Published: April 2024 (upd.)
Who really destroyed the Nord Stream gas pipelines?
∗∗∗
Contents: Pipeline ownership / Date and time / Locations / Bomb sizes / Mystery ships / Seymour Hersh / Official investigations / Possible motives / Conclusions
∗∗∗
Pipeline ownership and capacity
The two Nord Stream gas pipelines, Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, are often described as “Russian pipelines” or “Russian-German pipelines”, but the real ownership structure is more complex.
Nord Stream 1 is owned by Russia’s Gazprom (51%), German energy companies Wintershall Dea and Eon (15.5% each), as well as France’s Engie and Dutch Gasunie (9% each). Nord Stream 2 was financed by Russia’s Gazprom (50%), British Shell, Austria’s OMV, France’s Engie, and Germany’s Uniper and Wintershall Dea (10% each).
Thus, the Nord Stream attacks were an attack on property owned by one Russian and seven European companies, including six companies based in four different Nato countries.
Nord Stream 1 was in service since 2011. Despite US sanctions and political pressure (discussed below), Nord Stream 2 was completed in late 2021, but Germany suspended its certification on 22 February 2022, in direct response to Russia’s recognition of the Donbas republics and two days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.
In terms of supply capacity, the two Nord Stream pipelines had a combined capacity of 110 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas per year, which was about 25% of the total EU gas demand (400 bcm). In terms of electric energy, 110 bcm per year is equivalent to more than 60 one-gigawatt nuclear power plants, but natural gas is also used for heating purposes and as an important base material in the chemical industry.
Contrary to widespread Western media reports, Russia never voluntarily shut down any of its gas pipelines to Europe (see map below). Instead, the Jamal pipeline was closed in May 2022 by Poland; the Soyuz pipeline was closed in May 2022 by Ukraine; and the Nord Stream 1 pipeline had to be closed by Russia on 31 August 2022 because Western sanctions prevented the maintenance and return of several Siemens gas compressor turbines.
Nevertheless, in 2024 Russia still delivers gas to Europe via the Brotherhood pipeline through Ukraine, via the TurkStream pipeline through Turkey, and via LNG shipments. In addition, Russia continues to deliver oil via the Druzhba pipeline and via third countries like India.
Image: Russian gas pipelines to Europe (EnergyPost, 2018)
Date and time of the explosions
Both the date and the time of the explosions exhibit a rather peculiar pattern that has not been explained or even acknowledged by most current theories.
The explosions occurred on 26 September 2022. This was about a month after Gazprom had to close the Nord Stream 1 pipeline due to Western sanctions. Thus, by the time of the explosions neither of the Nord Stream pipelines were in service but both were filled with gas. Because of this, the explosions caused enormous gas leaks but no additional supply shortage.
Even more intriguingly, the explosions occurred just one day before the opening, on September 27, of the Baltic Pipe gas pipeline that runs from Norway via Denmark to Poland.
The Norwegian energy minister described the new pipeline as “an important step on the important road to Europe’s independence from Russian energy”. The Polish PM stated that “the era of Russian domination in the field of gas is coming to an end”, and the Danish PM noted that “we must do everything we can to eliminate energy as an instrument of Russian power.”
It has also been noted that September 26 happens to be the birthday of former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko (2014 to 2019).
Thus, in retrospect, the date of the Nord Stream pipeline explosions appears to be rather symbolic, but it may still have been an unplanned coincidence (see discussion below).
The timing of the explosions, too, exhibits an interesting pattern (see map below). The first blast, in line A of Nord Stream 2, occurred at 02:03 in the morning. The second and third blasts, in lines A and B of Nord Stream 1, occurred 17 hours later, at 19:03 in the evening (and at a very different location, as will be discussed in the next section).
Three days after these three blasts, on September 29, an additional leak was found in the already destroyed line A of Nord Stream 2, about 1.4 kilometers away from one of the blasts in Nord Stream 1. At first it was suspected that this leak may have been caused not by an additional bomb but by the blast wave of the nearby Nord Stream 1 explosion.
