S/PV.9424 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. Dirk Pohlmann, journalist; and Mr. Jimmy Dore, political commentator. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I give the floor to Mr. Pohlmann. Mr. Pohlmann: My name is Dirk Pohlmann. I have been an investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker for 37 years and have written and directed more than 20 documentaries, mostly about intelligence operations of the Cold War and aired on television in approximately 30 countries. I am independent, I am a freelancer, and I am not on any payroll. I reported repeatedly about the Nord Stream sabotage and have contacted and interviewed many researchers on this subject. One year after that severe act of terrorism, we know astonishingly little. For example, we do not know how many explosions destroyed the alleged four damaged sites. We have seismic data for only two explosions: at 12.03 a.m. and 5.04 p.m., Universal Time Coordinated (UTC). We do not know who did it. I omit the baseless Western-sponsored conspiracy theory of Russia as the culprit. I think it is fair to say the authorities in Germany, Denmark, Sweden and other Western countries know enough to know that they do not want to know more. The truth would open a Pandora’s box for NATO. The version pushed in Germany via the media by the State, which itself is completely silent because of the “well-being of the State”, which can be translated to “national security”, and because of the “third- party rule” on intelligence cooperation, is that it was probably a Ukrainian operation, using a sail boat with six people on board, including four divers, but without the knowledge of the Ukrainian Government. I trust this version as far as I can throw a washing machine. But there is actually new evidence, which I want to present here. Professor Emeritus Ola Tunander, formerly of the Peace Research Institute Oslo, wrote to me upon request, stressing that the location of the sabotage was at a very deep position of the pipeline, at 80 metres depth. In some distance to each side, the depth would have been 30 to 40 metres. Why was the deep location picked? Remember this information for later. Tunander wrote to me: “The explosives were deployed in the Bornholm Basin at a depth of 75 to 80 metres. Such deep dives require a decompression chamber. The story about a small sailing boat is impossible. It cannot bring the necessary decompression chamber. The depth indicates professional or military divers. “Norwegian seismological station NORSAR states a magnitude 2.1 to 2.3 of the explosion, which corresponds to 650 to 900 kg of TNT. GEOFON Potsdam claimed that the magnitude was higher — 3.1 — which would correspond to several tons of TNT. This operation would be impossible to run from a small sailing boat. “Each section of the pipeline of steel and concrete is 12 metres long and has a weight of 24 tons. About 250 metres of the pipeline Nord Stream string A and string B have been blown away. It was a huge blast run by a State agency. “When you do a huge professional operation, you first need a cover for the deployment of the bombs, and secondly, you need to disconnect the deployment from the triggering of the bombs. Otherwise, people would easily find out who the perpetrators are. The obvious cover was the BALTOPS 22 exercise in June 2022, with 45 ships from various NATO countries. They exercised mine warfare with divers and unmanned underwater vehicles. United States ships like the small aircraft carrier USS Kearsarge, 257 metres, and USS Gunston Hall, 190 metres, were both capable of bringing a midget submarine, which could have been useful for the deployment of explosives at such a depth.” The two ships can transport and deploy minisubmarines and load them back into the hull on high seas. “One witness as well as Seymour Hersh have both claimed that United States Navy divers with deep diving equipment from Panama City, Florida, were present. They had nothing to do with the exercise. They had very likely been used to deploy the bombs. “Seymour Hersh claims that they had dropped a sonar buoy from a P-8A Poseidon aircraft. The buoy had sent a coded signal that triggered the timers of the bombs. This is an easy and practical way to do it. Seymour Hersh’s sources, supposedly from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), also told him that the United States had used a Norwegian Poseidon to pull the trigger. Americans like ‘plausible deniability’, but there is something we have to add. It might have been the United States plan, but such an operation did not fit with traditional Norwegian security policy. So the Norwegians at a higher level seem to have backed out, contrary to the information Seymour Hersh got.” What happened instead is the following  — and everything I quote here is new: “On 21 September, a United States Poseidon flew from Sigonella, Italy, up to the Nordholz navy airfield in Germany and flew for three nights back and forth over Bornholm from 22 to 25 September and then on 26 September back to Sigonella. It could easily have dropped a sonar buoy over the sea close to Bornholm. If Hersh was right that the Norwegians were supposed to drop the sonar buoy, the Americans at Sigonella would have to fetch it from Norway. On 14 September, a United States Hercules flew seven hours up from Sigonella to Andenes, northern Norway, and then back to Sigonella over Keflavik. We have reason to believe that the Hercules fetched something very important in Norway — a specific sonar buoy — and brought it to Sigonella.” It also should be noted that the Norwegians had bought P-8s, and they are in the process of training the crews, especially the electronic warfare and anti-submarine worker crews. So this involves a mix of people. It is not on the record in Norway, but it can be used by Norway, or it could be used by the United States. That is background information. “Two hours before the first explosion at 12.03 a.m. UTC, a United States Poseidon left Keflavik, Iceland, for the waters east of Bornholm. It arrived at Bornholm one hour after the first explosion. At the same time as the explosion, strangely enough, at exactly the minute when the United States Poseidon was south-west of Norway, a United States tanker aircraft left the United States Spangdahlem air base in Germany for Poland to refuel the Poseidon so it would be able to patrol the waters east of Bornholm for the upcoming four hours. It turned off its transponder at 3.10 a.m. UTC and turned it on again three hours later, still east of Bornholm. At 7 a.m., the Poseidon flew over the site of the explosion for the last time, then climbed to an altitude of 10,000 metres and returned to Keflavik.” I also asked Mr. Hans Benjamin Braun, an eminent Swiss physicist with many publications in top journals who has been teaching as a professor at some leading universities. He stated the following: “So far, the official reports all agreed on the fact that the pipelines were destroyed with an explosive charge equivalent to a few hundred kilograms of conventional explosive, TNT equivalent. These reports are not only mutually contradictory, but also contradict basic physical considerations, thus invalidating the hypothesis of the use of a conventional explosive. In contrast, several solid pieces of geophysical evidence — namely, seismic waveforms, placement of explosives, aerosol cloud after explosion, underwater currents, temperature increase on ocean floor with concomitant reduced biomass production and gamma-ray detection in Poland  — point towards the use of an explosive charge at least a thousand times of what has been reported previously.” Those results were presented in a detailed report initially submitted to the Swiss Government on 4 January 2023 by Mr. Braun and to its representation on the United Nations Security Council. “Without going into details, I demonstrate here that the hypothesis of the use of a conventional explosive of moderate strength is already invalidated