S/PV.9373 Security Council

In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the following briefers to participate in this meeting: Mr. Bryce Greene, independent journalist; and Mr. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, independent journalist. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I now give the floor to Mr. Greene. Mr. Greene: My name is Bryce Greene, and I am an organizer, a graduate student and a freelance media critic. My work has been published by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and has been republished in other outlets, including Salon and the Monthly Review Online. I am also a United States citizen, and thus I bear the responsibility for the actions of my own Government to the extent that I have the ability to influence them. But I appear here before the Security Council on my own behalf and represent no Government or organization. It is media criticism work and studying the Ukraine war in general that brought me to investigate the Nord Stream attack and the international response to it. For a brief background, beginning around midnight on 26 September 2022, a series of leaks were detected along the route of the Nord Stream pipelines. Seismology reports indicated clearly that this was the result of deliberate sabotage and not an accident. For Western officials, experts and the press, the culprit was clear: Russia. Numerous articles and government officials immediately pointed the finger at Russia. What was their explanation as to why Russia would blow up its own pipeline? Well, even the New York Times acknowledged that “it is unclear why Moscow would seek to damage installations that cost Gazprom billions of dollars to build and maintain”. But the press quickly fell into line with the motive that the attacks were just “a reminder from Moscow”. According to Western officials, experts and media, Russia attacked themselves to intimidate the West. Now there are all sorts of problems with blaming Russia. For one, gas flows from Russia were a major point of leverage over Europe with respect to their support for Ukraine. Removing that leverage would severely harm  — and has severely harmed  — Russian strategic interests on that front. Also, Russia had already made statements urging Germany, then suffering from high energy prices, to end the sanctions against the Nord Stream pipeline, saying that both lines could be opened. Importantly, we know now that the leading investigator, from Sweden, told the press, “Do I think it was Russia that blew up Nord Stream? I never thought so. It is not logical.” The other problem with immediately blaming Russia was that another immediately apparent culprit, the United States, was almost completely ignored as a potential suspect. Why is that? As we shall see, the circumstantial case for United States complicity in the attacks is far stronger than the case for Russia. It has long been a United States and NATO strategy to prevent the integration between Western Europe and Russia. That was clear in the early post-war days. NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Hastings Ismay, made it clear that NATO’s role as an organization was to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down”. That has not really changed over the past 80 years. Since the announcement of the second Nord Stream project, three successive United States Administrations have done their utmost to stop the pipeline. The Obama, Trump and Biden Administrations all opposed it. Even people who plan out the global strategy for the military have taken those things into account. We see that in a 2019 study by the RAND Corporation. The study was looking at ways to overextend and unbalance Russia. Specifically, it looked at how best to exploit “Russia’s economic, political and military vulnerabilities and anxieties”. The RAND study also prophetically recommended that the United States start “providing more United States military equipment and advice” to Ukraine in order to “lead Russia to increase its direct involvement in the conflict and the price it pays for it”. At the same time, the study acknowledged that “Russia might respond by mounting a new offensive and seizing more Ukrainian territory.” We now know how that went, so clearly this is an important piece of literature with respect to understanding what is going on over there. More relevant to today’s discussion, the study included a recommendation to reduce Russian natural gas exports and hinder pipeline expansions. The study noted that “a first step would involve stopping Nord Stream 2,” and that natural gas from the United States and Australia could provide a substitute. I should note that now, if one looks at the study online, it has a warning that it is being misused by pro- Russian propagandists, however I believe the words of the study speak for themselves, as do the words and actions of United States officials. I recall that, at the start of the Biden Administration, United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken told Congress he was determined to do whatever he could to prevent Nord Stream 2 from being completed. Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland told the press: “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not go forward”. In February, President Biden told reporters, “If Russia invades, there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2; we will bring an end to it. I promise you, we will be able to do that.” And after the attack, both Blinken and Nuland celebrated the destruction of the pipelines, calling it a tremendous opportunity. On 8 February, veteran American journalist Seymour Hersh published a major article, hosted on his Substack, about who was responsible for the attacks. The story was based on anonymous sources with knowledge of the operation, one of whom was willing to go on the record. The story alleged that the pipeline was attacked on orders from Joe Biden and his National Security Council, originating from plans that predated the war. The story goes that United States Navy divers used the NATO BALTOPS exercises in