New findings on the Nord Stream attacks — a deep dive

A groundbreaking investigation reveals new evidence on NATO's potential involvement in the Nord Stream sabotage — highlighting the overlooked role that submarines may have played

Guest post by Maike Gosch, originally published in the German magazine NachDenkSeiten and presented here in a slightly extended version.

---

The Nord Stream pipelines are currently back in the headlines. After rumours of a US takeover of the pipelines recently caused a stir, the Bild newspaper reported on March 4th that Germany is currently intensively examining what levers it has at its disposal to prevent a comeback of Nord Stream 2. Just when you think the absurdity can’t get any worse, someone turns the screw a little further. But I guess these are the times we live in.

However, there is also other news, namely the publication of very interesting research findings on the attack on the pipelines, which may shed new light on the modus operandi and the possible perpetrators. As expected, these do not come from the official investigative bodies, but from an independent journalist from France.

Every crime fiction reader knows that one of the most important steps in solving a case is to ask the right questions. One question that has been bothering me for some time in relation to the Nord Stream attacks is why some of the deepest places in the Baltic Sea, which is shallow in many places, were chosen for the attacks.

Why was the so-called Bornholm Basin chosen as the crime scene, which is around 80 to 100 metres deep, and not other areas that have a water depth of only around 20 to 30 metres and would have had the additional advantage that the two twin pipes of Nord Stream 1 and those of Nord Stream 2 run very close to each other, so that it presumably would have been easier to blow up both pipelines or all four strings?

This question and a possible answer to it are the focus of new research findings by French investigative journalist Freddie Ponton, which appeared last week in the online newspaper 21st Century Wire.

He explores a possible, very simple answer to this question, which can be summarised in one word: submarines.

After rumours of a Russian submarine in the vicinity of the crime scene made the rounds in the very first hours after the attack, a possible commission of the crime with the help of submarines has strangely played a very subordinate to non-existent role in the theories and speculations since then. Seymour Hersh does not mention this possibility either — even though highly experienced German defence expert Thorsten Pörschmann, for example, stated in an interview on October 10, 2022, shortly after the attacks, that he considered the use of submarines equipped for laying ground mines to be the most likely scenario. Here are his comments on this in full (from about minute 14:37):

There are explosive charges that are specially designed for these depths and that can be laid with submarines. That’s the exciting thing. And in terms of weight, they also match the explosive force that was measured. The whole thing is called a bottom mine. They are cylindrical and can be carried in the torpedo tubes of submarines. […] A torpedo tube on a submarine is not only there to fire torpedoes. It can also transport combat swimmers in it and let them out, but these torpedo tubes can also be used as a mine-laying device by sneaking somewhere and laying bottom mines there. Every mine is only supposed to explode when you drive over it or when it’s triggered, but every mine is also an effective explosive, which means you can also use it as an explosive. This is often done with anti-tank mines, that is, if I have nothing else, I use an anti-tank mine as an explosive. That would also work with a bottom mine.

But back to Freddie Ponton’s new findings for 21st CenturyWire: he first points out an important point, namely that these deep places in the Bornholm Basin would be ideal for the use of submarines, both in terms of their manoeuvrability and the possibility of acting undetected.

Another point Ponton highlights is the fact that some of the areas where the attacks took place are even specially designated NATO submarine exercise areas, which are marked as such on nautical charts (as shown in documents from the Danish Energy Agency, which issued the licence for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in October 2019, which he shows in his article). Another important piece of information is that submarine operations in the Baltic Sea are managed and coordinated by the German Navy’s Submarine Operating Authority, or SubOpAuth, in cooperation with NATO and the Baltic states.

So, we have sites that are partly in the middle of areas designated for submarine manoeuvres and whose submarine activities are coordinated by a subdivision of the German Navy. Ponton next sets out to investigate more about NATO’s submarine activities in the period around the attack at the end of September 2022.

In his February 2023 report, the American journalist Seymour Hersh claimed that US Navy divers were involved in the sabotage of Nord Stream and used the NATO naval exercise BALTOPS 22 — one of NATO's largest maritime manoeuvres, which took place in the Baltic Sea between June 5 and 22, 2022 — to place explosives at various locations along the pipeline. Unlike Freddy Ponton, however, Seymour Hersh did not assume that submarines had been used to commit the offence, but that deep-sea divers had planted the explosives on the pipelines.

