Nord Stream Bombing: “The ‘Drunken Ukrainians’ Story Is Frankly Embarrassing”

Source: InsideOver, translated at Thomas Fazi

• “Even if this team didn’t plant the bombs, they were still a part of the operation.”
• “the large number of institutions which participated in this scheme makes the “drunken Ukrainians” story look embarrassing.”
• “The real instigators are those who promised before to “put an end to” Nord Stream, and still talk about the destruction as a laudable thing.”

Last year, Swedish engineer Erik Andersson led the first and only independent forensic investigation at the sites of the Nord Stream pipeline blasts, during which he obtained exclusive sonar images and underwater drone images and videos, and even collected samples of sediment from the seafloor.

In this exclusive interview, Italian journalist Roberto Vivaldelli talks to him about the latest Nord Stream “revelations” (which we have already covered here and here).

For those who have been living under a rock for the past week, the new “semi-official” story (as relayed by the Wall Street Journal) goes as follows: the plan to take out the Nord Stream pipeline was initially approved by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in “agreement” with the then-and-current Polish president Andrzej Duda, according to the former head of German intelligence; the following month, however, the Dutch military intelligence agency MIVD learned of the plot and warned the CIA, which promptly informed Germany of the plan and told Zelenskyy to stop the operation. Zelenskyy thus ordered Ukraine’s then-Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valerii Zaluzhnyi — who has since been dismissed due to disagreements with Zelenskyy over the war strategy, and sent to London as Ukraine’s new ambassador to Britain — to abort the operation.

But the general ignored the order and, following a night of heavy drinking, went rogue, pushing ahead with the original plan behind Zelenskyy’s back. The plan, privately funded by businessmen to the tune of $300,000, involved a six-member crew, which included experienced civilian divers, renting a 50-foot sailing yacht named Andromeda, sailing out to the Baltic Sea and, undetected by NATO, planting explosives in two different sites along the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, located in the Swedish and Danish exclusive economic zone (EEZs).

Roberto Vivaldelli: Dear Erik Andersson, in recent days it has emerged that investigations conducted by German authorities have identified a key suspect, identified as Volodymyr Zhuravlov, a 44-year-old Ukrainian scuba diving instructor. He, along with two other accomplices, is accused of having placed explosives along the Nord Stream. Despite an arrest warrant being issued against him — a Ukrainian citizen who was living in Poland — the suspect appears to have fled to Ukraine, making his capture difficult. What do you think about this? A curious story…

Erik Andersson: I think the German investigators really believe that the sail boat crew blew up Nord Stream, and that they think they have identified some of the crew members. The German focus on the Andromeda story has been known for a long time, and it has also been known that Poland hasn’t cooperated with the investigation. But still, I was shocked to read in the WSJ that Olaf Scholz headed a delegation to Warsaw on July 2, meeting Donald Tusk and his aides to make sure the warrant was acted upon, but the Poles flat-out refused. It was even said that whoever blew up Nord Stream should receive a medal, not be arrested. Zhuravlov is said to have fled to Ukraine on July 6, four days after the Scholz/Tusk meeting, apparently tipped off by a supportive Polish government.

At this point, when the Ukraine sailboat story has stirred up political conflict between nations, and demands have been raised in Germany to freeze aid to Ukraine, and even ask for damages, we have to deal with the story as a kind of truth. I’m saying “kind of”, because I haven’t seen the evidence and I can’t vouch for it. There is still a chance that we’re being manipulated and Ukraine is unfairly being made a patsy (since they’re the only ones who can get away with it as an act in their war against Russia). But I’m setting those doubts aside mostly because I think it’s more constructive to give the German investigators “the benefit of the doubt”, and support actions that can lead to more discoveries.

Roberto Vivaldelli: The Wall Street Journal tells a different story. The plan is said to have been reviewed by Zelenskyy, who decided to stop the operation. At that point, the sabotage was reportedly carried out by the former head of the armed forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who is now an ambassador. Do you find this story credible, or is it a way to “clear” the West, and particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, of any involvement?

Erik Andersson: I think this WSJ article, as well as all previous similar story-telling pieces from major American newspapers on the subject, has a clear mission to whitewash the US and other Western nations. So yes, I think you are right. An exception though is that the latest WSJ article says that Ukraine initially reviewed a previous plan to blow up Nord Steam drawn up together with “Western experts”, but that plan was abandoned for its complexity. By saying that, the WSJ all but admits that the project originated from “the West”. There is also a passage in the article that insinuates that Zelenskyy argued with Zaluzhnyi in September 2022, as the bombs were being planted in the Baltic. This was new. In the previous version of the narrative, Zelenskyy was not in the loop. But now when he’s said to have been trying to stop it to please America, but is told by Zaluzhnyi it can’t be stopped, then it becomes even more unbelievable that the Americans weren’t in the loop. I’m also taking the arrogance of Poland (when telling Germany to shut and apologise) as evidence of American support. They just wouldn’t be able to talk like that without American support.

