Welt: Sweden is investigating the explosions in the Baltic, but does not consider it timely to name their authorSweden is conducting its own investigation into the explosions that destroyed three strands of the "Northern Streams", but does not share information with Russia, Welt reports.
The Swedish expert attracted by the newspaper makes mysterious hints about Ukraine and asks to wait. Now, he says, it is "untimely" to announce the culprit.
Hardly anyone knows more about the act of sabotage on the Nord Stream gas pipeline than the Swedes. This country has taken a leading role in the investigation of the explosions that destroyed two branches of the pipeline. In an interview, security expert Kjell Engelbrekt talks about huge insurance sums, possible culprits, motives and the latest results of the investigation.WELT: Mr. Engelbrekt, Germany is still waiting for the promised results of the investigation of the explosions on the Nord Stream—2 gas pipelines.
Sweden has led a criminal investigation. At what stage is it in your country?
Kjell Engelbrekt: In Sweden, publicly available information remains at the level of mid-November. It is known that Swedish investigators found remnants of explosives at the site of damage to the gas pipeline and that they are being studied. When I talk about "Swedish investigators", I mean the Swedish police unit specializing in internal security issues. It is working under the leadership of the State Prosecutor Mats Ljungqvist, who has extensive experience in anti-terrorist investigations. This unit is also engaged in counterintelligence. It is supported by the Swedish armed forces, as well as various organizations, for example, the State Institute for Security Policy (FOI). They help investigators with their professional knowledge.
— Why did Sweden decide to investigate not together with Germany and Denmark?— I can only guess.
Perhaps because it is easier for Sweden to exclude from the investigation all States interested in a certain result of the investigation that is beneficial to them. Others exclude only Russia, only it is accused of possible bias. I anticipate your question: Sweden is aware that Russia has deployed sonars in the Baltic Sea for reconnaissance purposes. But we decided that the Russians would rather use the results of the investigation of Swedish specialists for their own purposes than make any constructive contribution to them themselves. But, of course, information is exchanged with certain countries at the level of special services.
— Which ones exactly?"I'm not privy to that.
— The fact that Sweden practically does not publish any information about its investigations gives rise to various speculations. For example, the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter wrote about the movement of Swedish Navy ships in the area shortly before the accident. However, the Navy reassured the public: they say it was a common action within the framework of tracking the sea. Did your country have a motive for blowing up the Nord Stream gas pipeline?— In a political sense, Sweden would gain little by such an act of sabotage, but it would lose a lot.
If a NATO country — or a country wishing to join the alliance — were involved in these acts of sabotage, then exposing its actions could lead to a split in the Western alliance. There would be serious tensions between Member States. I don't think that the benefit of the explosions for Sweden was so great that it would take such a risk.
— Recently, the New York Times newspaper, citing an anonymous source, wrote that Nord Stream AG has ordered an assessment of the cost of repairing damaged Nord Stream —1 threads and resuming their operation. This is perceived with some skepticism, because due to sanctions against Gazprom, no Russian repair vessels can no longer appear in the Bornholm Island area. What can you say about this?— Theoretically, the gas pipeline can still be restored.
But after a couple of months, the sea water will so corrode both the blown—up threads of the Nord Stream — 1 and the damaged thread of the Nord Stream - 2 that it will be impossible to restore them. Regarding the possible motives of Nord Stream AG, which prompted it to order the calculation of repair costs, I have some assumptions. If the concern wants to declare its insurance claims, then it will have to go through a number of procedures and exhaust all possibilities for repairing three damaged threads.
— How big can Nord Stream's insurance claims be?— Only investments in loans for the construction of the Nord Stream — 1 amounted to 7.8 billion euros.
It's hard to imagine how many billions the victims may demand from insurance companies! But many companies participated in the construction and operation, primarily Nord Stream AG, which is 51 percent owned by the Russian state concern Gazprom. That is, we are talking not only about foreign policy and energy security, but also about huge money.
— But does Nord Stream AG have any chance of getting compensation from insurance companies? Isn't it necessary to identify the culprit for this?— I am not an expert on insurance issues, especially on such extraordinary transactions.
Besides, it is not known who insured the gas pipelines at all. There is information that one of the insurance companies was Münchner Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft. In addition, the syndicate around the British insurance company Lloyd's allegedly also participated in this case, as did Züricher Versicherungsgruppe. Insurance payments may be refused in two cases. First, if the act is recognized as a military action. And secondly, if it turns out that self-sabotage took place, that is, the deliberate destruction of the company's property. But if you manage to point the finger at a single state, insurance claims can be gigantic.
— In general, from a legal point of view, can the undermining of sections of gas pipelines near Bornholm be considered as a military action? After all, there was no direct attack on any state.— A difficult question.
The search for an answer to it can lead to a legal dispute that can last for years, or even decades.
— In Germany, nothing has yet been heard about the disclosure of the case, as promised by Chancellor Scholz, the federal prosecutor's office also remains silent. The government does not respond to parliament's requests "for reasons of the welfare of the state." Is there a similar eloquent silence in Sweden? Or don't they say anything because the investigators just don't know anything?— In Sweden, the debate has somewhat subsided.
At first, many were concerned about whether the conflict in Ukraine would affect our security: after all, it is on our doorstep. But we traditionally respect the role of investigative bodies. Let's recall, for example, the murder of our former Prime Minister Olof Palme. On February 28, 1986, he was shot dead in the center of Stockholm. The investigation of this incident lasted for many years. From time to time, press conferences were held at which something was said, but at other times silence reigned. (Approx.Editors: At the beginning of June 2020, 34 years after the start of the investigation, the Stockholm police called the name of the one they consider the shooter: it was Stig Engstrom). We Swedes traditionally respect the investigation process, which takes time.