by a close inspection of the official reports. In order to appreciate those contradictions, it should be noted that the mathematical relation between seismic magnitude on the Richter scale and explosive charge is a logarithmic one: a magnitude increase by one corresponds to a 10-fold increase in seismic amplitude.” If we go from two to three, it is not linear — it is 10 times as much. “For underwater explosions, it corresponds to a 35-fold increase in explosive mass. “The official reports on the magnitude of the larger explosion that destroyed Nord Stream 1 on Swedish territory go back to an original report by Norway’s NORSAR, as Mr. Tunander stated, which reported an event of a 2.1 magnitude on the Richter scale. That corresponds to approximately 700 kilograms of TNT equivalent. However, that data was presented without units on the graph” — that is very rare in a scientific publication, to have no units on the graph — “and lacked scientific basis. Despite that serious shortcoming, an explosive charge of that magnitude or less has been quoted in the media ever since.” That is what we hear all the time: 500 to 900 kilograms. “In contrast, the official entry into the seismic GEOFON database is a magnitude of 3.1 and thus 35 times larger than the previous estimate, corresponding to roughly 25 tons of TNT equivalent. As a much smaller explosive charge would have been sufficient to destroy the pipeline, that raises considerable doubts about the nature of the explosive charge used. “That considerable amount of explosive charge has been placed on Nord Stream 1 at a location such that the elliptically-shaped Swedish coastline acted as a focusing mirror for the emitted shockwave. Also, it was placed so that there was a direct and unobstructed connection between the site and the Kaliningrad coast through a submarine canyon.” So there is something like a bowl in the ocean with a canyon in the direction of Kaliningrad. “If you recall Mr. Tunander’s question as to why the sabotage was done in great depth, such a direct connection would not have been possible a few kilometres up or downstream along the Nord Stream pipeline. The location of the explosion site was designed to generate a shockwave directed at Kaliningrad.” I would remark that it was probably a message to the Russian Government. Again, according to Mr. Braun: “This effect was missed in the official reports, which were restricted to seismic stations to the west of the explosion site in the shadow of Bornholm, so to speak.” So the readings we have are from the back of Bornholm and are thus lower. “In fact, a thorough evaluation of several seismic stations around the Baltic Sea yields a Richter magnitude of 4, suggesting the use of at least 150 tons of TNT. This raises serious concerns about the nature of the explosive charge being used in the attack. “These large seismic signals have been attempted to be explained by the thrust of methane gas exiting from the destroyed pipeline. With the reported pressure, the speed of the resulting shock is significantly lower than the speed of sound in water, which is 1.5 kilometres per second. As a result, the exiting methane cannot explain the observed magnitudes in the Baltic Sea. “There are reports of technogenic craters with a depth of 3 to 5 metres. Several independent reports have related crater size to explosive weight, including nuclear underwater explosions. Also, a rough estimate of explosive charge yields at least 20 to 150 tons of TNT, again invalidating the hypothesis of a small amount of conventional explosive. These facts about the explosion that destroyed Nord Stream 1, together with independent geophysical observations, are inconsistent with the reported use of a conventional explosive of a few hundred kilograms. The observations are rather consistent with an explosive charge of 1 to 4 kilotons of TNT equivalent.” In an earlier report from 31 December 2022, Mr. Braun elaborated on a total of seven independent geophysical observations that are at variance with the reported use of a moderate explosive. The quantitative estimates place a strict lower bound on the explosive charge of 150 tons of TNT, which is at least 400 times the value of the official reports. The current findings are of high importance, as reflected by the statement by one of the reviewers: “The scientific results are relevant for current international affairs and warrant urgent reporting.” In view of the seriousness of the matter, it is important that independent and objective evidence is secured, which requires the authority of the United Nations Security Council. An absence of action puts humankind at large at risk. Mr. Braun said that, for further details of his analysis, he refers to his recent presentations and his report, which was already forwarded to the Swiss Government and its representation to the United Nations Security Council on 4 January 2023. Mr. Braun has offered to present his in-depth analysis in detail to the Security Council and offers again to do so through me. I now wish to make some remarks of my own. The Baltic seabed is packed with hydrophones. The Western navies have been able to identify every vessel in and on the surface of the Baltic since the late 1970s. The propellers create something like a fingerprint. A German television crew filming a 30-minute report with the allegedly used Andromeda sailing yacht with an ominous soundtrack should have recorded the sound of the Andromeda’s motor and propeller, which were allegedly used at the sabotage site. The motor must have been used to keep the ship’s position. The crew should then have asked the NATO navies to check whether Andromeda was there at the right time at the site of the explosion. I would also like to remark that Soviet pipelines have been a source for Western intelligence operations before. Enrico Mattei, the most successful Italian oil manager and head of Eni, was killed when his private jet crashed in 1962. He was hated by the United States mineral oil industry for his immense business success in North African countries. In a memo to the CIA, the United States mineral oil industry called him “an even greater villain than the Soviet Union” when he arranged what was then the biggest business deal in Italy with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics — a barter agreement to build pipelines to Italy for Soviet oil. In 1997, it was proven that the crash was not due to bad weather, as previously thought, as there were metal splinters found in his exhumed bones — the effect of a bomb in the jet. In 1982, the CIA destroyed the Yamal pipeline with malfunctioning chips infiltrated into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in an elaborate intelligence operation. The former Secretary of the Air Force Thomas Reed told me in an interview how he witnessed, as member of the United States National Security Council, the message that a 3-kiloton burst was recorded in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and a CIA official told them that the biggest conventional explosion ever was the result of a CIA operation, not a nuclear warhead of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was just one of a string of operations against the Yamal-Europe pipeline. When the former Social Democratic German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt insisted on the gas pipeline deal in the early 1980s to secure cheap Soviet gas for Europe, although former United States President Reagan told him to stop the contract in a one-on-one meeting, with Schmidt looking out the window while Reagan spoke to him, it meant he fell from grace. The Conservative Helmut Kohl became the new Chancellor of Germany without an election by an allegedly United States’ assisted vote of no confidence in Germany in the Parliament. Lately, when it comes to Russian gas, the United States has no allies but only hostages. On top of that, some hostages suffer from Stockholm syndrome, such as the current Swedish and German Governments.