June 2022 as cover to lay explosives on the pipeline that were detonated three months later, in September. Analysts within the open-source intelligence community have pushed back, citing differences between some of the vessels involved in Hersh’s story and what is available in the open-source intelligence community, but Hersh has responded to that criticism by pointing out that covert operations would likely not leave a trail that is searchable by the public. The White House, for their part, called Hersh’s story completely and utterly false, but given the interests of the United States in those pipeline explosions, those denials carry no information. There has been information collected by researchers, including Swedish scholar Ola Tunander, which appear to corroborate elements of Hersh’s story, however, to my knowledge, those leads have yet to be seriously looked into by western investigators. After Hersh’s article was published, a new story emerged in both the United States and European press, alleging that a “pro-Ukrainian group” was behind the attack. Those reports, citing information ostensibly gathered in the ongoing German investigation, alleges that a small boat, the Andromeda, was a key part of the plot to bomb the pipelines. However, some investigators are still sceptical of the role it may have played. However, much like the United States, Ukraine has ample reason to want the pipeline gone. In 2021, Ukrainian and Polish ministers published an article in Politico, entitled “Nord Stream 2 has damaged the West enough. Time to put an end to it.” Corroboration for that story came from the Washington Post, which published an addition to the ongoing Discord Leaks story. According to United States intelligence intercepts of high-level Ukrainian communications, Zelenskyy has been advocating making bolder moves against Russia, including attacks on pipelines. We also learned that the United States was training Ukrainians in undersea operations similar to the one that must have been carried out against Nord Stream 2. According to numerous media reports in the Western press, Dutch intelligence agencies passed on information about a potential Ukrainian attack to the American Central Intelligence Agency, which then warned Germany about a potential attack. Therefore, according to mainstream sources in the West, the United States had some degree of advanced knowledge of the attacks. One thorough investigation comes from journalist James Bamford, who reported that the United States is almost certain to know more about the attack than it is letting on, whether it or the Ukrainians committed the attack. It is worth quoting some excerpts from his report. He says: “United States intelligence constantly monitors Russia and other countries in near-real time from beneath the seas, including from under the Baltic, where arrays of acoustic sensors tethered to the seafloor would certainly have been able to pinpoint the exact time and location of these massive undersea explosions.” He goes on to say: “Even more important, by analysing the distinct engine sounds of the ships, submarines and unmanned underwater vehicles passing above, in the days surrounding the sabotage, United States intelligence would have likely been able to “fingerprint” them and determine their nationality and exact identity. While the transponder on a ship can be switched off, rendering it invisible to satellites, as long as its engines are running it can be detected by the United States Navy’s little-known and highly secret worldwide Integrated Undersea Surveillance System.” Therefore, it is likely that the United States knows far more about what happened than it is letting on. To recap, the consensus among Western press and officials is that either the United States or Ukraine was involved in the attack — and if Ukraine was involved in the attack, then it surely had the acquiescence of the United States. Everyone here likely knows all this, but given the United States’ power to veto any motion in the Security Council, the situation will likely not change anytime soon. So, what will change that? Now I direct my comments to members of the Western press  — people at CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times  — major American journals with the resources and the power to investigate the attack and demand responses from American officials. But there have been very few reports actually analysing the situation and seriously weighing the evidence, and very few questions have been asked of the Biden Administration. An article from the New York Times is emblematic of the general attitude of the country. They wrote “a flurry of new findings and competing narratives has sown distrust among Western allies”. Most critically, The New York Times acknowledges that “it may be in no one’s interest to reveal more.” In no one’s interest? Is that serious? They have abdicated their role to hold power accountable. In conclusion, The West has let these revelations sink into the background. Despite the parlour game about whether or not it was American or Ukrainian divers who actually planted the charges, analysts and officials across the West seem to agree on key facts  — that the attacks originated in the West, The BALTOPS exercises were the staging ground for those attacks, and the United States knows a lot more than it is currently sharing. Those facts and their implications need to be seriously understood and addressed by both the Security Council and the world’s press. Western media is not seriously pressing for answers right now, and the distinction between the two versions of the story — “the United States did it” versus “Ukraine did it” — are a distraction. It is a distinction without a difference. Both stories clearly indicate Western complicity and a conspiracy of silence, at the absolute least. I urge the Security Council and, especially, Western press, to utilize their considerable power and authority to shed some light on the situation and to hold accountable those individuals and organizations and nations that may be responsible for this act of terror.

