Written by Matthew Bennett.

President Donald Trump has publicly dismissed claims that Russia was responsible for the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline explosions, instead implicating the Biden administration and Ukraine in what is considered one of the most significant acts of industrial sabotage in modern history. His statements, made in early 2025, have reignited debates about the covert operation that crippled critical energy infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. With no formal investigation yet concluded, Trump’s remarks, grounded in classified intelligence, challenge the prevailing narrative and raise profound questions about geopolitical motives, energy security, and international accountability.

The Nord Stream Explosions: Context and Impact

On September 26, 2022, multiple explosions damaged the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, vital conduits for natural gas from Russia to Germany. The blasts, occurring in international waters near Denmark and Sweden, caused massive methane leaks and rendered the pipelines inoperable, disrupting Europe’s energy supply amid an already volatile market. The incident, costing an estimated $500 million in immediate damages, exacerbated Europe’s reliance on alternative energy sources, driving up costs for consumers and industries.

The pipelines, a symbol of Russia’s energy dominance in Europe, were contentious long before the sabotage. Nord Stream 1 had been operational since 2011, while Nord Stream 2, completed but not yet active, faced opposition from the United States and Eastern European nations wary of Russia’s leverage over European energy markets. Trump, during his first term, had imposed sanctions to halt Nord Stream 2’s construction, a policy reversed by the Biden administration in 2021, allowing the project to proceed.

The absence of a swift, transparent investigation fueled speculation. Early Western media reports attributed the attack to Russia, suggesting it sabotaged its own infrastructure to disrupt European markets or send a geopolitical signal. This narrative, however, was met with skepticism, as Russia had invested billions in the pipelines and stood to lose significant revenue from their destruction.

Trump’s Claims and Alternative Narratives

In a January 2025 statement, Trump categorically rejected the idea that Russia was behind the Nord Stream explosions, asserting that “a lot of people know who blew it up.” His comments, made in response to questions about launching a U.S. investigation, suggested access to classified intelligence implicating the Biden administration and Ukraine. Trump’s remarks align with earlier reports, notably a 2023 exposé by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, which alleged a U.S.-led covert operation executed during NATO’s BALTOPS 22 exercise in the Baltic Sea.

Hersh’s report detailed a sophisticated plan initiated in December 2021, involving the CIA, Pentagon, and a task force led by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. The operation reportedly used Navy divers and advanced explosives to target the pipelines, with deniability as a primary objective. While Hersh’s claims were dismissed by some as speculative, they gained traction among critics of U.S. foreign policy, particularly given the Biden administration’s public opposition to Nord Stream 2 and its strategic interest in reducing Europe’s dependence on Russian gas.

Concurrently, a separate narrative emerged in 2024, suggesting a Ukrainian operation funded by private sources and executed by a small team of special-operations officers. This account, reported by major outlets, described a low-cost mission using diving equipment and open-source seabed maps. While distinct from the U.S.-centric narrative, the Ukrainian operation could have had tacit Western approval, complicating the attribution of responsibility. Trump’s dismissal of the Russian sabotage theory lends credence to these alternative accounts, though he stopped short of providing explicit evidence.

Geopolitical and Economic Ramifications

The Nord Stream sabotage has far-reaching implications for global energy markets and international relations. Europe, already grappling with energy shortages following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, faced immediate price spikes, with natural gas costs peaking at €340 per megawatt-hour in late 2022. Germany, the pipelines’ primary beneficiary, was forced to pivot to liquefied natural gas imports, primarily from the United States, at a significantly higher cost. This shift bolstered U.S. energy exports, raising questions about economic motives behind the sabotage.

Geopolitically, the incident strained relations between NATO allies and Russia, with Moscow accusing the West of orchestrating the attack. The lack of a unified European investigation—Sweden, Denmark, and Germany conducted separate inquiries with limited public findings—has fueled distrust. For example, Sweden’s 2024 report concluded the explosions were deliberate but declined to assign blame, citing national security concerns. This opacity has allowed competing narratives to flourish, undermining confidence in international institutions.

Trump’s comments also tie the Nord Stream incident to broader diplomatic efforts. He suggested that declining oil prices, which dropped to $65 per barrel in early 2025, have pressured Russia and Ukraine to seek a resolution to their ongoing conflict. By framing the sabotage as a U.S.-Ukrainian operation, Trump positions himself as a mediator capable of leveraging energy dynamics to broker peace, a strategy he claims would not have emerged under a different administration.

The human cost of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, referenced by Trump, underscores the stakes. With an estimated 5,000 weekly casualties, primarily soldiers, the war’s toll demands urgent diplomatic solutions. The Nord Stream sabotage, while a separate issue, amplifies tensions that hinder negotiations, as Russia views the attack as a direct assault on its economic interests.

Our Take

The Nord Stream pipeline explosions remain a troubling enigma, emblematic of the opaque power plays defining modern geopolitics. President Trump’s assertion that the Biden administration and Ukraine, not Russia, were responsible demands scrutiny, as it challenges the initial Western narrative and raises serious questions about U.S. foreign policy priorities. While alternative accounts, including those implicating U.S. or Ukrainian operatives, offer plausible explanations, the absence of a transparent, international investigation perpetuates uncertainty and erodes public trust. The sabotage’s economic fallout, particularly for European consumers, underscores the need for accountability, regardless of the perpetrator. A comprehensive inquiry, free from political interference, is essential to clarify the truth and prevent future acts of industrial sabotage from destabilizing global energy security.