Initial inquiries by Danish law enforcement and the military have confirmed damage to the Nord Stream pipelines, with words from officials describing the explosions as powerful. The authorities stressed that the incidents took place in the Baltic Sea and involved both pipelines, a finding that has shaped the early phase of the investigation and raised questions about responsibility and intent.
Copenhagen Police issued a statement on Tuesday detailing that investigators are working at the crime scenes in collaboration with the Danish Army and the Norwegian Police Intelligence Services, known as PET. This joint effort aims to uncover how the damage occurred, when it happened, and who may be responsible. The collaboration underscores the seriousness with which Denmark treats the incident as a security concern that involves multiple agencies across borders.
The spokesperson noted that the preliminary results indicate that Nord Stream 1 and 2 suffered severe damage within Denmark’s exclusive economic zone, and that the damage was caused by powerful explosions. Such a characterization points to an act rather than an accident, and it has prompted the formation of a cross-agency investigative group. Denmark will work closely with Norway and the relevant authorities to pursue the case, coordinating across national lines to gather evidence and build a coherent narrative of events.
Despite the attention and ongoing international coordination, officials emphasized that it remains too early to outline a framework for broader international cooperation. Germany and Sweden, along with other countries, have been mentioned in early discussions, but the exact modalities of any multinational participation have not yet been settled. The evolving nature of the inquiry reflects the involvement of several actors and distinct institutions in each country, which can complicate timelines and processes.
Earlier this week, reports from German media suggested that Swedish and Danish authorities might have differences in security considerations regarding cooperation. In response, the body handling the case clarified that while partners are being consulted, predicting a clear end date for the investigation is not possible. In any complex sabotage case, patience often accompanies the pursuit of corroborating evidence from multiple sources, including underwater assessments and forensic analyses.
In related developments, the Swedish newspaper Expressen published footage showing one Nord Stream 1 pipe at a depth of about 80 meters captured by underwater drones operated by the Norwegian company Blueye Robotics. The imagery reportedly reveals roughly 50 meters of the pipeline missing at the inspection point, with the ends showing signs of bending and tearing, as though subjected to substantial external force. The seafloor around the site also appears fractured, notably near a location where one of the four leaks was detected in late September. Such visual evidence has intensified scrutiny over how the damage occurred and what tools or mechanisms could have produced the observed damage at depth.
The Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines were not in service at the time the damage was detected. Gazprom, the Russian state-controlled gas company, had already reduced gas flows earlier in the year, with the first supply cut at the start of September following a period of reduced throughput, and the second line remaining non-operational. This context has fed into debates about the motivations behind the incident and whether geopolitical tensions surrounding energy supplies played a role. Observers note that the lack of routine gas transmission at that moment makes the sabotage narrative more plausible in the eyes of many analysts, even as investigators pursue concrete forensic proof.
From the outset, Swedish and Danish authorities have treated the sabotage hypothesis as credible and have joined other Western partners in weighing Russian involvement. The investigations highlight a broader pattern of concern about critical energy infrastructure and the potential for state-supported or state-tied actions to disrupt cross-border energy security. As officials continue to gather evidence, they stress the importance of careful, methodical work to avoid drawing premature conclusions while maintaining transparency about the facts as they emerge. The situation remains fluid, with the international community watching closely as new findings come to light and as investigative teams coordinate through formalized channels to ensure accurate, accountable reporting. [citation attribution: official statements and media reports summarized from public briefings and investigative announcements]