I thank Mr. Greene for his briefing. I now give the floor to the second briefer requested by the Russian Federation, Mr. Brodsky. Mr. Brodsky: My name is Jeffrey Brodsky. I am the only journalist who has travelled to all four blast sites of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in the Baltic Sea. I have been investigating the Nord Stream sabotage since the day it occurred on 26 September 2022. I am appearing before the Security Council on my own behalf. I represent no Government or organization in the testimony that I will deliver. The attack on the Nord Stream pipelines is likely the most severe act of ecoterrorism and the largest instance of industrial sabotage in history. Under Chapters V and VI of the Charter of the United Nations, two of the functions and powers of the Security Council are to maintain international peace and security “in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations” and “to investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction”. Bringing the perpetrator of the Nord Stream sabotage to international justice and compensating the parties harmed will advance international peace and security and reduce international friction, as well as further the aim of preventing future attacks on critical international infrastructure. I therefore appeal to the Security Council to execute its functions and powers under the Charter by conducting an impartial investigation into the Nord Stream sabotage. In late May I participated in an independent expedition to all four blast sites of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines. Underwater drone images and videos and sonar images of the damaged pipelines were obtained through the investigation. The public had never seen the images and videos before, and they offer unique insights into the amounts of explosives used in the attack, the types of charges and their placement. By analysing the expedition’s data, both military and civilian experts have drawn conclusions about how the pipelines were damaged. Notably, previous reports stating that more than 500 kilograms of explosives were used at each blast site were shown to be inaccurate. Based on my reporting and the expedition’s findings, the actual amount of explosives used ranged between 10 and 50 kilograms, likely leaning towards the lower end of that range. However, neither the data obtained on the expedition or my investigative work has so far been able to conclusively attribute the sabotage to a specific nation State, and it may be that only the Security Council can do that. In order to achieve that objective, I am confident that many people around the world would welcome the Council’s assistance. The European Union (EU), moreover, has warned that “[a]ny deliberate disruption of European energy infrastructure is utterly unacceptable and will be met with a robust and united response.” Yet whatever the actions are that the EU has taken to identify the perpetrator of the attack, they remain unclear. Furthermore, it is widely known to members of the Council and the general public that three countries — Germany, Denmark and Sweden — have carried out investigations into the sabotage. Regrettably, none of those countries have disclosed the results of their investigations, despite the fact that nine months have passed since the sabotage took place. I have personally contacted the German, Danish and Swedish investigators several times to ask them for comments on my reporting and the expedition’s findings, but they have refused to comment. It is not clear why those countries have not shared their findings with the public. The Baltic Sea is probably the most heavily trafficked and monitored body of water in the world. As one European parliamentarian told me, “Do you think that a terrorist attack like this, in international waters, in a sea that is observed by many different surveillance systems ... could happen without anybody taking notice? That’s hard to believe. It wasn’t an attack on Mars; it was in the Baltic Sea.” There is also sufficient economic motivation for the three countries to release their findings. The pipelines cost more than $23 billion to build, and their owners, operators and stakeholders are from a number of countries. A good deal of the inflation that is currently hurting families and small businesses throughout Europe has been brought on by the lack of inexpensive natural gas. And Germany’s industrial base has suffered particularly from the sabotage, as manufacturing costs have risen. Nord Stream 1 alone could supply 58 per cent of Germany’s annual gas consumption, while according to one study, “Germany’s three-decade-long trade surplus flipped into a deficit, driven by the rise in gas prices.” Furthermore, the ecological impact of the sabotage will likely be tremendous. The explosions caused what could be the largest release in history of methane, a greenhouse gas more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, according to the United Nations Environment Programme. As of now, unfortunately, Germany, Denmark and Sweden have shown no willingness to share the results of their investigations with the public. It is of particular interest that Sweden was the first country to arrive at the crime scenes and conduct investigations, including the removal of debris and materials. In fact, Swedish investigators removed debris and materials from one of the crime scenes on at least two occasions. In October 2022, when the Swedish newspaper Expressen published images and videos of the ruptures in one of the pipelines, media attention to the sabotage increased again. The Swedish investigators subsequently closed off the area for several days and did some more investigative work. It remains unclear why Swedish investigators took that action and what information the debris and materials that they removed could provide about the sabotage. And even when, or if, the three countries release their findings, it does not appear that Sweden, in particular, is going to tell the world who is responsible for the sabotage. The Swedish Prosecutor has previously said that “[t]he main purpose of the Swedish preliminary investigation is to find out whether Sweden or Swedish infrastructure has been used for the attack and whether there are people who should be prosecuted for participation.” That was an excerpt from an English translation of an article published in a European newspaper in May. The Nord Stream sabotage stands as one of the most significant acts of ecoterrorism and industrial sabotage in history. It also represents one of the most pressing geopolitical mysteries of our time. Is it sufficient to inform global citizens, the numerous businesses and the many countries affected by the sabotage merely about whether Sweden or Swedish infrastructure has been used in the attack and whether there are people who should be prosecuted for participation? I think not. The nation State or States responsible for the sabotage must be held accountable for their violation of international law. The perpetrators must be identified and brought to justice, and the parties affected must be duly compensated. Many people worldwide have lost faith in national and international institutions. I hope that condemning this act of global terrorism and swiftly establishing a Security Council-led investigation into such an enormous global crime can help restore some of that lost faith. The world is watching and expecting the Security Council to uncover the truth about the sabotage and share it publicly.

