Sławomir Cenckiewicz, who leads Poland’s national security bureau and is a key adviser to President Karol Nawrocki, told the Financial Times in an interview that Germany should not continue the prosecutions if it wanted to align Russia policy with Poland and other Nato allies.
“From our point of view, this investigation doesn’t make sense, not only in terms of the interests of Poland but also the whole [Nato] alliance,” Cenckiewicz said, adding that prosecuting Nord Stream saboteurs might serve German justice, but also “Russian injustice.”
Whether or not the sabotage was justified, finding out who directed and executed the destruction of economically important energy infrastructure should have been a high priority for Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. Sweden and Denmark conveniently opted out after lengthy investigations, leaving only Germany to pursue what many believe to be a half-hearted inquiry.
Is Germany taking energy masochism to a new level?:
MSN: “Germany is exploring levers to prevent the resumption of Nord Stream 2. The pipeline may allegedly be restarted under an agreement between the US and Russia as part of the settlement of the war in Ukraine, Bild reports.“
“According to Bild and the Financial Times, secret talks have been going on between representatives of Russia and the United States for several weeks now about American investors buying the damaged Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the Baltic Sea.“
Good questions by Swedish engineer and independent Nord Stream investigator Erik Andersson:
“Wow! Why on earth would Germany stop gas through Nord Stream 2 if the war ends and USA approves it?“
“Richard Grenel who was involved in sanctioning NSP2 in 2019 is mentioned as a player in the article. After the explosions 2022, Grenel said the first Trump admin was against NS2 but not NS1 which was delivering an acceptable amount of gas without making Germany too dependent on Russia. I wonder if the current Trump admin still think that two out of the four Nord Stream pipelines could be opened without creating a dangerous dependency on Russia?“
The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party, supports a Nord Stream restart. Despite the AfD’s strong second place finish in the recent national elections, the leading CDU party is trying to keep the AfD out of the governing coalition.
Germany’s national elections are on 23 FEB. The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party, which has gained strength in the polls, supports a Nord Stream restart.
–Denmark’s energy agency granted Nord Stream AG permission to conduct preservation work on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea (Reuters). One of the two Nordstream 2 lines is undamaged.
-An Equinor executive stated on February 5, 2025, that the Nord Stream 1 pipeline is “permanently destroyed.”
-The Swiss canton of Zug extended the moratorium on debt restructuring for Nord Stream AG until May 9. The moratorium is seen as a way for the German government to preserve its influence over the future of the pipeline. If the company is liquidated, investors, including the German state-owned energy firm Uniper, would lose control over the pipeline and the considerable funds invested by German taxpayers in its construction.
Just when we were settling on Der Spiegel’s account of the Nord Stream sabotage, Michael Kobs provides reasons for skepticism. Are the detailed revelations in Der Spiegel part of a coordinated effort to relieve governments of any responsibility and glorify the destruction of economically important pipelines?
“Since the German arrest warrant for a participant in the Nord Stream terrorist attack, efforts have also increased in Germany to portray the terrorist attack as a “legitimate” or even “admirable” war effort. However, the greatest effort is to relieve the burden on state actors. And so, since recently, the alleged perpetrators seem to be chatting without reservation, spreading out every little detail in front of journalists, and putting every (already revealed) fact in the “right” non-governmental light.” ~Michael Kobs
Meanwhile, independent journalist Jeffrey Brodsky continues to delve deeply into Nord Stream issues. A recent interesting and detailed piece refutes assertions that Gazprom and Russia somehow benefited from the Nord Stream attack. Mr. Brodsky provides evidence to the contrary concluding that the destruction of the pipelines has contributed significantly to Gazprom’s financial problems. He noted that:
Gazprom announced a loss of $6.9 billion for 2023, marking its first annual loss in more than two decades.
Nord Stream 1 supplied EU nations with a whopping 35% of all Russian gas imports.
Gazprom contributed $80 million of Russia’s $407 million in Federal govt revenues in 2022, and was a source of revenue that Russia would not want to jeopardize.
