After explosions in late September severely damaged undersea pipelines
built to carry natural gas from Russia to Europe, world leaders quickly
blamed Moscow for a brazen and dangerous act of sabotage. With winter approaching, it appeared the Kremlin intended to
strangle the flow of energy to millions across the continent, an act of
“blackmail,” some leaders said, designed to threaten countries into
withdrawing their financial and military support for Ukraine.
But
now, after months of investigation, numerous officials privately say
that Russia may not be to blame after all for the attack on the Nord
Stream pipelines.
“There
is no evidence at this point that Russia was behind the sabotage,” said
one European official, echoing the assessment of 23 diplomatic and
intelligence officials in nine countries interviewed in recent weeks.
Some
went so far as to say they didn’t think Russia was responsible. Others
who still consider Russia a prime suspect said positively attributing
the attack — to any country — may be impossible.
In
the months after the explosions, which resulted in what was probably
one of the largest-ever single releases of methane gas, investigators
have combed through debris and analyzed explosives residue
recovered from the bed of the Baltic Sea. Seismologists have pinpointed
the timing of three explosions on Sept. 26, which caused four leaks on
the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines.
No
one doubts that the damage was deliberate. An official with the German
government, which is conducting its own investigation, said explosives
appear to have been placed on the outside of the structures.
But
even those with inside knowledge of the forensic details don’t
conclusively tie Russia to the attack, officials said, speaking on the
condition of anonymity to share information about the progress of the
investigation, some of which is based on classified intelligence.
“Forensics on an investigation like this are going to be exceedingly difficult,” said a senior U.S. State Department official.
The
United States routinely intercepts the communications of Russian
officials and military forces, a clandestine intelligence effort that
helped accurately forecast Moscow’s February invasion of Ukraine. But so
far, analysts have not heard or read statements from the Russian side
taking credit or suggesting that they’re trying to cover up their
involvement, officials said.
Attributing
the attack has been challenging from the start. The first explosion
occurred in the middle of the night to the southeast of the Danish
island of Bornholm. Scientists detected two additional explosions more
than 12 hours later to the northeast of the island.
Given
the relatively shallow depth of the damaged pipelines — approximately
80 yards at the site of one explosion — a number of different actors
could theoretically have pulled off the attack, possibly with the use of
submersible drones or with the aid of surface ships, officials said.
The list of suspects isn’t limited only to countries that possess manned
submarines or deep-sea demolitions expertise.
The
leaks occurred in the exclusive economic zones of Sweden and Denmark.
European nations have been attempting to map which ships were in the
region in the days before the explosions, in the hope of winnowing the
field of suspects.
“We
know that this amount of explosives has to be a state-level actor,”
Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto said in an interview this month.
“It’s not just a single fisherman who decides to put the bomb there.
It’s very professional.”
Regardless
of the perpetrator, Haavisto said that for Finland, which isn’t a Nord
Stream client, “The lesson learned is that it shows how vulnerable our
energy network, our undersea cables, internet … are for all kinds of
terrorists.”
Russia
remains a key suspect, however, partly because of its recent history of
bombing civilian infrastructure in Ukraine and propensity for
unconventional warfare. It’s not such a leap to think that the Kremlin
would attack Nord Stream, perhaps to undermine NATO resolve and peel off
allies that depend on Russian energy sources, officials said.
But
a handful of officials expressed regret that so many world leaders
pointed the finger at Moscow without considering other countries, as
well as extremist groups, that might have the capability and the motive
to conduct the attack.
“The governments that waited to comment before drawing conclusions played this right,” said one European official.
Condemnation
of Moscow was swift and widespread. On Sept. 30, four days after the
explosions, U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told the BBC it
“seems” Russia was to blame. “It is highly unlikely that these incidents
are coincidence,” she said.
German
Economy Minister Robert Habeck also implied that Russia, which has
consistently denied responsibility, was responsible for the explosions.
“Russia saying ‘It wasn’t us’ is like saying ‘I’m not the thief,’”
Habeck told reporters in early October.
An
adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the ruptures
“a terrorist attack planned by Russia and an act of aggression toward
[the European Union].”
“No
one on the European side of the ocean is thinking this is anything
other than Russian sabotage,” a senior European environmental official told The Washington Post in September.
But as the investigation drags on, skeptics point out that Moscow had
little to gain from damaging pipelines that fed Western Europe natural
gas from Russia and generated billions of dollars in annual revenue. The
Nord Stream projects had stirred controversy and debate for years
because they yoked Germany and other European countries to Russian
energy sources.
“The rationale that it was Russia [that attacked the pipelines] never made sense to me,” said one Western European official.
Nearly
a month before the rupture, the Russian energy giant Gazprom stopped
flows on Nord Stream 1, hours after the Group of Seven industrialized
nations announced a forthcoming price cap on Russian oil, a move
intended to put a dent in the Kremlin’s treasury. During Putin’s long
stretch in office, the Kremlin has used energy as an instrument of
political and economic leverage, employing the threat of cutoffs to
bully countries into going along with its goals, officials said. It
didn’t make sense that Russia would abandon that leverage.
Germany had halted final authorization of Nord Stream 2 just days
before Russian forces invaded Ukraine. But the pipeline was intact and
had already been pumped full with 300 million cubic meters of natural
gas to ready it for operations.
European
and U.S. officials who continue to believe that Russia is the most
likely culprit say it had at least one plausible motive: Attacking Nord
Stream 1 and 2, which weren’t generating any revenue to fill Russian
coffers, demonstrated that pipelines, cables and other undersea
infrastructure were vulnerable and that the countries that supported
Ukraine risked paying a terrible price.
Haavisto
noted that Finland has taken steps to strengthen infrastructure
security since the explosions. Germany and Norway have asked NATO to
coordinate efforts to protect critical infrastructure such as
communication lines in the North Sea and gas infrastructure.
“But
it’s at the same time true that we cannot control all the pipelines,
all the cables, all the time, 24/7,” Haavisto said. “You have to be
prepared. If something happens you have to think, where are the
alternatives?”
The
war prompted European countries to build up stockpiles of alternative
energy, making them less dependent on Russian sources. But the Nord
Stream attack has left many governments uneasy about the lengths to
which Russia or other actors might go.
Swedish
Foreign Minister Tobias Billstrom said his government was waiting for
the country’s independent prosecutor’s office to complete its
investigation into the explosions before reaching a conclusion. Sweden,
along with Denmark, increased its naval patrols right after the attack.
“We
have spoken about [the explosions] as part of the view that the
security situation in the northern part of Europe has deteriorated
following Russia’s aggression on Ukraine, with all the implications that
it has,” Billstrom said in an interview this month.
The
prospect that the explosions may never be definitively attributed is
unsettling for nations like Norway, which has 9,000 kilometers (5,500
miles) of undersea gas pipelines to Europe.
A
Norwegian official said Norway is attempting to strengthen security
around its own pipelines and broader critical infrastructure. It is
investing in surveillance; working with Britain, France and Germany to
intensify naval patrols; and trying to find ways to keep oil and gas
flowing in the event of another attack.
Norway is also investigating the appearance of unidentified aerial drones around its oil and gas facilities around the time of the Nord Stream attacks.
“It’s
not a good thing,” the official said, of the possibility that the Nord
Stream explosions may remain unsolved. “Whoever did it may get away with
it.”
