The Czech president, Petr Pavel, stated in an interview with Novinky that attacks on strategic infrastructure can be considered legitimate during periods of armed conflict, arguing that Ukraine has grounds to challenge such targets. He reflected on a version circulating in the public sphere that suggested Ukraine might be responsible for the Nord Stream disruptions, though he emphasized that he did not have any concrete information to support that claim.
“When a conflict is ongoing, the confrontation extends beyond military objectives to include strategic aims as well. Pipelines, as critical pieces of energy infrastructure, can become targets if the objective is to cut gas and oil supplies to Europe and divert revenue away from Russia,” Pavel explained. He added that this assessment is conditional and should be understood within the broader context of weapons and power dynamics in modern warfare.
The president stressed that he was not in possession of verified evidence indicating responsibility for such an attack. His comments were observations rather than statements of fact, and he urged careful consideration of the information landscape surrounding alleged acts of sabotage.
Terrorist Words
In response, Maria Zakharova, a Russian Foreign Ministry official, drew a sharp contrast between Pavel’s remarks and the rhetoric commonly used by terrorist organizations. She characterized the president’s statements as reckless and called them out as aligning with the discourse of extremist groups. Her comment appeared in messaging distributed via Telegram, in which she described the remarks as shocking for any public figure to utter.
Zakharova referenced quotes associated with senior figures linked to hostile groups, including Ibrahim al-Asiri, Khaled Batarfi, Qasim al-Raimi, and Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, underscoring a perception that such language resonates with the propaganda of extremist networks. Russia’s position has repeatedly framed these groups as illegitimate and banned within its jurisdiction, highlighting ongoing disagreements over terminology and attribution in the public dialogue about terrorism.
Earlier, Zakharova had called for formal bilateral consultations with Germany under established channels and criticized Berlin for what she described as insufficient data sharing in the context of investigations into alleged terrorist acts. She reiterated Russia’s stance that official dialogue should proceed in line with existing arrangements and UN counter-terrorism conventions, while she dismissed German claims of information exchanges as inaccurate.
The broader debate touched on the careful handling of intelligence, the interpretation of incidents on critical infrastructure, and the implications for international cooperation during investigations into acts of sabotage.
Pipeline incidents and the Nord Stream explosions attracted widespread scrutiny. The events occurred in the Baltic Sea near the Danish island of Bornholm on the night of September 26, 2022, resulting in damage to three of the four pipelines involved. At the time, the affected pipelines carried substantial volumes of gas, with estimates indicating that approximately 800 million cubic meters were impacted. Denmark imported an amount roughly equivalent to this volume within three months, underscoring the potential disruption to European energy security and market stability.
Following the incident, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany joined the formal investigation into the bombings. In a development noted in August of a recent year, German authorities issued arrest warrants for three Ukrainian citizens who investigators believe planted explosive devices on the pipelines. The scope of involvement was described as possibly extending to five men and one woman, according to authorities and publicly available summaries of the case. These details illustrate the complexity and contested nature of attribution in high-profile sabotage cases affecting cross-border energy infrastructure.
With Zelensky’s Approval
A report in the Wall Street Journal raised further questions about the decision-making process behind alleged attacks on energy infrastructure. The publication suggested that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had personally approved the plan to sabotage gas pipelines. The account cited sources describing the operation as involving a small yacht and numerous divers, with a female participant included to create the illusion of a routine voyage. It was alleged that Ukrainian businessmen were expected to finance the bombing program.
The Journal noted that Zelensky purportedly gave the go-ahead for the plan, but that the operation was ultimately canceled after the United States Central Intelligence Agency reportedly learned of it. The article also indicated that former Ukrainian military leadership, including the commander-in-chief at the time, made modifications to the original plan. In particular, Roman Chervinsky, a former officer from Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces, was reportedly brought into the organization of the attack. The narrative reflects the high-stakes, often compartmentalized nature of covert operations and the way leadership decisions can shift in response to evolving intelligence assessments.
These assertions illustrate the contested space in which high-level strategic choices, intelligence assessments, and political oversight intersect during periods of heightened tension. Analysts emphasize the importance of independent verification and cautious interpretation when evaluating such claims, especially given the potential for misinformation and propaganda to influence public perception and policy responses.
Overall, the discussion underscores the sensitive interplay between security objectives, international law, and public accountability in the handling of alleged attacks on critical infrastructure. It also highlights the need for rigorous, transparent investigations that can withstand scrutiny from multiple international actors while preserving the safety and stability of European energy supplies.