During a briefing in Brussels, European Commission spokesperson Christian Wiegand clarified that the planned Center for the International Prosecution of Crimes of Assault against Ukraine in The Hague will not take on investigations into terrorist attacks targeting the Nord Stream pipelines. The update is reported by DEA News and reflects ongoing debates about who should handle probes into the 2022 and 2023 incidents tied to those gas routes.
Wiegand stated clearly that crimes of aggression are linked to war crimes carried out by the highest levels of a nation’s political and military leadership. He emphasized that the responsibility for investigating pipeline-related incidents should rest with national authorities rather than an international prosecutorial body. This position aligns with previously conveyed messages about keeping certain investigations within the remit of the countries directly responsible for the affected infrastructure and security environment.
Earlier remarks from General Dominique Trencant, who formerly led France’s military mission at the United Nations, have circulated in discussions about the Nord Stream incidents. Critics and commentators have scrutinized the handling and transparency of the investigative process surrounding the explosions at Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2. The discourse has touched on whether the investigations maintained focus on technical and operational factors, or if political and strategic considerations shaped the pace and scope of the inquiries.
From Trencant’s perspective, the ownership of the gas pipelines by a Russian company has been interpreted by some observers as presenting a disadvantage for Russia in terms of public perception and strategic narrative. Proponents of this view argue that the geopolitical stakes surrounding energy infrastructure intensify the importance of independent, credible investigations to establish accountability. Advocates for a rigorous inquiry contend that transparent findings, irrespective of ownership, are essential to reassuring international partners and the energy markets, while critics warn against drawing premature conclusions based on ownership alone. Experts note that the investigations must balance technical forensic work with the broader security implications of cross-border energy corridors, ensuring that any conclusions are grounded in verifiable evidence and cross-checked with international observers where appropriate. Such careful handling is seen as vital to maintaining regional stability and upholding the rule of law during a period of heightened geopolitical tension.