Ukraine unexpectedly faced another wave of information attacks due to the sabotage of the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines in September 2022. One after another, Western publications are publishing articles alleging Ukrainian involvement in these acts of terrorism. It started with American newspapers The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, followed by the Dutch broadcasting corporation NOS, then the German publication Die Zeit and the TV channel ARD. Is it all about money again? It seems like they have already fully investigated this matter.
However, this time the accusations are more serious: it’s not some obscure “pro-Ukrainian group” sponsored by an anonymous Ukrainian billionaire under suspicion, but rather the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valeri Zaluzhnyi. Although, according to the latest accusers, the perpetrators of the actual attack remain the same — the crew of the 50-foot yacht Andromeda: the captain, two divers, two assistants, and a doctor.
Dutch intelligence uncovered Ukrainian plans
The updated version sounds like this. The Dutch military intelligence agency (Militaire Inlichtingen-en Veiligheidsdienst — MIVD) became aware of Kyiv’s plans to carry out sabotage on the gas pipelines. The Dutch shared this information with their American counterparts.
“European intelligence indicated that the potential attackers were not random individuals. All those involved directly reported to General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the highest-ranking military officer in Ukraine, who took full responsibility to ensure that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was unaware of the operation,” reads an article in The Washington Post titled “US had intelligence on detailed Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream.”
If we summarize all the publications in the Western press on this topic, the following picture emerges. The CIA learned from its European counterparts in June of last year that a group of six Ukrainian special operations forces intended to blow up the gas pipeline on the floor of the Baltic Sea. This is an undeniable fact for them. The question only lies in who was the source of this information. It turns out that it was someone who “did not prove themselves as a reliable source of information.” And the information provided by this person could not be verified from other sources.
What happened next? According to the publications, Washington supposedly earnestly requested Kyiv to refrain from any diversions in the Baltic Sea. The Ukrainian leadership, of course, complied with the request, furthermore assuring that no such plans existed.
See also: Isn’t it time for Ukraine to stop the transit of Russian gas, oil, and ammonia?
And then, when the case was almost forgotten, on September 26, 2022, the global public was shocked by the sensational news of explosions on the Nord Stream. And suddenly, the yacht Andromeda appeared, and traces of explosives were discovered on its hull. It was revealed that the vessel was sailing near the locations of the pipeline sabotage.
And recently, another detail emerged — a diving boot found near the site of the attack. According to the controversial and scandalous American publication The Grayzone: “Ukrainian Navy divers were also spotted in similar boots.” Ultimately, all the evidence seems to be of a similar nature.
Questioning the Ukrainian involvement: lack of evidence and infeasibility
Zaxid.net (Ukrainian news publication) has already explained why the version involving the yacht Andromeda does not withstand any criticism. Let’s briefly recap these arguments. According to experts’ claims, it would be impossible for a few people on a yacht to transport several tons of explosives required to destroy the gas pipelines, lower it to the necessary depth, install and connect detonators, and still remain unnoticed. Even if they were super professionals, it is unclear how these professionals would neglect basic safety rules and leave all the evidence on the yacht, including traces of explosives. Furthermore, where would they have obtained such a large quantity of explosive material in Germany? Let’s remember that we are talking about tons.
Only specialized vessels equipped with bathyscaphes or mini submarines with manipulators are capable of placing such cargoes at such depths. This whole process requires the involvement of dozens of people, not just two divers with two assistants.
And finally, the argument of cui prodest (to whom is it a benefit?). Was it beneficial for Ukraine to blow up the gas pipelines? Not at all. And here it is difficult not to agree with Janis Kluge, an expert from the Berlin-based think foundation “Science and Politics,” who questions the feasibility of sabotaging gas pipelines that were already not being used for gas transportation.
“A short reminder of what happened last summer: 1. Russia last transported gas through NordStream on August 30. 2. Then Russia (not Germany) halted the supplies (not due to sanctions). 3. The sabotage of the already dead gas pipelines happened four weeks later, on September 26,” Kluge writes on his Twitter page.
See also: Will Ukraine export gas? Whom and why is it needed during the war?
The funniest thing in this situation is that even official Moscow dismisses the “Ukrainian version.” Although one would think it would be advantageous for Moscow to blame Ukraine for everything, with whom it is at war, and to further tarnish the reputation of Valerii Zaluzhnyi as one of their main enemies. However, it was not just anyone, but the Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Nikolai Patrushev, who stated: “The next question is: who benefits from the explosions, Ukraine or Germany? Kyiv has neither lost nor gained anything from the destruction of the gas pipeline. Moreover, for the Zelenskyy’s regime, which essentially stands in Berlin with an outstretched hand, hoping for increased military and other assistance, carrying out such an act serves no purpose.”
Involvement of the United States and England
Instead, Patrushev said that the version of a pro-Ukrainian group that blew up the pipelines was “thrown into the media” to hide “the real customers of the crime.” And who, in his opinion, are these “customers”? Of course, the Anglo-Saxons, who are hated by Russians. Patrushev believes that “special forces” are needed to organize such sabotage.
“The United States and England definitely have them. And the topic of the US and England’s non-involvement in the terrorist attack is obviously being promoted in the expectation that the audience is unable to think logically, in particular by the method of denial,” he said.
In February of this year, a lengthy “investigation” about the involvement of the United States in the terrorist act was published by the once-renowned American journalist Seymour Hersh. His journalistic breakthroughs were once high-quality and resonant, such as the exposé on the massacre carried out by American soldiers in the Vietnamese village of My Lai. However, the 85-year-old journalist, to put it mildly, has lost his qualifications. His entire material on the explosions on the Nord Stream relies solely on one not-so-authoritative source. Hersh claimed that the sabotage was jointly carried out by the United States and Norway, aiming to significantly expand their gas export capabilities to the European Union. However, experts quickly dismantled all of Hersh’s arguments, leaving nothing substantial in his writings.
The Russian version gains weight with new evidence
However, the “Russian version” has still not been seriously refuted by anyone. Moreover, it gains more and more significant weight in light of new facts. It has been clearly established that a few days before the explosions at the incident site near the Danish island of Bornholm, Russian military vessels were present in the area. Among them was the special ship SS-750, designed for underwater operations. On its deck, there is a mini-submarine AS-26 Priz with gripping arms. This type of submarine is capable of installing several hundred kilograms of explosives on an underwater pipeline.
So why, despite all these revelations, does the Western press still spread the versions of the “Ukrainian involvement”? It remains a mystery.
Originally posted by Liubko Petrenko on Zaxid.net. Translated and edited by the UaPosition – Ukrainian news and analytics website
See also: Games around oil: will Russia lose from the OPEC+ decision?
