Most wars are destructive and pointless. Such is the Russo–Ukrainian conflict. However it ends, little will have been gained for the mass death and destruction inflicted.

Moreover, the war could have been easily avoided. Russia’s Vladimir Putin should not have invaded Moscow’s neighbor. Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky could have pursued the peace policy on which he ran. The allies had no cause to expand NATO up to Russia’s borders or absorb Kiev into their sphere of interest. So many people have suffered for so little reason.

As expected, truth was one of the war’s first victims. American and European officials assiduously sought to avoid responsibility for the conflict they encouraged. Having essentially brought NATO into Ukraine after promising to bring Ukraine into NATO, they denied the many assurances to the contrary they offered to and the many protests about their duplicity they received from Moscow. 

Kiev, too, dispensed with the truth when in its interest and attempted to manipulate Washington and other NATO members. For instance, in November 2022 Zelensky urged NATO to attack Russia in response to an errant Ukrainian missile strike in Poland. If the American and Polish militaries knew the launch came from Ukraine, surely the Ukrainian military did so as well.

Equally deceptive was the claim that Moscow blew up its own natural gas pipelines, Nord Stream 1 and 2, constructed in the face of concerted U.S. and European opposition. After the September 2022 explosion Kiev charged Russia with the crime. A Zelensky aide called it “nothing more [than] a terrorist attack planned by Russia and act of aggression towards the EU.” Other allied leaders blamed Moscow. So did American and allied commentators, who offered assertions rather than evidence. The credulous Western media speculated why Moscow would disable its $19 billion assets. Some allied governments even cited the Putin government’s denials as evidence of its involvement. 

Yet the claim was ludicrous on its face. Might Russia do so to raise prices? It had already turned off the gas. Did the Kremlin want to demonstrate the vulnerability of Europe’s energy infrastructure? Then it could destroy a facility owned by Poland, Germany, the United Kingdom, or other leading antagonist. 

Anyone interested in the truth would have remembered what was commonly said about detective fiction: “cherchez la femme.” Look for the woman, usually a love interest, to solve the crime. In the case of the Nord Stream pipelines, look for the governments with the greatest desire to interrupt Russian gas sales. In this case that would be Ukraine and its most fervent backers, the US, UK, Poland, and Baltic states. Having vociferously opposed Nord Stream 2 but unable to stop the project despite imposing sanctions, they were left with only one way to halt German energy imports from Russia.

Alas, there were few dissenting voices to the official meme. As I then wrote, “The US and its European allies apparently no longer need to prove Russia’s guilt for anything. After the attack on the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines, they blamed Moscow, their charges avidly pushed by Western journalists who feast on official press releases and backroom leaks.” Blame Moscow for someone else’s crime and get published without hesitation. A foreign policy website ran my piece, but added a singular editor’s note that appeared on no other article, including the opposing view, which is still posted online, cited in the note: “As we are always open to various opinions and ideas, please see this new opinion piece that blames Russia for the attack on Nord Stream 2 here. Note that all opinions are the author’s own as we do not have an editorial position on this or ANY issue.” 

In time some other analysts began to express doubts. American and European officials increasingly admitted, anonymously, that Russian involvement seemed unlikely, but no one seemed terribly interested in pursuing the truth. After all, that would likely prove embarrassing. 

In early 2023 investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published an explosive report charging the Biden administration with the crime. Washington was an obvious suspect, given its over-abundant capabilities to conduct or underwrite such an operation, but Hersh had his critics. Other investigators adopted the view, cherchez le Ukrainian. Reported the Washington Post: “Three months before saboteurs bombed the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline, the Biden administration learned from a close ally that the Ukrainian military had planned a covert attack on the undersea network, using a small team of divers who reported directly to the commander in chief of the Ukrainian armed forces.” 

