Sweden’s Closing of Probe into Nord Stream Blast Is Cowardly yet Expected*

Stockholm refuses to reveal who is responsible for the most severe act of industrial sabotage in history. Will Berlin and Copenhagen misdirect the public down the same primrose path?

Gas emanates from the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the Baltic Sea on Sept. 28, 2022. SWEDISH COAST GUARD VIA NEWSWEEK 

Last week, Swedish officials announced the closure of their investigation into the explosions that damaged the undersea Nord Stream pipelines carrying Russian natural gas to Europe, citing a lack of jurisdiction. What happens now?

“We have a picture of what has happened, and what that picture consists of we cannot go into more detail, but it leads to the conclusion that we do not have jurisdiction,” said Mats Ljungqvist, a senior prosecutor leading Sweden’s investigation. 

Russia is the majority owner of the pipelines. German energy companies, alongside other European energy firms, also had partial ownership of the pipelines. Germany, heavily reliant on cheap Russian gas, is suffering economically due to the destruction of the pipelines.

The attack occurred in the exclusive economic zones of Sweden and Denmark. Berlin, Stockholm and Copenhagen initiated separate criminal investigations shortly after the leaks were detected in September 2022, but details of these probes have been kept confidential. In February of the following year, Russia and China called for an impartial United Nations investigation, a proposal opposed by the US. 

After 16 months of closely guarding its findings, it was unsurprising to those following the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage story that Stockholm declined to provide significant details about the investigation. They refused to disclose to the public who was responsible for what is considered the most severe act of industrial sabotage in history. As early as last May, Ljungqvist stated that the Swedish probe aimed to “find out whether Sweden or Swedish infrastructure has been used for the attack and whether there are people who should be prosecuted for participation.” 

The Swedish investigation’s extremely limited scope from the beginning appeared illogical, and the idea of entrusting a country with a population of around 10 million with the task of unraveling what might be the greatest geopolitical mystery of modern times seemed inadequate. While Sweden retains the option to reopen its investigation, the Swedish Security Service’s press release announcing the lack of findings and the conclusion of the investigation was couched in Kafkaesque language, adding to the eerie sense of helplessness surrounding the case.

“Any additional cooperation that may be required in this matter will occur not as part of a formal investigation but within the framework of the Swedish Security Service’s ongoing operational work,” reads the last line of the press release. 

Spine-chilling.

Nevertheless, it appears that both Germany and Denmark may remain interested in unmasking the perpetrator. Danish police said last week they aim to provide more information on their probe “within a short time.” Meanwhile, German investigators reportedly intend to compare traces of explosives found on parts of the pipelines recovered by Swedish authorities with those discovered on Andromeda, the 15-meter sailing yacht suspected of transporting a six-person crew of "pro-Ukrainians” to execute the attack. But prevailing geopolitical dynamics may ultimately prevent any of the investigating countries from ever publicly identifying the parties involved or seeking an indictment from a judge.

Reporting has either attributed the attack to the US or Ukraine – and none of the data obtained during our independent expedition to all four blast sites, including underwater drone images, videos and sonar images, implicates the Kremlin in the crime. The incredibly strong likelihood that the perpetrator is either the US or Ukraine, or both acting in concert, poses a potential embarrassment for Sweden, Denmark and Germany. All three countries have been staunch supporters of Ukraine in the war, providing billions of dollars in weapons. “You’ve doubled Germany’s military aid to Ukraine this year,” Biden praised German Chancellor Olaf Scholz during a recent visit to the White House.

The attribution of the attack to Ukraine in most reports has primarily originated from German mainstream media outlets. Much of this reporting is sourced to German officials directly involved in the investigation. Additionally, German investigators have identified a few of the alleged saboteurs who were aboard Andromeda, as well as the individual who allegedly financed at least a portion of the operation.

If German authorities are unable or unwilling to obtain subpoenas for these individuals, it could not only suggest a lack of interest in uncovering the truth but also raise doubts about the theory that the sabotage was perpetrated by six "pro-Ukrainians" aboard the Andromeda sailing the Baltic Sea.

The Nord Stream incident undoubtedly stands as the most significant act of aggression against the EU since its establishment, resulting in severe repercussions for its energy security and the prosperity of Europeans. If the EU were to attribute the sabotage to Ukraine, it would essentially amount to an admission that the country it supports committed an act of war against it. Conversely, if the US were exposed as the perpetrator, it would signify that the supposed guarantor of European security had executed an attack on its protectorates faced with alleged Russian bellicosity. Sweden is also still gearing up for forthcoming NATO membership.

Such are just a few reasons to believe that the world will never know the truth. Still, the public is justified in demanding to know who destroyed critical international infrastructure valued at over $20 billion, and the unjustifiable secrecy will also surely serve to further erode people’s faith in both mainstream media and their governments.

According to a recent poll, American’s trust, for instance, in the mass media tied an all-time low in 2023. Aware that their outlets have lost the public’s confidence – and experiencing a precipitous decline in readership – some mainstream media editors and journalists have resorted to self-righteous and obtuse hand-wringing, as well subjecting their readers to preachy paternalism. 

Much of the New York Times' coverage of Nord Stream is a case in point. An article about the sabotage cautioned, “It may be in no one’s interest to reveal more.”

In a similar vein, Americans’ trust in the federal government plummeted to near-record lows in 2023. Less than 20% expressed trust in the government to consistently do what is right, with only 1% indicating “just about always” and 15% saying “most of the time.”

Instead of dictating what is best for the public and erecting a propaganda barrier around inconvenient facts, a more effective approach for restoring confidence in government and mainstream media would be to communicate the unwhitewashed truth. Regrettably, this isn’t the course adopted by most governments or their stenographers in the mainstream press.

“Ljungqvist suggested,” according to the New York Times, “that now even if his work was over, the forces of misinformation and disinformation about the case would continue to run rampant.”

*This article originally appeared in Diario16. It can be read in Spanish here.