Two years after the Nord Stream bombing: an examination of the various narratives

A dramaturgical view of reality allows us to realise that in life, as in a thriller, the solution can sometimes only be found when you look at things from a completely new angle

Two years after the worst act of industrial terrorism in Europe’s history — the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline, which occurred on September 26, 2022 — no culprit has yet been officially identified. Worse even, European authorities seem to have no intention of seriously investigating the matter, and, to the questionable extent that any serious investigation has actually taken place, of disclosing their findings to the public. Of the three investigations that were initially launched — by Denmark, Sweden and Germany — the first two were were quietly closed in February without publicly identifying any perpetrators, while the German investigation remains cloaked in the utmost secrecy. Meanwhile, for a long time, the mainstream media treated the Nord Stream sabotage as a non-event: by largely refusing to mention, discuss or even acknowledge the attack, it succeeded in largely banishing the event from public consciousness. In recent months, however, this conspiracy of silence has started to crumble, following recent revelations that have led the Nord Stream attack be prominently discussed in the media and among the general public once again. But are these revelations getting us closer to the truth or at they just yet another red herring?

In this fascinating guest post, Maike Gosch examines the various narratives surrounding the Nord Stream attack from a dramaturgical perspective, providing new insights into the greatest geopolitical mystery of our time.

Two years after the Nord Stream bombing: an examination of the various narratives

by Maike Gosch

Propaganda or opinion?

First of all, a note on the subject of “propaganda”, as this term plays a major role in this topic and in the debates surrounding it, and there are often mutual accusations of falling for or spreading “Russian propaganda” or “NATO propaganda”. What actually is “propaganda” and how does it differ from an “opinion”?

Propaganda can be defined as the targeted dissemination of content to influence and control public perception and opinion. “Propaganda” therefore exists when certain content, that does not correspond to the truth or distorts it, is centrally planned by a powerful actor and disseminated to the population. I believe we can have much more constructive debates if we leave the accusation of “propaganda” or “spreading propaganda” or “falling for it” out of the discussion as much as possible, even if it is difficult and this topic is naturally accompanied by an extreme amount of propaganda.

One of the problems with the discourse on this topic, which is of great relevance for Germany (but other countries as well, of course), is that the parties involved start from very different premises and narratives and it is therefore difficult to come to an agreement or even make progress in the discussion. This makes it very difficult to find out the truth about what has happened to the Nord Stream pipelines, but also about the significance of the pipelines and the motives of all those potentially involved. We are increasingly living in compartmentalised reality bubbles when it comes to these issues. This article will probably not help to dissolve them, even if I would like it to.

Stories about the pipelines

There is already major disagreement as to whether the Nord Stream pipelines mean or have meant something positive or negative for Germany. The US interpretation of the situation, held by the more transatlantic-oriented elites in Germany, at EU level and, of course, by large sections of the population is that Russia has abused its position as a near-monopoly supplier of cheap gas to Europe to keep countries and governments in line by threatening to curb or withhold energy supplies. For years, even well before 2014, it was claimed that the aim of the US was to “free” Europe and Germany in particular from this unhealthy and dangerous dependency.

After the start of the war in Ukraine, the pipelines came under increased scrutiny as it was claimed that they would increase Russia’s income (via the revenue from gas sales) on the one hand, and, on the other, represent a possible means of exerting pressure on recipient countries by threatening to curb or stop deliveries in order to get these countries to ease sanctions or restrict arms deliveries to Ukraine. I’m not going to go into a “fact check” here and say anything about the content of the individual points, I just want to compare the stories.

On the other hand, the narrative of Russia, Belarus and Hungary, as well as many — also Western — geopolitical analysts, the alternative media and a large part of the German population was the following: the Nord Stream pipelines ensure a cheap and secure energy supply and can also be seen as a peace project between Russia and Germany as well as the rest of Western Europe. The ability to receive natural gas directly without having to go via transit countries such as Ukraine and Poland saves end consumers high costs, as there are no transit fees, and it also frees both Germany and Russia from the risk of the transit countries diverting the gas to themselves, reducing the volume of gas or stopping the transit altogether in order to exert political pressure. In addition, proponents of this stance, especially in Germany, see the switch to US LNG (liquid natural gas) as a danger in two respects: firstly, economically, as this gas is much more expensive and therefore places an extreme burden on the local economy and leads to the migration of industries, redundancies and insolvencies; secondly, they see the danger of increased dependence on the US, which, like Russia, now has the opportunity to exert pressure on Germany by supplying or not supplying gas.

