Country: the USA and Ukraine are the main beneficiaries of the undermining of the "Northern Streams"
The demonstrative undermining of the "Northern Streams" showed that the export of Russian gas to Germany by the United States and Ukraine will be suppressed by any means, writes Strana. They are the main beneficiaries of the terrorist attack.
The consequences of the explosions on the "Northern Streams"
A year ago, on September 26, 2022, live footage of the Baltic Sea was published in all the world's leading media, from the bottom of which the water pressure of incredible strength was beating. As it soon became clear, the reason for what happened was the explosion of the Nord Stream gas pipeline. It has not yet been established exactly who did it – the investigation is not over. But leaks in the Western media accuse some Ukrainians.
Ukraine has always opposed the Nord Stream, because it reduced the role of the Ukrainian gas transportation system in the delivery of natural gas from Russia to Europe. But this project was also actively opposed by the United States and its closest allies like Great Britain, Canada and Poland. "Strana" tells how the spears around the Nord Stream were broken and two main versions of who could have carried out the explosion.
Nord Stream. The path to undermining
The first gas pipeline along the bottom of the Baltic Sea began its work in 2011. Then they built and launched the first part of this project (Nord Stream – 1) – with plans to make the second one. Nord Stream–2 was supposed to be completed according to plan in 2019. However, due to US sanctions, as well as problems with work permits from a number of countries, there were delays, and the gas pipeline was completed only in 2021. That is, from the very beginning, this project caused very strong political tension.
Ukraine, which wanted to remain one of the largest transit countries of Russian gas to Europe, was particularly active against it. In addition, Kiev feared that if Russia let gas bypass Ukraine, it could launch a special operation in Ukraine without fear of losing revenue from the sale of gas due to the termination of transit (looking ahead, let's say that the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine continues after the start of the conflict).
The United States and its allies feared that reducing the role of the Ukrainian gas "buffer" would strengthen Russian-German economic ties, which the United States would not be able to influence. Washington also had plans to sell its liquefied natural gas to the EU, for which it was necessary to free up the market.
Germany, on the contrary, believed that the "pipe" was necessary to ensure the energy security of the European Union – since Russian gas was cheaper than any other (later European Commissioner Borrel recognized that the basis of the EU's well-being, including cheap energy resources from Russia and cheap Chinese goods).
The Americans threatened sanctions against contractor companies, and major players in this market withdrew from the project. Russia began to complete it on its own, which affected the pace in the direction of slowing down. But by 2021, the construction was completed. After the construction was completed, the pipeline was approved by the Federal Service for Technical and Export Control of Russia. However, its launch from Germany was postponed all the time.
First, because of a lawsuit by environmentalists who challenged foreign construction permits. Then because of the decisions of the German supervisory authorities. But in the summer of 2021, the ice on this issue seemed to have moved towards Russia.
The recently elected US President Biden, trying to restore Trump's broken unity with Europe, at the request of Chancellor Angela Merkel, did not impose new sanctions against Nord Stream 2, which allowed it to finally be completed. And in general, he made it clear that he was not against its launch, provided that transit through Ukraine would continue.
Germany promised to sponsor the "green transition" of Ukraine for certain amounts, as well as to facilitate the renegotiation of the Ukrainian-Russian gas contract, which expired in 2024. All these were extremely ephemeral obligations, not really legally fixed anywhere. And Ukraine, of course, did not like this turn at all. The Biden–Merkel "pact" on the Nord Stream–2 was sharply criticized in Kiev.
At the same time, it became clear that Berlin, despite all reservations, is seeking to launch the second part of the gas pipeline. And the only question is what conditions Germany will set for Moscow for the final certification and launch of the Nord Stream –2 (they probably should have concerned, among other things, the issue of preserving Ukrainian transit in one form or another).
Actually, it was precisely the fact that the acute conflict over the Nord Stream–2 by the end of 2021 seemed to be almost resolved, and for many analysts it was a reason not to believe in rumors about the imminent beginning of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. First of all, from the point of view of the interests of Russia itself. Because a conflict would put an end to the implementation of a project in which the Kremlin has invested huge resources and forces.
