u/GoydelicGuy

Silence, stonewalling, denial: The German government refuses to comment on Zelenskyy's role.

New investigations implicate the Ukrainian leadership in the Nord Stream case. The German government declines to comment.

It has become routine by now: Anyone who asks questions about the Nord Stream affair at the Federal Press Conference is met with references to ongoing investigations, the independence of the judiciary, or the confidentiality of internal discussions. This was also the case this week when government spokesman Steffen Meyer responded to specific inquiries from the OAZ regarding recent revelations about the alleged responsibility of the Ukrainian government with the same familiar platitudes.

The inquiry was prompted by statements made by Bojan Pancevski, chief correspondent of the Wall Street Journal, who presented his research findings on the German television program "Markus Lanz" on April 17. According to Pancevski, the then-commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces and current ambassador to London, Valeriy Zaluzhny, ordered the detonation of the pipelines. President Vladimir Zelensky, Pancevski claimed, citing Zaluzhny himself and his advisors, had at least initially approved the attack. Only when the CIA got wind of the operation in the summer of 2022 and warned Ukraine did Zelensky allegedly attempt to stop it – to no avail.

A Question, a Non-Answer

The question posed to government spokesman Meyer was precisely formulated: What is the Chancellor's current and reliable understanding of the situation? Were the top military leadership of Ukraine and the Ukrainian president involved in the attacks against the Nord Stream civilian infrastructure, yes or no?

The answer was terse: "The investigations into the entire matter are ongoing. You know that the judiciary in Germany operates independently. Accordingly, we will not comment further."

It is noteworthy that the question did not actually target the status of the judicial investigations, but rather the political understanding of the Federal Government. The government has its own intelligence sources, receives intelligence reports, and—especially in the case of an attack on civilian infrastructure in which German companies had invested around five billion euros—should have its own reliable situation report. The conflation of judicial investigation and political assessment is clearly intended to avoid any substantive information.

Six arrest warrants, one high-level meeting—not a word?

When asked whether Chancellor Friedrich Merz had raised the issue during his meeting with Zelensky on April 14, the familiar reply came: "I would generally not comment on internal discussions." Meyer added that this should "say nothing about whether something was discussed or not."

This wording is diplomatically clever – but it also reveals a contradiction: If the German government is indeed referring to ongoing investigations and allowing the judiciary to act independently, then it would be a sign of adherence to the rule of law to address the issue proactively with the Ukrainian president. The Federal Prosecutor's Office has since issued arrest warrants for six Ukrainians, all with close ties to state authorities. Four of them are on the run, two – both Ukrainian officers – have been arrested. One of them, Serhiy K., is in pretrial detention in Hamburg. In its ruling on the appeal against the detention order in mid-January, the Federal Court of Justice confirmed that this was an "act of violence orchestrated by intelligence services" on behalf of a foreign state.

Against this backdrop, the question of whether a German Chancellor even raises the issue with the representative of the state to which German investigators attribute the attack would be of considerable public interest. The German government's silence allows for two interpretations: Either the issue was not addressed – which takes on a political dimension of its own. Or it was addressed – in which case one would have to ask why the public is not supposed to know about it.

Contradictory research, uniform refusal

The German government certainly has reason to comment. The research into the Nord Stream case is by no means conclusive. While Pancevski, in his recently published book "The Nord Stream Blow-Up," argues that the attack was authorized by Zelensky, the German investigative journalists Oliver Schröm and Ulrich Thiele, in their simultaneously published book "The Blow-Up: Germany's Betrayal of Ukraine," reach a different conclusion: The perpetrators were staunch opponents of Zelensky who carried out the attack on their own initiative.

Both investigations contradict each other on a key point – the knowledge and approval of the highest levels of the Ukrainian government. This is precisely where the German government should be called upon to address its own intelligence findings. Instead, we are witnessing a strategy of inaction that has been ongoing for years.

A long-standing tradition of refusing to investigate

Even the previous government under Olaf Scholz distinguished itself in the Nord Stream affair through a remarkable reluctance to provide clarification. According to Schröm and Thiele, the then Minister of the Chancellery, Wolfgang Schmidt – himself now the focus of journalistic investigations – allegedly ensured, through a small circle of selected journalists, that the narrative of decisive German support for Ukraine dominated the media, while in the background warnings were constantly issued that "the Ukrainians cannot be trusted." Holger Stark, head of investigative journalism at Die Zeit, dismissed the accusations as "partly preposterous, partly criminally relevant nonsense."

The Nord Stream affair thus touches upon not only questions of criminal prosecution, but also fundamental questions of foreign policy responsibility: How does the German government behave toward a state whose actors, according to the German Federal Prosecutor General, are allegedly responsible for one of the largest acts of sabotage against civilian infrastructure in postwar European history? How does it assess the fact that billions of euros in German investments have been destroyed – and what consequences does it draw from this for German-Ukrainian relations?

The Federal Press Conference provides no answers to any of these questions. It merely offers further confirmation of what has been apparent since September 2022: A large part of the German political establishment apparently has no interest in clarifying the attack on Nord Stream. Who is responsible for the explosion seems, to quote SPD Member of Parliament Timon Gremmels, to remain "completely irrelevant" to the German government.Silence, stonewalling, denial: The German government refuses to comment on Zelenskyy's role.

