What Secrets Does the Nord Stream II Blast Still Hold? Poland’s Opaque Game

Ricardo Martins, New Eastern Outlook, November 2, 2025 —

Once a symbol of European unity, the Nord Stream investigation has become a mirror of its divisions. Between American power, Ukrainian intrigue, and Polish opacity, Europe’s search for truth now risks becoming another casualty of the energy war.

Three years later, the tone has shifted. Russia is no longer a formal suspect. Western capitals have quietly shelved their initial fury, and the investigation—once the symbol of European resolve—has turned murky, mired in secrecy, competing narratives, and above all, Poland’s curious obstructionism.

An explosion that reshaped Europe’s energy map

Nord Stream I and II were monumental in scale: two twin pipelines stretching 1,200 kilometres from Russia’s Vyborg to Germany’s Greifswald. Built by a consortium led by Gazprom (51 percent) alongside Germany’s Wintershall Dea and E.ON, France’s Engie, and the Netherlands’ Gasunie, the project was meant to secure cheap Russian gas for Europe’s powerhouse economies, Germany in first place.

When the pipelines were blown up on 26 September 2022, three of their four lines were rendered inoperable. The explosion did not just sever a physical link: it symbolically ended Europe’s energy dependence on Moscow. Within months, gas prices soared, German industry reeled, and Poland, long opposed to the project, emerged oddly triumphant.

“Thank you, USA”—Poland’s celebratory tone

Hours after the sabotage, Poland’s former foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, posted a photo of the gas leaks on X (then Twitter) with a caption that read simply, “Thank you, USA.” The message—later deleted—wasn’t a slip of the tongue. It reflected years of Polish opposition to Nord Stream, seen in Warsaw as a modern-day Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Berlin and Moscow.

U.S. President Joe Biden promised, in February 2022, that if Russia invaded Ukraine, “there will be no Nord Stream 2—we will bring an end to it.” When a reporter pressed him on how, Biden replied cryptically, “We have the means.”

Those words would haunt Washington months later when veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published, in February 2023, that a covert U.S. Navy dive team carried out the operation with White House authorization.

Western media largely dismissed the report, and social media platforms limited its circulation. Soon, new “official” theories emerged: first, a pro-Ukrainian rogue group, then Ukrainian military officers, and finally—almost conveniently—a single “overzealous” colonel, Roman Chervinsky, identified by The Washington Post as a possible coordinator .

Warsaw’s judicial shield

In late September 2025, Polish police arrested Volodymyr Zhuravlov, a Ukrainian diver wanted by Germany for allegedly planting explosives near Bornholm Island. Berlin requested his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant. But on 17 October 2025, a Warsaw district court refused.

Judge Dariusz Lubowski declared the act “justified, rational, and just”—a lawful wartime action against Russian assets. He quoted Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas while arguing that if Ukraine destroyed enemy infrastructure to weaken Moscow, “then these actions were not unlawful.” He ordered Zhuravlov’s immediate release and even compensation from the Polish state, according to BBC.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk applauded the verdict on X: “Rightly so. Case closed.”

For Germany, the case was anything but closed. Berlin’s prosecutors, who traced the alleged saboteurs’ routes through Polish ports such as Kołobrzeg, accused Warsaw of obstructing justice. Former intelligence chief Gerhard Schindler went further, claiming operations of such magnitude were “inconceivable without political approval” and hinting that Poland might be covering up its own involvement, according to Responsible Statecraft.

Poland’s longstanding hostility

Poland’s attitude is rooted in history as much as strategy. WikiLeaks cables from 2007 describe Warsaw as “among the most vocal opponents” of Nord Stream, viewing it as a direct threat to European solidarity. To Polish leaders, the pipelines bypassed Central Europe, depriving Poland of lucrative transit fees and marginalizing it geopolitically.

For nearly two decades, successive Polish governments, liberal and conservative alike, have treated Nord Stream as a symbol of German appeasement toward Russia. When the explosions occurred, many in Warsaw privately viewed them as poetic justice. As Sikorski told The New Statesman a year later, “The destruction of Nord Stream was, as far as I’m concerned, a very good thing.”

That sentiment still dominates Polish discourse. To Tusk and his cabinet, the scandal isn’t that the pipelines were blown up—but that they existed at all.

The opaque alliance triangle

Poland’s ambiguous role reveals the complexity of the U.S.–Ukraine–Poland triangle. Washington publicly distances itself from the sabotage while privately praising Warsaw’s steadfast anti-Russian posture.

Ukraine denies any role, though leaks suggest at least tacit awareness by elements within its intelligence services. Poland, meanwhile, positions itself as both Ukraine’s protector and Germany’s critic—an awkward stance inside NATO.

By refusing extradition, Warsaw shields a Ukrainian operative allegedly acting under military orders. Yet it simultaneously dismisses accusations of political interference as “Russian propaganda.” This double discourse—defending Ukraine while obstructing Germany—has turned Poland from frontline ally into a diplomatic wildcard.

The Silence of Europe

What’s perhaps most striking is Europe’s silence. Germany, the principal victim of the sabotage, limits its protest to procedural notes. The EU, despite von der Leyen’s initial promise of retaliation, remains conspicuously disengaged. No joint task force, no coordinated sanctions, not even a definitive public report. The once-vaunted “European solidarity” has evaporated into strategic embarrassment.

Meanwhile, the economic cost is immense. The loss of cheap Russian gas has accelerated Germany’s deindustrialization, pushed energy prices to record highs, and benefited U.S. LNG exporters. For Poland, the geopolitical payoff is clear: it strengthens its partnership with Washington, cements its image as Eastern Europe’s anti-Russian sentinel, and gains leverage within the EU.

But at what moral price? By blocking judicial cooperation with Germany and declaring a suspected act of sabotage “just,” Poland blurs the line between resistance and impunity.

Finally, who benefits from this silence? Perhaps those who fear that the full story could reveal uncomfortable truths about covert cooperation, double standards, or even the involvement of a leading nation in what amounts to a major act of economic terrorism.