The Daily - Who Blew Up the Nord Stream Pipelines?

Episode Date: March 8, 2023

The sabotage in September of the Nord Stream pipelines carrying Russian gas to Europe has become one of the central mysteries of the war in Ukraine, prompting months of finger-pointing and guesswork.Now, new intelligence reporting has provided the first significant known lead about who was responsible.Guest: Julian E. Barnes, a national security correspondent for The New York Times.Background reading: Officials say there are still enormous gaps in what American spy agencies and their European partners know about the detonations.The Baltic seabed provided a nearly ideal crime scene.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

From New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, a Times investigation may finally answer the question of who carried out a brazen wartime attack on two underwater pipelines connecting Russia and Europe. two underwater pipelines connecting Russia and Europe. My colleague Julian Barnes says it's not who anyone first suspected. It's Wednesday, March 8th. So, Julian, you have been digging into one of the central mysteries of the war in Ukraine,

the suspected bombing of the Nord Stream underwater pipeline. And you think you now know who did it. Yeah, we think we do know okay well i am going to ask you and i am being a little bit coy here not to tell us who you think it now is just yet because we have 20 minutes of the show to film but also because i think it makes sense to start with the story of the pipeline itself, why it is so important and why its explosion became such an international event. Absolutely. I mean, arguably, Michael, there's no piece of energy infrastructure in Europe that's more important than the Nord Stream

pipelines. Remember, there are actually two pipelines here, Nord Stream 1, which has been active for a decade, and Nord Stream 2, which was all but complete. Together, the majority of the natural gas that Europe uses was going to flow through these pipelines. From Russia. From Russia. And these are very important projects. They tied Russia and Europe together. They made Russia the most important energy supplier for Europe. And so when Russia decides to invade Ukraine, the pipelines become a major focal point.

Right. Because in a sense, Russia, by this point, through these pipelines, had gotten Europe kind of addicted to its fuel, which ended up, of course, helping fund Russia's invasion of Ukraine and makes it a lot harder for Europe to turn its back on Russia over the invasion because it needs this energy. Right. Europe had become dependent on Russia, dependent on its natural gas, dependent on its energy supplies. And that complicated relations that made taking a tough stand against Russia more difficult. Right. But Europe does. It takes a tough stand against Russia, risking all that energy. And remind us what happens to the pipeline after the war starts and after Europe decides that it's going to punish Russia for the invasion. So initially, the gas is still flowing through one of the pipelines. But then… Russia has now turned off its supply of natural gas into the rest of Europe.

And Russian officials say the Nord Stream pipeline will stay off. Russia starts monkeying with it. They start changing the flow. They turn it off. They turn it on. They're exerting leverage over Europe through the pipeline. Right. We have seen natural gas supply dwindle.

We have seen prices spike. And then something even stranger happens. Scientists recorded explosions in the Baltic Sea before detecting three simultaneous leaks. In late September of last year, in the middle of the night, there's an explosion at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. Gas bubbles churn the Baltic Sea. 70 meters below sea level, gas is escaping from the Nord Stream pipelines. It's large enough to be detected miles away. The pipelines operator reported a drop in pressure. The pressure drops inside the

pipelines. The pipelines are taken offline. The pipeline operator says the damage is unprecedented. Something big has happened. There are initial reports indicating that this may be the result of an attack or some kind of sabotage, but these are initial reports and we haven't confirmed that yet. It becomes clear that they've been attacked. Somebody is trying to sabotage the And the question is, who? Right. And it kind of feels, and I remember this moment, that the possibilities are seemingly endless, right? Not endless, but there are a lot of suspects right away. Well, remind us of the early theories of who tried to sabotage these pipelines. Well, a lot of officials immediately started talking about the possibility that Russia did this.

These are officials in the United States. These are officials in Poland. I mean, after all, it was Russia that had been monkeying around with the flow of gas through Nord Stream 1. They had already shown a willingness to sort of interfere in energy supplies to Europe. And so the logic of these officials, they said, Russia has the means to do this. They have the ability to do complex underwater operations. to do complex underwater operations. And they also have a motivation to mess with Europe, to interfere with European energy supplies,

to punish Europe for its support of Ukraine. Right. And, you know, a lot of officials have been on the lookout for a Russian sabotage campaign. This is something that American officials had been predicting Russia might do, not necessarily the pipeline, but other acts of sabotage inside Europe. But as compelling as this theory is, it would require Russia to not just monkey around with this pipeline, but to destroy this expensive pipeline that it built at a cost of billions

of dollars, which would just be weird, right? I mean, who destroys their own pipeline? It's a big logical hole in the theory. Not only does Russia not have an incentive to destroy its own infrastructure, by blowing up the pipeline, they suddenly lose their leverage. They just permanently cut off their ability to influence European energy use. Right. Remember, Putin operates through leverage, through influence, you know, and he's much more of a leader who would turn it on and turn it off. And blowing it up is a very final act that takes leverage away from Russia. Okay, so what does Russia say about this allegation?

