Nord Stream and the journalistic challenge for reporting – a case study

Today there are many journalistic publications available which suggest that, according to the Pioneer Briefing of 17 December 2025, “when journalists become activists, the way to fake news will not be far”. This is indeed alarming.
    There are studies which document the increasingly dire state of journalistic work. These studies include publications by Patrick Lawrence, for many years foreign correspondent for the “International Herald Tribune” (Journalists and Their Shadows), as well as by Udo Ulfkotte, correspondent for over 17 years for the German national daily newspaper FAZ (Journalists for Hire), and by Lee McIntyre, professor at Boston University and Harvard (On Disinformation: How to Fight for Truth and Protect Democracy). The unshakable journalist Florian Warweg must also be mentioned. In a lecture in Nuremberg last December, he addressed the topic of “Media, Power and Manipulation,” highlighting the poor quality of reporting and the dwindling trust in the media. He reminded the audience that “the role of the media as the fourth estate and as a watchdog and controller of politics […] has been rendered virtually absurd in light of increasing cross-subsidisation and the resulting growing dependence on government payments.”

Our media – a mixed picture

However, a general assessment of “the” German and foreign media regarding geopolitical reporting makes little sense. Alongside the rising number of poorly researched articles, or worse, ideologically biased publications, both in Germany and in Western countries and elsewhere, there are still excellent analyses by independent journalists. These include, for example Karin Leukefeld, a renowned expert on the Middle East, who tirelessly advocates objective reporting despite facing considerable hostility, and the aforementioned journalist Florian Warweg, who has repeatedly reminded government representatives at the Federal Press Conference (BPK) of their obligation to provide the public with truthful information instead of rhetorical and meaningless platitudes. At the beginning of 2025, he mentioned at the BPK that EU member states and the USA had concluded that “contrary to previous suspicions, Russia is not responsible for […] the damage to underwater cables in the Baltic Sea.” At the same time, the Washington Post, citing Western intelligence sources, declared: “Accidents, not Russian sabotage, are behind the undersea cable damage.”
    I would also like to mention the well-known, sadly deceased, Australian journalist John Pilger, who was known and respected worldwide for his journalistic independence and integrity. His statement is not forgotten that “the media are an instrument of power, but when we recognise this, we become aware of the official verbiage and understand that the truth is subversive. That is always true.”
    To avoid any misunderstanding, it is perfectly clear that journalistic work always involves a degree of selection and subjectivity. But this is only acceptable if it is not linked to the manipulation of opinion. This fourth estate should provide the basis upon which facts and opposing viewpoints can be debated, as a fundamental expression of a free society.

Many Nord Stream ‘theories’ without evidence …

In any case, today the public is constantly confronted with a flood of disinformation and an often difficult-to-fathom absence of research and necessary fact-checking. It goes without saying that artificial intelligence represents a continuing uncontrolled and additional problem, further eroding trust in the media.
    One of the “major” media topics that has repeatedly been featured in news reports over the past few years concerns the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline (NS) on 26 September 2022. Statements about the sabotage began to accumulate shortly afterward. As early as in October, US talk show host Tucker Carlson was already certain that the US had blown up the pipeline. On this occasion, Victoria Nuland (former US Deputy Secretary of State) responded, saying, “I am glad to see the NS at the bottom of the sea.” Peter Vonnahme, a judge at the Bavarian Administrative Court, wrote in an article that there were two versions as to who was responsible: either “it was the Russians, or the perpetrators were the US.” He added, “A minimum of analytical thinking would lead to the conclusion that it is completely illogical to believe in Russian culpability.”
    August Hanning, former president of the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND), accused Poland of complicity in the NS attack. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was quoted in March 2023 as saying: “It is not known who carried out the attack.” On 11 July 2023, Member of Parliament (MP) Konstantin Kuhle (Free Democrats) stated: “ […] to date, there is no clear evidence about the perpetrators.” MP Roderich Kiesewetter (CDU), on the other hand, asserted: “It is clear that Russia was involved in this attack.” MP Sevim Dagdelen (The Left Party) commented: “The German government should have no objection to the establishment of an international commission of inquiry under the auspices of the UN.” Shortly afterward, on 25 August 2023, the German television broadcaster ZDF concluded: “ […] there is no reliable evidence for suspicions towards Russia.” MP Lamya Kaddr (Alliance 90/The Green Party) demanded: “The German people have the right to know who attacked us.”
    Over time, a further large number of similarly contradictory claims and indications regarding Nord Stream emerged. The French monthly newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique wrote that “some Western government officials and leading Western media outlets initially favoured the theory that Russia was responsible for the attacks”. Among these officials was Annalena Baerbock. In the ARD Tagesschau news programme on 4 January 2025, Markus Sambale from the ARD Berlin studio stated: “Even though the investigations are still ongoing, Foreign Minister Baerbock makes no secret of her suspicions of Russia.”