Unsurprisingly, the “experts” and politicians who argued that the Nord Stream sabotage would benefit Gazprom and Russia have failed to modify or correct their assertions. Mr. Brodsky concludes his detailed analysis as follows:
“However, despite the numerous facts that have emerged since the attack, the damage caused to Russia and Gazprom by the sabotage remains willfully ignored. Politicians and experts who claimed that the sabotage would be beneficial to Russia or Gazprom financially, legally or geopolitically seem to have merely skimmed the first chapters of the Nord Stream story. So far, almost none of them have publicly corrected themselves after hastily familiarizing themselves with its complex plot. But since the perpetrator of the sabotage has not yet been unmasked, they still have the opportunity to pre-order the unfinished sequel to the book. Perhaps it will end up being an international bestseller. ~ Jeffrey Brodsky
American businessman Stephen Lynch wants to acquire the Swiss company that controls the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
From his investment firm’s website: Over the last twenty years, Mr. Lynch has acquired and managed distressed assets in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Russia, and Ukraine. He specializes in securing cross-border collaboration on transactions and settlements around special situations and corporate conflicts. Lynch is a life member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Lynch has worked closely with the US Department of The Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to acquire and de-Russify important industrial assets in U.S. partner nations.
With regard to Nord Stream: “The bottom line is this: This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for American and European control over European energy supply for the rest of the fossil-fuel era,” Lynch told the Wall Street Journal.
Nord Stream 2 bankruptcy proceedings are scheduled to begin in January.
A “US official” told the Washington Post that a Nord Stream revival is not in the US interest right now. However, a resumption of the flow of Nord Stream gas could be a significant consideration in talks to end the Ukraine – Russian war. Also, in light of economic and energy supply challenges, there is growing German interest in restoring ties with Russia.
This appears to be a serious initiative on the part of Mr. Lynch that should not be discounted.
Der Spiegel: “Wie ein ukrainisches Geheimkommando Nord Stream sprengte“
Observations:
Der Spiegel’s detailed account is based on interviews with the perpetrators whose identities are being withheld.
~a dozen men and one woman, all Ukrainians, were involved in the sabotage. Some were soldiers, some were civilians; some had past connections with the CIA.
<$300,000 budget funded by a Ukrainian businessman
Saboteurs received no payments
Low tech operation using the sailboat Andromeda
The article includes details on how the mission was accomplished.
To the commandos, Nord Stream sabotage was viewed as a military objective, a legitimate act of self defense.
The team understood that only a small hole in the outer wall would suffice to burst the pipe given the gas pressure in the lines.
Tested bomb designs in a lake, and trained in a flooded mine to depths of 100 m.
Zelensky was not fully trusted and was intentionally not informed of the plan. (However, the authors are not completely ruling out some Zelensky involvement in the planning.)
Western intelligence heard about the plan 3 months before the operation. Zelensky was then informed by a CIA officer in Kiev.
A CIA agent contacted one of the commandos who he knew. To protect the mission, the commando said he didn’t know anything about such a plan, but would inquire further.
The commandos decided they needed to get on with the operation before sea conditions worsened in the fall.
6 bombs were planted under sometimes difficult conditions. One did not explode, so the Nord Stream 2 B pipeline remained intact.
Particularly noteworthy is Nord Stream’s response to the insurers’ claim (par. 22.2 (a) of their filing) that the pipeline damage was the result of “the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.” In par. 13.1 of their response (attached), Nord Stream called the insurers’ assertion “embarrassing for want of particularity.” (clever wording that may prove useful in the future 😉)
Nord Stream AG calls the insurers (Lloyd’s and Arch) failure to provide evidence for the country that blew up the pipelines “embarrassing.” (See above comment.)
Mahmoudi: “The defendants’ argument is prima facie irrelevant if one cannot prove that the damage is caused by a named government that has been directly involved in a war in the area. The burden of proof in this case is…on the defendant.”