They say it's crazy. They say this is a baseless accusation against them. Now, the Russian government doesn't have a huge amount of credibility with anyone, but that doesn't stop the Kremlin from pointing at the UK and then saying maybe the U.S. did it. And is that a legitimate theory that anyone else in the world finds intriguing, that the U.S. could have possibly done it? It is a theory that some people latch on to right away. And why would they latch on to right away. And why would they latch on to it?

The U.S. has always hated these pipelines. They were unsuccessful in trying to stop the first one. They lobbied really hard to prevent Nord Stream 2 from ever coming online. They've always been really uncomfortable with the leverage that the pipelines give Russia. You know, it gives Russia a kind of veto over some actions Europe might want to take. So in this theory, the U.S. so despises the idea of the Nord Stream pipelines from the start and so takes the opportunity in the middle of the war to sabotage the pipelines and probably suspects that everybody will blame Russia, which is a kind of bonus. That's the theory, right?

The theory of why the U.S. might have a motivation to do it. And after all, even President Biden has said some things about this pipeline that have given people pause, have made some people think that the U.S. was making a threat against the pipeline. What did he say? Well, I'll take a couple questions each. Reuters, Andrea, you got the first question. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Chancellor Scholz. In February, in the weeks before the invasion of Ukraine,

Biden is meeting at the White House with the German chancellor. And the pipeline is a big part of their discussions. Germany is a country that is most dependent on the pipeline and Russian gas. And so it's a sort of natural focus of the conversation. Did you receive assurances from Chancellor Scholz today that Germany will in fact pull the plug on this project if Russia invades Ukraine? And he was asked about Nord Stream 2.

Let me answer this first question first. If Germany, if... And he said, if Russia invades Ukraine... There will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it. There will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. How will you do that since the project and control of the project is within Germany's control? And then he added.

We will, I promise you, we'll be able to do it. I promise you we'll be able to do it. I promise you, we'll be able to do it. Hmm, which sounds a little bit like a threat to possibly end the viability of this pipeline. To many people, it did sound like a threat. It sounded like the U.S. was willing to take action. So a reasonably compelling second theory of who is behind the sabotaging of this pipeline. What has been the response from the Biden administration to this theory? The Biden administration has consistently denied it. They have said repeatedly there is no truth to any theory that the U.S. attacked the pipeline. truce to any theory that the U.S. attacked the pipeline. Right, which is what you'd expect the U.S. government to say. So is there, Julian, any other compelling theory besides Russia or the

United States? Well, some people started to wonder, what about Ukraine? Right, and there the motive seems kind of clear. Ukraine is looking for any opportunity to get back at Russia for invading their country. That's right. Ukraine wants to do anything it can to hurt Russia. And it's very important to Kiev that they lessen Europe's dependency on Russia. They don't want any conflict. They just want Europe to support them. Got it. So there are now many reasonable suspects here, all of whom, because they are

nations with militaries, would definitely have the capacity to pull off these underwater explosions that occurred with Nord Stream. That's right. But as we started looking into this, it became clear that it wasn't any of these countries that was responsible. We'll be right back. We'll be right back.

So Julian, who exactly was responsible for this attack? And how did you and our colleagues go about figuring that out? Well, I think what happened was, for much of the investigation, we weren't asking exactly the right questions. Hmm. And what were the right questions? Well, we had logically been focused on countries, all those states that we just went through. Did Russia do it? Did the Ukraine state do it? And that was just hitting dead end after dead end. We weren't finding officials who were telling us that there was credible evidence pointing at a government. So my colleagues, Adam Entis, Adam Goldman, and I started asking a different question. Could this have been done by non-state actors? Could this have been done by a group of individuals who were not working for a government? Kind of like freelance saboteurs.

