The Danish authorities announced this Monday the conclusion of the investigation into the sabotage of the Russian Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines, which occurred in September 2022, due to a lack of legal grounds to bring a criminal case in Denmark.
“The investigation has led authorities to determine that there was deliberate sabotage of the pipelines. However, there is not enough basis to file a criminal case in Denmark,” reads a joint statement from the Danish police and the intelligence services (PET).
The Swedish Prosecutor had already announced at the start of this month the closing of its own inquiry, citing jurisdiction issues.
The investigations were described as “complex and broad,” and Danish authorities cooperated with relevant foreign partners.
“The PET continues to monitor the threat landscape and has, together with other relevant authorities, put in place necessary measures to protect Denmark’s critical infrastructure,” the statement adds, noting that there will be no further explanations about the decision.
Silence throughout a year and a half
Unlike Swedish authorities, who provided several updates on the case led by the responsible prosecutor, the Danish side has remained silent during the roughly year and a half that the preliminary investigation was open.
In total, two leaks were located in each pipeline, two in the Danish zone and two in the Swedish, all in international waters. Governments affected quickly labeled these events as sabotage and pointed to the involvement of a state actor.
The three main leaks were isolated by early October of the same year as steady pressure was restored in the pipes, though the smaller leak remained active for a few additional days.
Neither pipeline was in service when the accidents occurred.
The first interruption cut supplies citing technical problems in Moscow, while the second pipeline never entered operation because the German government blocked it after Moscow’s recognition of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk republics in February 2022.
There are ongoing questions about the exact sequence of events and the broader geopolitical context surrounding the incident, which has continued to fuel debate across Europe about energy security and international law.
Conflicting hypotheses about blame
All affected countries, along with the European Union, the United States, and Russia, refer to sabotage, though there are divergent views about who was responsible.
Moscow has accused Western powers of engineering the disruption, hinting at opposition to the long-running project and leaning on anti-Washington sentiment in setting the narrative.
Some accounts have drawn attention to Seymour Hersh’s investigative reporting, which suggested involvement by the United States intelligence community with cooperation from Norway and other Western partners.
Later reporting from American and German media pointed to a Ukrainian-backed group as a possible perpetrator, adding layers to a case that remains politically sensitive and legally intricate.
The upshot is a spectrum of theories rather than a single, definitive attribution, leaving analysts and policymakers to weigh geopolitical motivations, technical feasibility, and the legal paths available for accountability.
As the saga evolved, experts emphasized the difficulty of resolving questions of blame without a clear, legally admissible evidentiary trail, especially in the maritime and cross-border environment where the incidents unfolded. The discussion underscored how energy infrastructure and strategic corridors remain at the heart of ongoing security debates in Europe and beyond.