I thank Mr. Brodsky for his briefing. I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements.

We thank the independent American journalists Bryce Greene and Jeffrey Brodsky for their briefings, in which they presented the Security Council with objective facts surrounding the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea in September 2022. They confirm our version of events, which is that carrying out such a crime would simply have been impossible without the direct involvement or at least support of a State actor. We have been drawing the attention of the Security Council to this topic for months. We note that in whatever format it is discussed in the Council, and regardless of delegations’ positions on the draft resolution we proposed (S/2023/212), virtually every Council member has consistently condemned the crime and acknowledged the importance of establishing the truth and identifying the perpetrators. At the same time, Western colleagues tried to convince the Council that there was no added value in international efforts until the completion of national investigations carried out by Berlin, Copenhagen and Stockholm. They persistently urged us to wait until those investigations were completed. It has now been almost 10 months since the sabotage, and 4 months since the vote on our draft resolution. No information had been provided to the Security Council and the international community until yesterday. The German, Danish and Swedish authorities stubbornly refused to provide any intelligible response to our numerous requests and appeals. They did not provide a response to the message sent in October 2022 by the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Mr. Mishustin, on the need to conduct a comprehensive investigation of the incident with the participation of representatives of the Russian authorities and the Gazprom company. Nor did they provide a response to the numerous notes sent by the Russian missions in this regard. We have repeatedly drawn the Council’s attention to the fact that its entire response amounted to formal non-answers, with a refusal to cooperate under extremely ludicrous and far-fetched pretexts. Members of the Council had the opportunity to see this for themselves when they received copies of our correspondence with the authorities of Denmark, Sweden and Germany, which we circulated in the Council in March (S/2023/193 and S/2023/223). As a result of our efforts, it appears that Germany, Denmark and Sweden have begun to realize that they are not just ignoring the requests of the Russian Federation, but they are essentially defying the opinion of the Security Council, among whose members, as our discussions behind closed doors have clearly shown, there is growing confusion and dissatisfaction due to the absence of any information on the progress of the national investigations. As a result, after receiving yet another yellow card from the majority of Council members, Berlin, Copenhagen and Stockholm decided to prepare the collective letter that was disseminated yesterday (S/2023/517). Unfortunately, it is also very reminiscent of a non-answer and cannot replace a full-fledged briefing by them to Council members, in which we could ask them questions, of which a great many have piled up. Moreover, not only does their letter repeat the false assertion that Russia was allegedly informed about the progress of the investigations, the choice of wording also indicates that the authorities of Germany, Denmark and Sweden are deliberately trying to prepare the members of the Security Council not to expect any concrete results from these investigations. In any case, it is impossible to say when they will be completed. Even more telling is the language from the part devoted to the Swedish investigation: “[t]he ongoing investigation will show whether anyone can be suspected of, and later prosecuted for, this crime.” It follows from this quotation that, from the very beginning, Swedish authorities have never set the goal of identifying the perpetrators. In this context, there is of course no question of the inevitability of punishment, which is particularly striking given that Sweden, as we heard today from one of our briefers, was the first to be at the scene of the crime. The demonstrative inaction of European authorities can be explained by only one thing: attempts to stall for time in order to cover up the identities of the real perpetrators of the crime. The evidently coordinated disinformation campaign in Western media eloquently testifies to this point in their attempts to popularize absolutely absurd versions of the events. While earlier some journalists actively tried to claim that it was Russia itself that blew up the pipeline — a pipeline that was functioning in its interest  — another fiction has recently come to dominate, namely, the claim that some pro-Ukrainian saboteurs who allegedly had nothing to do with the Kyiv regime were behind the attack. Meanwhile, it is telling that in a recent interview with The Times, the head of Ukrainian intelligence, Kyrylo Budanov, in response to a direct question about the involvement of Ukrainian authorities in the pipeline incident and other terrorist attacks, literally said the following: “We [are] doing that right now ... We use direct actions. We use them, and we love them... We were proud of using them, and we are not afraid of using them anywhere in this world against who[m]ever.” Let us be honest. The bravado of the ringleaders of the Kyiv regime does not inspire confidence. They are prepared to take credit for any accomplishments just to shift the focus from the failures of the Ukrainian army on the front and flagrant violations of human rights inside Ukraine taking place in the context of the strengthening of Zelenskyy’s dictatorship. We also recall the publication of a highly plausible version of events by the American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. Referencing reliable sources, he later cited information that, following the March meeting between United States President Joe Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, American and German intelligence were instructed to prepare and promote an alternative version for the media about who blew up the Nord Stream. Immediately after this, articles began to spring up en masse in the Western media, claiming that the destruction of the Nord Stream could have been perpetrated by a small group of near-amateurs who had neither serious expertise nor significant resources and who were not backed by any State, and this despite the fact that numerous independent experts, including those who have spoken before the Security Council, including today, made it clear that non-experts could not have carried out an operation to blow up gas pipelines that were protected with the latest technology. In any case, it is not something of which at least the coastal States in this region would have been unaware, especially since the region is considered one of the most closely monitored in the world. How can this be squared with the repeated threats against the Nord Stream from top United States leadership, whose threats had been voiced more than once? However, as soon as inconvenient facts came to light, Americans and their European allies began to interfere with an international investigation in every way possible. Moreover, unlike many other States Members of the United Nations, they were not interested in investigative efforts being undertaken under the auspices of the Secretary-General. They stand to gain much more in a situation where Western States enjoy complete carte blanche and absolute impunity within the framework of a so-called rules-based order imposed on the whole world and which has nothing to do with international law. We want to stress that any efforts to cover up the sabotage in the Baltic Sea are doomed to fail. We expect the authorities of Germany, Denmark and Sweden to take concrete steps to conduct an objective and transparent investigation into all the circumstances of the incident, with the obligatory participation of Russian investigative authorities and other interested parties. In the meantime, we reserve the right to conduct our own investigation. In this context, we took note of the statement in the letter from the authorities of Germany, Denmark and Sweden (S/2023/517) that access to the crime scene is allegedly open. If that is the case, we presume that our investigative authorities can independently examine the crime scene at any time as part of the criminal proceedings initiated by the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation pursuant to its article on acts of international terrorism. The Russian Federation will continue raising the issue of the Nord Stream sabotage in the Council until the perpetrators are identified and held accountable. The letter mentioned today leaves little doubt that this is not a goal that the three national investigations seek to accomplish. However, we will use all means at our disposal to make sure that this goal is achieved. We trust that our constructively minded colleagues in the Security Council and other members of the international community will support our efforts. We are open to cooperation in this area. The Council must make it clear that crimes against cross-border pipeline infrastructure, which pose a direct threat to international peace and security, will not go unpunished. Only then can we prevent the recurrence of such crimes to which any State could fall victim.

I listened carefully to the briefers. I also carefully read the joint letter from Sweden, Germany and Denmark contained in document S/2023/517 of 10 July 2023, and its annex, with which they provide information on each of the national investigations separately. This information shows the complex nature of the investigations, which involve, inter alia, technical, scientific and logistical aspects. It is clear that the explosions that occurred in the Nord Stream 1 and 2 underwater gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea were the result of acts of sabotage, and we reiterate that nothing justifies attacks against essential civilian infrastructure, including energy infrastructure. In addition to endangering safe maritime and air navigation, those acts were an incalculable source of pollution of local marine life, with potentially devastating consequences for the climate, as hundreds of millions of cubic metres of gas were released into the atmosphere. Such acts, amid a highly complex global geopolitical environment, must be prevented from exacerbating tensions on either side or triggering actions with unpredictable consequences. For all the aforementioned reasons, Ecuador has condemned such acts on several occasions and continues to call on all States of the Organization to demonstrate the utmost prudence and restraint. Furthermore, we will continue to be guided by the briefing on 21 February (see S/PV.9266) by Under-Secretary-General Rosemary DiCarlo, who called on us to avoid speculation and any unfounded accusations that could escalate tensions in the region and hinder the quest for the truth. In that regard, our delegation, which, in March, had already expressed its support for the investigations under way in Denmark, Germany and Sweden, supports the continuation of those investigations, aimed at determining what occurred.

This is the third time in less than a month that Russia has requested a meeting on this subject, without any new developments to justify it. In addition, we cannot help but highlight the contradiction between the deep concern expressed by the Russian Federation about the presumed attack on critical European infrastructure and its conduct, day after day, as it continues its strikes on essential Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. We therefore have every reason to doubt the validity of Russia’s approach. Once again, it is clear that Russia seeks to divert the attention of the Council and the international community. France clearly expressed its concern following the two underwater explosions at the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea, on 26 September 2022. It was under our presidency that the Security Council met on 30 September to discuss the same issue (see S/PV.9144). Our assessment remains the same. The events are serious and must be taken seriously. Investigations have been launched by Denmark, Germany and Sweden. Given the nature and unprecedented character of the acts of sabotage that were committed, it is understandable that those procedures are complex and may take some time. We have no reason to doubt the seriousness of the procedures. The investigations must be completed. I would like to thank those three countries for the joint letter submitted yesterday to the presidency of the Council (S/2023/517), which provides an update on those investigations. It may be useful to remind Russia that the investigations under way are being conducted in accordance with the fundamental principles of the rule of law. The German, Swedish and Danish judicial authorities are independent  — I repeat, independent — and the investigations being conducted are not subject to political interference.

I thank the briefers for their respective views on this agenda item. We also take note of the joint letter submitted by Denmark, Germany and Sweden on developments related to their respective ongoing national investigations on the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines (S/2023/517). Ghana continues to be deeply concerned about the sabotage against the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines last September, given the impacts on the marine environment and the potential economic, humanitarian and security risks that could arise from the destruction of such critical infrastructure of a transboundary nature. We therefore maintain our support for the ongoing national investigations by the countries of interest, in particular Denmark and Sweden, in whose exclusive economic zones the incident occurred, as well as Germany. In view of the sustained interest of the international community on the matter, we encourage frequent updates and readily available information on the status of the investigations to provide clarity on the facts and help to determine the necessity or otherwise of an international investigative process. Pending the conclusion of the national investigations, we urge cooperation among all relevant stakeholders, including the operators of the pipelines, with the objective of arriving at a single narrative on the circumstances resulting in the unfortunate incident. I wish to end by reiterating our previous appeals to all concerned to exercise restraint against unilateral actions that may be detrimental to peace.

I thank the briefers for their views and assessments. I also take note of the letter circulated yesterday by Denmark, Germany and Sweden (S/2023/517). Immediately after the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipeline explosions last September, Brazil, as well as other Council members, expressed deep concern about what was clearly a threat to international peace and security. We consider it essential to identify those responsible and hold them accountable for their actions. For that reason, last March, we supported a proposal for the launching of an international investigation, coordinated by the United Nations, in support of efforts by national authorities. We are aware that Denmark, Germany and Sweden are conducting investigations on the incident. We trust their objectivity and await the disclosure of information that may shed light on that act of sabotage, which resulted in immense economic losses and environmental damage. Brazil underscores the importance of the conclusions of the investigations in progress being disclosed as soon as possible. The consequences of the incident cause concern to the international community, especially in view of the proliferation, by the media, of narratives and unconfirmed versions of the events. We understand the need for secrecy and time for the proper conduct of procedures. However, the lack of responses, almost 10 months after the explosions, has produced anxieties and deepened tensions, even among members of the Council. We encourage increased cooperation among the States directly affected and additional efforts to prevent misinformation and ensure that the results of investigations are known soon, with due transparency.

