Top Spanish Government Official’s Statements on Nord Stream Sabotage Remain in Doubt*

Nearly sixteen months have passed since Spain's minister for ecological transition made claims about the attack on the pipelines. No reporter has asked her to qualify her statements – until now.

Teresa Ribera, Spain’s minister for ecological transition, speaking at the New Economy Forum (NEF) in Madrid on January 11. Source: New Economic Forum

On September 26, 2022, four underwater explosions ruptured three out of the four lines of the Nord Stream pipeline located near the floor of the Baltic Sea. Investigators concluded that the breaches in the pipelines were the result of deliberate acts of sabotage. The attack resulted in the destruction of approximately $20 billion of international infrastructure, capable of fulfilling around 30% of the total gas demand in the European Union. This incident constituted a bold act of war, sparking a flurry of unsubstantiated assertions from mainstream geopolitical analysts on television and in print.

Western governments, with the notable exceptions of Polish and American officials, largely refrained from making hasty accusations. Russia blamed the UK and the US. But Spain, perhaps acting out of character, did not hesitate to point fingers directly.

The sabotage is a “clear sign of how Putin plays permanent provocation,” said Teresa Ribera, Spain’s minister for ecological transition, three days after the attack. She then pretended to read the Russian leader’s mind: “This confirms the message of ‘I know how to play rough with respect to energy supplies.’”

Hours later, in a separate press briefing, Ribera doubled down on her comments, seeming to know Putin’s inner thoughts: 

And this, in my judgment, can very likely be linked to that calling of the Kremlin's permanent provocation, sending a message of ‘I’m prepared to do anything and I won’t hesitate in the least to continue using energy as actual blackmail against Europeans until Europe is divided or backs Vladimir Putin.

Proof of receipt from the Ministry for the Ecological Transition of Spain. In English, the text reads, “We acknowledge receipt of your e-mail, and inform you that it has been forwarded to the Press and Communications Office of this Ministry…”

In the roughly sixteen months since Ribera’s conjecture, much more information has come to light about the sabotage, none of which implicates Moscow in the crime. Not a shred of the data, obtained during our independent expedition to all four blast sites last May, including underwater drone images, videos and sonar images, suggests Russia’s involvement. The lead prosecutor on the Swedish investigation said the belief that Russia was responsible was “not logical,” while German investigators have “dismissed” the relevance of observed Russian vessels near the crime scene. Reporting has either attributed the attack to the US or Ukraine.

But all too often in politics, and life, falsehoods are rewarded. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez promoted Ribera, elevating her to the position of third deputy prime minister in the current government. “She is a world eminence” on climate change and “quite vocal” with politicians across Europe, Sánchez said of her in June 2023. (Using Castilian slang, Sánchez specifically described Ribera as “bastante cañera” with European politicians. In this context, “bastante cañera” can have multiple meanings, including “hardcore” or “a leader among leaders.”)

Here in Spain, a sycophantic mainstream press has knelt before this ongoing charade for nearly a year and a half. Not a single reporter has asked Ribera to qualify her statements, depriving the public of potentially probative details – or affording the minister an appropriate moment to retract them. Instead, silence has prevailed, perpetuating the myth. (Fact-check me on this – I may have overlooked something – but the observation is consistent with broader trends in mainstream media behavior toward similar stories, where critical questioning may sometimes be lacking, leading to the perpetuation of certain narratives without thorough examination.)

Attempting to shatter that myth and break the silence, I contacted Ms. Ribera to inquire whether she still maintains that Russia is the perpetrator and to provide her with a fair opportunity to present any evidence she may have. At the time of writing, she has yet to offer any comment.

Nevertheless, the fallout from Ribera’s leaky allegations, made just three days following the sabotage, materialized right away. Not only did her statements appear on front pages in Spain, they were picked up by international mainstream media, giving establishment outlets the desperate chance to propagate a misleading story. A CNBC headline read, “Spain says Nord Stream gas leaks likely a deliberate act – and points the finger at Russia.” The article then referenced a CNN report stating that Russian ships were reportedly seen in the vicinity of the leaks. Yet neither CNN nor CNBC bothers to mention that both Russian and NATO vessels are frequently observed in those areas of the Baltic Sea.

A Reuters article, referenced by CNBC and featuring Ribera’s statements, presents an additional opportunity for journalism and communications researchers to examine the framing and gatekeeping employed by news organizations in their coverage of the Nord Stream incident. Immediately after quoting the minister declaring that the “deliberate act…can very likely be linked to…the Kremlin,” Reuters’ editorial voice appears: “Her comments echo views of German, Danish and Swedish officials who openly spoke about likely sabotage…”

Reuters’ framing, while not explicitly stating that the other European officials believe in Russian attribution, creates an implicit association between Ribera’s statement and the shared belief in Kremlin culpability. By positioning the sentences directly one after the other, Reuters reinforces a narrative that suggests a consensus on the Kremlin’s involvement, rather than simply acknowledging a shared understanding that the attack was intentional. This conflation obscures the marked difference between the intentional sabotage and attributing blame to a specific perpetrator.

Reuters and CNBC ran articles with Teresa Ribera’s comments.