I thank Mr. Pohlmann for his briefing. I now give the floor to Mr. Dore. Mr. Dore: I am here to speak today about the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline that took place one year ago on 26 September 2022. Four explosions ruptured the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines that carried natural gas from Russia to Europe. It was the biggest act of industrial sabotage in human history, severing the main artery for energy from Russia to Germany  — cheap energy that was critical to maintaining Germany’s industrial base. We have heard every cockamamie and ridiculous theory on how that happened. One does not need to be a genius investigative reporter to figure out who is the culprit of the Nord Stream attack. Incredibly, most Western news outlets ignore the fact that the President of the United States Joe Biden himself announced on 9 February 2022 that he would in fact attack the Nord Stream 2 pipeline saying, “If Russia invades Ukraine, tanks crossing the border again, there will no longer be a Nordstream 2 pipeline, we will bring an end to it… I promise you we will be able to do it.” Even with that pre-admission of guilt from the President of the United States, most of the Western press remained baffled as to who could have pulled off the greatest act of ecoterrorism in history. Luckily we do not have to rely on my interpretation of President Biden’s clear threat to attack the pipelines, we actually have Seymour Hersch, a genius investigative reporter with an impeccable reputation and credentials, who reported that in June 2022, United States Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized summer NATO Baltic Operations 2022 exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives which, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning. And like all criminals, the perpetrators could not contain their elation over committing the crime. Shortly after the attack many high-ranking United States officials could not help but brag about their achievement, and expressed multiple times how they were proud of being able to put an end to the pipelines. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland said, “I am, and I think the administration is, very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.” The United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken called it a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy. One has to be a paid liar to not acknowledge the hand of the United States in carrying out those attacks. Not only did President Biden declare he would do that, but high-ranking United States Government officials have said similar things for years. We can look to 2014 when former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated that, “Over the long run, you simply want to change the structure of energy dependence. You want to depend more on the North America energy platform.” That is what this is really all about, an economic war between the West and Russia in order to fill the pockets of rapacious capitalists who actually pull the strings of the United States Government and dictate foreign policy. Let us pull back and take a look at the context in which that pipeline bombing occurred, shall we? It is all happening under the guise of defending Ukraine from an unprovoked Russian invasion. But of course that is only true if you start the story of the Ukraine war somewhere near the end of the story instead of the beginning, which would indict Ukraine, the United States and NATO. The United States and NATO are to blame, which is why the Western media always leaves the origin of the conflict out of their coverage and leaves most people in the dark with a false version of the cause of the conflict. Most Americans believe that Vladimir Putin woke upon one day and decided, for no particular reason, to invade Ukraine and start a war completely out of the blue. That is what supporters of Ukraine in this war actually believe because that is the only narrative they hear from their news media which is funded by the people who profit off this war: the military industrial complex, the fossil fuel companies in the West and, of course, Wall Street. A crude analogy of the Western media’s coverage of the Russian invasion is the following. Let us say Vladimir Putin was standing at a bus stop, and there was an old lady standing in the street, and a bus was heading straight for her. Vladimir Putin pushes the old lady out of the way of the oncoming bus and down onto the concrete sidewalk. The Western corporate media would start that story near the end by saying, “Russian President pushes old lady down onto the concrete”. The same goes for the entirety of the Ukraine/ Russia war. The Western media starts the story of the war at 24 February 2022, which is definitely not when the conflict started. They leave out the 2014 coup d’état of the democratically elected Ukraine Government orchestrated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in conjunction with Ukrainian Nazis. They leave out the fact that the Russian-speaking ethnic population in the eastern part of Ukraine known as the Donbas did not want to go along with the CIA/Nazi Government of the coup and so the right-wing Ukrainian Government, which had just taken power via the coup, started shelling the citizens of the Donbas via their henchmen known as the Nazi Azov Battalion which ended up killing approximately 18,000 civilians in the Donbas. They leave out also the fact that there was a peace agreement that was reached to end the shelling by the Ukraine Government and the Nazi Azov Battalion known as the Minsk accords because the party that broke that peace agreement was not Russia but the Ukrainian Government and the Nazis. They leave out the fact that there was already an overall peaceful way to avoid war and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of precious Ukrainians, which was recently admitted to by the Secretary General of NATO. He admitted that it was the expansion of NATO onto Russia’s border that was the real provocation and the fact that the United States and NATO refused to stop their expansion onto Russia’s border. All that amnesia is necessary for the continued aggression and warmongering of the United States and NATO to be accepted by the citizens of the United States and Europe. Well, I am here to cure them of their amnesia and remind them of the true cause of not only the Nord Stream bombing, but of the entire Ukraine war and the destabilization of the Middle East, including Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. The reason for that is the imperialistic lust of the United States empire. The United States now has over 800 military bases around the world without being able to cite an actual threat to its sovereignty. The United States is now ending its empire the way all empires end, by overextending itself militarily, while it starves its own people at home. The real threat is the threat to the United States’ economic interests. The United States has for decades feared German engineering and capital joining Russia’s natural resources and manpower. As elucidated very clearly by the founder of the United States intelligence firm Stratfor, George Friedman, in his 2010 book says: “Russia does not threaten America’s global position, but the mere possibility that it might collaborate with Europe and particularly Germany opens up the most significant threat in the decade, a long-term threat that needs to be nipped in the bud.” (The Next Decade: Empire and Republic in a Changing World, p. 141) Therefore, maintaining a powerful wedge between Germany and Russia is of overwhelming interest to the United States. For the United States, Friedman added in 2015, the primordial fear is German technology and German capital combining with Russian natural resources and Russian manpower to form the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. In this showdown, the United States aims to control the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea. Russia, by contrast, must have at least a neutral Ukraine, not a pro-Western Ukraine, because a neutral Ukraine would impede the primordial United States goal of a Russia-German fissure. The United States has opted for a proxy war instead. Western Governments are silent — even as the United States says, through anonymous sources, that Ukraine is responsible for the Nord Stream attack, but they will not blame Ukraine publicly. So the United States continues to arm Ukraine to the teeth in hopes of extending the war and avoiding peace. The Germans say it is Ukraine, but will not release their official investigation and will not make an announcement. The final obscenity is that people in the West who claim to be environmentalists and claim to care about climate change and the environment say nothing about the worst release of methane gas in human history. Their actions reveal that they do not actually care about climate change and continue to support this war and its ecoterrorism. In a bizarre twist, even Greta Thunberg travelled to Ukraine to meet with Zelenskyy after the Nord Stream bombing. I thank the Council for allowing me to speak.

