In January 2006:

Four explosions on Russia's side of the border created the shortages, Georgian and Russian officials said. The first two occurred at roughly the same time, before sunrise, severing both the main and reserve gas pipelines that flow into Georgia from the Russian supply network.

Later in the morning, two more explosions destroyed a power transmission cable in two places.

Georgia's deputy energy minister, Aleko Khetaguri, said in a telephone interview that as a result of the explosions, Georgia had lost all gas flow and roughly a quarter of its electricity, including electricity that was generated from domestic turbines powered by Russian gas.

Russian officials initially said the explosions appeared accidental but later announced that a criminal investigation had been opened and that the blasts were acts of sabotage, perhaps by insurgents in the region using makeshift bombs. [...]

No insurgent group took immediate responsibility for sabotage, and Mr. Saakashvili noted that none of the guerrilla or terrorist bands in the region, which often act in coordination with Islamic separatists in nearby Chechnya, had threatened Georgia.

As far as the international press goes, this story seems to have died soon thereafter. There's hardly anything else in Wikipedia on it.

So, did Russia publish some kind of final report on those acts of sabotage? Were there any indictments or trials? Was Georgia [eventually] convinced by the evidence presented by the Russian authorities?

1 Answer 1


The context for these bombings is Second Chechen War/Insurgency in the North Caucasus.

So by default, these pipes were blown up by some overseas-funded North Caucasus jihadist group.

It is possible that some interested party has influenced this particular strike, but it would be quite hard to identify it if it's not known already, since they have likely taken some minimal precaution measures and used the already existing terrorist infractructure for dealing the blow.

  • 7
    Without disputing the premise per se, this currently reads as "There was a war not too far away, so 'by default' we blame everything on it". That was, perhaps, indeed the cover-up the real beneficiaries wanted, but this only makes the question more interesting. It would be great to see a bit more direct references than just the broad context.
    – Zeus
    Feb 20, 2023 at 1:54
  • There was the war directly there.
    – alamar
    Feb 20, 2023 at 8:13
  • 3
    This doesn't actually answer the question. The question is "has Russia made an official account of record of what happened." The answer "there is no need because of violence all around" does not answer the question unless the answer is a "no." This is still a salvageable answer if you rephrase it as "no, because there was a wide-spread belief that..." But such a statement, that there was such a belief, would have to be supported with 3rd party references.
    – wrod
    Feb 20, 2023 at 21:33
  • I don't believe it has, since the event seems to be lacking even a page in Russian language Wikipedia.
    – alamar
    Feb 20, 2023 at 21:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .