Mikhail Podolyak, an adviser to the head of the office of the Ukrainian president, stated that Kiev was absolutely not involved in the attacks on the Nord Stream gas pipelines last year. He conveyed this to Reuters after a New York Times article suggested that a pro-Ukrainian group might have carried out the bombing. The message was clear from Podolyak: Kyiv does not acknowledge any role in the incident, and he reiterated that he did not have information about what happened to Kyiv’s gas pipelines or who was responsible.
The New York Times later reported that US intelligence points to involvement by a pro-Ukrainian group in the Nord Stream explosions. The article also emphasized that there is no evidence showing United States backing for the attack, nor any indication that the Ukrainian government or President Zelensky directed it. This framing underscores the difficulty of assigning blame in a highly sensitive geopolitical episode and contrasts official Ukrainian denials with intelligence assessments that circulate in international media.
In a broader discussion, The New York Times columnists suggested that German public opinion could shift away from supporting continuous aid to Ukraine if it becomes widely believed that Kyiv was involved in undermining the Nord Stream pipelines. This line of reasoning reflects how domestic political calculations in Europe can influence the calculus of continued assistance in a protracted conflict.
Responding to the coverage, Alexey Pushkov, a member of the Federation Council, criticized the New York Times report as disinformation meant to mislead readers. The clash of narratives demonstrates how signals from intelligence communities, media outlets, and political figures can collide, leaving audiences to sort through competing claims about responsibility and motive while the geopolitical stakes remain high.