However, independent Swedish researcher Erik Andersson, who investigated all blast sites with an underwater drone, concluded that a bomb was in fact placed next to a seam between two pipeline segments. The explosion did not cause a registered seismic signal because the line was already depressurized due to the explosion that had taken place in the morning.
The fact that there was a 17-hour delay between the explosions at Nord Stream 1 and 2 remains unexplained but has given rise to several hypotheses that will be discussed below. The fact that the initial Nord Stream 2 explosion and the leak discovered three days later both affected line A meant that line B of Nord Stream 2 remained undamaged. Whether this was by design or by accident remains unclear, too (see discussion below).
Russia offered to start gas deliveries through the undamaged line of Nord Stream 2 and to repair the damaged lines of Nord Stream 1 and 2, using spare pipe segments stored in Germany, but Germany and other Western countries did not express any interest in these offers. Moreover, Russia was excluded from the official investigation of the explosions.
Image: Timing and location of the Nord Stream leaks (WP)
Locations
In addition to the date and time of the explosions, the exact locations of the explosions also exhibit an intriguing pattern that remains unexplained by most current theories.
The first Nord Stream 2 explosion (morning) occurred about 25 kilometers southeast of Danish island Bornholm, while the two Nord Stream 1 explosions (evening) and the nearby second Nord Stream 2 explosion occurred about 60 kilometers northeast of Bornholm (see map above).
The two Nord Stream 1 explosions occurred within 15 seconds of each other, but about 6 km apart: one blast occurred in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Denmark while the other occurred in the EEZ of Sweden. Thus, the explosion sites happened to be located right next to the boundary between the EEZs of Denmark and Sweden (see map above).
Moreover, Danish pro-Nato open-source investigator Oliver Alexander (likely a pseudonym or an avatar) noted that the Nord Stream 1 explosions occurred inside the EEZs of Denmark and Sweden, but just outside the detection range of their coastal radar systems. In contrast, the first Nord Stream 2 explosion, 80 km to the south, occurred well within the range of Danish coastal radar systems located on Bornholm island (see image below).
Oliver Alexander also noted that the first Nord Stream 2 explosion occurred right next to the location where the construction of the pipeline had been interrupted for over a year due to US sanctions: the Swiss-owned Allseas Solitaire pipe-laying ship left off in December 2019 and the Russian-owned Akademik Cherskiy pipe-laying ship picked up in April 2021.
According to a press report from June 2021, the Russian ship had significant technical difficulties continuing the work and even had to “go back, lift the pipe already laid on a section of several kilometers, cut it into metal [segments?] and re-lay it, because inconsistencies with the requirements for tightness of the joints were found.”
Furthermore, Alexander noted that at this site south of Bornholm, no explosive residues were officially confirmed and the rupture looked cleaner than at the Nord Stream 1 explosion sites.
Taken together, these observations gave rise to the hypothesis of an accidental rupture due to a technical failure at the first Nord Stream 2 rupture site. In this case, the perpetrators may have decided to detonate the bombs planted 80 km to the north just twelve hours later in order to avoid detection during subsequent pipeline inspections.
If so, they may have decided to detonate only three bombs to make it look like a single four-bomb operation, but chose the wrong (already destroyed) line of Nord Stream 2. In this scenario, the fact that the explosions occurred on the eve of the opening of the Baltic Pipe was a coincidence.
In contrast, if the first explosion was caused by a bomb, the perpetrators may have targeted this location to make it look like an accident or to send a specific political message. Alternatively, the bombs at the two blast sites may have been planted by different (sub-)teams, or the southern bomb may have been planted first but the location was found to be unsuitable.
If the first explosion was caused by a bomb, the second Nord Stream 2 bomb 80 km to the north may have been placed on the wrong line. Swedish investigator Erik Andersson noted that there is a magnetic anomaly near the second Nord Stream 2 blast site that causes a 180-degree compass error, which might explain the mistake as the two lines are only 50 meters apart. Alternatively, it is possible that more bombs were planted but failed to explode (see discussion below).