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

We thank Dirk Pohlmann and Jimmy Dore for their briefings, which once again demonstrated to the Security Council that the citizens of Western countries also have a great deal of questions for their Governments amid the numerous inconsistencies in the narrative promoted by Washington and its allies in connection with the bombing of the Nord Stream gas pipelines in September 2022. Exactly a year has passed since the sabotage in the Baltic Sea. Nearly the same amount of time has passed since the first Council meeting on this topic (see S/PV.9144). Over the past 12 months, we have heard a great deal about how the national investigations carried out by Germany, Denmark and Sweden are on the verge of finding the perpetrators of this crime. However, to date there have been no results, despite the seven Council meetings — both open and closed — held on this topic. At the same time, more and more evidence is emerging in the expert community showing that the Nord Stream explosion is the work of Washington, which stooped to committing this outrageous crime, guided by a narrow selfish desire to consolidate its dominance in Europe, which is in dire need of Russian energy resources. Today’s sad anniversary is an excellent opportunity to briefly recall the timeline of events. Let me remind the Council of the key points. As early as 28 September, immediately after the sabotage, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation opened a criminal case under the article relating to acts of international terrorism. On 29 September, in their letter to the Security Council, Denmark and Sweden indicated that the Nord Streams were destroyed by explosive devices. This seems to have been the only specific conclusion we have heard in all this time. However, the German Prosecutor General’s Office began its official investigation only on 10 October. In October 2022, communiqués were sent from the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Mikhail Mishustin, to Berlin, Copenhagen and Stockholm on the need to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the incident, with the participation of representatives of the Russian authorities and the Gazprom company. There have been no responses to those letters over the past year. In November, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation sent requests to the competent German, Danish and Swedish authorities to provide legal assistance and form joint investigative teams. In response, we received only boilerplate non-responses. The members of the Council had the opportunity to see that with their own eyes when, in March, we distributed copies of our correspondence with the authorities of those countries (S/2023/193 and S/2023/223). Against the backdrop of that unacceptable situation, the Russian Federation submitted a draft resolution to the Security Council asking the Secretary-General to present proposals for the creation of an independent international commission to investigate the act of sabotage. Tomorrow marks exactly six months since the vote on that draft resolution (see S/PV.9295). Its text was absolutely depoliticized. It took into account all the specific comments and proposals made by Council members during informal consultations that lasted an entire month. However, the draft resolution was not accepted. Let me note that the main argument made by the colleagues who abstained on the voting was their so-called “full confidence” in the national investigations being carried out by the authorities of Germany, Denmark and Sweden. Well, another six months have elapsed, but there are still no results. And this despite the fact that concern about the lack of any kind of intelligible news for such a long time from Berlin, Copenhagen and Stockholm, has been expressed not only by Russia, China and Brazil, which called for an international investigation in March, but also by a number of other Council members. Moreover, in a clear show of disrespect for the Council, Germany, Denmark and Sweden ignored the request to speak at the 11 July Security Council meeting (see S/PV.9373), limiting themselves to circulating yet another letter. Said letter very openly acknowledged that the ongoing investigations may not lead to any results at all. I would like to ask our colleagues who so zealously support those national investigations — what is the point of holding back the collective efforts of Council members if those countries themselves have doubts about the effectiveness of the work they are undertaking? All this looks very much like an imitation of vigorous activity and an attempt to deprive Council members of access to information directly related to the maintenance of international peace and security. I would like to remind the Council that we are not talking about some hooligan prank. We are talking about a terrorist attack that targeted international pipeline infrastructure and led to severe economic and environmental consequences for a number of States. No one denies that it was committed using an explosive device. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that it falls under the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, of 15 December 1997, to which Germany, Denmark and Sweden are party. This international legal instrument explicitly states the obligations of its parties to investigate relevant crimes, to extradite or prosecute perpetrators and to provide each other with maximum assistance in connection with investigations, prosecutions or extradition proceedings. The authorities of the three mentioned States continue to ignore those obligations. The words of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz about his intention to see the matter through are strikingly at odds with the matter itself, given the total lack of relevant information. Moreover, there are increasing signs that instead of efforts to identify the circumstances of what occurred, we are actually observing an attempt to conceal those circumstances. A coordinated campaign to promote completely ridiculous versions of events is gaining ground in Western media. What have we not heard over the past year? We heard that Russia itself blew up a gas pipeline that was functioning in its interests. We heard that it was carried out by tourists on a sailing yacht, who, according to one version, acted practically on their own initiative, without any State support, and, according to another, acted on the orders of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Mr. Zaluzhny, but in total secret from his immediate leader — President Zelenskyy. Even more ridiculous are reports published in some European media about Western intelligence services, including those of the United States, supposedly being aware of the Ukrainians’ plans and even attempting to dissuade the latter from implementing said plans, but with no luck. Yet when we look at the rejection of the peace treaty with Russia in March 2022, it is clear that the Kyiv authorities cannot go against the will of their Western