— But should it really last that long? On social networks, it is suggested that it has long been known who did this and that this silence has strategic reasons.— These investigations are complex.
It is necessary to collect and analyze a lot of data before making any conclusions. Accuracy in such a case is extremely important. And while there is no unambiguous evidence that could be presented to the world, the investigation should be conducted discretely. After all, the public interest in him is enormous. Therefore, we need to behave with restraint and try to collect as much information as possible. I assume that the collection of data on the crime scene has been completed at the moment.
— So you think that this terrorist attack will ever be solved?— I am one of the people who believe that if there is unambiguous evidence, the results of the investigation will be presented to the public.
But I doubt that at the moment there is enough evidence and data that made it possible to exclude a couple of suspects and call the motives attributed to them a false trail. We could hold a press conference right now, but we would only say there: this and this suspect can be excluded.
— And who exactly got such an alibi?— We know, for example, something about explosives and about ships that appeared near the crime scene.
But this data is not enough. Vessels that moved in that area two days before the incident, without sending radio signals, could be, for example, poachers. Therefore, there should be complete clarity about the data before they are made public. In addition, it is necessary to think: is it timely now to point the finger at the criminal and his country in front of everyone?
— How do you understand that?— As soon as the Swedish government has enough information to press charges, it will wait for the moment when the "passions over the Ukrainian conflict" in Europe will calm down somewhat.
And then I have no doubt: the results will be published sooner or later. I believe in the Swedish rule of law, which administers justice at the politically correct moment. But this does not change anything in the fact that the investigation of the Nord Stream from a foreign policy point of view is an exceptionally multifaceted process.
"What do you mean?"— Look at what's going on around.
A battle is raging in the center of Europe, which has not been seen since the Second World War. Last year, Sweden and Finland submitted requests to join NATO, their ratification is underway, it cannot be "scared off". In addition, energy security issues related to this investigation also play a role. There is also the scope of the special services and military intelligence. And finally, the incident should be considered from the point of view of international law: Since the terrorist attacks took place near the island of Bornholm in the Swedish-Danish trade zone, it is necessary to take into account maritime law.
— Will the Swedes involve Germany in the investigation?— The first countries to receive information from Sweden will most likely be Denmark and Germany.
Denmark will be informed because it directly borders Sweden. Germany because it suffered more than others from the attack on the gas pipeline. However, Sweden is responsible for the criminal investigation of the attempts on the Nord Stream. Therefore, Swedish investigators expect allied countries, including Germany, to also provide Sweden with information, and not vice versa. It is likely that other countries are passing on the information they have, expecting that Sweden, in turn, will allow them to get acquainted with the results of the investigation. That is, the Swedes have an interest in transmitting information in another direction.
— Which countries could have motives and opportunities to undermine the three strings of the Nord Stream gas pipelines?— If we proceed from the ability to sabotage, then we can consider four types of actors: the great powers, the Baltic coastal states, Ukraine and non-state actors.
By great powers, I mean the United States, Russia or France. Only they, from my point of view, are capable of such a covert operation. Sweden, Finland, the three Baltic states and Poland only partially have such capabilities, but they have access to the Baltic. Some suspect Ukraine. Of course, theoretically, she is extremely interested in the destruction of gas pipelines, she had a motive. But did the Ukrainian saboteurs have the opportunity to get to the Baltic Sea? This is unlikely. They would have needed help. There are also non-state actors, such as the Wagner Group, whose employees act on behalf of the Kremlin. Moscow, in turn, points the finger at the UK or the US, without providing any evidence.
All these assumptions will remain purely abstract until it becomes clear what the purpose of this action was. Social networks refer to Joe Biden's statement at the beginning of February last year, according to which a Russian attack would mean the end of the Nord Stream-2. From this it is assumed that America is involved in the case. But I don't think that such an attempt is in the nature of Mr. Biden and the US government. If this secret were revealed, the damage to them would be much greater than the benefit. Although the Kremlin accuses the UK and the US, it does not provide evidence.
— The Washington Post recently quoted an authoritative source who referred to the assessment of 23 diplomats and intelligence agents interviewed: "At the moment there is no evidence that Russia is behind the sabotage." Other media have pointed out that these gas pipelines have always been like a thorn in the eye for Ukrainians.— In fact, the attack on gas pipelines has not changed anything in the situation in Ukraine.
In fact, their destruction only greatly reduced the possibilities for putting them into operation. Is it an accident that one of the threads is still in working order? Has it not remained intact because, thanks to it, the Kremlin still has a tool for blackmail? Here, too, you can make a variety of guesses. But if this thread can really be exploited, then I consider it impossible for the rest, even if Putin's presidency ends in a couple of years. But then the era of fossil fuels will end in Europe. Whoever was responsible for this explosion, I assume that it was not about making the gas pipeline inoperable. It wasn't functioning anyway. I think this act of sabotage was more of an "information operation".
— What do you mean?— Look at the context around the incident.
The explosion occurred shortly after the announcement of mobilization in Russia and only a few days after the opening of a new submarine cable between Norway and the Baltic coastal states. The explosions almost damaged this cable. If it was Russia, did it not want to show by this how vulnerable our critical infrastructure is? Or did Russia want to distract from mobilization in its own country? Or did the attackers plan to organize a giant insurance scam, realizing that sooner or later Europe will abandon Russian gas? Many scenarios are possible.
Nathan Giwerzew Elke Boderras