The question is, what does pro-Ukraine mean?
But for me, however, pro-Ukrainian does not mean that it was Ukraine. Whoever may be behind this strange term "pro-Ukrainian forces". For me it is not Ukraine, not scandinavian, not germany, poland, etc. It is the country that is currently investing the most in this war.
Even if Germany would have stopped taking gas at some point. As a result of the blast, Germany had to drastically reduce its gas purchases from Russia from now on. And I'm not even sure that would have happened in the next 10 years. Currently there is a large group of people who want to continue heating with gas. The same for German industry. This group would probably have determined the political direction of the next legislature. Up to now, gas heating has been the cheapest and most effective way of heating. But the price is the decisive factor. And it is not possible to compensate for this with liquefied petroleum gas for ecological as well as economic reasons. Then, at the latest, Nordstream would probably become interesting again.
If one follows the away of money, the USA has the greatest benefit of the blow-up and the least short- to medium-term ecological risk. The countries on the Baltic Sea have the problem that parts of the Baltic Sea are contaminated with heavy metals and other harmful toxins after the blasting. So I wouldn't swim in the Baltic Sea for the next few years. The countries on the other side of the Baltic Sea have to deal with the fact that the heavy metals and toxins affect the ecosystem. First the algae absorb the toxins, then the fish and finally the humans. It has already been established that the toxins disrupt reproduction. That means fewer fish. The sad result for countries around the Baltic Sea: unemployment, increased diseases, higher prices for marine products, possibly reduced human reproduction.
Finally, I would like to mention that large parts of Europe have experienced more disadvantages from the blast.