All of the explosions occurred outside of the territorial waters of Denmark and Sweden as the pipelines had to bypass territorial waters for political reasons. Thus, neither Denmark nor Sweden had the jurisdiction to investigate the explosions (see discussion below).
In terms of sea depth, the explosions took place at two opposing ends of the Bornholm Basin at a depth of close to 80 meters. Contrary to some media reports, these were not the deepest locations of the Nord Stream pipelines: with the exception of coastal areas and a 50 meter deep section between the Gotland Basin and the Bornholm Basin, the pipelines run at a depth of 80 to 110 meters.
There is general agreement among diving experts that a depth of 80 meters can easily be reached not only by submarines but also by advanced technical divers. French Navy divers previously performed pipeline connection exercises at a depth of 534 meters and a US Navy diver reached a depth of 610 meters in an atmospheric diving suit (ADS).
Images: Pipeline blast sites, radar ranges, sea depth (Sources: OA and SPR)
Bomb sizes
Concerning the bomb sizes and types, three main theories have been proposed.
Initially, there were claims that the Nord Stream blasts must have been caused by hundreds of kilograms of explosives or even by nuclear devices. This theory was based both on the massive damage caused at the explosion sites and the seismic signals registered by Danish and Swedish geological sensors. Bombs of several hundred kilograms could only have been transported by submarines, not by individual technical divers.
However, it soon became clear that the massive damage and the seismic signals were caused not by the initial explosions themselves, but by the subsequent and sudden release of highly pressurized gas contained in the pipelines. This is also why the second Nord Stream 2 explosion, which was discovered only three days later, didn’t cause much damage or a measurable seismic signal, as the pipeline was already depressurized.
Based on this knowledge, some analysts suggested that shaped cutting charges may have been applied to the pipelines. Such charges would have weighed only about 10 kilograms and could easily have been transported and applied by technical divers.
In May 2023, an independent team led by a Swedish engineer Erik Andersson investigated all four Nord Stream blast sites with an underwater drone. Based on the inspection of the second Nord Stream 2 blast site – which suffered the least damage as the pipeline was already depressurized – it was concluded that neither a massive bulk charge nor a shaped cutting charge was used, but instead a medium-sized bulk charge of about 40 kg of HMX (Octogen) that was placed beneath each pipeline (see figure below).
Such a medium-sized bulk charge could have been installed by technical divers starting from the sea surface or, alternatively, by a submarine or mini-submarine.
Image: Position of explosive charge next to pipelines (Grayzone)
Mystery ships
Several mysterious ships possibly linked to the Nord Stream explosions have been identified by open-source investigators, media outlets, and intelligence agencies.
1) The Greek Minerva Julie tanker
In February 2023, Oliver Alexander noticed that in early September 2022, the Greek-flagged oil tanker Minerva Julie, operated by Greek Minerva Marine Inc., circled for one entire week at the exact location of the later Nord Stream 1 explosions (see map below).
The Minerva Julie tanker started in Rotterdam on September 1, one day after Russia had to stop operation of Nord Stream 1 due to Western sanctions. The tanker paused and circled at the location of the later Nord Stream 1 explosions between September 6 and September 13, arrived at Tallinn in Estonia on September 14 for a crew change, and continued to Saint Petersburg in Russia, where it arrived on September 18 and stayed until September 20.
In response to media requests, the Greek owner of the tanker stated that the vessel had stopped for one week “while awaiting her next voyage instructions”. However, neither the Minerva Julie tanker nor any other ship had circled at this location in recent years. It remains unknown who exactly instructed the Greek tanker to assume its holding position.
Some investigators argued the Minerva tanker may have been linked to Russia since it was carrying Russian oil and its final destination was Saint Petersburg, but its owner, crew, starting location and first destination were all located in Nato countries.