Ponton also deals with BALTOPS 22, but focusses on the submarine activities. As he reports, it is naturally difficult to obtain more precise information about the planning, content and command structures of the military exercise. But a stroke of luck helped him: Danish journalists from the TV2 channel were filming a report on the activities of the Danish navy, and the picture showed a screen on which the organisational structure of the BALTOPS 22 exercise was visible. It showed that BALTOPS 22 was led by an American, but that a German military officer was in charge of the submarine exercises which were part of the manoeuvre.

However, around the time of the attacks, there were other exercises in the Baltic Sea in addition to BALTOPS 22, which many are familiar with from Seymour Hersh’s article. Of particular interest for our investigation is the German-led naval exercise Northern Coasts 2022, which began on August 29, 2022 and ended on Wednesday September 28, 2022, two days after the Nord Stream explosions, and which was planned and conducted with the help of NATO’s Allied Naval Command (MARCOM) and other NATO partners. As Freddie Ponton points out in his long and detailed article:

The fact that the Nord Stream explosions occurred under the watch of the German Navy and MARCOM during German-led Northern Coasts 2022 is of great concern. Not only it is unthinkable that Germany wasn’t aware of the air, surface and subsurface activities taking place in the Baltic Sea around that time but, it is even harder to believe, if not inconceivable, that MARCOM was left in the dark.

Ponton’s article thus argues that it is unlikely that anyone outside NATO could have carried out attacks on such a large scale in the “NATO Lake”, as the Baltic Sea is also called, unnoticed during this period, while manoeuvres were taking place in parallel. It also shows the extent to which the naval activities of NATO member states are already coordinated with each other.

Of course, without being an expert in this field, this is difficult to judge. Do these latest investigations and research already provide clear evidence of responsibility by a particular state or actor? No, unfortunately not, but they do provide interesting and relevant context that can help to assess the situation and clarify the probabilities of who the possible perpetrators are most likely to be. These investigations can also provide an answer to the question of who most likely had the means to carry out the attack.

Unfortunately, we are still waiting for final results from the German investigators, so citizen journalism will have to fill this gap. The arrest warrant for a Ukrainian national named Volodymyr Z., who allegedly planted the explosives on the pipelines with other suspects while diving from the sailing yacht “Andromeda”, seems more and more like a red herring, just as the whole yacht story is rather unlikely from the point of view of many experts.

Freddie Ponton’s article is only the first in a series. According to the author, the second part is expected to be published around June 2025. We can look forward to seeing what else will come out of it. In an interview with Patrick Henningsen on X about his findings, the author already mentioned that he will explain, among other things, why there was a 17-hour gap between the various explosions, which is one of the many still unsolved mysteries that this attack — the largest terrorist attack (luckily without human victims) in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany — presents us with.

In his article he furthermore announces:

The idea that a covert operation utilizing an ExMCM Unit [Note by MG: ExMCM stands for Expeditionary Mine Countermeasures. This term is used in military and maritime contexts for special units that specialise in detecting, defusing or removing mines under water] was carried out with the support of an Amphibious Ready Group and a submarine(s) (or mini-subs) during NATO naval exercises may appear unlikely at first glance. However, our investigation into the Nord Stream sabotage now provides compelling evidence for the existence of Seabed Mine Warfare and Underwater Demolition Operations. These activities were conducted during maritime exercises led by NATO member states, thereby aligning squarely with the principles of Maritime Irregular Warfare.

It is a well-established fact that the United States Navy engages in covert, unacknowledged, and unscheduled operations during NATO Mine Countermeasures (MCM) and Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) maritime exercises in Europe. This assertion is supported by publicly available information, and also further corroborated by off-the-record conversations by our investigative team with both former and active duty NATO officers, and EOD commanders.

It is worth reading Freddie Ponton’s extremely detailed and comprehensive article in full — it contains a great deal of information about developments in the military sector that are unfortunately rarely critically scrutinised by the media, such as the extremely close integration of the German military with NATO structures. There is also very interesting information about the means and methods of the extensive clean-up operation on the bottom of the sea that took place stealthily after the attacks.

However, it is very difficult for me to imagine that German marines were involved in the Nord Stream blast or were even in on it, but let’s wait and see how things develop. In any case, there is still a lot to be discovered beneath the surface.

---

Putting out high-quality journalism requires constant research, most of which goes unpaid, so if you appreciate my writing please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you haven’t already. Aside from a fuzzy feeling inside of you, you’ll get access to exclusive articles and commentary.

Thomas Fazi

Website: thomasfazi.net

Twitter: @battleforeurope

Latest book: The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor—A Critique from the Left (co-authored with Toby Green)