Any geopolitical predictive model may start with collecting intelligence and clues from open-source news, feeding this data into the information feedback loop of the model, and awaiting assessments. However, beyond algorithms and data processing, adding human intuition becomes essential to validate these assessments. In the operational field, seasoned experts recognize that open-source intelligence (OSINT) must be critically evaluated, as the reliability of sources can vary greatly—whether due to intentional manipulation or inadvertent misinformation. In the current era, conspiracy theories, misinformation, and disinformation proliferate on social media and the internet, partially fueled by public grievances over government transparency and partially by strategic military objectives designed to catch adversaries off-guard. It is crucial to remember that all information is inherently "constructed." Before conducting any geopolitical assessment, we must question: What is the "true story" behind emerging news, and how wide is the gap between public perception and reality?
Nordstream 1&2 Pipeline: Image adapted from Google Earth and ESA
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) presented a detailed narrative suggesting Ukrainian involvement in the Nord Stream sabotage, specifically implicating high-ranking Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelensky and General Valeriy Zaluzhniy, the then-commander in chief of Ukraine's Armed Forces. According to the WSJ, the operation was allegedly conceived during a meeting between Ukrainian military officers and private businessmen in May 2022. The plan was to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines, which were seen as a significant source of revenue for Russia's war efforts in Ukraine. Zelensky reportedly approved the plan initially but, upon receiving a warning from the CIA about the potential repercussions, he attempted to call off the operation.
However, the WSJ notes that General Zaluzhniy chose to disregard Zelensky's subsequent orders to halt the sabotage. According to three individuals familiar with the internal Ukrainian discussions, when Zelensky confronted Zaluzhniy about proceeding with the operation, the general justified his actions by stating that the sabotage team had already gone incommunicado. Zaluzhniy argued that contacting the team would jeopardize the mission and risk exposing them. He metaphorically explained to Zelensky that the situation was akin to launching a torpedo: "Once you fire it at the enemy, you can’t pull it back again; it just keeps going until it goes ‘boom.’”
The WSJ also details the critical role of the Netherlands in this unfolding drama. Dutch military intelligence, the MIVD, reportedly discovered the Ukrainian plot in June 2022 and promptly alerted the CIA. The American intelligence agency then conveyed this information "by word" to German officials. This intelligence-sharing triggered a series of diplomatic concerns and actions within the involved nations, underscoring the complexities of international intelligence operations and the delicate balance required when handling sensitive information involving allies.
Further complicating matters, Poland's role became a point of contention in the investigation. The German authorities requested CCTV footage from a Polish port where the yacht "Andromeda," suspected of being used in the sabotage, was seen. However, Polish authorities refused to provide the footage, claiming it had been routinely destroyed. This lack of cooperation raised suspicions and diplomatic frustrations between Germany and Poland, especially given that the footage could have potentially clarified the identities and movements of the suspects involved in the sabotage operation.
German news outlets, such as ZDF and Berliner Zeitung, report that the German government has responded with caution and restraint regarding Ukraine's possible involvement. Despite the evidence suggesting a Ukrainian link, German officials have refrained from direct accusations, emphasizing the need for further investigation. They have also highlighted the importance of maintaining their strategic partnership with Ukraine amidst the ongoing conflict with Russia. Simultaneously, frustration has been evident concerning Poland’s reluctance to cooperate fully with the investigation, which has hindered Germany’s efforts to gather comprehensive evidence about the incident.
The stance of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) on the Nord Stream II sabotage case presents a notably cautious and nuanced approach, diverging significantly from the more direct narrative offered by the WSJ. Rather than adopting the WSJ's narrative that points towards clear Ukrainian involvement, the NZZ refrains from making any definitive conclusions. The NZZ emphasizes the complexity and ambiguity surrounding the incident, citing a retired German intelligence officer who highlighted the importance of identifying the "string puller" behind the operation. While there is evidence pointing towards Ukraine—such as DNA traces and Iridium phone messages linked to the suspects—the officer cautions that without uncovering who orchestrated the attack, any conclusion about the true perpetrator remains speculative.
Adding to the complexity, the NZZ article also details the movements of suspicious Russian ships that were noted in the vicinity of the pipeline explosion site. The article highlights that two Russian vessels, which had previously never been seen near the Danish island of Bornholm, were observed sailing near the site of the explosions shortly before the sabotage occurred. These ships had turned off their transmitters to avoid detection and were out of radar contact, yet satellite images and radio data confirmed their presence in the area. Moreover, the NZZ references a Danish military patrol sighting the Russian special ship SS-750, equipped with a mini-submarine designed for underwater operations, just days before the attack. This vessel, along with other Russian ships, was reportedly conducting maneuvers east of Bornholm, raising suspicions that Russia might have been involved either in the execution of the sabotage or as a means to frame another party, such as Ukraine, to achieve broader geopolitical objectives.
Furthermore, the NZZ acknowledges the WSJ's detailed reporting but also explores alternative theories that involve Russia and the United States, in addition to Ukraine. According to the NZZ, Russia might have had multiple motivations for conducting such an operation. One theory is that the Kremlin could have sought to frame Ukraine for the attack, thereby isolating Kyiv from its Western allies and potentially triggering Article 5 of NATO, which deals with collective defense in response to an armed attack. This would not only strain Ukraine's relationships with European countries but also disrupt the flow of military and economic aid. Another possible motive for Russia could be to avoid hefty compensation claims for failing to deliver gas under existing contracts. By damaging the pipeline, Russia could argue that it was no longer in a position to fulfill its contractual obligations, thus evading reparations for the disruption of gas supplies.