backers on such a serious issue. It is hard not to notice what all those versions have in common. Each denies Washington’s involvement in the commission of this crime. And they all began to sprout like mushrooms after a spring rain soon after a major investigation by American journalist and Pulitzer Prize-winner Seymour Hersh was published earlier this year, which briefers already mentioned today. That investigation provided many facts indicating that the explosive charges on the Nord Stream pipelines were placed by American divers during the NATO BALTOPS exercise in the summer of 2022. Incidentally, he published today new material supporting that version, which shows that the bombing was carefully planned over several months and demonstrates how thought was given to covering their tracks after the attack. I recommend that all Council members familiarize themselves with his findings. We all also remember President Biden’s comment that “there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2; we will bring an end to it”, which was made at a press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on 7 February 2022; the overt joy of Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland that the pipeline was, as she said, “a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea”, at the 26 January Senate meeting; and the gratitude expressed to the United States for bombing the Nord Stream pipelines tweeted by former Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski. And let us not forget how some of the Western members of the Council, unable to contain their emotions, stated openly at Council meetings that the Nord Stream explosions were a response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Such candid confessions would have enabled even a novice investigator to easily solve the case. However, since Germany, Denmark and Sweden have been tasked with covering up the involvement of their big brother from across the ocean, the investigators have had their hands tied and eyes blindfolded. Therefore, as Seymour Hersh told us, following the meeting between Joe Biden and Olaf Scholz, the American and German intelligence services were instructed to come up with an alternative version of events and gradually leak it to the media. That is exactly what they are doing now, but their fabrications are extremely implausible. And leaks about the actual circumstances of the tragedy do not make it any easier for Western storytellers. In particular, we recall the letter dated 7 October 2022 from State Secretary Graichen at the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action to Bundestag Left Party member Nastić, which was made available to the public, making it clear that even before the beginning of the investigation, German authorities had received some intelligence, the disclosure of which allegedly could have harmed the national interests of Germany. I wonder what kind of information could have harmed the party, which, one would think has been the victim alongside Russia? Whatever it may be confirms yet again the fact that Western investigators are not interested in the truth, which on the contrary gets in their way. What are we left with then, one year after the terrorist attack? We have threats from the highest level of the United States leadership involving the operations of a cross-border, undersea gas pipeline; its subsequent bombing, which was an act of international terrorism, with dangerous consequences for international peace and security, the economy, the environment and navigation in the Baltic Sea; the transparent delight of high-ranking representatives of the American and pro-American establishment; the resistance of Western countries to the idea of launching impartial and inclusive international investigations under the auspices of the Secretary-General; and the glaring ineffectiveness of the German, Swedish and Danish national investigations. At the same time, information is being force-fed to the media in order to shift responsibility to anyone other than the United States in an attempt to counter every objective fact. In such a situation, I would not even bother to use the cliché “you can draw your own conclusions”. If there are still any illusions, a year later, it is probably time to let go of them. I have no doubt that today we will once again hear from our Western colleagues that Russia is allegedly diverting the Council‘s attention from more serious problems by insisting on discussing the terrorist attack on the Nord Stream pipelines. Their tactics are simple and clear, namely, to drag things on for as long as they can, ideally for another one, two or three years and then to state the impossibility of carrying out the investigation, owing to the statute of limitations. We would advise them not to waste their time and energy on such tactics. All such attempts are doomed to failure beforehand. Our country will continue to seek to objectively and thoroughly establish all the circumstances behind the events, with the due involvement of Russian investigative agencies and all parties concerned, and to bring to justice those who ordered and carried out that act of sabotage. We will use all means at our disposal to that end, including in the Security Council. As part of that work, my country intends to submit a draft presidential statement on this matter — the text of which will be presented in the coming days. We believe that the Security Council should speak out clearly on the terrorist attack and insist on the need for an objective investigation and punishment for those responsible. We count on the support of all those who realize that to do otherwise would mean that any country could become the victim of such an attack committed by a State drunk on the idea of its own impunity. The Security Council must send a clear message that crimes targeting cross- border pipeline infrastructure are unacceptable and that it is impossible to avoid responsibility for them. That is the only way to prevent their recurrence.

I thank the briefers for their remarks. Energy is one of the cornerstones of modern life, and the reliable supply of natural gas is crucial. Given the heightened fragility of the global energy landscape, acts that endanger critical infrastructure pose a significant risk to many. Against that backdrop, Japan is acutely alarmed by the incident involving the Nord Stream pipelines and its long-term environmental implications. We are following carefully the investigations led by the Governments of Germany, Sweden and Denmark. We are confident that they will be executed with the utmost fairness. We trust that the outcomes of the national investigations will be made public in a transparent manner and will be reported expeditiously to the Security Council. The Council bears the responsibility for addressing issues that affect international peace and security. In order to fulfil that function, the Council must have the facts before it. Japan looks forward to seeing the results of the investigations conducted by the national authorities.