Mozambique wishes to thank the briefers, Mr. Bryce Greene and Mr. Jeffrey Brodsky, for their important and insightful updates. Almost a year has gone by since the grave incident occurred in the Baltic Sea in September 2022. Despite the prevailing understanding that it was indeed an act of sabotage and that a serious violation of international law had occurred, we are still searching for answers than can be conducive to the determination of the truth. By principle and policy, Mozambique does not condone the deliberate destruction and weaponization of critical and transnational infrastructure, such as the Nord Stream pipelines. We hold that view in the spirit that led to the adoption of resolution 2341 (2017), which is aimed at protecting critical infrastructure from such attacks. We are aware of the ongoing investigations into the incident by the competent authorities in three national jurisdictions  — Germany, Sweden and Denmark. We also take note of their commitment to a fair and impartial process to establish the truth surrounding what appears to be a deliberate act of sabotage. As the primary organ responsible for international peace and security, it is right that the Security Council should be kept abreast of the results of the trinational investigations, preliminary or otherwise. As this concerns an infrastructure of transnational reach and international ownership, the search for an answer is fair and warranted. As a country that is investing heavily in a regulated and orderly energy infrastructure for its development and that of our region as a whole, Mozambique supports the speedy conclusion of objective, impartial and professional investigations into the incident.

I took note of the briefings by Mr. Greene and Mr. Brodsky. As we have mentioned in the past, we are concerned about the alleged acts of sabotage against the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines, which led to worrisome gas leaks in September. I reiterate Switzerland’s condemnation of any acts of sabotage of critical infrastructure, including energy infrastructure, and the negative consequences they can have for countries’ energy supplies, economies and environment. We welcome the information provided in the joint letter of 10 July from Sweden, Germany and Denmark (S/2023/517). As indicated in the letter, those countries have continued to conduct their respective national investigations in order to shed light on the facts. We look forward to their conclusions.

I too would like to thank the briefers for their briefings and analysis. Nearly 10 months ago, underwater explosions damaged the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea. The resulting methane leaks have had an undeniable impact on the flora and fauna and the marine environment. Gabon takes note of the investigations that are being carried out by Germany, Denmark and Sweden. The Security Council met in a closed meeting on 27 June to examine the issue, and now we are meeting to discuss it again. My country reiterates its deep concern about the attacks perpetrated on civilian infrastructure and calls on the conflicting parties to respect the international legal instruments protecting civilians and civilian infrastructure against any armed attack. We reiterate our call for dialogue and consultation to find a political and diplomatic solution to this crisis.

Malta reiterates its strong condemnation of the act of sabotage that occurred in September targeting the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines. Such acts pose a serious threat to energy security and regional stability. We also reiterate our firm stance against any form of disruption to critical energy infrastructure. Furthermore, the subsequent methane leaks have posed a significant risk to the countries concerned and jeopardized an important pathway for transporting a vital energy resource. They also put additional pressure on developing countries and global energy markets, which were already negatively affected by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The incident serves as a reminder of the vulnerability of essential energy infrastructure. As we have stated before, we support and trust the ongoing investigations by Denmark, Germany and Sweden. We have no doubt that those investigations will disclose and establish the truth behind this deliberate act. It will be crucial to ensure the completion of those national processes without any external interference. We have full confidence in their impartiality and credibility. As we all know, investigations of this magnitude take time. The persistent claims that nine months should have been enough to investigate and establish the truth on this matter are unfounded. Such insinuations do not move us any closer to the truth and serve only to generate unfounded suspicions and distrust among States. In conclusion, we reiterate our firm position that introducing further investigations at this juncture would risk seriously impeding progress and potentially have counterproductive effects on the ongoing processes.

The United Arab Emirates reaffirms its unequivocal condemnation of September’s acts of sabotage targeting the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in the Baltic Sea. Such attacks threaten international security, stability and prosperity. They are dangerously disruptive to global energy markets, which depend on international collaboration, and cause significant ecological damage. They merit the sober attention of the Security Council and the concern of the international community. Furthermore, we underscore our respect and support for the ongoing national investigations by the competent authorities in all the relevant countries, and we continue to monitor their progress. We also note the heightened international interest in this issue and recognize the legitimate equities at stake, and we therefore encourage cooperation between all the relevant countries and entities. In that vein, we welcome the updates on the status of the investigations offered to the Council by Denmark, Germany, and Sweden through their joint letters of 21 February (S/2023/126) and 10 July (S/2023/517) addressed to the President of the Security Council. We appreciate the increased information-sharing reflected in yesterday’s letter. As the investigations are still ongoing, it will be vital to refrain from prejudging their outcomes. We await their swift conclusion, the transparent communication of their findings and timely updates, as appropriate. In conclusion, the United Arab Emirates takes attacks on cross-border critical infrastructure extremely seriously. They must never be tolerated, and we expect to see those responsible held to account.