From the Wall Street Journal article:

“Zelensky took Zaluzhniy to task, but the general shrugged off his criticism, according to three people familiar with the exchange. Zaluzhniy told Zelensky that the sabotage team, once dispatched, went incommunicado and couldn’t be called off because any contact with them could compromise the operation. “He was told it’s like a torpedo — once you fire it at the enemy, you can’t pull it back again, it just keeps going until it goes ‘boom’”, a senior officer familiar with the conversation said.”

Roberto Vivaldelli: There are other controversial aspects in the Wall Street Journal’s account. For example, there is a claim that German investigators inspected the yacht registered in Germany, called Andromeda, and claim to have discovered DNA, fingerprints and traces of explosives. It is not explained who is associated with the DNA and fingerprints, nor the type of “traces” of explosives that are claimed to have been found.

Erik Andersson: I think they just drop some pieces of information to make it look like they have talked with some insider in the German investigation, but can’t say all they know. The WSJ has editors asking for sources, so I think it’s probably true that the investigation has leaked these things to the paper, and it’s definitely true that the WSJ wants to tell us that the German investigation is to be trusted. I find it very lame though, if the German investigators haven’t found a way to retrieve DNA from the three suspects. Since they didn’t have enough evidence to arrest the married diving couple (Svetlana Uspenskaya and Yevgeny Uspenski), I suppose they don’t have DNA matches for them.

Roberto Vivaldelli: One of the most curious claims is that the Andromeda docked in the small port town of Sandhamn, about 50 km east of Stockholm, Sweden. The WSJ reports that (unidentified) eyewitnesses claim that the Andromeda displayed a “small Ukrainian flag”. But the ship is German: why would a secret operation have displayed a Ukrainian flag?

Erik Andersson: It’s not the Sandhamn east of Stockholm. It’s here, just outside Karlskrona. I agree the flag display is curious, especially as they could have rented a boat in Kolberg, Poland (where they docked anyways). That would have been less risky and also much closer to the bomb sites. I find it believable that they used amateur pleasure divers like Zhuravlov and the Uspenskis in order to have credible cover as some kind of holiday wreck diving trip. In that context they could have displayed the Ukrainian flag. There are several other details of the expedition which indicate that they actually wanted to be discovered. They used cellphones (contradicting the Zaluzhnyi missile analogy), paid with big piles of cash, used forged passports, and were unhelpful to a fellow sailor in need, annoying another witness. Many of my friends have pointed out that the Andromeda story must be a red herring for this reason, but my answer is that it doesn’t matter if it was a red herring. Even if this team didn’t plant the bombs, they were still a part of the operation. The best way to find out if the Andromeda was real or a cover is to take it seriously and pursue it to see if it holds water till the end.

Roberto Vivaldelli: Despite your extensive fieldwork and research, Swedish authorities have closed the investigation into the Nord Stream sabotage. Why do you think there is no willingness to uncover the truth?

Erik Andersson: Sweden’s actions and statements indicate that they are keeping silent in order not to embarrass a “friendly nation”. The Swedish investigator has also bragged that they have secured evidence on the seafloor which will be valuable to German prosecution. Sweden is on the one hand a bit like Poland, cheerleading Ukraine in the war, intimidating citizens who don’t buy the scare stories of Russia coming for us next if we don’t stop them in Ukraine. On the other hand, we have to keep up the appearance of a serious unbiased investigation, as we have assured the United Nations multiple times that’s what we are doing. It’s in a balance I think, where supporting the war in Ukraine turns out to be more important than revealing the full truth.

Roberto Vivaldelli: Have you recently discovered anything new about the case?

Erik Andersson: Nothing physical. I’m trying to plan another expedition to verify the placement of the bomb which exploded first, pick up the boot and a glove [that we saw near the blast sites], and find the reason for the magnetic reversal [i.e., interference] which I think caused the divers to plant two bombs on the same pipeline, leaving one pipeline undamaged by mistake. But I don’t want to pay the 20k it costs, and I’ve been too lazy to raise the money from others. I’m encouraged though that the divers I’m talking too find the magnetic theory very plausible.

I’m also following the insurance lawsuit by Nord Stream AG against LLoyds Bank, and the lawfare against Gazprom where a Swedish arbitration tribunal ruled Gazprom has to pay €13 billion in damages to German energy firm Uniper. I think Gazprom was tricked into a position where they could be blamed for their inability to deliver gas in the summer of 2022, and curiously, the €13 billion also includes losses incurred after the destruction of the pipelines. The more I look into this, the more I feel that the Nord Stream attack is just a part of a bigger scheme to cut off Russia from Europe, and the large number of institutions which participated in this scheme makes the “drunken Ukrainians” story look embarrassing. Even if there was a rogue element in the operation, like drunken Ukrainian generals going off rails, or patriotic amateur divers wanting to show off, it was so by design. The real instigators are those who promised before to “put an end to” Nord Stream, and still talk about the destruction as a laudable thing.