So where did you take this new question? Well, we started asking, who might these saboteurs be? Or if we couldn't answer that, who might they be aligned with, right? Could they be pro-Russian saboteurs? Could they be other with, right? Could they be pro-Russian saboteurs? Could they be other saboteurs? And the more we talked to officials who had access to intelligence, the more we saw this theory gaining traction. And my initial thought that this could be pro-Russian saboteurs turned out to be wrong. And we learned that it was most likely a pro-Ukrainian group. So in other words, a group of people who did this on behalf of Ukraine, what do you learn

that makes you think that's what happened? Michael, I should be very clear that we know really very little, right? This group remains mysterious, and it remains mysterious not just to us, but also to the U.S. government officials that we have spoken to. They know that the people involved were either Ukrainian or Russian or a mix. They know that they are not affiliated with the Ukrainian government, but they know they're also anti-Putin and pro-Ukraine. Hmm. So after all this investigative reporting,

what you find is that the culprit here is a group of people who want the same thing as Ukraine but aren't officially tied to the government of Ukraine. But I'm curious how certain you are that these individuals are not connected to the Ukrainian government. Well, the intelligence right now says they're not. And while officials are telling us that the president of Ukraine and his key advisors did not know. We can't be certain that that's true or that somebody else didn't know. After all, there's been a series of mysterious attacks inside Russia that initially no one

knew who did them, but then it came out that the Ukrainian government was responsible. Now, here, the intelligence is not saying that, but new information could come to light. That changes our understanding. In other words, there's precedent for it actually being Ukraine when perhaps at first they're being coy or even denying it. And if new information comes out, and we do think that this was Ukraine, not a group disconnected from Ukraine, what exactly is that going to mean, given everything we've been talking about here?

What would be the repercussions of us learning that? Well, the repercussions of that would be big. If the Ukrainian government somehow knew about this or somehow gave permission for this group of individuals to carry this out, it would have a big impact on the anti-Russia alliance. This could break apart NATO solidarity over the support of Ukraine, or it could at least weaken it. And the reason that would be, just to be sure I understand, is because Europe would then face the reality that after all this work gets done to shore up Ukraine, Ukraine is trying to make Europe's energy situation even more vulnerable. That would be Ukraine biting the hand that has quite literally fed it throughout this war. That's a good way of putting it. Exactly that. It would be Ukraine biting the hand that feeds it.

And Ukraine is very, very dependent on that aid. Obviously, the United States' support is the most important, but Europe's support is critical too. They're getting tanks from Germany. They're getting all kinds of support from Europe that they need to fight the war in the months to come. So it is very much in Ukraine's interest that we never find out, or that it never be true, that they had a hand in this. It's much better that it's the case that these were kind of sympathetic people to Ukraine who never took orders, never consulted with, never briefed the government of Ukraine. That's true, but it's also a reason why the Ukraine government might not be involved,

why this might be different than the other covert acts. The Ukrainian government is not a bunch of idiots. They know how damaging it would be to this alliance if they had done this. And so that is one reason some U.S. officials really do believe that this group of people was acting independently. On the other hand, throughout this war, new information has come out to light, and it has changed our understanding. So we need to be open to that possibility. So Julian, thinking back to the larger question of motivations here, the Nord Stream pipelines have been down now for months. And during that period, Europe has not suffered immensely for lack of Russian energy. So if you are the people behind this

attack, these non-state actors sympathetic to Ukraine, I wonder if this is looking like a success because it has helped illustrate that Europe doesn't need Russian energy and might not need these Nord Stream pipelines. And that is pretty good for Ukraine. Europe over the last year has weaned itself off of Russian gas, right? It's a much less important source of energy. And that's a huge win for Ukraine. It really reduces the leverage that Russia has over Europe. And we can see a sort of more full-throated support that European powers have for Ukraine. So the possibility exists that whoever did this accomplished something with their sabotage.

Well, Julian, thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. In his annual budget, President Biden will propose extending the financial solvency of Medicare, the federal health insurance program for older Americans, by raising a tax on those earning more than $400,000. by raising a tax on those earning more than $400,000.

The proposal would help finance the program for another 25 years, but faces fierce resistance from congressional Republicans. Nevertheless, by focusing on the issue, Biden can cast himself as a protector of the cherished program and blame Republicans for putting it at risk. And we allege that if allowed to proceed, this merger will limit choices and drive up ticket prices for passengers across the country. The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit seeking to stop JetBlue Airways from buying its rival Spirit Airlines, arguing that the $3.8 billion deal would reduce competition in an industry that badly needs it. Four airlines, American, Delta, United,

and Southwest, control close to 80% of the market. In response, JetBlue argues that consumers stand to benefit from the acquisition because it would make the combined airline capable of better competing with the nation's four largest carriers and ultimately force them to lower their prices. Today's episode was produced by Claire Tennesketter and Carlos Prieto. It was edited by Michael Benoit, contains original music by Diane Wong, Dan Powell, and Mary Lozano, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Lansford of Wonderly.

That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.