I thank the presidency for convening this meeting on an important pending issue. The explosions involving the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines have caused enormous economic losses, contributed to aggravating international tensions and heightened geopolitical uncertainty in the region. Any attack on massive energy infrastructure is bound to have a profound impact on how international actors perceive the security of their own critical assets. It is also disconcerting to witness the insufficient attention being paid to the environmental impacts of the explosions. That stands in stark contrast to the readiness of many nations to assign blame when incidents occur in other regions of the globe. It is important and urgent to determine the causes of the incident. Brazil has expressed on numerous occasions its confidence in the investigations conducted by the national authorities of Denmark, Germany and Sweden. We do so again today, and we reiterate our support for the conduct of the procedures, without external interference. At the same time, we believe that the seriousness of the episode  — a clear threat to international peace and security — requires the transparent and timely disclosure of at least the preliminary conclusions of those investigations. The lack of reliable information leaves ample room for speculation and accusations, including those related to the war in Ukraine. It only feeds the already very high tensions. We certainly do not need to aggravate them.

We are once again meeting today on the issue of the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines off the Baltic Sea on 26 and 27 September 2022. Those were malicious acts against energy infrastructure that sparked Council members’ outrage and condemnation. The extent of the material damage, the environmental repercussions of the underwater explosions, the short-term economic losses resulting from interim navigation and overflight conservation measures, as well as the long-term losses resulting from the fact that the installations were rendered inoperable, are considerable and have created legitimately high expectations that we will see the investigations that have been done produce conclusions. The Security Council is still waiting for the report of the joint investigation, which we are all expecting will shed light on the true circumstances of these acts and on their perpetrators. One year after the events occurred, the lack of progress on the matter is fuelling all kinds of suspicions and speculation that could call into question the desire of the parties to bring the investigations to a successful conclusion. In that regard, my country urges all the parties to engage in an inclusive, transparent and non-politicized way. It goes without saying that any obstruction or opacity in the progress of the investigations would be detrimental to its credibility and trustworthiness in the current context. It is important to ensure that cooperation and the exchange of information prevail over all other considerations, with a view to encouraging the truth to emerge.

I have listened carefully to the speakers. As we mark the year that has passed since the explosions that occurred in the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea, and as it is clear that they were acts of sabotage, I want to reiterate my delegation’s condemnation of the incident. There can be no justification for attacks on essential civil infrastructure, including energy infrastructure, and we deplore the fact that they put the safety of maritime and air navigation at risk. We have also repeatedly deplored their environmental impact, with incalculable consequences for the contamination of marine life, as well as potentially for the climate through the release of hundreds of millions of cubic metres of gas into the atmosphere. On top of that, we have also emphasized our concern about the fact that acts such as these, in an extremely complex global geopolitical situation, exacerbate tensions and could have unpredictable consequences, which is why we have continued to urge States to avoid speculation and act with maximum restraint. Ecuador will continue to be guided by the information that has been provided to the Council in the past by Under-Secretary-General Rosemary DiCarlo, who has called for avoiding disruptive actions that could affect or obstruct the quest for the truth. The information provided by Sweden, Germany and Denmark in document S/2023/517, which was circulated a little over two months ago, reflects the complex nature of the national investigations, which involve technical, scientific and logistical aspects, among others. I would therefore like to reiterate that it is appropriate to continue the ongoing investigations in line with the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

I have taken note of the statements by Mr. Pohlmann and Mr. Dore. Our assessment remained unchanged. As my delegation has said in the past, Switzerland is concerned about the alleged sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines that led to gas leaks last September. Switzerland condemns all acts of sabotage against critical infrastructure, including energy infrastructure, which can have harmful consequences for the supply to populations as well as for the economy and the environment. With regard to the investigations carried out by national authorities, we welcomed the information provided in the joint letter from Denmark, Germany and Sweden dated 10 July (S/2023/517). As the letter indicated, their various national investigations are ongoing in order to shed light on the facts, and we await their conclusions.

Today marks the first anniversary of the explosion of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines. The incident has continued to be a major focus of attention from the international community since it happened, and many Security Council members, including China, have repeatedly called for an objective, impartial and professional investigation aimed at finding out the truth as soon as possible. Regrettably, there is so far still no clear and authoritative conclusion on the matter. The Nord Stream explosion has implications for the safety of transnational infrastructure and has had a negative impact on the global energy supply, the marine environment and the safety of maritime shipping. The countries concerned in the national investigations have been conducting them for some time, but results remain elusive. The longer the delay, the more difficult it will be to collect evidence and uncover the truth, the more doubts and speculation the issue will provoke and the less credible the results of the investigation will be. We hope that the countries concerned will proactively respond to the international community’s concerns with a heightened sense of urgency, announce progress updates of the investigations in a timely manner and with a responsible attitude to regional security and development, and ensure that their conclusions are objective, impartial, authoritative and able to stand the test of time. Russia is one of the main parties involved in the explosion, and we therefore call on the countries concerned to communicate actively and cooperate with Russia rather than simply ignoring it. Any attempts to politicize the investigation can only create suspicion and cause more speculation. On the Nord Stream issue, the international community, including the Security Council, should refrain from applying double standards. We hope to see the truth uncovered and the perpetrators brought to justice as soon as possible. We also hope the Secretariat will provide more useful information and that the Council will remain seized of the matter.

