Defender: ordNord Stream was a weapon of Russia

A former Ukrainian special forces officer stands trial in Hamburg, Germany, charged with orchestrating the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in September 2022. The explosions, which damaged three of the four pipelines near the island of Bornholm, rendered the critical energy infrastructure inoperable and sparked international speculation about the perpetrators. The trial, which opened on October 14 before the Higher Regional Court in Hamburg, involves Serhii K., a Ukrainian national who was arrested in Italy in August 2025 during a family vacation. He was extradited based on a European arrest warrant issued over allegations of sabotage. According to the prosecution, represented by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, Serhii K. led a team consisting of professional divers, a skipper, and an explosives expert aboard a high-sea-capable yacht named Andromeda. From there, the group allegedly attached high-performance explosives with timers to the pipelines, causing extensive damage. The prosecution asserts that the act constituted a war crime because it targeted civilian infrastructure, thereby endangering the supply of natural gas to Germany and damaging foreign property. The defense, however, challenges the validity of the charges. Serhii K.’s legal team argues that the case should be dismissed due to the lack of direct evidence linking their client to the attack. They point out that no fingerprints or DNA traces of Serhii K. were found on the yacht, nor are there witnesses who claim to have seen him aboard. Defense lawyer Nicola Canestrini stated that the prosecution relies on “a chain of circumstantial evidence,” which he claims is insufficient to prove guilt. Canestrini further contended that the Nord Stream pipelines were a “Russian weapon” in three respects, financial, military, and political, given the role of energy revenue in funding Moscow’s military operations. He questioned whether destroying such infrastructure could be considered illegal if it did not harm civilians. “Is it unlawful to destroy an aggressor’s infrastructure without harming any human beings?” he asked the court. In response to these arguments, the prosecution maintains that the pipelines were legitimate targets under international humanitarian law. The Federal Prosecutor’s Office emphasized that the intent behind the attack was to cut off Russia’s ability to finance its war effort through gas exports. This connection to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine forms a central issue in the trial, as it raises questions about whether the pipelines could be classified as a legitimate military objective. Another key aspect of the trial concerns the chain of command. Serhii K. is alleged to have acted on orders from higher-ranking officials within the Ukrainian military. His defense team raised the question of whether it is permissible under international law to prosecute a soldier who followed orders unless those orders were clearly criminal. Lawyer Jes Meyer-Lohkamp cited historical precedent, stating that soldiers who executed non-obvious criminal orders should not face legal consequences. The defense also highlighted the restrictions placed on Serhii K. by the Ukrainian government. According to his lawyers, he is prohibited from discussing the case with anyone, including his legal representatives. They claimed that his immediate superiors forbade him from making any statements about the incident, effectively silencing him. Meyer-Lohkamp argued that someone who cannot speak cannot be convicted, emphasizing the implications of this restriction on the fairness of the trial. Public interest in the case has been significant, drawing attention from both supporters and critics. Demonstrations took place outside the courthouse, with some participants advocating for justice for Ukraine while others expressed concern about the potential implications of prosecuting a military official. Inside the courtroom, a Ukrainian student traveled from Kyiv to show solidarity with Serhii K., referring to him as a hero. The trial represents a complex intersection of legal, ethical, and geopolitical considerations. While the prosecution views the act as a clear violation of international law, the defense contends that the circumstances surrounding the attack justify its execution. The outcome of the trial could set a precedent regarding the treatment of military personnel involved in actions related to conflicts involving civilian infrastructure.