Statement by Chargé d'Affaires a.i. Dmitry Polyanskiy at a UNSC Briefing on the Nord Stream Sabotage
Main statement:
Mr. President,
We would like to thank UN Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenča for his briefing. Unfortunately, however, it has not been properly updated. You did not mention the fact that today we circulated our letter containing the assessments of the German letter you did mention, as well as the assessments of the situation around the German investigation. To get the full picture, I think it is important to take this into account as well.
Colleagues,
Exactly one month from now, on September 26, it will have been three years since two branches of the Nord Stream gas pipeline were blown up in international waters of the Baltic Sea, in the exclusive economic zone of Denmark and Sweden. From day one, it was clear-cut for the entire international community that this was unprecedented deliberate destruction of a cross-border underwater civilian infrastructure facility, which directly threatened the environment of the region, and jeopardized the navigation in the Baltic Sea. This irresponsible act drew the attention of the entire world – of states, the media, and civil society. Given that the terrorist attack seriously affected the interests of a whole host of states, it was clear as day that we needed to conduct a meticulous investigation into what had happened, identify those responsible, and prevent the recurrence of similar crimes.
In this context, we and a number of other colleagues had every right to expect that Germany, Denmark, and Sweden (which launched their own national investigations) would make the requisite effort and cooperate with all parties involved. However, despite all well-founded expectations and countless appeals, these countries chose a different path – they decided to keep the international community in the dark, occasionally feeding the media with fragmented and non-specific information that didn’t allow us to establish the full picture of what had happened nor understand how the investigation was unfolding and who were presumed suspects. All this was done under the pretext of ensuring the “confidentiality” of the investigation. This was rather weird, since these suspects were not hiding, they were actually bragging about their involvement in the terrorist attack. Besides, all three states refused in every way to cooperate on the investigation of the terrorist attack – neither did they want to engage with Russia nor be part of possible international efforts.
In parallel, we grew increasingly convinced that meticulous investigation was not part of their plan, since the three States and their allies in the Western camp, including those in the Council, repeated the same mantras, saying that they allegedly fully trusted in the investigations being conducted by Berlin, Copenhagen, and Stockholm, which – they said – were “effective” in nature. I wonder how they could assess the effectiveness of the negotiations given that all we found out about the course thereof suggested the contrary. Meanwhile, they hysterically criticized the initiatives put forward by Russia and a number of other countries, including UNSC members, to conduct an international investigation under the auspices of the UN, which (and this is our firm conviction) could only complement and coordinate efforts at the national level rather than somehow undermine them.
As a result, precious time was lost, and the work of Danish and Swedish investigators ended exactly as we predicted. It took them almost 18 months to glean a single insight (and I’m not exaggerating right now): the Nord Stream gas pipelines were indeed blown up, but who did that and how – this is something they cannot determine. It's as if, after a year and a half of investigating a murder, the investigators could have made a single conclusion that the victim had been really killed. It is laughable, but despite the absurdity of the situation, all our Western colleagues still commend the work done by Stockholm and Copenhagen.
The German investigative authorities formally continued their work, but they seem to have been clearly instructed to drag out the process by hook or by crook. After all, as soon as their work is complete, the Western camp will hardly have any convincing arguments left against an international investigation. Thus, it took almost three years for Berlin to announce a new twist in the case.
As Mr. Jenča has already mentioned, according to a press release by the German Federal Prosecutor General's Office, in the early hours of August 21, a Ukrainian national Sergei K. was detained in the Italian province of Rimini pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued by the German federal court. He is accused of being a member of a group who supposedly carried out the explosions of the gas pipelines. In essence, that is where all the novelty and specificities end.
Yet, the official statement by the Berlin authorities was immediately picked up on and widely disseminated by various German and international media outlets. Der Spiegel persisted in promoting a version according to which there were certain Ukrainians involved in the terrorist attack, presenting this version as an irrefutable fact. Citing an alleged arrest warrant at their disposal, ARD television channel, and Die Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit newspapers claimed that the detainee was the leader of the so-called “sabotage group” that planted delayed-action explosive devices under the two branches of the gas pipeline in September 2022. The aforementioned Sergey K. presumably steered the notorious Andromeda sailing yacht with the alleged terrorists aboard, but did not actually dive himself. If we believe the German press (and we have no other sources), this man disembarked from the vessel on September 22, and safely left for Ukraine. The detainee denies his guilt referring to his alleged alibi – he says that at the time of the incident, he was in Ukraine.