The NZZ also discusses the possibility of U.S. involvement, aligning with investigative journalist Seymour Hersh's controversial claims that the sabotage might have been a covert operation by the U.S. Navy during a NATO exercise, designed to weaken Europe's reliance on Russian energy. However, this theory lacks substantive evidence and relies heavily on circumstantial connections and speculative reasoning.
By considering these various perspectives, the NZZ illustrates a commitment to a comprehensive and balanced analysis of the event. It underscores the importance of not rushing to judgment in the absence of conclusive evidence and acknowledges the complexity of geopolitical maneuvering where multiple actors could have had both the means and motives to conduct such a sabotage. This cautious stance reflects an understanding of the delicate interplay of information, perception, and strategic interests that characterizes modern noopolitik.
Noopolitik is particularly crucial in this context because it revolves around managing perceptions and shaping narratives within the global information landscape. Unlike traditional geopolitics, which is grounded in tangible, hard power such as military force and economic leverage, noopolitik operates in the realm of soft power, focusing on the influence over beliefs, ideologies, and public opinion through strategic information dissemination. The conflicting narratives surrounding the Nord Stream sabotage highlight how powerful noopolitik can be in framing geopolitical events. For instance, the differing accounts put forth by the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine each reflect efforts to mold the global understanding of the incident to serve their respective strategic interests.
In the case of the Nord Stream sabotage, the U.S. might use noopolitik to reinforce a narrative that implicates either Russia or a rogue Ukrainian operation, thereby justifying continued support for Ukraine and deflecting any suspicions of American involvement. Russia, on the other hand, might employ noopolitik to suggest a false flag operation, portraying the incident as a Western conspiracy to blame Moscow and further isolate it on the world stage. By controlling these narratives, each actor seeks to influence international opinion and policy, demonstrating noopolitik’s role in modern geopolitics where information—and the ability to shape it—becomes as critical as physical resources or military strength.
The varying narratives put forward by different actors underscore how vital it is to assess the strategic use of information. Through noopolitik, these states attempt not only to control the narrative but also to secure diplomatic advantages, sway public opinion, and manipulate international norms to their favor. This intricate play of information highlights the power of noopolitik in contemporary geopolitical strategy, where winning the battle for perception can often be as decisive as any physical confrontation.
In our earlier assessment of the potential actors behind the Nord Stream 2 pipeline sabotage, we ranked Russia, the United States, and Germany as the most likely candidates based on their ability, motivation, resources, and risk calculation. Each of these actors had plausible motives for such an operation, whether to disrupt Europe's energy security, create political rifts, or avoid economic liabilities. While Russia stands to gain by creating chaos and undermining European unity, the investigation findings remain inconclusive. Norwegian and Danish authorities have found no concrete evidence implicating Russia, and the U.S. has denied any involvement despite speculative reports. The incident highlights the strategic use of energy as a geopolitical weapon and underscores the complexities of modern noopolitik, where managing narratives and perceptions is as critical as physical actions.
Disentangling Perception from Reality: The Role of Strategic Communication
In the age of information warfare, strategic communication emerges as a crucial tool within the framework of noopolitik. Both governments and non-state actors leverage traditional and social media platforms to craft and propagate narratives that serve their strategic interests. The Nord Stream sabotage exemplifies how the same set of facts can lead to divergent narratives, each shaped to fit the geopolitical agendas of different actors. Western outlets, such as the WSJ, have leaned towards suggesting Ukrainian involvement, likely reflecting a broader narrative aligned with maintaining Western unity and support for Ukraine. Conversely, Russian state media has consistently portrayed the incident as an act of sabotage orchestrated by "Anglo-Saxon" powers, namely the U.S. and the UK, aiming to fracture the Western alliance and shift blame away from Moscow. This divergence in narratives underscores a broader struggle to dominate the information space and shape global opinion.
In such complex geopolitical situations, like the Nord Stream sabotage, distinguishing between objective reality and constructed narratives becomes paramount. This demands a nuanced understanding of noopolitik—how states and non-state actors strategically use information as a tool to advance their geopolitical goals. Analysts must exercise continuous vigilance, critically evaluating the credibility of their sources and the inherent biases they may carry. This approach not only involves assessing the overt messages being communicated but also understanding the subtle undercurrents of influence that drive these narratives. By doing so, analysts can better navigate the intricate web of information warfare and provide more accurate and balanced geopolitical assessments.
The nature and quality of noopolitik have evolved significantly over time. In the ancient era, the Mongols, when invading Cossack territories, would throw infected bodies over fortress walls to instill fear and weaken the resolve of defenders. During World War II, the Allies, led by the United States, executed Operation Fortitude—a deception plan to mislead Nazi Germany into believing the invasion would occur in Southern Europe while the real attack took place in Normandy. In the contemporary era, the proliferation of fake news and propaganda on social media has further complicated the information landscape, contaminating public perception and influencing decision-making processes. Looking ahead, technologies like AI-generated deepfakes and the emerging metaverse could render everything digitally, making authentic geopolitical assessment exceedingly challenging. As these technologies evolve, the line between reality and manipulated narratives may become increasingly blurred, necessitating even more sophisticated strategies in noopolitik to discern truth from fabrication.
In Episode 5 of Geopolitical Insights, we venture into the murky waters of international intrigue to explore the recent sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines—an incident that has sparked a wave of speculation and controversy across the globe. As we dissect this high-stakes geopolitical chess game, we'll uncover how this act of sabotage is more than just an attack on infrastructure; it's a vivid illustration of noopolitik—the strategic use of information and narrative to shape geopolitical realities. From conflicting narratives about who might be responsible to the subtle ways these stories are crafted to serve national interests, we invite you to look beyond the headlines.
Follow us both on Apple Podcast and Spotify Podcast.
Comments