The quick version of our statement today would have been a reference to our most recent statement on this issue, made a week or so ago, since there is nothing new on the matter. But since we are here, I would like to make the following points. First, we have said it many times and will reiterate it again. We were and still are deeply concerned about the apparent act of sabotage on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in the exclusive economic zones of Denmark and Sweden in the Baltic Sea. Such acts are unacceptable. We reiterate our full support for the investigations initiated by the national authorities of Denmark, Germany and Sweden to determine the damage and its origin and possible perpetrators. We welcome their joint letter of yesterday (S/2023/517) indicating that the investigation is under way, and we have full confidence in their objectivity and comprehensiveness. The three countries that are carrying out the investigations have strong judicial institutions and unquestionable records on the rule of law. Secondly, this is the third meeting on this issue zealously requested by Russia in less than a month. It is obvious that such investigation processes are complex and need time, as the letter highlights. In the meantime, the Internet is full of all kinds of information, disinformation and misinformation, including colourful theories advanced by dependent and independent journalists — especially those who have the luxury to use their freedom as they wish. We all want to see the findings, but we must be patient and wait for the ongoing investigations’ conclusions. Therefore, incessantly placing this discussion on the Security Council’s agenda amounts more to political pressure and a manoeuvre to divert attention away from other issues. The politicization of the investigation process and the artificial pressure placed upon it by heated rhetoric do not help to expedite the process, which is what we all want. Thirdly, while we all want to know the truth on the acts of sabotage, the obsession with singling out this one issue is both cynical and preposterous at a time when, for more than 500 days, Russia has been waging an unjustified, aggressive and merciless war on its neighbour, with devastating human and economic consequences. Today, like every year on 11 July, we commemorate the Srebrenica genocide. The scale and depravity of that tragedy continues to burden our souls 28 years later. I mention it not only because it deserves commemoration with humility, but also because it happened during the most recent war in Europe, and we have committed to never let those tragic events reoccur. That is why I insist that, when it comes to the question of war in Ukraine, there are far more important and consequential questions that need and should have our attention on a daily basis, such as the killing of more than 9,000 innocent civilians, including 500 children; the whole range of despicable crimes committed by the Russian army; the deliberate destruction of residential areas by waves of illegally acquired Iranian kamikaze drones; the thousands of Ukrainian children forcefully deported to Russia and given up for adoption; the frightening magnitude and cost of the deliberate destruction of civil infrastructure; and the decimation of the economy in Ukraine. A joint assessment by the United Nations, the World Bank Group, the European Commission and the Government of Ukraine estimates that the cost of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine has grown to $411 billion. The report finds that direct damage to buildings and infrastructure amounts to more than $135 billion. The most affected areas are housing, trans­ port, energy, commerce, industry and agriculture — in other words, the backbone of the economy. That was last month. The cost of war, including for Russia itself, increases every hour, every day. Therefore — and this will be my final point — instead of calling for meetings on the Nord Stream pipeline and wasting the Council’s time with the futile politicization of an ongoing investigation process, Russia could be more useful and productive if it would put an end to the war in Ukraine and seriously engage in diplomacy, starting with the complete withdrawal of its troops from the territory of Ukraine.

I listened to the briefings by the two briefers. I also read the letter to the President of the Security Council from Germany, Sweden and Denmark (S/2023/517). The explosion of the Nord Stream pipeline happened nearly 10 months ago. The Security Council has held a number of discussions on the matter in different formats. China has already comprehensively set out its position. Today I will stress only three points. First, the Nord Stream pipeline explosion not only poses a direct threat to the safety of transnational infrastructure, but also has a negative impact on the ecological environment and the safety of shipping in the relevant maritime areas. It is essential to adopt a responsible approach with regard to the security and development of the region by carrying out an independent and professional investigation into the incident and ensuring that its conclusions are objective, impartial, authoritative and can stand the test of time. Secondly, the countries concerned have been conducting country-specific investigations into the Nord Stream pipeline explosion for quite some time. A clear statement, however, has yet to come after much delay. The longer the delay, the more difficult it will be to collect evidence and ascertain the truth, the more doubts and speculations and the less credible the results of the investigations will be. China believes that the best way to respond to the concerns of the international community is to announce the results of the investigation as soon as possible, even if it is only a milestone. Thirdly, the Nord Stream pipeline explosion took place against the backdrop of the Ukraine crisis. The parties concerned have made very different analyses and interpretations in the wake of the incident. We call on all parties not to politicize the investigation, let alone use it as an opportunity for political manipulation. Russia is one of the main parties involved in the explosion and any objective and impartial investigation requires communication and cooperation with Russia. I hope that the countries concerned will acknowledge that and take positive steps accordingly. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate China’s call for an early clarification of the facts surrounding the explosion and for the perpetrators to be brought to justice at an early date, and its support for the Secretariat to provide more useful information and for the Council to remain seized of the matter.

