According to reports from RIA Novosti, the UN Security Council convened on the evening of March 27 and debated a draft resolution that would establish an international commission to investigate the Nord Stream sabotage attributed to Russia. The discussion centered on whether an impartial, global inquiry could untangle responsibility for the explosions that damaged the gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea.
Adoption of the resolution required nine votes in favor from the 15-member council. In the end, only three states — Russia, China and Brazil — voted yes. The remaining members opted to abstain, leaving the proposal short of the necessary consensus for passage. This outcome underscored the persistent division within the council on how to approach the incident and who should lead any subsequent investigation, if one were to proceed. This was a pivotal moment, highlighting the political complexities that surround accountability in cases of alleged energy infrastructure sabotage.
Vasily Nebenzya, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, noted that even after the vote, questions remained about the parties behind the explosions. He argued that the results did not settle the matter but rather raised new doubts about the credibility and targets of any potential investigation. In his view, the United States and its allies had effective leverage to block a global inquiry, citing public statements and actions that, in his assessment, demonstrated a preference for avoiding a comprehensive, transparent probe in front of the international community.
Nebenzya asserted that without Moscow’s involvement, national investigations in Denmark, Sweden and Germany might proceed for years without a coordinated international framework. He invoked a Russian maxim to express skepticism about Western choices, and he warned that Washington’s possible role in undermining the gas pipelines would complicate, if not stall, efforts to conduct an independent inquiry. According to him, as more information emerged suggesting U.S. involvement, Western capitals repeatedly resisted opening an independent investigation to scrutiny and accountability.
In parallel, the Russian envoy suggested that the United States and its partners were shaping narratives to avoid answering difficult questions. He contended that various scenarios and explanations had been proposed to obscure any direct fault and to dismiss the need for a broader, jointly managed inquiry. He argued that this pattern of responses indicated an attempt to shield certain actors from scrutiny and to foreclose alternative explanations that could emerge from a truly independent investigation.
Beijing’s representative on the UN echoed similar concerns, cautioning that if some countries obstruct the International Council of Inquiry, suspicions arise about hidden motives or undisclosed information. At the same time, China indicated a continued expectation that an investigation would be organized, with findings presented promptly and transparently to the international community, even as it sought to balance calls for accountability with diplomatic considerations.
In a document drafted by Russia together with several other nations, the UN Secretary-General was urged to establish an international, independent commission to examine the sabotage, identify perpetrators, and determine the sequence of events leading to the explosions. The draft also urged Denmark, Sweden and Germany to share information about the investigation’s progress with the commission and to permit access to relevant parties, including Russia, to participate in the process. These provisions aimed to create a mechanism capable of cross-checking national inquiries and ensuring that the investigation could withstand international scrutiny, while avoiding duplication of efforts.
Russian Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyansky said that Moscow had worked diligently on the text for a month, removing points viewed as controversial by partners oriented toward constructive dialogue. He claimed that the Western position had narrowed to a single point: that an international inquiry was unnecessary because Germany, Denmark and Sweden had already conducted investigations. He argued that dependence on those unilateral investigations diminished, in his view, the ability to address all aspects of the case comprehensively through a truly international process.
The Nord Stream sabotage, which took place on September 26 of the previous year, damaged three of the four lines across two pipelines near Bornholm in the Baltic Sea. The incident has prompted a flurry of debate about responsibility, with various sources offering competing narratives. In 2021, commentators in Washington publicly framed Nord Stream as a potential obstacle to Europe’s energy independence, prompting discussions about American energy policy and its implications for the EU. Critics in Moscow argued that the United States had engaged in unfair competition by limiting pipeline development and by attempting to control energy prices through liquefied gas exports to Europe.
In February, American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published a report alleging that U.S. intelligence agencies were involved in the explosion, tracing the plan to President Joe Biden. The story suggested that the explosions occurred during NATO’s Baltops exercises in mid-2022 and that a remotely placed device, deployed via a sea buoy dropped from a Norwegian aircraft, was used to carry out the act. The publication prompted responses from various governments and analysts, with official positions ranging from cautious acknowledgment to outright rejection of the claims. President Vladimir Putin also indicated his agreement with Hersh’s conclusions, reflecting the strong divergence in interpretations of the event across political lines.
Law enforcement authorities in Denmark, Sweden and Germany continued inquiries into the matter, while Copenhagen publicly denied Moscow access to certain aspects of the investigation, a point that complicated cross-border cooperation and data-sharing efforts. In March, Western media coverage circulated a fresh theory suggesting that a pro-Ukrainian group might be responsible, separate from U.S. intelligence or official Kyiv involvement. Moscow dismissed this line of reasoning as implausible and noted that the widespread circulation of such theories indicated an attempt to manage the narrative. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs argued that the real organizers of the attack might have sought to deflect scrutiny from themselves by disseminating a broad range of speculative reports that could confuse the public and reduce accountability.