Russia Sabotaged Nord Stream: The Unconvincing Theory

Nord Stream: The Russian Authorship Based on a Tweet

A Swedish economist, Anders Åslund, writes online that the two explosions of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 occurred just outside Danish and Swedish territorial waters in international waters, executed professionally with large detonations. He adds that he consulted experts in Stockholm and received only one answer: Russia. No names, no technical reports, no traces. This forms the basis of one of the most repeated accusations in the recent European energy crisis, yet it fits least well with incentive analysis.

Who Benefits from Blowing Up Both Russian Pipelines?

Russia held the key. It could shut the tap whenever it wanted, and both tubes had been offline or running at half capacity for some time. Destroying its own infrastructure does not strengthen that position: it eliminates it. A pipeline is a bargaining chip as long as it exists, even if offline, and giving it up leaves the owner without the leverage it had wielded for years.

The calculation of who benefits points in the opposite direction. The very day after the sabotage, the pipeline connecting Norway to Poland through the Baltic peine, allowing Warsaw to resell gas in Central Europe. Some argue this detail, far from cosmetic, points to a motive very different from Russia's. Others go further, placing Ukraine in the mix, based on the fact that the country survived largely on gas transit now routed elsewhere.

Biden's Warning Ignored by the Official Narrative

On February 7, 2022, with the German chancellor present, the US president declared that Nord Stream 2 would end. When a journalist asked how he planned to achieve this, the response was etched in memory: "I promise you, we will be able to do it." Seven months later, the tubes awoke pierced.

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

Who Signed 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 leading think tanks for Atlanticism in Washington, and a columnist for The Moscow Times, an English-language Russian opposition outlet. In 2017, it was published that he had received payments from the Latvian government to write articles about the country's main bank and its alleged cleanliness in money laundering matters. He also appears as a banking advisor to a well-known Ukrainian oligarch.

None of this invalidates his thesis. It simply situates it: Russian authorship comes from someone with interests, ties, and a known paycheck. In a matter where documentary proof has been demanded of everyone, the accusing message offers none.

The Tubes Were Already Stopped: The Motive That Doesn't Appear

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

The destruction removes that leverage, spikes prices—up 19% in the trinc hours, according to figures circulating then—and leaves Europe buying more expensively from other suppliers. As a pressure operation, it is the least efficient imaginable: to pressure, one only needed to turn a valve. The question about repair costs versus contract breach fines has also been raised, though in a scenario of brutal sanctions, contracts matter little.

The Bigger Picture: NATO, Europe, and the Power Struggle

Part of the analysis goes up a floor and looks at the full board. The thesis is that the great pulse is between the United States and China, and that Washington needs to break economic relations between Europe and Russia so the Old Continent does not mature as an independent block. 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 in itself, but that its members, particularly the US and UK, can use its infrastructure unilaterally and offensively. Weighing against this is the fact that countries fleeing the Soviet umbrella did so in a stampede, and that the Ukrainian border sits about 450 km from Moscow, on a plain without natural obstacles.

---

Six Months Later, Not a Report

Half a year has passed. Neither Russia, attributed with all means to sabotage its own pipe, has presented any proof of the opposite authorship, nor has a conclusive expert report been published. Those who pointed to Moscow continue to point to Moscow, and those watching Washington have stopped waiting.

Suspicion has also shifted toward maritime traceability. All ships carry identification and positioning systems tracked by satellite, largely accessible to the public. A precise sabotage 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.

The unsettling fact remains. The country accused of blowing up its own pipeline is the same one from which, until recently, gas was bought that now arrives more expensively from elsewhere. The sabotage left Europe with a higher energy bill and one less supplier. It took a lever from Moscow. It took a competitor from someone.]