Moreover, Oliver Alexander found that during the same week when the Greek Minerva Julie tanker was circling over the later Nord Stream 1 explosion sites, two German Navy ships and the USS Kearsage amphibious assault ship arrived at a location 20 km to the south and stayed there until September 14. The Danish investigator suspects that the Greek tanker may have been used as cover for a submarine operating beneath it.
Figures: Minerva Julie route and holding pattern in September 2022 (BI and OA)
2) The German Andromeda yacht
On 7 March 2023, US media reported that according to unnamed “US intelligence officials”, a “pro-Ukrainian group” had destroyed the pipelines. On the same day, German media reported that German investigators had identified a small yacht named Andromeda that was chartered in early September 2022 by a “Polish company owned by two Ukrainians”. The yacht was reportedly used by a group of six Ukrainians to plant the bombs.
Additional reports revealed that the 15-meter-long German Andromeda yacht was rented on September 6 by Poland-based Ukrainians using forged passports. The Ukrainian crew visited a German and a Danish island as well as a Polish harbor before returning to Germany on September 23, 3 days before the Nord Stream explosions. Later, German investigators reportedly found traces of HMX/Octogen explosive material in the yacht.
While the Andromeda yacht trip did indeed take place, many experts have doubted that the Nord Stream sabotage could have been performed by such a crew based on a small yacht. Instead, the yacht may have played an auxiliary role or it may have served as a cover story. However, some technical diving experts believe the operation might have been feasible.
In April 2024, Russian political figures published a report according to which the yacht trip was a “cover operation” to “divert any suspicions from the United States and NATO member countries”. According to the report, the Ukrainian crew was under the control of Ukrainian military intelligence and received organizational and technical assistance by American specialists under the supervision of the Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Kyiv. The crew reportedly received training in Ukraine and Romania and was then sent to Poland.
The Nord Stream explosions occurred four days after Russian security service FSB claimed to have thwarted a Ukrainian sabotage operation against the TurkStream pipeline that runs through the Black Sea, although it wasn’t clear if the Ukrainian sabotage operation, if real, targeted onshore or offshore facilities of the pipeline.
Figure: German yacht, Polish office, Ukrainian soldiers
3) Russian military ships
Already in November 2022, private American satellite data monitoring firm SpaceKnow reported that it found two large “dark ships” (without an AIS identification signal) that a few days before the explosions had been near the second blast site northeast of Bornholm.
In March 2023, a German media outlet received a tip-off from unnamed “intelligence sources” to look into the movements of six specific Russian Navy ships. Together with Danish open-source analyst Oliver Alexander, the media outlet found that these ships did in fact leave the Russian port of Baltiysk near Kaliningrad in the early hours of 21 September 2022 and appeared to head towards the later Nord Stream blast site.
These six Russian ships included the SS-750 rescue ship that features an AS-26 mini-submarine used for seafloor rescue operations; two rescue tugs that feature powerful cargo derricks; one intelligence ship and two additional military ships. The lengths of the SS-750 rescue ship and one of the military ships match the two “dark ships” previously identified by SpaceKnow.
While the Russian ships were near the later blast sites on September 22, they were approached by Danish and Swedish patrol boats. In April 2023, the Danish Defense Command confirmed that they took photographs of the Russian ships, including the SS-750 rescue ship, though declined to release them due to their “intelligence value”.
Interestingly, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a statement denied that the SS-750 rescue ship was at the later Nord Stream blast site, arguing that the simultaneous Russian naval exercises only took place in the Eastern Baltic Sea. However, it was never claimed that the SS-750 participated in these exercises. Thus, the Russian denial is not convincing.
Oliver Alexander concluded that the presence of the Russian ships near the later Nord Stream blast site is evidence of their involvement in the sabotage, but it is doubtful anyone would have planted the bombs in such an obvious way just four days before the explosions.