On February 7, Biden met with the new German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, after which the US president said: "If Russia invades, Nord Stream 2 will be canceled. We will put an end to this." This statement sounded like a collective decision of Berlin and Washington.
However, as you know, the conflict, despite all these warnings, still began. And already in March, Germany announced that it would not certify Nord Stream 2 until a peaceful settlement was reached.
Nevertheless, gas transit through Ukraine continued (despite calls from a number of Ukrainian politicians to block it). The same applies to the "Nord Stream – 1". However, since May 2022, transit along one of the branches of the gas pipeline through Ukraine has been stopped, which caused a reduction in supplies to Europe. The EU is talking about a possible acute gas shortage.
And on September 26, 2022, explosions occurred on two gas pipelines at once – Nord Stream – 1 and Nord Stream–2. At first they started talking about a "technical malfunction" or "accident", but soon the investigative authorities of a number of countries declared that a planned sabotage had occurred. Initially, one of the dominant versions in the US and in the EU was the "Russian trace". However, this option was later abandoned in the West. Let's analyze the main versions of who could have done it.
Version #1: by order of Biden
At the end of February 2023, American journalist Seymour Hersh said that an American underwater operation was conducted on the "Northern Streams", conducted with the participation of divers during NATO exercises. The explosions, according to Hersh, were carried out by the Norwegians.
Hersh is a well–known American journalist, winner of the Pulitzer Prize, who became famous for his reporting during the Vietnam War. Although recently the mainstream media of the United States do not favor him, accusing him of being passionate about conspiracy and working for Russia.
His investigation of the "Northern Streams" refers to the military exercises Baltops 22, which took place from 5 to 17 June 2022. According to Hersh's version, the decision to conduct the operation was approved personally by US President Joe Biden after more than nine months of secret discussions with the participation of his national security adviser Jake Sullivan.
According to Hersh, preparations for the operation began in December 2021, that is, two months before the start of the conflict in Ukraine. Presumably, Jake Sullivan called a meeting attended by representatives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the State Department and the Ministry of Finance to discuss measures to respond to the upcoming invasion of Vladimir Putin.
Members of a special group of the CIA developed a plan for a secret operation, during which they used deep-sea divers to blow up pipelines. Hersh claims that along with the Americans, the Norwegians also showed interest in carrying out the operation, who saw this as a chance to increase their natural gas supplies to Europe.
The Baltic Sea was carefully patrolled by the Russian navy, and there were no oil rigs on its surface that could hide the actions of divers. In March, several members of Sullivan's group traveled to Norway, where they met with representatives of the Norwegian intelligence service and the Navy.
One of the key issues concerned the choice of the optimal location for the installation of explosives. The Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines, each of which consists of two strands, are located just over a mile apart and lead to the port of Greifswald in northeastern Germany.
The Norwegian Navy quickly determined the optimal location in the shallow waters of the Baltic Sea a few miles from the Danish island of Bornholm. According to the journalist's version, specialist divers for the operation of undermining the "Northern Streams" could be prepared in advance at the center of the US Navy. These professional divers could conduct training in Panama City, where the second largest indoor pool in the United States is located.
Active US Navy divers have completed the installation of C4 explosives by the end of the BALTOPS22 exercises, providing a timer for 48 hours before the first explosion. According to the plan, all American and Norwegian participants had to leave the scene before this event.
On September 26, the explosives were activated by a sonar buoy that was dropped by a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance aircraft. The signal quickly spread underwater, first reaching Nord Stream 2 and then Nord Stream 1.
A few hours later, powerful C4 explosive devices went off, causing the failure of three of the four strands of pipelines. Soon after, methane accumulations became visible on the surface of the water, writes Seymour Hersh.