Now, all of these questions could be discussed in an objective and well-founded manner. Unfortunately, this happens far too rarely and the representatives of these two views are becoming increasingly isolated from each other. An important underlying narrative is, of course, the question of whether Russia is acting as a “bad”, “good” or “neutral” actor. Depending on which version one subscribes to here, this has an impact on the assessments of the above-mentioned questions (pipelines “good” or “bad”).

The Nord Stream thriller

But back to the attacks. If you look at all the events and the reporting on them as if it were a thriller, you can recognise some typical narrative thriller elements. The story can initially be seen as a classic “whodunnit”, i.e., a crime thriller with a crime, a backstory, several suspects, motives, uncovering, suppression and many false trails that are laid to distract from finding the perpetrator.

The first suspicions were directed at the US, as there was a history of almost twenty years in which it had fought with all non-military means first against the construction and then against the certification of the pipelines. Motive and opportunity were quite strong here, and there had even been an announcement by president Biden that he would put an end to the pipeline if Russia attacked Ukraine (we all remember that).

Shortly after the “crime”, however, the first speculations and assumptions in the West were directed at Russia. Others quickly found these implausible in many respects (including motive, but also opportunity — the waters are almost completely monitored by NATO). Perhaps the strongest indication that it might not have been Russia was seen in the incredible secrecy surrounding the Western investigations — initially Denmark’s and Sweden’s, but then also Germany’s. If these investigations had yielded any indications of Russian involvement, it could be strongly assumed in the current geopolitical climate that these would have been made public very quickly and extensively, according to the arguments of the sceptics of Russian involvement. This was followed by the explosive articles by Seymour Hersh, in which he accused the US of having planned and carried out the attacks, citing an anonymous source. To all those who considered US perpetration to be the most plausible solution, this seemed to provide proof for their thesis.

Shortly after Hersh’s publications (and in reaction to them?), the “Andromeda yacht” story appeared on the scene in a concerted press campaign, according to which non-state Ukrainians had carried out the terrorist attack in a kind of pro bono amateur warfare, without the involvement of Ukrainian or Western secret services, militaries or political leaderships.

Although this whole story sounded rather implausible and was also reminiscent of a bad script for a Hollywood thriller, it dominated the press landscape for months and the entire investigative and creative furore of journalists from the established media was thrown at it. Documentaries were produced, trips were made to the harbours, the relatives of the alleged sailors and divers were tracked down, and so on. One would have liked to see a similar investigative ambition to scrutinise the possible involvement of Western states, their military and their secret services, but this was probably both too difficult and not opportune, so it was largely omitted.

What was the communicative effect of this new story? Attention was successfully diverted away from the research and investigation of the possible involvement military and state actors — which took place all the more enthusiastically on blogs and in the alternative media — and interest in Seymour Hersh’s revelations/assertions declined. Due to the omnipresence of this new version, a large part of the established media and thus also their readership, i.e., all those people who did not have time to spend their nights on private and anonymous military blogs, now considered the story of the perpetration by a private group on a sailing yacht to be the most likely.

Not a crime thriller, but a thriller?

Many people, especially outside Germany, on the other hand, consider the Nord Stream sabotage case to have been solved long ago and are certain that the perpetrator was the US — possibly with the help of Ukraine, the UK or possibly other NATO allies. From their point of view, the story is therefore no longer a “whodunnit”, but more of a thriller. The suspense is now raised more by the question of when the “ticking bomb” will explode, so to speak, that is, when the explosive effect of this crime will finally have an impact on the geopolitical landscape. For, in their eyes, the entire post-war Western world order is at stake here, as is the continued existence of German-Anglo-American relations and the narrative of the benevolent Anglo-American empire. If what they believe to be the truth were to finally come to light, they believe that all narratives that the US/UK are “allies” of Germany and other European countries would have to fall apart; some of them even suspect that the German government already knows that its ally has blown up its infrastructure and are surprised at its passivity and submissiveness. They are therefore eagerly awaiting for this to finally become public knowledge and for Germany to respond accordingly.

An unexpected twist

However, the suspicions, hints and statements that have become public with the latest reports have not had the effect that one might have expected. Contrary to the above-mentioned assumption, the narrative of a “Western community of values” (“Westliche Wertegemeinschaft”) with Ukraine did not collapse, but rather a rather sporting narrative twist was executed in Germany, which goes as follows: even if our allies have blown up our energy infrastructure, this is a good thing. “Sorry, what?”, you might say to yourself, “now you’ve lost me”. But it’s actually comprehensible, even if quite audacious. The steps are as follows: in the context of the above narrative, the pipelines were a kind of shackle or handcuff to despotic Russia and the war criminal Putin. Like a drug addict, Germany was unable to free itself from this harmful dependency on its own. Blowing up the pipeline “released” the too-weak Germany from this dependency — as in an “intervention” by friends and family members — and thus actually did Germans a favour.