Yet for a time it seemed that the truth would never officially emerge. For instance, Denmark and Sweden closed their investigations earlier this year. (The pipelines pass through the Danish, Finnish, and Swedish exclusive economic zones and have Dutch and French investors.) But now Germany has charged a group of Ukrainians with conducting and Zelensky with approving the operation. Supposedly the CIA learned of the plot and the U.S. convinced Zelensky to halt the action, but the Ukrainian military commander Valeriy Zaluzhniy proceeded anyway. The purported tale is long and complicated and thus hard to judge without seeing the evidence. In any case, noted Holger Stark, head of Die Zeit’s investigative team: “It is an Ukrainian operation, it is within Ukrainians’ responsibility, and it raises significant political questions.” Unsurprisingly, Kiev officials deny any involvement.

Equally explosive is Poland’s possible role. During the investigation Warsaw continued to promote discredited claims of Russian responsibility—that the attack was a false flag operation intended to blame Ukraine. A Polish official, however, probably warned the chief suspect after Germany submitted its arrest warrant, allowing the latter to flee before arrest. Hanning, former president of the Bundesnachrichtendienst, Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, went further, charging that Poland backed the operation. The Polish deputy prime minister denied the allegation. In contrast, Prime Minister Donald Tusk went on the attack, blaming the victims: “To all the initiators and patrons of Nord Stream 1 and 2. The only thing you should do today about it is apologise [sic] and keep quiet.”

What about possible U.S. responsibility, which Berlin is unlikely to assert irrespective of the evidence? Last year Hersh predicted that “German intelligence” would “provide the American and German press with an alternative version” of the story. After all, the imperial city’s usual suspects were determined to coerce Berlin into killing Nord Stream. Highlighting their hubris, leading legislators had threatened participants in the pipeline with “crushing and potentially fatal legal and economic sanctions.” Shortly before Moscow’s attack on Ukraine Biden warned, “If Russia invades ... then there will be ... no longer a Nord Stream 2. We, we will bring an end to it.” 

Doing so violently would be in character. American policymakers always have been extraordinarily cold-blooded, backing dictatorships, ousting democrats, abandoning allies, and killing civilians. In Ukraine, U.S. officials have enthusiastically taken credit for killing Russian generals, sinking a Russian ship, and otherwise targeting Russian personnel and equipment. Destroying German pipelines would be minor in comparison. Berlin and the other countries are US allies, but so what? Washington unashamedly sanctioned the pipelines. It also spied on German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other top German officials. Washington is ever ready to punish its allies when they push their own international agendas. 

It’s impossible to blame Ukraine for wanting to strike Russia in every way possible, but if the allegations are true, Kiev committed an act of war against Germany, destroying an important part of the latter’s basic energy infrastructure. An anonymous German official explained the dilemma: “An attack of this scale is a sufficient reason to trigger the collective defense clause of NATO, but our critical infrastructure was blown up by a country that we support with massive weapons shipments and billions in cash.” Hanning argues that Poland and Ukraine owe Germany compensation. 

Although Berlin’s hawkish coalition government might be inclined to overlook the attack, Germany’s police are independent and expected to pursue the case. Moreover, popular support for continuing aid to Ukraine is ebbing with the rise of hard right and left parties. POLITICO Europe reports that the ruling three-party coalition, near the breaking point from internal disagreements, is set to end Ukrainian aid for budgetary reasons. Kiev’s role in disabling Nord Stream is likely to reinforce this decision. 

Imagine if the alliance was drawn into the Russo–Ukrainian conflict—but against Kiev! Of course, that won’t happen. Nevertheless, Ukraine’s apparent willingness to wage war on its nominal friends is another reason for the allies to halt their largely unconditional support for the Ukrainian government. Zelensky sought to lie NATO into the war. Now it seems he also approved an attack on one. 

Who destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines? Germany has established that it was not Russia. Today’s proxy war is not worth the risk of a real war against a serious power armed with nuclear weapons. The Biden administration should be exiting, not sustaining the Russo–Ukrainian conflict.