Another opportunity to dismantle this distortion of truth was cast aside just last month in Madrid, where Ribera participated in a 45-minute question-and-answer session at the New Economy Forum (NEF). A few reporters from the mainstream media lobbed softball questions at her with little to no follow-up. Ribera herself discussed the war in Ukraine on at least two occasions during her remarks, citing its repercussions such as “the absolutely insane growth of the price of gas in international markets.” However, the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines – arguably the largest act of industrial sabotage in history – went entirely unmentioned.

If the subtext of Ribera's non-statements at NEF “echo” anyone else’s, it is those of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken. Blinken, after the leaks in the pipelines were discovered, initially stated that the sabotage was “in no one's interest,” but then referred to it as a “tremendous opportunity,” highlighting that the United States was “now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe.”

Spain “is well positioned and prepared to use this opportunity [the energy crisis]…in our favor and in favor of the Continent, with whose values we identify, and to project outwardly those same values in relations with third parties,” said Ribera.

Such remarks are borne out by recent events. In February 2023, Germany’s BASF, the world’s largest chemicals group, announced plans to shed jobs and shift some production away from the country. The company reported a decline in earnings, which “it attributed to shifting global demand and a loss of the cheap Russian natural gas that has served as a backbone for the company for decades,” according to a New York Times report. That announcement came approximately four months after the chemicals group had issued “an unscheduled statement,” revealing a 740 million euro writedown linked to the Nord Stream 1 pipeline.

Where would some of those cut jobs go? España.

Three weeks later, BASF outlined plans to establish international engineering hubs in Madrid and Tarragona. And Volkswagen, following suit, began constructing plants in Spain as it slashed jobs in Germany.

“I believe that the example of these years shows the extent to which we [the European Union] have been able to react to the major crises we have experienced,” Ribera said during her talk at NEF. The energy crisis was mitigated “thanks to Europe and thanks to the ability to provide a united, flexible and supportive response among us,” she added. 

Yet at a time when the German economy, once the engine of the EU, and German workers are grappling with skyrocketing energy prices, the minister exhibited none of the “solidaridad” (solidarity) invoked in her remarks. Nor did she seem to realize that some of her comments had the – likely unintended – consequence of undermining her own idea of “how Europe can continue to be made with our complementarities, our will to advance and our values." Instead, what was on display was an instance of unintentional schadenfreude.

The perpetuation of this relentless farce within the gilded halls of the century-old building that houses the NEF is emblematic of the parallel universes inhabited by elites and the populace on whose behalf they profess to govern. Among the audience were First Deputy Prime Minister María Jesús Montero and C-suite executives of Spanish businesses.Their self-congratulatory clapping came on cue, their smiles self-loving. 

Lobbyists also made their presence known. One of them, Juan Carlos Ruiz, “specializes in highly regulated sectors such as food, climate agenda…” He recently said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, “Misinformation is the biggest challenge facing democracy. The sooner we assume it, the sooner we will get to work.” 

“We lobbyists have a new president @carlosparry and it is a luxury for me to be part of the new board of directors, with a great team up to the challenge,” Ruiz said in a separate post on X. “To work!”

The new president is Carlos Parry. Upon winning the election, he assumed the role of president of the board of directors of the Association of Professionals of Institutional Relations (APRI). He currently lobbies governments on behalf of AstraZeneca, the pharmaceutical giant whose Covid vaccine has been linked to numerous sudden deaths. APRI’s X handle is unabashedly brazen: Lobby_ES. (I once wrote about AstraZeneca and the vaccine rollout – I try to learn from my mistakes.)

The English grammar in parts of Parry’s bio on the APRI website is dubious, and its contents are as shamelessly barefaced as the lobbying firm’s X handle. “Prior to joining the public affairs sector, he held various responsibilities in the public sector, highlighting his time as an advisor in the European Parliament or in the Ministry of Health,” it reads. This is an admission of an undisguised instance of the revolving-door politics that prioritize big-money interests to the detriment of the public. 

Aline Gómez-Acebo (circled), Asisa’s Director of Sustainability, taking the microphone to thank Ribera for her appearance at the New Economy Forum (NEF) in Madrid on January 11. Source: New Economic Forum

Ribera’s question-and-answer session was equally tarnished by a direct link to pay-to-play politics. It was sponsored by Asisa, a private healthcare company, and Solaria, a solar power company, both of which have been recipients of government largesse handed out during her tenure in the Spanish government. 

In July 2023, the Ministry for Ecological Transition under Ribera awarded 1.625 billion euros of European Union funds to Solaria. Iván Molinero Camacho, the husband of the then-government spokesperson and the current housing minister, is one of the company’s directors.

Asisa’s sponsorship of Ribera’s talk may be even more egregious. Asisa forms part of a web of private healthcare insurers and providers that receives ten times more from government contracts than it spends on its hospitals. The astronomical profits of the Spanish private healthcare industry, guaranteed with taxpayer money, are “the result of the injection of public resources into a sector in which users already cover 98% of spending," according to this report.

This unwelcome scenario illustrates a lopsided “public-private” partnership, as numerous studies have indicated that the privatization of healthcare services often results in increased costs and diminished quality. Additionally, these depraved connections between Asisa, Solaria and the Spanish government make a mockery of Ribera’s pretensions as a champion of “values.” But these associations may explain both her baseless claims about the Nord Stream sabotage and her peace of mind among the power brokers in the crowd at NEF.

“Well, I would like to begin by thanking José Luis [Rodríguez, NEF’s president] very sincerely and very affectionately, for what I said before was a joke,” Ribera said. “I always feel very well treated in this house and very much at ease.”

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