In the clarification of the mysterious explosions on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines, German investigators have apparently taken an important step forward by tracking down a yacht with which the perpetrators transported the explosives. However, many details remain in the dark. This does not go unnoticed by the German press. A press review.
“Weser-Kurier” (Bremen): There are still few reliable facts about the sabotage action on the Baltic Sea pipelines. The fact that the Polish company that chartered the yacht is owned by two businessmen from Ukraine proves nothing. Firstly, it is not yet clear whether the action was actually carried out by the boat in question, and secondly, little is known about the alleged company owners. (…) The Federal Government would therefore do well not to comment further on this question at this point in time. Instead, the Attorney General should continue to investigate thoroughly – in all directions. The conclusions to be drawn can be decided after the case has been finally clarified.
“Badische Zeitung” (Freiburg): At that time – and still are – several parties were considered responsible for the sabotage action. The suspicion of the regime in Russia remains the most obvious. (…) But of course pro-Ukrainian forces – or even the government in Kiev itself – could have tried to take away the hope of an uninhibited flow of gas from Europe. (…) What remains are the most recent investigative findings. They seem to be pointing in the direction of Ukraine – and are thus indirectly pointing in the direction of Moscow as well. Vladimir Putin would be the beneficiary if sympathy for Ukraine in the West dwindled and support crumbled as a result of the suspicion. That’s why one thing shouldn’t be forgotten – Nord Stream explosions or not: Putin’s inhuman megalomania is and will remain to blame for the war. Ensuring Ukraine’s survival and setting boundaries for Russia remain the top priorities of Western politics.
“Leipziger Volkszeitung”: Although no gas would have flowed through the pipelines for the foreseeable future even without acts of sabotage, it is still important to clarify the background. Because, firstly, it is about the security of the European energy infrastructure, and secondly, the uncertainty currently offers conspiracy ideologues and war propagandists far too much space to spread their crude and interest-driven messages. A clarification of the fact would be at least a little happy ending in this great drama.
“Badische Latest News” (Karlsruhe): As is well known, the first casualty in war is always the truth. It’s no different in Ukraine at the moment. For this reason, speculation about responsibility for the alleged act of sabotage against the Nord Stream 2 pipeline must be treated with extremely cautious fingers. This applies both to the new findings of the US secret services and to the results of the German research team.
“Märkische Oderzeitung” (Frankfurt/Oder): Who the perpetrators were is interesting, but only important in retrospect. Because we may never know the truth – even if it would be a bit of a taste if allies turned out to be guilty. Much more important is what the blasts mean for the future. You have revealed the vulnerability of the European energy infrastructure. So there is every reason to better protect other lines, not only in the Baltic Sea. A lot of effort needs to be put into that. After all, our economy and our society depend on energy more than almost anything else.
“Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”: The Baltic Sea does not like to reveal its secrets. This also applies to the question of who blew up the pipes of the Nord Stream pipelines. According to the investigation results that have now become known, it could have been a handful of saboteurs on a yacht. (…) Professionals must have been at work there, such as trained combat swimmers – if the gas pipes were actually destroyed by the people who are now said to have been pro-Ukrainian saboteurs. (…) In any case, none of the suspects so far claim to have been there: not Moscow, not Washington, not Kiev, not Warsaw. However, there would have been some motives for cutting the line. (…) The blast has finally turned her into a memorial: for a policy of naivety and blindness.
“Stuttgarter Zeitung”: The alleged “traces to the Ukraine” allow a lot of speculation. The limited possibilities of the security apparatus, which is existentially dependent on Western arms aid, speak against an action on behalf of the state. Why should President Zelenskyy risk a rift with Europe’s most important supporter by such a pirate act? For a similar reason, it is unlikely to suggest the authors in the West. Why should the USA, for example, allow itself to be carried away by such a destructive action, which would be suitable to burst the solidarity against the warmonger Putin? It seems more plausible that one of Zelenskyj’s wealthy opponents had a hand in exposing him. Putin would be capable of such a corsair piece. He has the technical, financial, and military skills—and the ruthlessness to match.
