn’t stolen (which of course begs the question.) Changes to the electoral count act and simply the political environment all make my hypo difficult to deal with.

      Collapse
      1. Todd

        First, thanks for responding :) Love your show and the ones without you are less than, IMHO :)

        Second, my apologies then. I didn't get that at all from your comments. What I thought you asked was if the SOS election deniers send results, will the Dems non-certify in 24? Without anything else mentioned.

        If your question is whether the Dems--with evidence of (insert your favorite label here meaning a bait and switch) election result "misreporting"--would stand up and say "wait a minute", I'm not sure why that would be remarkable regardless of any position taken in the past. I guess a question I would have for you, if that was the intention, is what have you seen that makes you think ANY politician who had the goods on a principled issue even moderately approaching the importance of elections.........be quiet about it and let the slow pitch pass? I'm not sure I've ever seen that. In the history of politics. ever. I'm certainly not as well versed or experienced in it as you so I will defer to you.

        As far as nuanced, i'm not sure it is. Either you have the cards or you don't. Perhaps from a political frame, the word nuanced is an apt descriptor but most certainly not from the legal frame.

        I hope you keep them all honest. You are doing great so far. My fourteen-year-old always asks "who is the woman that is talking?" :)

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
          Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

          Hmmm...I guess look back at Stacey Abrams. She said the election was stolen from her a more than a dozen times. https://twitter.com/jaycaruso/status/1577637757584809989?s=12&t=_QYttSB8r4hF7r5yMUmPeA

          So if both sides cry wolf, then how does it work when there is a wolf? How will dems be able to say its different when they won't vote to certify the election? Sure, they will claim that the election really was stolen this time. But half the country isn't going to believe them. You see the problem right?

          Collapse
          1. Todd

            Undoubtedly there is a problem :). But I think I matters which stream we are referencing. For example, if the threshold is “what your opposition believes”, the hashtag #nothingwilleversatisfy comes to mind. So, I’m not sure what to do there. I have asked some more conservative folks—what would the case look like for repudiating the 2020 stolen election belief? I’ve been waiting for an answer for a year now.

            However if the threshold is “what evidence can someone produce”, I think that is far more manageable from a process and substance perspective. Will it convince all? No. Will anything? No.

            I think the only way through is to keep to principle. What should happen when one cries wolf knowing there is no wolf? That side must police it. When they do not, they abandon the ability to call out the other side. Not sides fail at it. But as the Mandalorian would say “this is the way.”

            Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Joel Alberto

    Okay, that noise before the electrical contractor commercial--that really needs to stop... badly.

    Collapse
  5. Lucyd1014@gmail.com

    Who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline? Gazprom. Follow Velina Tchakarova, expert in China-Russian relations and methods. Gazprom is now telling Germany they can only deliver gas through Nord Stream 2. The Russian goal has been to open Nord Stram 2 after it was nixed by Germany at the beginning of the conflict. Follow the money. You just have to dig a little deeper and wait for the Russian demands to emerge to figure out where the money will go.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Jason Godwin

    For picking up friends from the airport, it depends. If we are talking about a friend visiting from out of town that's here to see YOU, yes you should pick them up. But if it's a friend that already lives in town that just wants a ride to the airport, they should just Uber.

    While we are on the topic of things technology has changed: waiting in line at fast food restaurants. If your establishment doesn't have an app where I can order and do curbside and skip the line, I'm out (exception for local and small businesses that can't develop their own app).

    Collapse
  7. James Angelichio

    Interesting discussion of Nordstream. I can see a US incentive to sabotage the pipeline ( keep Europe in tow ) but I can’t see Biden giving the order (after all he approved it over GOP objections) and I can’t see a US military unit going rogue.

    I don’t see any Russian incentive other than a false flag operation. As was said, they could just turn it off and on on a whim.

    Actually, Jonah’s China theory makes as much sense as anything.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    The Meg

    I'm just here to chime in with another anecdote about the flutist/flautist divide. I also am friends with a professional flutist who is super insistent that you do not call her a "flautist", she is a "flutist", thank you very much.

    Collapse
  9. Rebecca Cardona

    Im Team Declan. This whole episode was not worth my time :(

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      Tough but fair

      Collapse
  10. Scott

    I initially emailed this to the crew, but then I thought it would be better to subscribe rather than email them. So here I am!

    TLDR: Maybe Ukraine did it so that Russia couldn't blackmail the west into supporting Russia.

    OR

    I think the possibility that Ukraine (or perhaps another country threatened by Russia, such as Poland or Finland) may have sabotaged the pipeline was insufficiently explored. I think this is plausible once 3 things are considered.

    1) Everyone has already greatly underestimated Ukraine. Perhaps it was actually feasible for them to accomplish this despite our prima facie skepticism.

    2) If the decision [sabotage] benefits Ukraine in a way that is decisive for their existence, the high risk of getting caught will always be mitigated be the said benefit because the alternative decision of [not sabotage] would be Ukraine’s fall.

    And most interestingly

    3) Maybe Ukraine (or other countries threatened by Russia) could be the only country(s) that rationally have an incentive to destroy the pipeline. Russia doesn’t really make sense. Beneficiaries like Germany doesn’t make sense. The United States doesn’t make sense. However, Ukraine (or others threatened) might have it in their interest because it undermines Russia’s ability to blackmail the west into supporting Russia. If the pipeline is already not functional, then Germany is going to be freezing in the winter regardless and so they therefore will not have any reason to stop supporting Ukraine. If Russia can stop or start fueling the pipeline, they are able to allure the West to turn support away from Ukraine. Without the ability of Russia to blackmail, continued opposition to Russia is more or less guaranteed to Ukraine and threatened countries.

    Furthermore, the wasted fuel is an economic loss and therefore weakens Russia, which is probably to the benefit of Russia's opponents.

    Collapse
Load More