Instead, the Russian military might have been there to investigate the site and try to locate bombs it believed were planted by others. For instance, Dutch intelligence claimed to have intercepted Russian messages about Ukrainian divers who were planning to target the Nord Stream pipelines.
Finally, Oliver Alexander noted that on the day the Russian ships appear to have arrived at the later Nord Stream blast site, several US warships, including the USS Kearsage, left the Baltic Sea, while Poland and some other Nato countries launched their own naval exercises.
Figure: The Russian SS-750 rescue ship equipped with a mini-submarine (AB) and the remarkable route of a Swedish patrol boat between September 22 and 24, 2022 (SN)
The Seymour Hersh theory
On 8 February 2023, US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published an article on Substack proposing that the US CIA and the Norwegian Navy had destroyed the pipelines. According to Hersh, the operation was already planned in December 2021 – two months before the Russian invasion of Ukraine – and the explosives were planted during the Nato BALTOPS military exercise in June 2022.
It should be noted that Hersh wasn’t the first to propose such a scenario. Immediately after the Nord Stream explosions, several independent analysts pointed to the preceding Nato BALTOPS exercise as a possible cover for a Nato sabotage operation.
The first to propose a theory directly related to Hersh’s theory was mysterious former Florida policeman John Marc Dougan, who in 2016 fled to Russia to avoid arrest by the FBI and later claimed he had received Clinton emails by slain DNC employee Seth Rich.
On 4 October 2022, Dougan stated in a video that he had received an email from an anonymous whistleblower who had participated in the BALTOPS exercise. According to the email, the whistleblower observed a team of non-military US divers who arrived by helicopter and who were equipped with secret and highly advanced American “MK29 deep diving systems”.
The mysterious divers then reportedly went to an area unrelated to the BALTOPS exercise, disappeared for six hours, returned and quickly left by helicopter. The supposed whistleblower even provided some photographs, but Dougan apparently never released them.
Four months later, Seymour Hersh published his own Nord Stream story. Hersh, too, relied on one or more anonymous sources and didn’t provide any verifiable evidence backing his assertions. In fact, it looks like Hersh himself didn’t have access to any such evidence, either, and simply relied on what his source or sources told him.
In contrast, most of Hersh’s previous revelations were backed by witnesses, documents, or photographs. Examples include the American My Lai massacre in Vietnam (exposed in 1969); CIA Operation CHAOS (1974); another CIA operation to arm and train international terrorist groups in Libya (1981); the exposure of British media mogul Robert Maxwell as a Mossad operative (1991); and the exposure of widespread torture and abuse in the US-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (2004).
Moreover, within days most aspects of Hersh’s story were invalidated by open-source investigators, including, once again, Danish pro-Nato analyst “Oliver Alexander”. For instance, the US ship that Hersh stated had been involved in the operation did not even take part in the BALTOPS exercise; similar ships did take part in the exercise but were nowhere near the pipelines.
Also, Hersh stated that the explosions were triggered via a “sonar buoy” deployed by a “P8 surveillance plane of the Norwegian Navy”, but the Norwegian Navy doesn’t own such a plane. The Norwegian Air Force received such planes, but they were not yet in service in June 2022; they were tested during training flights, but nowhere near the pipelines.
Next, Hersh claimed Norway participated in the operation because the destruction of the Russian pipelines would allow it to “sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe”, but Norwegian gas supply capacities are limited and haven’t increased since the explosions. The main economic beneficiaries instead are the United States and some other LNG-exporting countries.
Finally, Hersh’s account doesn’t explain the peculiar locations and timing of the blasts. Hersh suggested that two bombs were applied to each of the four Nord Stream lines, but that only six bombs exploded while the other two bombs were removed by US divers shortly after September 26. In contrast, the available evidence suggests that only one bomb was planted per blast site.
As Swedish engineer Erik Andersson pointed out, Hersh’s theory or elements thereof could still be correct if some of the open-source data was manipulated by the United States (e.g. the ship or plane identification signals), which is certainly possible. However, it remains unclear how a high-placed whistleblower could have exposed the entire top-secret plot without being identified himself.