Malta reiterates its strong condemnation of the possible act of sabotage targeting the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines that occurred in September 2022. Such acts pose a serious threat to energy security and regional stability. Our position against any form of disruption to critical energy infrastructure is clear and long-standing. The subsequent leaks have also presented a substantial threat to the nations directly involved and to the environment. They have compromised a critical conduit for the transportation of a crucial energy resource. They have exacerbated the challenges faced by developing nations and global energy markets already strained as a consequence of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities inherent in essential energy infrastructure. On 10 July Denmark, Germany and Sweden sent another joint letter (S/2023/517) to the Security Council regarding the status of ongoing investigations into the explosions in which they reiterated their commitment to investigating the sabotage comprehensively. The Council cannot ignore the fact that the nature of these acts is unprecedented. Investigations are complex and this is something that we should all be able to agree on and acknowledge. Meanwhile, Malta has no reason to believe that they are not being conducted meticulously, in line with the fundamental principles of the rule of law and independently from political interference. We reiterate our full confidence in their impartiality and credibility. The persistent claims that enough time has passed to establish the truth are groundless. Such speculation only creates distrust and suspicion among States. Furthermore, the countries in question have all the necessary means, resources and expertise to conduct their own investigations. To introduce further investigations at this juncture would seriously risk being counterproductive.

I would like to thank the briefers for their perspectives. The international community remains rightfully concerned about the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. We have repeatedly condemned that attack, and we all want clear answers. That is why we support the national investigations of Germany, Denmark and Sweden to determine who is responsible. In July, Germany, Sweden and Denmark offered a detailed update on the progress of those investigations. They highlighted the unprecedented nature of the sabotage and the subsequent complexity of the investigative processes. We understand that those investigations will take time, and we have full confidence in their impartiality and integrity. As we have said before, we do not believe that it is a good use of our time for the Security Council to start to prejudge the outcome of those investigations, dictate how they are conducted or otherwise undermine them. We, and fellow Security Council members, should continue to offer full support to those investigations so that we can establish who was responsible. Before I conclude, let us pause for a moment on the fact that it was Russia who called this meeting. Russia claims that it is concerned about the destruction of civilian infrastructure, so much so that it seeks to commemorate the anniversary of this attack. Yet we all know that almost every single day of the year is an anniversary of a deliberate Russian attack on civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. We have seen the systematic bombing of Ukrainian energy and port infrastructure. We have seen more than 480 Russian attacks on schools and hospitals and 120 attacks on religious sites. And beyond infrastructure, what of the lives of civilians themselves? At least 9,600 civilians have been killed and 17,500 more injured in Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine. Therefore, as we listen to the representative of Russia today, let us not forget what it is doing, deliberately and as a matter of policy. Let us also not forget the callous disregard Russia showed for civilians and civilian infrastructure in Aleppo, Homs and Damascus, when it vetoed nine Council resolutions aimed at ending the Al-Assad regime’s indiscriminate bombing of hospitals and schools. And let us not forget that while Russia repeatedly brings briefers to the Council from the West who are free to attack Western Governments, it systematically locks up anyone who dares to criticize the Russian Government’s position at home. Russia’s hypocrisy today is nothing new, but this bears repeating: if Russia is seriously concerned about civilian infrastructure, it must cease its relentless attacks and ensure accountability for the appalling destruction and suffering it has caused.

The United Arab Emirates reaffirms its unreserved condemnation of the acts of sabotage against the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines one year ago. The consistent and predictable supply of energy is a bedrock of the international order. The need for energy, stability and security is something that unites countries around the world, large and small, developed and developing. The United Arab Emirates, like all countries, relies on the safety of transboundary energy infrastructure. Threats to such infrastructure are a matter of international peace and security and have rightfully been addressed by the Security Council. In resolution 2341 (2017), the Security Council noted the increasing cross-border critical infrastructure interdependencies, including for the generation, transmission and distribution of energy. It also recognized that protecting critical infrastructure requires cooperation across borders with governmental authorities, foreign partners and private sector owners and operators of such infrastructure. Sabotage against transboundary energy infrastructure is a grave threat to international energy security. When such acts occur, it is vital for the competent national authorities to investigate them. Such investigations should be thorough and rigorously fact-based. We note the ongoing investigations by the relevant national authorities into the 22 September acts of sabotage. The United Arab Emirates welcomes the letters dated 21 February (S/2023/126) and 10 July (S/2023/517) from the representatives of Denmark, Germany and Sweden addressed to the President of the Security Council, which provided information about their respective investigations. We encourage further updates and the expeditious conclusion of the ongoing investigations. We also urge transparency in sharing the findings of national investigations with the relevant actors, as appropriate. We continue to emphasize the value and importance of international coordination and cooperation in such investigations. In that regard, we encourage increased cooperation with the pipeline operators, which have legitimate equities at stake in the ongoing investigations. The United Arab Emirates’ own national experience demonstrates the usefulness of cooperation and information-sharing in such situations. Undoubtedly, all members of the Council share an interest in preventing acts of sabotage against transboundary energy infrastructure. Such acts must never be tolerated. We eagerly await the conclusion of the investigations into the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipeline explosions, the determination of what transpired and the identification of those responsible so that they may be held to account.

Mozambique extends its thanks to the briefers, Mr. Dirk Pohlmann and Mr. Jimmy Dore, for their important insights on the topic before the Security Council. In that connection, we wish to recall that we were told during Mozambique’s Council presidency in March that an attempt was being made to establish an independent investigation under the auspices of the Secretary- General. We then learned that it was premature to call for an international investigation. The idea was to avoid interference with the national investigations under way. At the time, Mozambique underlined that such investigations could not be endless. We therefore expressed our support for the speedy conclusion of an objective, impartial and professional inquiry. Today, despite the prevailing belief that this was indeed an act of sabotage and that a serious violation of international law had taken place, we are no closer to asserting the truth. Mozambique does not condone the deliberate destruction and weaponization of critical and transnational infrastructures such as the Nord Stream pipelines. We are still committed to allowing the ongoing investigations into the incident being conducted by the authorities in the three national jurisdictions, namely those of Germany, Sweden and Denmark, to come to a conclusion. We hold that view, guided by resolution 2341 (2017), which aims to protect critical infrastructure from such attacks. There is a pressing and well-founded urgency to bring the clarity of justice to this issue. We must guarantee that the trust we hold in our collective mechanisms is not eroded and that our faith in the collective security system designed by the Charter of the United Nations is strengthened at all times and in all circumstances. Let us not forget the consequences of impunity. It not only emboldens those who perpetrate such acts, it weakens the very foundations of international cooperation. It is legitimate for the Security Council, as the primary organ responsible for international peace and security, to be kept abreast of the results of the joint national investigations. Mozambique strongly encourages the speedy conclusion of objective, impartial and professional investigations into an incident that appears to be contrary to international law.

