Germany has not disclosed interim findings from the inquiry into the Nord Stream explosions. Reports from a news outlet citing the federal government’s response to members of the Bundestag indicate a cautious approach to releasing details while the investigation continues.
Authorities in Germany maintain an openness to multiple scenarios regarding what occurred, yet they have not identified a single perpetrator due to a lack of unequivocal evidence. There are indications that Berlin is not fully aligned with Moscow on the issue, and questions remain about the level of cooperation with Russia as the inquiry proceeds. The Bundestag has noted that the government remains reticent about several key facts, fueling ongoing public and parliamentary scrutiny.
In mid-July, Sergei Nechaev, the Russian ambassador to Germany, asserted that the investigation had long contained a known answer about who ordered and carried out the terrorist acts against the Nord Stream facilities from within German investigations. This claim sits amid a broader exchange of statements between Moscow and Berlin on the probe’s findings and the interests at stake for each side.
Earlier, Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for Russia’s foreign ministry, described actions by Sweden and the United States in relation to the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 investigations as part of what she framed as an international effort to shield those responsible for the attacks. Her remarks reflect a broader narrative from Russian officials emphasizing perceived discrepancies in the international investigative process.
The incidents, which involved damage and gas leakage on three lines of Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2, were recorded on September 26, 2022. Seismologists registered two distinct explosions along the pipeline routes. The Russian Federal Security Service has opened a case framed as international terrorism. Sweden’s prosecutor’s office initiated its own inquiry, but public progress has remained limited, leaving many questions unanswered for observers abroad. Analysts and commentators have closely tracked how different jurisdictions have approached the event, including the roles of European and North American actors in the investigation and the political ramifications that have followed.
There have been various public links to individuals and groups named in connection with the incident in different national narratives, including assertions about support for those allegedly responsible. These statements illustrate the complexity and sensitivity of attributing responsibility in a case that involves cross-border energy infrastructure and high-stakes geopolitical tensions.