Even if Hersh’s theory is incorrect and was fed to him as a deliberate misdirection by US operatives, this still doesn’t exclude a direct or indirect US role in the Nord Stream sabotage. Nevertheless, readers should not simply “trust Hersh” (or anybody) without any verifiable evidence.
Some analysts pointed out that both before and after the explosions, several US Navy P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol airplanes from Sicily and Iceland were flying near the Nord Stream blast sites. Moreover, US warships were among the first to visit and “inspect” the blast sites.
If the bombs were planted during the BALTOPS exercise in June, this would have been over two months before Russia had to close the Nord Stream 1 pipeline in late August and three months before the explosions. In contrast, if the bombs were planted in September, this would have been after the closure of Nord Stream 1 and mere days before the explosions.
In a February 2024 interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines was a CIA operation “for sure”, but neither he nor any other Russian official provided any evidence supporting this claim.
Update: On 29 October 2022, the Russian Ministry of Defense released a statement in which it claimed that “experts from the UK Royal Navy” were involved in a recent Ukrainian drone attack on the Russian Black Sea fleet and in “planning, supporting, and executing” the Nord Stream sabotage.
The Russian Ministry of Defense didn’t provide any evidence and hasn’t repeated this accusation since. However, three weeks earlier, leaked documents showed that Britain was likely involved in the planning of the Ukrainian attack on the Russian Crimea bridge on 8 October 2022.
Figure: A US Navy P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol plane (EA)
Official investigations
In late September 2022, Danish and Swedish security services started investigations into the Nord Stream explosions. In February 2024, both countries closed their investigations without tangible results and without opening a criminal case due to a lack of jurisdiction.
Although the explosions occurred within the Danish and Swedish Exclusive Economic Zones, they occurred outside of their territorial waters and didn’t affect their infrastructure or citizens. Thus, it has always been clear that Denmark and Sweden had no jurisdiction and that an international investigation was required, which would have involved Russia.
Swedish researcher Erik Andersson noted that the official “investigations” were controlled by the military and intelligence services and excluded civilian investigators. Denmark has been a Nato member since 1949 while Sweden applied for Nato membership in May 2022.
Overall, the Danish and Swedish “investigations” look more like a cover-up than a serious attempt to reveal the truth. The German investigation is still ongoing; so far, German investigators appear to favor the questionable “Ukrainian trail” but apparently have excluded a Russian operation.
Update: In February 2024, an independent Finnish investigator concluded that an elite diving team of the UK Royal Navy was behind the attacks, but his evidence is rather circumstantial.
Possible motives
Different countries may have had different motives to participate in the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines.
The United States has always been against the construction of Nord Stream 2 as they feared European energy dependence on Russia and Russian political influence in Europe. The US Administrations of Obama, Trump and Biden tried to prevent or delay the construction and certification of Nord Stream 2 through sanctions and political pressure. Moreover, senior US officials vowed to “stop” Nord Stream 2 if Russia invaded Ukraine.
Several Eastern European countries opposed Nord Stream 2 because the pipeline bypassed their territories and might have reduced their status and income as transit countries. This group notably included Poland, the Baltic States, and Ukraine. As previously mentioned, Poland and Ukraine already closed Russian gas pipelines in May 2022 and Ukraine may have attempted to sabotage the TurkStream pipeline in September 2022.
The European Union was against Nord Stream 2 because it feared Russian state influence in the European energy market and because EU law prohibits energy producers from controlling energy transmission infrastructure (as in the case of Gazprom). Because of these legal obstacles, Russia previously replaced the planned South Stream gas pipeline to EU member state Bulgaria with the TurkStream pipeline to the European part of Turkey.