… but also, serious investigations

Many reports pointed out that the Nord Stream sabotage required a high degree of technical expertise, as Professor Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia University) testified before the UN Security Council in February 2023. Seymour Hersh, the well-known American investigative journalist, reminded the UN Security Council of the radar surveillance, the images of US military helicopters over the Nord Stream 2 explosion site, and the numerous political threats in the US to sabotage the pipelines. According to Hersh, a CIA working group had reported in early 2022: “We have a way to blow up the pipelines.” Let us also mention here a statement made by US President Biden in the presence of German Chancellor Scholz on 7 February 2022, namely: “Should Russia invade Ukraine, there will no longer be a Nord Stream – we will bring it to an end.”
    Also relevant are the witness testimonies before the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania state parliament’s investigative committee in July 2025: “Representatives of the US intelligence agencies actively campaigned to prevent Nord Stream 2.” Particularly revealing is the statement by the harbour master of Christiansen in Denmark, who, according to the Danish newspaper “Politiken” of 3 October 2024, said: “[…] A few days before the explosion of Nord Stream 1 and 2, US Navy warships were present and their transponders were switched off.”
    The statements quoted here, which are representative of the vast number of other relevant accounts, confirm that to this day there is no conclusive picture of who was responsible for the destruction of those pipelines.
    The simple conclusion: It was sabotage. There was a sailboat with a Ukrainian crew. There are interpretable statements and indications given by both the American and Russian governments, as well as other official bodies. However, the masterminds – who were presumably needed to provide the necessary “technical assistance” for the successful execution of such a complex act of sabotage – remain unknown.
    There are honourable as well as dishonourable attempts to fully ascertain who is responsible. It is regrettable that the results of the investigations by the governments of Denmark, Germany, and Sweden into the Nord Stream sabotage have still not been made public. After more than four years, the public remains incompletely informed.

Meanwhile, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung: ‘Why not Moscow?’

Despite the vague and unclear state of affairs surrounding the Nord Stream sabotage, the Sunday newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAS) decided on 10 November 2025, to publish an editorial by Konrad Schuller entitled “The Other Lead in the ‘Nord Stream’ Case,” with the subtitle “Investigators are focusing on Kyiv after the explosion in the Baltic Sea. Critics ask: And why not Moscow?”
    With 26 references to Russia, Moscow, and Putin, the FAS article aims to create the impression that Russia is responsible for the sabotage. However, this is done without providing any evidence. The US, as a possible perpetrator, remains unmentioned. Ukraine is implicated in the blast through a few brief allusions. “However,” the FAS article states, “[...] there are indicators which point to a trail leading to Russia.” The article mentions the existence of photos of Russian naval vessels at the explosion site four days prior. What it fails to mention is that there are also photos of American naval vessels at the scene.
    Does the presence of ships, whether Russian or American, prove culpability? Does this even constitute a “trail leading to Russia,” as claimed in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung article? A woman named Diana B. is also mentioned, whose company allegedly rented the suspected sailboat and who possesses both Ukrainian and Russian passports, and “publishes pictures of trips through Russia” – another “clue”? How can a major German newspaper be so brazen as to publish such nonsense? This is certainly not a responsible report, but rather a voluntary “donation” to the flames of the burning East-West conflict.
    The article goes on to argue that the (Ukrainian) boat Andromeda was part of the sabotage operation, but that it is “highly plausible that the actual job was carried out by the Russian flotilla […]”. Why could it not also be “highly plausible” that the job was carried out by the American Navy?

Deliberate misinformation?

The question arises once more: Is this serious evidence given by the FAS or irresponsible and deliberate misinformation? The journalist Schuller continues: “The traces could be part of a Russian deception operation.” Without evidence, this statement, like the others, remains nothing more than dishonourable speculation.
    Quoting MP Kiesewetter as evidence that Russia was responsible for Nord Stream sabotage is also unhelpful. Kiesewetter has made no secret of his Russophobic views, either in writing or in speech. During an interrogation period in the German Bundestag on 24 April 2024, Kiesewetter was asked about Nord Stream: “Why do you spread conspiracy theories?” His response: “ […] I advise you not to listen to disinformation from known Kremlin propagandists!” We should remember that MP Kiesewetter had already declared in the Bundestag on 11 July 2023: “Sure, Russia was involved in this attack.”
    The FAS had access to the statements quoted here. Konrad Schuller had every opportunity to write an article that could have presented the actual state of the sabotage investigations, i.e. to “report things as they are.” The questions of why such an article was not written and what the underlying motives were will not be addressed here.
    In his FAS article of 1 February 2026, “Kyiv Holds Out,” Konrad Schuller writes, “[Chancellor] Merz could have chosen golden silence instead of a loose tongue.” The same choice applies to Schuller regarding Nord Stream. In any case, according to the German Press Code, the public has the right to insist that “unconfirmed reports, rumours, and speculations are identified as such” and that “facts are contextualised and analysed”.
    The Nord Stream case is just one example, albeit a very serious one, of inadequate journalism in our country. However, it can be used to establish the quality and independence of journalistic work as an important fundamental principle for the “Fourth Estate” of a nation with leadership aspirations. •

(Translation Current Concerns)