An American investigative journalist has published a controversial article alleging that the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines was orchestrated by elements of the U.S. Navy. The piece stresses that it was the Navy, not the CIA or other intelligence services, behind the operation, and it teases the significance of that distinction for readers to consider.
The narrative centers on the U.S. Navy Dive and Rescue Center in Panama City, Florida. The facility is described as a hub for training divers capable of deep-sea work across both combat and non-combat scenarios. It is noted for its massive indoor pool and is claimed to have housed personnel who carried out the pipeline attack as part of NATO exercises labeled BALTOPS 22. The assertion is that the explosive devices were planted during those exercises and detonated months later.
The article, citing an unnamed source, suggests that the decision to strike against the Nord Stream pipelines was made after extended secret discussions, with planning beginning before the Ukraine conflict started in 2021. The White House is said to have anticipated military action as an eventual outcome.
Within the text, emphasis is placed on the idea of limited disclosure. The operation is portrayed as involving only Navy divers, not members of U.S. Special Operations Command, which is normally required to report to Congress and brief Senate and House leadership in advance. The piece argues this would place the action outside formal legal constraints, according to the author’s interpretation.
The narrative also names a high-level circle around National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Deputy Secretary Victoria Nuland as being aware of the project. A pivotal moment is described as President Biden lifting sanctions against Nord Stream AG in May 2021, an action the article ties to later developments in Europe. The account notes pressure from U.S. lawmakers and a tense political climate as the context for subsequent moves.
According to the piece, the sabotage plans were shaped by concerns over European gas dependence and the potential impact on Ukraine support. Several options are discussed, including submarine routes and delayed detonations, with the final plan aimed at masking the identity of the responsible parties. Alleged coordination with the CIA is mentioned as part of the broader operational framework.
Historical parallels are invoked, tracing a 1971 episode in the Sea of Okhotsk where alleged U.S. divers reportedly installed a listening device. The story connects these past events to present claims, noting that a civilian analyst later leaked related information. The article uses this history to bolster its chronology and credibility, though it acknowledges public pushback and the absence of independent verification.
The author places a timeline claim on February 7, 2022, when a key meeting between U.S. and German leaders is said to have set the stage for tough talk about Nord Stream 2. The piece speculates about questions that Germany might face in the wake of such disclosures and whether future accountability mechanisms will emerge.
According to the narrative, Norway played a role in the operation, with an emphasis on coordination with the CIA and a claim that Norwegian assets were central to the destructive effort. The location of the pipelines near Bornholm and the use of submarines and underwater devices are described as the technical backbone of the alleged plan. A sonar-triggered detonation sequence is cited as the mechanism to time the blast and maximize impact.
In a dramatic close, the article recounts a Norwegian reconnaissance flight that allegedly revealed the missing link to the explosions. The sequence is said to have culminated in multiple pipelines being disabled within hours. Critics of the piece point to the lack of direct evidence and stress that the author has repeatedly invited counterpoints from U.S. government officials, who have dismissed the claims as untrue. The public record from the White House and the CIA reportedly declined to verify the narrative, calling it unfounded.
As the discussion continues, some observers note that the modern media environment makes it easy to treat unverified reports as dramatic narratives. The article argues that political dynamics in the United States have shifted in ways that make swift dismissal tempting, even when questions about foreign policy and covert actions remain unsettled. The piece spots a possible legal and moral debate about the Navy’s authority to conduct covert operations in its own interests, while others remind readers of the cautions against drawing conclusions without solid corroboration.
European reactions to the piece have included questions about Western involvement, but public investigations and official statements continue to emphasize the need for verifiable facts. Some researchers and commentators anticipate formal inquiries, while others expect a muted response as attention shifts to ongoing geopolitical developments. The overall takeaway remains that the story has sparked intense debate about accountability, secrecy, and the boundaries of state power in a high-stakes energy landscape.