Perhaps this is also the result of a clever communication strategy (assuming that there is a strategic plan in the background and someone is controlling the release of information). By only approaching the realisation bit by bit and adjusting and shifting the narrative at each step, it is possible to achieve approval or at least toleration for what are actually outrageous findings from the necessary proportion of the population. The steps were as follows: first, Russia did it. Then: independent private individuals in Ukraine did it. Third step: it was Ukrainians, but under the command of the military, but not authorised by the government. The next steps would then be: Zelenskyy knew. Then: the US and others knew about it, but didn’t do anything. Then: no, they actually were involved — and so on.

Skinning the onion

But even the whole debate about how to solve the Nord Stream mystery (or thriller) — which reminiscent of a James Bond film, with all its military and technical details — perhaps draws too much attention away from the underlying field of interest. Storytelling, and especially the construction of a crime thriller, is very much about directing sympathy (preferably towards the real culprit and away from the false leads, so that the reader doesn’t get to the solution for as long as possible). Another very important point is to draw attention to the irrelevant aspects and away from the crucial information and analyses. As seen above, the extensive and detailed “yacht story” could serve to divert attention away from a completely different action, in which professional military actors used warships or submarines, for example, to plant the explosives.

And perhaps even the war, with all its horror and violence, is not the main story at all, but its tragedy, dynamism and violence only conceal the “hidden story”, the underlying structure of economic and financial interests and the geopolitical tug-of-war over energy markets and infrastructure.

Some geopolitical analysts argue that the Nord Stream blast and even the war in Ukraine and the preceding change of power in 2014 only served to displace Russia as a gas and oil supplier and to enable US and British companies and investors to take over the European energy market. In other words, the thesis is that the end of Russia’s role as the main energy supplier for Germany and Europe is not the result of the war in Ukraine, but rather its cause; or in other words: “It’s the energy market, stupid!”.

See these comments by German journalist Florian Warweg in the NachDenkSeiten in 2023:

Only the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines ultimately cleared the way for the EU and Germany in particular to become long-term customers of the US natural gas surpluses and to keep the price at a profitable level for US fracking gas producers in the long term. The new natural gas dependency of their EU “partner” associated with this also undoubtedly suits the US-Americans’ global strategic dominance concept. According to a study by the Institute of Energy Economics at the University of Cologne (EWI), the US will not only soon replace Russia as the most important energy supplier, but will then play the same dominant role in the EU gas market as Russia did before the Ukraine war, with an anticipated import volume of around 40 percent.

This article by geopolitical analyst Ben Norton, also from 2023, is also interesting in this context:

US fossil fuel corporations like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Halliburton are participating in discussions to take over the Eastern European nation’s oil and gas industry, as Kiev pushes to increase production to replace Russian energy exports.

The former high-ranking employee in the US State Department under Donald Trump, Mike Benz, is even more specific in the following interview:

You had in Ukraine this grand Ukrainian energy plan by corporate and financial stakeholders on both sides of the political aisle, which is that Russia has 75 trillion dollars’ worth of natural resources, it is the most resource-rich country on earth, but the vast majority of it is unexploited. But Russia itself, its economy was destroyed during the 20th century. And as it rebuilt itself, it rebuilt itself through basically two things, its export of its natural gas, principally to Europe, and its arms’ industry, which has been the thorn in the side of the US foreign policy establishment for many years now. You remember the Obama administration wanted to invade Syria, but we were repelled because Russia provided Syria with air defense systems. Look at what just happened in Niger. We just got kicked out of Niger because Russia was providing small arms to the army there. So, if we can bankrupt Russia, there’s no opposition essentially to US military hegemony. So, there is a Department of Defense (DOD) interest in bankrupting Russia, there is a State Department interest in bankrupting Russia and taking all of their deal flow and having it transferred essentially as windfall profits to US or to NATO-based companies.

Of course, you could also look at the story in this way. I generally have the impression that these realities and cold economic interests are often obscured by stories of cultural struggle (open society vs. traditional family/man-woman images) and political stories (democracies vs. autocracies) in order to keep the public busy with emotional discussions and distract them from what is really going on: a ruthless game of chess for money, power and, above all, resources.

In any case, a dramaturgical view of things allows for a certain flexibility in the way we view the events as they happen. The solution to a thriller can sometimes only be found when you look at things from a completely new angle.

Thanks for reading. 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)