As others have noted, this is the third time in less than a month that Russia has called for the Council to discuss the Nord Stream pipeline issue. Russia’s efforts to try to use the Council as a platform for its disinformation are as cynical as they are transparent. Bludgeoning the Council with repetitive meetings will not change the facts on the ground. As we have emphasized many times, we do not condone that attack on critical infrastructure. We remain confident in the ongoing, competent and credible investigations under way by Germany, Sweden and Denmark. We thank those countries for their commitment to diligent and impartial investigations into the attack, and for their recent letter on the topic to the Council (S/2023/517). Russia’s unabating, unsubstantiated so-called concerns about the transparency and impartiality of those investigations ring as hollow as its assertions that it had no relationship with the Wagner Group and had no plans to invade Ukraine. The countries directly involved should be permitted to conclude their investigations without undue pressure and specious allegations. Russia cannot and should not be allowed to prejudge or prejudice the results of those investigations prior to their conclusion. The hypocrisy is on full display. Russia claims to respect sovereignty and territorial integrity while invading its sovereign neighbour and attempting to annex its territory. Russia now disregards the jurisdiction of competent national authorities carrying out and concluding investigations within their exclusive economic zones. Russia also claims to want an impartial investigation, as long as that investigation upholds Russia’s spurious accusations that the United States was behind the attacks. We again categorically refute any allegations that the United States bears any culpability for those attacks. As Russia continues its theatrical hand-wringing and selective concern regarding the protection of critical infrastructure, it is razing entire cities with relentless attacks against Ukraine. It is importing unmanned aerial vehicles from Iran in flagrant violation of resolution 2231 (2015) and deploying them in attacks that kill civilians in Ukraine. Russia’s agenda here is simple: it is to overwhelm the Council with meetings on the Nord Stream pipeline issue, undermine ongoing investigations and distract from its ceaseless attacks against Ukraine’s power stations, hospitals, schools and apartment buildings. Ongoing national investigations must be allowed the space to carry out their work. The Council should reject repeated meetings with no purpose other than to waste time, spread disinformation and distract from the Kremlin’s indefensible war of aggression against Ukraine.

I thank the briefers for their briefings and appreciate the informative input in the letter from Germany, Sweden and Denmark (S/2023/517). Energy resources, including natural gas, are fundamental to people’s lives. The global energy situation has been tense in recent years. Vandalism of critical infrastructure and facilities is an unacceptable act that can have a significant impact on countless people. Japan is therefore deeply concerned about the incident involving the Nord Stream pipelines and about the potential long-term damage and risk to the maritime environment. We are closely monitoring and looking forward to the progress of the ongoing national investigations by the authorities of Germany, Sweden and Denmark, and we are confident that they will be conducted in a fair manner. We hope that they will complete their investigations as soon as possible and that the results will be provided to the Security Council. It will be the Council’s job to address any matter that concerns the peace and stability of the international community, but we do not want to speculate without objective information. The Council should wait for the national authorities to conclude their work.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom condemns acts of sabotage of critical national infrastructure. We should treat the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline with the utmost seriousness. The international community is concerned about it and wants clear answers about what happened and who was responsible. As we have said before, the best way to get those answers is to support the impartial investigations of Denmark, Sweden and Germany and to respect those processes. We do not believe it is a good use of the Security Council’s time to start to prejudge the outcome of the investigations, dictate how they are conducted or otherwise undermine them. We welcome the latest update sent by Germany on behalf of Denmark and Sweden, and their commitment to updating the Security Council. Their letter addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2023/517) underlines the complexity of the ongoing investigations and underscores that this process will take time. We are confident that when the investigations conclude, their findings will be authoritative. We and our fellow Council members should continue to offer our full support to the investigations so that we can establish who was responsible for these acts. Finally, we feel compelled to note Russia’s inconsistent attitude towards civilian infrastructure. While claiming outrage here, Russia has been pursuing a systematic campaign targeting civilian infrastructure in its war of aggression on Ukraine, killing thousands of civilians in the process. Such hypocrisy should not surprise us, but it makes it hard to take anything the Russians say on this subject at face value. I now resume my functions as President of the Security Council. The representative of the Russian Federation has asked for the floor to make a further statement.

Because we spoke at the very beginning, I will allow myself a few comments. First of all, I would like to ask the representative of the United States to clarify something. If I remember correctly, he said that the States affected have a right to participate in this investigation and should do so. Does he consider the Russian Federation — the State to which the pipeline actually belonged — to be among the States affected, or does he believe that they include only the States in the coastal area around the site? I would hope that the Russian Federation is indeed included among the States affected. Anything else would simply be illogical. We are therefore trusting in and counting on the United States representative’s support so that our experts can join that ongoing investigation, and we have much more reason to do that now. I have one more comment. I noticed that today’s statements, which many of our Western colleagues devoted almost entirely to the Ukrainian crisis, have enabled us to clearly follow the cause-and-effect connections that guided those who committed these crimes and those who have covered it up and continue to do so. I thank them for that, because it alone made today’s meeting worth it. I am convinced that this is excellent material for a Russian and international investigation in future, and I am sure that the record of today’s meeting fully deserves to be one of its key documents, at least in the initial stages.