Nord Stream Sabotage: Why the Russian Blame Doesn't Fit

Nord Stream: The Claim of Russian Responsibility Rests on a Single Tweet

Swedish economist Anders Åslund wrote on social media that the two explosions at Nord Stream 1 and 2 occurred just outside Danish and Swedish territorial waters, in international waters, and were carried out professionally with large detonations. He added that he consulted experts in Stockholm and received only one answer: Russia. No names, no technical reports, no fingerprints. This is the basis for one of the most repeated accusations during the European energy crisis, yet it fits poorly into an incentive analysis.

Who Benefits from Destroying the Two Russian Pipelines?

Russia held the key. It could shut off the supply whenever it wanted, and in fact, both pipelines had been idle or running at partial capacity for some time. Destroying its own infrastructure does not strengthen this position; it eliminates it. A pipeline remains a bargaining chip as long as it exists, even if switched off, and giving it up leaves the owner without the lever they have wielded for years.

The calculation of who benefits points in the opposite direction. Just the day after the sabotage, the pipeline connecting Norway to Poland via the Baltic Sea was peine, an infrastructure allowing Warsaw to resell gas in Central Europe. Some argue that this detail, more than cosmetic, suggests a motive very different from Russia's. Others go further and place Ukraine in the equation, based on the fact that the country survived largely on the transit of gas now flowing through other routes.

Biden's Warning Ignored by the Official Narrative

On February 7, 2022, with the German Chancellor present, the US President stated that Nord Stream 2 would end. A journalist then asked how he intended to achieve this, and the response was recorded: "I promise you, we will be able to do it." Seven months later, the pipes were found perforated.

This fragment has become the most uncomfortable reference in the case. It proves nothing on its own—political promises are expensive and quickly forgotten—but it explains why much economic analysis refuses to close the equation with Moscow's name. For one school of thought, the sabotage fits better as a move by those who had warned Berlin for years that this pipeline should not exist.

Who Signs the Tweet: An Economist from the Atlantic Council

Åslund is not a neutral observer. He is an economist at the Atlantic Council, one of the main think tanks of Atlanticism in Washington, and a columnist for The Moscow Times, an English-language outlet of the Russian opposition. In 2017, it was reported that he received payments from the Latvian government to write articles about the country's main bank and its alleged cleanliness regarding money laundering. He also serves as a banking advisor to a well-known Ukrainian oligarch.

None of this invalidates his thesis. It simply places it: the claim of Russian responsibility comes from someone with known interests, ties, and payroll. In a matter where documentary evidence has been demanded from everyone, the accusing message provides none.

The Pipes Were Already Idle: The Missing Motive

An argument repeats among skeptics: if the gas wasn't flowing, what is being destroyed? Billions in export capacity are broken, and years of investment are thrown away. Nord Stream 2 was still awaiting authorization, with Moscow insisting it was ready to enter service as soon as Germany gave the green light.

The explosion eliminates that leverage, spikes prices—up to 19% in the trinc hours, according to figures circulating at the time—and leaves Europe buying more expensively from other suppliers. As a pressure operation, it is the least efficient imaginable: turning a valve would have sufficed for pressure. The question of repair costs versus breach-of-contract fines has also been raised, though in a scenario of brutal sanctions, contracts matter little.

The Larger Framework: NATO, Europe, and Great Power Competition

Part of the analysis goes a level higher and looks at the whole board. The thesis is that the great struggle is between the United States and China, and that Washington needs to break economic ties between Europe and Russia so that the Old Continent does not coalesce as an independent bloc. In this scheme, the pipeline was the umbilical cord that had to be cut.

Another current discusses NATO's role. It is argued that the alliance is not a threat per se, but that its members, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, can use its infrastructure unilaterally and offensively. Against this weighs the data that countries fleeing the Soviet umbrella did so en masse, and that the Ukrainian border lies about 450 km from Moscow, across a plain without natural obstacles.

---

Six Months Later, Still No Report

More than half a year has passed. Neither Russia, which is attributed all means to sabotage its own pipeline, has presented any proof of contrary responsibility, nor has a conclusive forensic report been published. Those who pointed to Moscow continue to point to Moscow, while those looking at Washington have stopped waiting.

Suspicion has also shifted toward maritime traceability. All ships carry identification and positioning systems tracked by satellite and largely accessible to the public. A sabotage of such precision in international waters leaves a trail that, in theory, anyone can reconstruct. In practice, no one has put it on the table with names and surnames.

Remains the disorienting fact. The country accused of blowing up its own pipeline is the same one from which, until recently, gas was purchased that now arrives more expensively from elsewhere. The sabotage left Europe with a higher energy bill and fewer suppliers. It took a lever away from Moscow. It took a competitor away from someone.