2 HN users recommended this commentary2 months2022–2023score 2.5
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
HN points to it as a compact, reasoned case for Russian responsibility, though at least one commenter found the argument unconvincing.
Anders Puck Nielsen analyzes the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage using Kilcullen's theory of liminal warfare and prospect theory. He argues from the operational design that Russia is the most likely culprit, then discusses how hybrid warfare might be used against Europe.
“Anders Puck Nielsen has an under 15 minute video with a compelling explanation for why Russia is most likely to have done it” (HN, 2023)
1 strong recommendations · 2 recommendations · 1 citations · 1 critical · Commentary · news from the time
Anders Puck Nielsen has an under 15 minute video with a compelling explanation for why Russia is most likely to have done it despite the obvious downsides. Just to pick some particular details: At this particular time the primary Russian strategy was to push Europe into a cold and dark winter. Pipelines can be rebuilt and that is not especially difficult when you are making big money from extracting and distributing fossil fuels. Even if you disagree with Anders' conclusions I think the points he raises are generally quite interesting: [this video]
Compelling under-15-minute explanation of why Russia likely did it.
That cause for that event is not undisputed, see [link] . You still haven't explained why you think it's doubtful Russia would use sabotage in this way. This is what their entire modus operandi, just think of the various Polonium-210 and Novichok operations. You can't dispute that people are suspecting USA of having done it, does that not harm cohesion inside NATO? [this video]
He said at the start of that video he discussed his belief about the probability of Russia attacking was covered in this video [this video] > They want people to be panicked by their hybrid warfare Why? People were already panicking about Russia (rolling through Western Europe, using nukes, etc). The argument in the video I linked is not very convincing to me at all. Nobody was ever under any doubt that Russia could bomb some unguarded infrastructure near its border. And he just handwaves the idea that the US could have carried an operation to sabotage the pipeline as a "clandestine activity" (i.e., making it look like an accident) just by hacking it or something. It's a Hollywood analysis of "hackers". Why even fight Russia at all, why not just hack all their military, factories, refineries, communications, and power plants? It might be a fun exercise in simplistic game theory type analysis but taking that and using it to assign Russia as the most likely culprit seems like astounding hubris and naivety.
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
5 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Citations, criticism and jokes
Read more