{

Analysts examining the Nord Stream explosions point out that the operation could not have been carried out by a loosely connected, pro-Ukrainian group alone. To pull off such a bold act and secure funding would typically require backing from state-level actors or large, organized networks. This view was discussed in a recent public briefing by a researcher from the Berlin Science and Policy Foundation, who emphasized that the scale, preparation time, and resources involved indicate the involvement of stronger institutions rather than a simple, independent group. The assessment highlights that obtaining the necessary funds would likely hinge on formal support from significant organizations or state sponsorship, rather than ad hoc contributions from disparate actors. (ZDF report)

According to the same expert, the financing of a pipeline disruption would be expected to come from established channels with traceable budgets and long-term commitments. The notion that a small, unrelated faction could muster the expertise, logistics, and financial heft needed for such an operation is viewed as improbable by specialists who study security and energy infrastructure. Long-term planning, technical know-how, and access to specialized tools are cited as essential elements that are not readily available on the open market. (ZDF report)

Earlier coverage by a major US newspaper noted that newly reviewed intelligence suggested involvement by a pro-Ukrainian group in the incident around Nord Stream. However, the report also stressed that there was no evidence tying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky or his senior aides directly to the sabotage. The distinction between suspicion and proven involvement remains a point of emphasis for officials cited in the briefing. (The New York Times)

Media discussions around Kyiv’s possible role in the explosions have political and strategic ramifications. Some observers argue that continued focus on domestic or regional blame could slow down military aid to Ukraine and complicate efforts to maintain or expand trade ties with Russia or others seeking to reengage with Moscow. As researchers point out, framing outcomes in this way can influence international response and policy decisions, beyond the immediate technical questions about who carried out the act. (ZDF report)