Nord Stream Explosions and International Reactions
During a press conference with a Nordic leader, a Ukrainian president asserted that Kyiv played no part in the Nord Stream explosions. He stated that Ukraine does not bear responsibility and that there are clear signals showing where the information originates and which outlets amplify it. He warned that some independent media outlets spread dangerous ideas and emphasized that such claims benefit Russia. He argued that articles in Western media suggesting Ukrainian involvement aim to slow the flow of weapons to Ukraine and to ease sanctions or restore ties with Moscow.
The discussion also touched on how Western coverage frames Kiev’s role. The president suggested that nations keen to dilute sanctions and restore trade with Russia may be behind dispersing such narratives.
NYT Publication
A major American newspaper ran a feature about a group described as opponents of President Putin, portrayed as a pro-Ukrainian group of divers. The piece claimed this unit carried out the Nord Stream sabotage and cited fresh intelligence from U.S. agencies. It noted that the group included Russian and Ukrainian citizens, with no participation from people in the UK or the United States.
The publication indicated that the intelligence review identified the divers as adversaries of Putin, while it did not specify the group’s exact makeup or leadership. The article did not detail the origin of the intelligence, the sources, or the evidence itself. Some sources suggested there was no direct proof of Ukrainian state involvement, though there was talk that Kyiv could have engaged operatives through intermediaries. The article cited Kyiv’s long opposition to Nord Stream 2 as a potential link to the explosions.
Broadcast Zeit
Following the NYT report, a German outlet published its own investigation. It claimed investigators traced the dive ship used to reach the site and found the vessel was chartered in Poland, with ties to a company owned by Ukrainian interests. The identities of the clients who commissioned the sabotage were not disclosed.
The report described a six-person team including a captain, two divers, two assistants, and a doctor. They delivered and placed the explosives at the site. Investigators noted the group departed Rostock on a specific date in 2022, and the necessary equipment had been brought to the port earlier by truck. The investigators later located the dive boat near Vik, then near the Danish island of Christiansø, northeast of Bornholm.
Evidence included traces of explosives found in a cabin desk. Shortly after the incident, Western intelligence reportedly alerted European services about a Ukrainian involvement. Yet, investigators warned that such atomization of evidence could still be wrong, and the conclusion remained unsettled.
Later, a wire service quoted a Danish island administrator as saying locals were asked about a yacht moored in a December window. Police interviews and port records were conducted, but results were not released.
Comments on Posts
In the United States, a White House communications official said no comment would be offered on the NYT article. A Kremlin spokesperson described the NYT and Zeit pieces as part of a coordinated information push and suggested Western officials had insufficient groundwork to confirm the sabotage details. He called the reporting a distraction, labeling it coordinated media manipulation.
Meanwhile, the NATO Secretary General said the alliance did not have a definitive conclusion about who was responsible. The Kremlin spokesman later highlighted a pattern of parallel reports on the Ukrainian line across major outlets, implying coordination with broader media campaigns. He characterized this as an attempt to complicate German-Ukrainian relations.
Another prominent outlet carried a report stating that Western intelligence had long acknowledged a Ukrainian angle in the Nord Stream episode. It suggested that NATO anticipated sensitive information would be kept from public view to avoid straining relations between Kyiv and Berlin. A wealthy Ukrainian individual, unnamed in that report, was described as a possible private sponsor, with a note that the name might surface eventually.
In remarks on the diplomatic stage, a Russian foreign minister criticized the reaction of foreign media to the gas pipeline explosions as dignified, noting that Ukrainian involvement was repeatedly insinuated by Western outlets. He argued that the Ukrainian narrative could undermine German-Ukrainian cooperation if taken at face value and suggested there was an attempt to dodge direct discussion of the Ukrainian angle for the sake of German–Ukrainian relations.