“Rhein-Zeitung” (Koblenz): Sure, it should have been the Russians who blew up three of the four Nord Stream tubes in the Baltic Sea. Or rather the British? Surely the Americans? But the traces lead to Germany? But ultimately to pro-Ukrainian groups? The speculation about the pipeline sabotage on the night of September 26, 2022 rotates like a compass needle approaching a magnet. In fact, the sometimes heated debate has a lot to do with the respective orientation patterns. It is therefore typical of the perception of a war that one could hardly have imagined so divided before it began.
“Junge Welt” (Berlin): It is obvious that the first target of these reports is the research of Seymour Hersh published in January. His thesis that the attacks were prepared by a working group of the US Security Council on the direct orders of President Joseph Biden and carried out in cooperation between the USA and Norway in the shadow of a NATO naval maneuver is not to be invalidated (the material is not nearly suitable for that), but be relativized by a parallel theory. It is precisely the kind of disinformation tactic that Western intelligence services constantly accuse Russia of creating arbitrary “narratives” in order to drown the opponent’s portrayal in a sea of contradictory details. Putin’s learned students.
“Volksstimme” (Magdeburg): It sounds crazy: Six pro-Ukrainian saboteurs secretly got into a boat in Rostock, packed several hundred kilos of explosives and set sail in the style of GDR refugees. And then, of course, to blow holes in the Nord Stream pipeline off Bornholm. However, the US journalist Seymour Hersh was also classified as slightly insane and senile when he recently explained that the Americans were behind the attack in the Baltic Sea. As long as there is no evidence of the crime and the perpetrators, everything seems to have been possible. But the fact that the ARD, which is not remote from the state, has been involved in the research, makes one sit up and take notice. Because if Ukraine friends were actually at work in the Baltic Sea, first of all Germany would become a war party. Second, it would be a shot across the bow of western aid to Ukraine. Kiev’s denial of any involvement should be treated with caution: in war, lies are a weapon.
“Rheinpfalz” (Ludwigshafen): Ultimately, the reports brought hardly any reliable knowledge to light. It is therefore advisable to wait until the investigators present their results to the public. It’s worth it because the Attorney General doesn’t draw his conclusions on the basis of speculation, but of evidence.
“Neue Presse” (Coburg): The de facto non-existent public communication of the investigative authorities and also the governments concerned must come to an end as soon as possible. Otherwise, Western democracies will once again damage themselves.
“Mitteldeutsche Zeitung” (Halle): Oh, if only it were a series. Then you could turn off the television and say: “Good story – maybe a bit exaggerated.” In the harsh reality, however, you have to face the consequences of the pipeline disaster. And they are serious. Today we know that Russia systematically pursued two goals with its pipeline policy: On the one hand, the Kremlin wanted to create delivery routes to Western Europe bypassing the land lines through Ukraine and Poland in order to be able to turn off the tap to recalcitrant Eastern Europeans if not trace them. On the other hand, it was about making the EU and especially Germany more dependent on Russian energy supplies. Russia has achieved both goals. Whether Moscow would have started the war without the Baltic Sea pipelines remains a matter of speculation. What is certain, however, is that the Kremlin did not expect such a decisive reaction from Europe.
“Frankfurter Rundschau”: Back in January, investigators from the Federal Prosecutor’s Office searched a yacht that was rented at the time of the crime and apparently discovered explosive residues. According to media reports, there are clues leading to a Polish company owned by Ukrainian businessmen. Even a crew that checked in with false passports has reportedly been identified. All of this should be treated with great caution, but it shows that the European investigators are doing their job. That’s good news.
“Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger”: The history of the Nord Stream pipelines has what it takes for a Netflix series. Power, greed, infatuation, betrayal – and powerful explosions at the end. In the harsh reality you have to face the consequences of the disaster. Anyway, the work is progressing. It is true that no gas would have flowed through the pipelines for the foreseeable future, even without acts of sabotage. Nevertheless, it is important to clarify the background. Because it is about nothing less than the security of the European energy infrastructure. In addition, the uncertainty currently offers conspiracy ideologues far too much space to spread their crude messages.
“Ludwigsburger Kreiszeitung”: It is usually helpful to ask who benefited from an act. That’s the US with their increased sales of LPG. But this is also Ukraine, whose own pipeline connection became all the more important. There is also the fact that Russia had cut gas supplies weeks earlier, had an interest in gas prices soaring in Europe – and in warning that someone had the ability to cut off any connections at sea at any time. Too many profiteers, then, for plausibility to be condensed in one direction.