Distinguished colleagues,
Given the above, any impartial expert would come to a single conclusion – by providing these new revelations, the German authorities are essentially trying to make us believe the same version of events that the Western media started to actively disseminate just over two years ago. According to this version, the attack on Nord Stream was carried out by a group of Ukrainian “amateur divers” traveling on the sailing yacht Andromeda. There are varying opinions whether these “yachtsmen” acted independently or on the orders of the former commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, Valery Zaluzhny, who allegedly disobeyed the orders of his direct superior, Vladimir Zelensky. In other words, not a single state and not a single leader is to blame for what happened.
Colleagues
Our country has repeatedly pointed out in the Security Council to the utter inconsistency and implausibility of these fabrications. Experts who briefed us during previous meetings on the terrorist attack on Nord Stream also shared similar assessments; they claimed that it would be simply impossible for amateurs to execute such a large-scale and complex operation without state support and state cover – there are only a small number of states that have the necessary military and technical capabilities to carry this out. Judge for yourselves: all this took place in the middle of the Baltic Sea, in an area of extremely intense shipping traffic and significant military presence, including that of NATO vessels, and we’ve been asked to believe that a group of some amateur divers managed to arrive unnoticed in the area of Bornholm Island, descended to a depth of 70-80 meters to install in murky waters explosive devices under two branches of a gas pipeline, which was protected from natural and man-made disasters using cutting-edge technologies. It seems like the plot of a spy thriller. However preposterous it may be, this version does have a huge advantage in the eyes of those in the West who applauded the explosions of the pipelines and were proud of being linked to those who committed this. It shifts the focus of public attention away from them and places the spotlight squarely on some “scapegoats”, who – even if they were involved in anything – didn’t act alone. The German investigator appear to have nothing more to say.
What is also telling is that this version of events began to be disseminated in the West about two and a half years ago – immediately after the famous US journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh published his investigation, whereby he presented a great deal of evidence and much rationale that attested to the direct involvement of the administration of former US President Joe Biden in the organization and execution of the crime. Precisely at that time, the Russian Federation and a number of other states, including some our UNSC colleagues, unequivocally called for the need to conduct an international investigation into what had happened in the Baltic Sea. We repeatedly shared with the Council our observations that promoting such a narrative seemed like a coordinated media campaign. This was evidenced also by the leaks that there were certain arrangements between the administrations of Joe Biden and former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, according to which the US and German secret services had to come up with an “alternative” version of events which would distract the international community's attention from the abundant evidence pointing to the former US authorities and their NATO allies.
But what almost all experts who are following this issue agree today is that the competent German authorities clearly do have much more information about what happened than what they are selectively highlighting in the media. Without a doubt, they also have information about those who commissioned and organized the crime. However, they are unwilling or unable to disclose it, given the obvious reputational costs for both NATO and the former US administration. And in Germany itself, there is a growing understanding of the fact that this terrorist attack was geared directly against German economic and political interests. That is why Berlin is compelled to hide behind unconvincing excuses about the “confidentiality” of the investigation and to conceal important facts and evidence from its own citizens and the international community.
Mr. President,
There are entirely objective reasons why we have no faith in Berlin's findings. The UNSC members are well aware that Germany, Denmark, and Sweden refused all the proposals from the Russian Federation – a state directly affected by the terrorist attack – to cooperate in establishing the circumstances of the incident. For no good reason, these countries rejected any proposals from the competent authorities of our country to provide legal assistance and turned down all our requests to establish joint investigative teams. In essence, we were simply cut off from the investigation. On top of that, Germany continues to flagrantly violate its other international obligations, in particular those arising from the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
Mr. President,
At the end of the day, three years after the terrorist attack in the Baltic Sea, we have the following. The two key states, in whose economic zone the crime took place, have concluded their investigations with zero results. The third state is throwing its weight behind a version according to which this major incident – which involved an attack on cross-border energy infrastructure that, incidentally, provided the European population with energy resources at favorable prices – was basically nothing but a technical crime committed by a group of non-professionals, who presumably were driven solely by personal motives.