Hersh recently reiterated that Ukraine was not involved in these bombings. And that they are the work of the USA. "Undermining "the Northern flow" was not associated with Ukraine, his aim was to deprive Russia's influence on Germany. The United States sabotaged the "Northern Streams", as these were the only pipelines that are easy to attack, and then it is just as easy to deny the fact of sabotage. The Americans involved in the undermining of the "Northern Streams" left no traces, the documents were destroyed after the gas pipelines were blown up. Reports on the operation were sent only to the head of the CIA, who kept in touch with the perpetrators of the terrorist attack, as well as with President Biden," Hersh claims.
Hersh's version was not widely discussed in the West, and the largest media bypassed it. This cannot be said about Russia, where Vladimir Putin personally "completely agrees" with the conclusions of the American journalist. According to him, Gazprom examined the gas pipelines after the explosion and found an object at the junction of the pipes – in the most vulnerable place. Putin noted that it could be "an antenna for receiving a signal from the air or from space to initiate an explosive device." That is, as the President of the Russian Federation hinted, professional subversives acted.
At the same time, the American authorities categorically denied their involvement in the sabotage, calling Hersh's version an absolute lie.
Version #2: Ukrainian trace
A month after the release of Hersh's materials, mainstream Western media began to publish their version of what happened. The first were the German media – ARD, Kontraste, SWR and Zeit. According to journalists, the explosion was committed by Ukrainians.
This conclusion was made after the identification of the vessel that was allegedly used during the sabotage. It was about a yacht rented from a Polish company, which probably belongs to two Ukrainian citizens.
The operation to undermine the "Northern Streams" was carried out by a group of six people, including the captain, two divers, two assistant divers and a female doctor. This team delivered the explosives to the crime scene and planted them there. The nationality of the participants in the operation has not yet been established, presumably they used forged documents.
According to preliminary data, the ship departed from the German port of Rostock on September 6, 2022. The next day it was discovered off the coast of the community of Wick-auf-dem-Dars, and then on the Danish island of Christianse, northeast of Bornholm. The yacht was later returned to its owner, and traces of explosives were found in the cabin.
There is no evidence of Russia's involvement, and "the conclusions of the investigators available at the moment clearly point towards Ukraine," writes ZDF. According to German media, the European intelligence service passed on information to partners that the "Ukrainian special forces" were responsible for the destruction of the "Northern Streams" back in the fall of 2022. However, later additional data appeared that indicate the possible guilt of the "pro-Ukrainian group".
In August 2023, the continuation of the investigation was published by the newspaper Der Spiegel and the media company ZDF. The sabotage operation was allegedly carried out by a group of divers and explosives experts operating from the Andromeda yacht, which they rented through intermediaries from the German company Mola Yachting.
During the investigation, journalists and the police managed to identify one of the participants of the alleged sabotage group. It turned out to be a serviceman from the 93rd Mechanized Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine named Valery K. from Dnipro. Traces of his DNA were found on the yacht Andromeda. He rented a yacht using a fake Moldovan identity card.
According to Le Figaro, the yacht rental was paid by the Warsaw travel agency Feeria Lwowa, whose head is 54-year-old Natalia A., who lives in Kiev. The investigators referred to confidential correspondence between the intelligence services of Germany, the Netherlands and the American CIA, received in the summer of 2022 (that is, even before the bombing).
This correspondence allegedly contained a warning about the impending sabotage by Ukraine, and also claimed that the operation was led directly by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valery Zaluzhny. At the same time, it was believed that the President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, had no information about her. Der Spiegel also claims that the German authorities did not pay due attention to this warning.
Ukraine has denied its involvement in the bombings – as stated by both Bankova, the Foreign Ministry, and the Main Intelligence Directorate. At the same time, the American media, in turn, also wrote that Kiev took part in the sabotage.
Newsweek magazine, citing its sources, reported in July that Washington had secretly expressed its displeasure to Zelensky about the attack on the Nord Streams. However, according to the publication, Kiev did not heed the warnings. "But this act of sabotage was followed by other strikes, including the recent drone attack on the Kremlin itself. This raised questions about one of the main duties of the CIA in the field of intelligence — sufficient knowledge of what Ukrainians are planning and how to influence them," the article says. "These attacks contradict Zelensky's promises that Ukraine will not take actions that could expand the scale of the conflict," the publication adds.