We regret that the Russian Mission continues to call repetitive meetings on this topic, despite the many other pressing matters on the Security Council’s agenda. The United States reiterates its concern about the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines that took place in September 2022. Out of respect for the Council’s time, I will keep my statement brief and refer members to our prior statements on the matter. The United States continues to have confidence in the ongoing investigations led by the Governments of Denmark, Germany and Sweden into the facts of what happened. The attacks took place in the maritime zones of Denmark and Sweden, and those Governments are conducting thorough and impartial investigations. Russia has repeatedly claimed that it is seeking an impartial investigation, despite its own premature attempts to place the blame on certain countries. It is no surprise that it selectively promotes narratives in the Council that comport with its preordained conclusions while dismissing alternative views. Any country where such an incident occurred within its territory would expect to first conduct its own investigation. The Council should ignore the accusations and speculation and allow Denmark, Germany and Sweden to conclude their work. Russia’s disingenuous statements feigning concern are intended to undermine the ongoing investigations in an attempt to prejudice their results.

France expressed its concern clearly when underwater explosions hit the Nord Stream gas pipelines a year ago. We took seriously the reports that the explosions were the result of a deliberate act of sabotage, and our position is unchanged. These are serious matters that require thorough investigation. However, we can only wonder why Russia has requested a Council meeting on this topic for a fourth time. Since our previous meeting in July (see S/PV.9373), no new, credible or serious developments have come to light that would justify a new discussion on the issue. While expressing so much concern about damage to European infrastructure, Russia has continued to inflict massive daily destruction on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, power plants, hospitals and schools. The only reason for holding this new meeting appears to be Russia’s need to distract the Council’s attention and fuel speculation about the identity of those responsible for sabotaging the pipelines. The competent German, Danish and Swedish authorities have launched investigations aimed at establishing the truth of the matter. As we have already emphasized, we have no reason to doubt their seriousness and impartiality. Given the seriousness and complexity of the facts in question, we understand that ongoing investigations require time and thorough verification. We want those investigations to continue and reach their conclusions, free from political interference.

We listened closely to the information provided by the briefers and have noted our common interest in unravelling the facts surrounding the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines. The successive damage done to the pipelines  — at a time when the global energy crisis was already worsening  — shocked the conscience of the international community into a renewed awareness of the strategic linkages between critical infrastructure and security, economic stability and the sustainable development of societies. The depravity of the acts highlighted the importance of concerted global efforts to put in place measures that can pre-empt or mitigate such actions. In our view, the incident reflects a disregard for the inherent rights of the populations dependent on those energy installations, and it remains unacceptable by any standard. We reiterate how important it is that States uphold their responsibilities, established under international law and reaffirmed by Security Council decisions, for the protection of critical infrastructure, especially infrastructure of a transboundary nature. It will be essential to forestall such acts in the future, since damage or destruction to critical infrastructure in one sector — whether energy, water, communications, cybersecurity or transportation  — often results in extensive and rippling consequences for other sectors and populations, creating instability and sometimes humanitarian crises. We support the Council’s sustained interest in helping to unravel the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, and we insist that the differences among Council members regarding the establishment of an international investigative mechanism should not detract from the position they have expressed in previous Council meetings, in which they have been united against the sabotage of the pipelines. As the Council revisits the issue on the one-year anniversary of the incident, Ghana would like to reiterate the following four points. First, we continue to believe that it is essential to establish the facts of such heinous actions in order to ensure that the perpetrators are held accountable and to send a strong message condemning the deliberate destruction of critical infrastructure anywhere. In that regard, we believe the ongoing national investigations by Denmark, Germany and Sweden, the countries concerned, are important, and we urge for support to their efforts to uncover the facts, beyond the initial establishment of the incident as an act of sabotage. We also believe that the outcomes of the national investigations would be instructive for future Security Council action on the matter. Secondly, we reiterate our appeal to all the parties to work collaboratively and in good faith, consistent with the provisions of resolution 2341 (2017). We are of the view that the sharing and exchange of information, technology, expertise and other relevant resources between and among the countries involved, as well as the Russian operators, would contribute immensely to ensuring coherent outcomes and a speedy conclusion to the investigative processes. Thirdly, in order to address the persistent problem of speculation and accusatory rhetoric, which only fuel existing geopolitical tensions, we urge the parties to work more openly and transparently. While acknowledging that some information may be sensitive in relation to the national security of the countries concerned, we encourage them to provide regular updates on the status of the investigations, with a view to bolstering international confidence in the national processes. Fourthly and finally, we reiterate our previous submission regarding the necessity of a time frame for concluding the national investigations and presenting the outcomes to appropriate international institutions, including the Security Council, for necessary follow- up action.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Albania. There have been several meetings on this issue. Today the same narrative and the same positions have been repeated once again, for the very simple reason that there is nothing new to say on the matter. Many briefers, of different profiles, have tried to explain what they do not know and what we still do not know. Our position has been very clear from the beginning, and it remains the same. We have been — and are — deeply concerned by an 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 origin of the damage and the possible perpetrators. We understand that the investigation is under way, and we have full confidence in its objectivity. Such investigative processes are complex, delicate and need time. The three countries that are carrying out the investigation have strong judicial institutions and unquestionable records on the rule of law. In conclusion, we would like to stress that we should be patient and wait for the conclusion of the ongoing investigations. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. There are no more names inscribed on the list of speakers.