New investigations implicate the Ukrainian leadership in the Nord Stream case. The German government declines to comment.

It has become routine by now: Anyone who asks questions about the Nord Stream affair at the Federal Press Conference is met with references to ongoing investigations, the independence of the judiciary, or the confidentiality of internal discussions. This was also the case this week when government spokesman Steffen Meyer responded to specific inquiries from the OAZ regarding recent revelations about the alleged responsibility of the Ukrainian government with the same familiar platitudes.

The inquiry was prompted by statements made by Bojan Pancevski, chief correspondent of the Wall Street Journal, who presented his research findings on the German television program "Markus Lanz" on April 17. According to Pancevski, the then-commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces and current ambassador to London, Valeriy Zaluzhny, ordered the detonation of the pipelines. President Vladimir Zelensky, Pancevski claimed, citing Zaluzhny himself and his advisors, had at least initially approved the attack. Only when the CIA got wind of the operation in the summer of 2022 and warned Ukraine did Zelensky allegedly attempt to stop it – to no avail.

A Question, a Non-Answer

The question posed to government spokesman Meyer was precisely formulated: What is the Chancellor's current and reliable understanding of the situation? Were the top military leadership of Ukraine and the Ukrainian president involved in the attacks against the Nord Stream civilian infrastructure, yes or no?

The answer was terse: "The investigations into the entire matter are ongoing. You know that the judiciary in Germany operates independently. Accordingly, we will not comment further."

It is noteworthy that the question did not actually target the status of the judicial investigations, but rather the political understanding of the Federal Government. The government has its own intelligence sources, receives intelligence reports, and—especially in the case of an attack on civilian infrastructure in which German companies had invested around five billion euros—should have its own reliable situation report. The conflation of judicial investigation and political assessment is clearly intended to avoid any substantive information.

Six arrest warrants, one high-level meeting—not a word?

When asked whether Chancellor Friedrich Merz had raised the issue during his meeting with Zelensky on April 14, the familiar reply came: "I would generally not comment on internal discussions." Meyer added that this should "say nothing about whether something was discussed or not."

This wording is diplomatically clever – but it also reveals a contradiction: If the German government is indeed referring to ongoing investigations and allowing the judiciary to act independently, then it would be a sign of adherence to the rule of law to address the issue proactively with the Ukrainian president. The Federal Prosecutor's Office has since issued arrest warrants for six Ukrainians, all with close ties to state authorities. Four of them are on the run, two – both Ukrainian officers – have been arrested. One of them, Serhiy K., is in pretrial detention in Hamburg. In its ruling on the appeal against the detention order in mid-January, the Federal Court of Justice confirmed that this was an "act of violence orchestrated by intelligence services" on behalf of a foreign state.

Against this backdrop, the question of whether a German Chancellor even raises the issue with the representative of the state to which German investigators attribute the attack would be of considerable public interest. The German government's silence allows for two interpretations: Either the issue was not addressed – which takes on a political dimension of its own. Or it was addressed – in which case one would have to ask why the public is not supposed to know about it.

Contradictory research, uniform refusal

The German government certainly has reason to comment. The research into the Nord Stream case is by no means conclusive. While Pancevski, in his recently published book "The Nord Stream Blow-Up," argues that the attack was authorized by Zelensky, the German investigative journalists Oliver Schröm and Ulrich Thiele, in their simultaneously published book "The Blow-Up: Germany's Betrayal of Ukraine," reach a different conclusion: The perpetrators were staunch opponents of Zelensky who carried out the attack on their own initiative.

Both investigations contradict each other on a key point – the knowledge and approval of the highest levels of the Ukrainian government. This is precisely where the German government should be called upon to address its own intelligence findings. Instead, we are witnessing a strategy of inaction that has been ongoing for years.

A long-standing tradition of refusing to investigate

Even the previous government under Olaf Scholz distinguished itself in the Nord Stream affair through a remarkable reluctance to provide clarification. According to Schröm and Thiele, the then Minister of the Chancellery, Wolfgang Schmidt – himself now the focus of journalistic investigations – allegedly ensured, through a small circle of selected journalists, that the narrative of decisive German support for Ukraine dominated the media, while in the background warnings were constantly issued that "the Ukrainians cannot be trusted." Holger Stark, head of investigative journalism at Die Zeit, dismissed the accusations as "partly preposterous, partly criminally relevant nonsense."

The Nord Stream affair thus touches upon not only questions of criminal prosecution, but also fundamental questions of foreign policy responsibility: How does the German government behave toward a state whose actors, according to the German Federal Prosecutor General, are allegedly responsible for one of the largest acts of sabotage against civilian infrastructure in postwar European history? How does it assess the fact that billions of euros in German investments have been destroyed – and what consequences does it draw from this for German-Ukrainian relations?

The Federal Press Conference provides no answers to any of these questions. It merely offers further confirmation of what has been apparent since September 2022: A large part of the German political establishment apparently has no interest in clarifying the attack on Nord Stream. Who is responsible for the explosion seems, to quote SPD Member of Parliament Timon Gremmels, to remain "completely irrelevant" to the German government.