European gas-exporting nations Norway and the Netherlands may have seen Gazprom as a competitor but they were not among the leading opponents to Nord Stream 2. As mentioned above, Dutch energy company Gasunie was in fact a shareholder of Nord Stream 1. Depending on the scenario, this might mean that Dutch approval was required for the destruction of the pipelines. Greek tanker Minerva Julie, which in September 2022 mysteriously circled over the later (northern) blast site for an entire week, sailed from Rotterdam to Tallinn in Estonia.
Britain, France and especially Germany used to be in favor of Nord Stream 2 as energy companies of these nations (and Austria) were shareholders of the pipeline. However, this changed with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Germany suspended the certification of Nord Stream 2 two days prior to the invasion (after Russia recognized the Donbas republics) and leaked documents revealed that Britain and Ukraine planned to attack Russian energy and transportation infrastructure.
After Russia had to close Nord Stream 1 in late August due to Western sanctions, Germany, the US and Britain may have had an additional motive to destroy the pipelines: namely, to remove political pressure on the German government to open Nord Stream 2 or re-open Nord Stream 1, or to prevent the German government from giving in to such pressure. In October 2022, the Russian MoD claimed the UK Navy was involved in “planning, supporting, and executing” the Nord Stream sabotage.
Germany has generally been seen as a victim of the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, but after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the closure of Nord Stream 1, it is in fact quite possible that the German government secretly agreed to or participated in the destruction of the pipelines. This would also explain why German government officials responded calmly to the sabotage and why they weren’t interested in the Russian offer to open the remaining undamaged pipeline or quickly repair the damaged pipelines.
Finally, it has been suggested that Russia may have tried to avoid insurance payments (after its closure of Nord Stream 1), or to sow discord among Nato members (by blaming the US), or simply to retaliate against Western sanctions. Yet none of these explanations makes much sense, as Russia was and is primarily interested in exporting gas. Moreover, German investigators have already excluded a Russian operation, as previously mentioned.
Insurance claims concerning the destroyed Nord Stream pipelines have not yet been settled. The pipelines reportedly were insured by several British, German and Swiss insurance and re-insurance companies, but as long as it remains unknown if the blasts were an act of sabotage, terrorism, or war, the insurance firms may try to deny payments. In March 2024, the Switzerland-based Nord Stream consortium launched a €400 million lawsuit against several insurance companies.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the currently available evidence and the apparent motives suggest that the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines and its subsequent cover-up may have been a rather broad Nato operation, led by the United States, but possibly involving Britain, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Ukraine, Poland, the Netherlands, the Baltic States, and perhaps Norway.
The operation may have taken place in the three September weeks after the closure of Nord Stream 1, when several Nato-linked “mystery ships” were operating near the later blast sites, but an earlier operation cannot be excluded. Moreover, the operation seems to have been shielded by multiple cover stories and distractions planted by Western intelligence services.
However, many important questions concerning the timing and locations of the explosions as well as the delivery method of the bombs remain unexplained by existing theories. Even though the explosions occurred on the eve of the opening of the Baltic Pipe, an accidental rupture of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline south of Bornholm cannot currently be excluded.
The likely presence of Russian military and rescue ships near the northern blast site a few days before the explosions remains unexplained, too. They may have tried to investigate the site based on Russian intelligence information, or they may have been tricked into visiting the site by Nato states, or they may have been involved in the sabotage themselves.
In sum, open-source analyses and independent investigations have already provided some valuable insights but could not yet solve the Nord Stream mystery. Official investigations have provided no insights at all and may have been part of a cover-up. Intelligence agencies and supposed whistleblowers provided some intriguing but possibly misleading theories.
∗∗∗
You have been reading:
The Nord Stream Mystery: New Insights
An analysis by Swiss Policy Research
∗∗∗
References
- Erik Andersson: Substack and Twitter
- Oliver Alexander: Substack and Twitter
- Ola Tunander: Substack and website
- Brian Whitaker: Substack and Twitter
- Seymour Hersh: Substack and Wikipedia
- The Grayzone: Website and Youtube