At the same time, the fundamentally important question of who actually commissioned and covered for the perpetrators of this terrorist act is something that is being deliberately ignored. It seems that if Danish, German, and Swedish investigators acted likewise while investigating any other issue of critical importance to Western elites, the public, including in Europe itself, would accuse them of being unprofessional, and they would have every righty to do so.
But what we see at the UNSC is exactly the opposite, a surreal picture – Western colleagues are praising the investigation as effective, having in mind the sole purpose of muddying the waters and not letting the truth come out. Such an approach by Western delegations is not just yet another manifestation of their “double standards.” That would not surprise us. It’s much worse – due to their reluctance to conduct an international investigation and their insistence on a version involving amateur divers, the Council continues to waste time and is unable to take any action to combat the real threat to international peace and security posed by such destructive actions against cross-border underwater energy infrastructure. Just think about what an encouraging signal the Council is sending to terrorist organizations by doing nothing. Not only have such organizations received ready-made instructions on how to organize such an attack, but they also see that there will be no response from the international community, nor will there be any accountability for those who ordered it.
If the Council fails to make progress on the Nord Stream issue, we cannot rule out recurrences of such incidents in other regions of the world, and responsibility for this will fall squarely on all Council members. We urge all sensible UNSC members to think about this, and we urge the German authorities not to try to hide the truth behind a veil of secrecy, but to demonstrate a willingness to engage in genuine cooperation and reveal all the information at their disposal. We also expect the German delegation to participate in Council meetings on this topic, rather than dismissing them under proforma excuses, we would like Germany to tell us how the investigation is proceeding. If there are some confidentiality issues, we can hold discussions behind closed doors. The main thing is for the Council to have the full picture, so that we could make decisions on the basis of the information provided. The Russian Federation and our like-minded colleagues have tabled relevant proposals regarding this issue. We call on all our colleagues to support them so that the UNSC can fulfill its key task, which is to maintain international peace and security.
Thank you.
Right of reply:
Mr. President,
Since I was the first to speak, allow me to briefly comment on some of the remarks made in this chamber today.
Let me begin by responding to my Danish colleague. I would like to illustrate your words about Denmark’s substantive cooperation with Russia on investigations with specific facts. The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) alone sent more than five mutual legal assistance requests to Denmark, and each time we invariably were told that providing this information would pose a threat to the Danish state. The only substantial thing was a letter dated June 27, 2023, which stated that Denmark had raised a cylindrical object from the bottom of the Baltic Sea. However, our request for access to examine this object was similarly ignored. That is all the substance we have. If that what our Danish colleagues referred to when they talked about their substantive assistance in the investigation, then it is not surprising that the Danish investigation ended the way it did, and that you claim that discussing a terrorist act involving the destruction of international underwater infrastructure is a waste of the UNSC's time. We have completely different standards in this regard. We are not playing Lego here, we are dealing with important issues.
In fact, I asked for the floor largely to point out an extremely alarming trend that clearly became apparent in the statements made today by a number of our Western colleagues. They, in essence, showed their true colors today. We are not surprised that, as part of their bloc discipline, they rushed to exculpate the German authorities, in a rather clumsy manner though. But what we were surprised to see is that some of the Western representatives today, whether knowingly or unknowingly, have linked the terrorist attack against Nord Stream to the Ukrainian crisis, even though we are talking about the destruction of cross-border underwater infrastructure. However, this situation is covered by specific international documents.
Colleagues,
This is an extremely short-sighted and dangerous line to pursue, whereby you basically divide terrorists into good guys and bad guys. It is precisely this two-faced approach that is undermining international efforts to combat terrorism, because the sabotage of Nord Stream, as I have already said, is covered by very specific international conventions, under which you all have very specific binding international obligations. Such “double standards” only confirm our conclusion that our Western colleagues are absolutely not interested in a result-oriented and impartial investigation into the terrorist attack in the Baltic Sea, reinforcing our conviction that an international investigation must be launched as swiftly as possible.
Thank you.
