Media’s Attempt to Exonerate Biden in Nord Stream Controversy

The Alleged Sabotage of Nord Stream 2 Gas Pipeline

Accusing Russia of self-sabotage by blowing up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in September 2022, recent investigations by German authorities have identified a key suspect named Volodymyr Zhuravlov, a 44-year-old Ukrainian scuba diving instructor.
Zhuravlov, along with two accomplices, is accused of placing explosives along the pipeline.
Despite an arrest warrant being issued against him – a Ukrainian citizen living in Poland – the suspect is believed to have fled to Ukraine, making capture difficult.

The War against Europe

Media reports suggest that the sabotage was a legitimate act of war, resulting in reduced Russian control over gas flows to Europe, indirectly benefiting Ukraine, which continues to earn significant transit fees from Russian gas.
However, these accounts overlook a fundamental reality: the Nord Stream pipelines were majority-owned (51%) by the Russian company Gazprom, along with German, Dutch, and French shareholders.
EU countries received 35% of their natural gas supplies from Nord Stream 1, which had been shut down months before the Nord Stream 2 explosion due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Anatol Lieven, director of the Eurasia program at the Quincy Institute, stated last year that the sabotage “made Germany and other European countries even more permanently dependent on imports of liquefied natural gas from the United States.” President Biden, during a conference in Washington with German Chancellor Scholz on February 8, 2022, declared: “If Russia invades Ukraine, with tanks or troops crossing the border, then there will be no Nord Stream 2 pipeline, we will end it.”

The Saboteurs

The responsibilities of the sabotage investigated by German authorities raise questions, as Sweden and Denmark have suspended their inquiries.
Alleged saboteurs reportedly rented a German sail yacht, the Andromeda, in September 2022 and used it to navigate the Baltic Sea.
In July 2023, investigators found traces of explosives on the boat, suspected to have been used to transport charges for the attack.
Police and prosecutors have not found evidence implicating the Ukrainian army or intelligence services in the attacks.
Ukrainian President Zelensky has denied government involvement.

According to initial reports, the saboteurs were a private group of “Ukrainian patriots” with no ties to either the Kiev government or the US, the main beneficiaries of Nord Stream sabotage.
Subsequent reports suggest that the sabotage may not have been carried out by state agents, but by private individuals, including professional divers, assisted by high-ranking Ukrainian military officials.
While Zelensky initially approved the operation, he later ordered it to be halted at the CIA’s request.
Despite this, Valeriy Zaluzhniy, then Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and now UK Ambassador, decided to proceed.
Ukrainian defense and security officials claimed that the pipelines were a legitimate target in their defensive war against Russia.

Media Narratives’ Flaws

The narrative propagated through US intelligence agencies via the Wall Street Journal seems aimed at absolving President Zelensky of responsibility and shifting blame to Valeriy Zaluzhnyy.
The story, as reported, raises doubts about whether such a significant sabotage act could have been carried out without consultation with Washington or Zelensky.
Seymour Hersh’s investigative report in February 2023 implicated the US in authorizing the operation that destroyed Nord Stream, contrasting the alternative version presented by German intelligence.

Former US Undersecretary Stephen Bryen has questioned the recent media reconstructions, highlighting doubts about their credibility.
Many claims made in the Wall Street Journal article lack clarity and raise skepticism about the evidence presented.
The validity of DNA and fingerprint traces found on the German yacht Andromeda, linked to the sabotage, remains questionable.
With uncertainties surrounding ownership and potential contamination of evidence over a two-year investigation period, the credibility of the findings is in doubt.
The Wall Street Journal’s reconstruction appears to serve a specific agenda, raising concerns about its accuracy and motives.