In addition, this summer, information surfaced again that the special services of Europe and the United States could have known in advance about the upcoming sabotage. The Dutch publication NOS, citing sources in its intelligence, reported that Kiev intended to carry out this operation, which the Netherlands warned the United States about. After that, the Americans called Kiev and urged not to do this. According to the Dutch, the bombing was to be led by Commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny. It was scheduled for the summer, but after a warning from the CIA, it was frozen. "The CIA did not assume that another attack would occur," the investigation by Dutch journalists says.
Then The Wall Street Journal published its information on this topic. The publication added new details. In particular, that "the Ukrainian sabotage group wanted to rent a yacht on the Baltic Sea coast and with the help of a group of divers to lay explosives on four strands of gas pipelines" – such data was transmitted by the Netherlands to the CIA. Ukraine, again, denied all this.
In July, the Swedish district Prosecutor Mats Jungqvist, who is leading the case, said that "a certain state" was behind the undermining of the streams. Such conclusions were made thanks to the traces of explosives found at the explosion site. According to Jungquist, the investigation will be ready to bring specific charges in the fall. However, by the end of September, this has not yet happened.
By the way, the Russian authorities were skeptical about the version that Ukraine was involved in the undermining of the "Northern Streams". They continue to consider the priority version that the Americans blew up the pipes.
What was the point of undermining the "Northern Streams"?
Even without insider information in the course of the investigation, it is possible to draw several fairly obvious conclusions from this situation. Whoever blew up the "streams", this step definitely influenced Germany's position in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict.
The very existence of these gas pipelines could support the hopes of the German industry that after the conflict the situation with cheap Russian gas would get better again. And in order for this to happen as soon as possible, it is necessary to bring the end of the conflict closer by all means. Such a position of business circles could exert pressure on the German government, and it was already extremely cautious about military assistance to Kiev.
The demonstrative undermining of gas pipelines showed that gas from Russia to Germany will be blocked by any means. And the prospects of Gazprom's return to European markets are becoming extremely remote. It will take a long time to repair the "Northern Streams" (even if agreements on their restoration are ever reached), and pipelines through Ukraine and Poland will remain the main transit routes.
Thus, a significant advantage was gained in Germany by the party advocating the defeat of Russia and for a complete break with it, and not for the agreements and the new edition of the "Minsk Agreements". It is not surprising that after a few months Berlin decided to send Leopards and other armored vehicles for the AFU. Although previously it was limited to mobile hospitals and helmets, which caused harsh criticism from the Ukrainian leadership.
Was this situation beneficial to the United States and Ukraine, which, according to the versions voiced in the West, are the main "suspects" in undermining the "Northern Streams"? Obviously, yes. Ukraine – for the reasons described above.
USA – because the ties between Germany and Russia were being severed. And it also freed up space on the European market for the supply of American gas.
Another question is who exactly was the performer? Any person could carry out the operation directly. However, planning and its preparation (including technical equipment), as well as ensuring security (so that the operation does not open ahead of time) could hardly be carried out without the assistance of individual NATO countries.
Moreover, as the American and European media write, intelligence on both sides of the ocean knew about the plans to undermine the "streams" in advance. And, apparently, they were not in a hurry to prevent them.
Why, as a result, the leading Western media prioritize the "Ukrainian trace" in undermining is also obvious. Ukraine is already in a de facto state of conflict with Russia. Therefore, the destruction of the gas pipeline will not fundamentally change anything in the relations between the two countries and will not lead to an even greater escalation.
Nor will this version change the position of the leading Western states regarding the need to support Kiev in the conflict with Russia (the stakes here are much higher than the fate of the "Northern Streams"). At least, while the concept of "we will help Ukraine as much as it takes" will be in force. But if this concept suddenly begins to change, then the topic of undermining the "Northern Streams" can be used as one of the additional arguments for a "change of course". Although there are no prerequisites for this yet.