Mahmoudi: “Even if the sabotage is an act of terrorism, the author of the act can be a state or a private entity.”
Mahmoudi: “If a private entity, the insurance company, is the only source for the compensation; if a state is responsible for the terrorist act, it is the insurance company & that state that have a legal obligation to compensate for the damage.”
Related comment by Erik Andersson: Nord Stream AG has consistently claimed they should receive compensation regardless of whether or not a government was responsible for the sabotage. Nord Stream AG does not seem interested in providing an alternative to Lloyds’ claim that Ukraine did thisas an act of war. (That horse might be too big to ride 😉)
Swedish engineer Erik Andersson has personally investigated the September 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. He is perhaps the most informed independent investigator of the incident and the associated legal and political drama.
Andersson provided an updated defense document filed by the pipelines’ insurers (attached) and posted his observations on X. His X comments are consolidated below.
Nord Stream insurers Lloyds & Arch just filed an amended defense document (attached) which reveals technical details confirming a fifth Nord Stream bomb, which failed to break the NS1B line, placed just 90 meters from the successful bomb on NS1 line A.
Lloyds & Arch intend to prove in court that the government of Ukraine ordered the destruction.
The insurers have access to classified information in the criminal investigation which not even the victims have had up to now.
The locations of the northern Nord Stream bombs are marked on the nautical chart (pasted below). The previously known bombs have orange markers and the new bomb we learned about in the NS vs Lloyds filing is marked red.
I (Andersson) have repeatedly said that I dismissed Seymour Hersh claim of 8 bombs after my expedition, and have assumed there were exactly four bombs. This has now been proven false, and I think that we again have to account for the possibility that there were perhaps 8 bombs, and that Sy Hersh is perhaps right in his claim that “the Americans sped back to the crime scene to remove the unexploded bombs.”
Andersson’s personal view is that it doesn’t matter much if Team USA trusted and protected the Ukrainian sailboat crew so they could place the bombs, or if they just waited for the sailboat cover operation to finish before detonating the bombs they had placed there by other means (making sure they didn’t do anything that couldn’t have been done from a sailboat).
The presence of American, Danish and Swedish warships in the area, with all their surveillance capabilities, including the underwater surveillance, makes it a very hard sell that the Ukrainians did this alone without American participation.
American warships were also present at the crime scene when it was closed off (justified by an erroneous interpretation of international law) and cleaned up by the Swedish investigation. If any materials were found which contradicted the sailboat narrative, these materials could have been removed.
It’s impossible to trust the investigations when (1) the crime scene was illegally blocked & cleaned with US military protection, (2) international investigation was blocked, and (3) the Swedish and Danish investigations were closed with a bogus justification contradicting the premise of “jurisdiction” which was used to seize control of all information in the first place. (Very interesting point about Sweden and Denmark. After 16+ months of investigation, they both punted. Sweden suddenly didn’t have jurisdiction and Denmark decided they didn’t have sufficient grounds to pursue a criminal case.)
Just when the media seemed to be settling on rogue Ukrainians in a rented yacht being responsible for the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, comments by a Danish harbor master have muddied the waters.
On the second anniversary of the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, the Danish publication Politiken posted comments from John Anker Nielsen, harbor master on Christiansø, the small Danish Island near the explosion sites.
“For the first few days, the harbor master said he was “not allowed to say a thing”. But today, John Anker Nielsen can reveal that four or five days before the Nord Stream blasts, he was out with the rescue service on Christiansø because there were some ships with switched-off radios. They turned out to be American naval vessels, and when the rescue service approached, they were told by Naval Command to turn back.Therefore, the harbor master has some faith in the theory that American star journalist Seymour Hersh, among others, has put forward without any documentation: that the US was behind the sabotage. The Americans have these small unmanned submarines that can solve any task, John Anker Nielsen has been told.”
Erik commented further:
The harbor master isn’t making this up. He wasn’t alone on the rescue vessel ordered to stay clear of the American warships.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 