Germany: Supporters rally in Hamburg as trial opens over Nord Stream pipeline blasts

Serhii Kuznietsov is the defendant at the centre of the German trial. German prosecutors identify him as Serhii K. and accuse him of helping organise the operation that damaged Nord Stream 1 and 2 on 26 September 2022. He is 50 years old.

Prosecutors allege that Kuznietsov led a team made up of divers, a boat captain and an explosives expert. Their case links him to the explosions that damaged the pipelines, which were designed to carry Russian gas to Germany. The article does not describe his alleged actions in greater technical detail.

Kuznietsov faces several charges, including property damage, disruption of public services and an alleged war crime involving civilian infrastructure. He has not been convicted. The trial opened under tight security and is expected to continue for several months, with hearings scheduled until February.

On 26 September 2022, explosions damaged Nord Stream 1 and 2. The pipelines were built to carry Russian gas to Germany, so the incident targeted infrastructure connected to a major energy route. The article does not specify the exact location, explosive method or full physical extent of the damage.

German prosecutors allege that Serhii Kuznietsov helped organise the operation. They say he led a team involving divers, a boat captain and an explosives expert. This alleged structure is the key mechanism in the prosecution’s account: different specialists would have been used to reach, navigate near and damage the pipelines.

The incident is now the subject of a German criminal trial. Kuznietsov faces charges linked to the explosions, including property damage, disruption of public services and an alleged war crime involving civilian infrastructure. The trial opened under tight security and is expected to last several months.

Nord Stream 1 and 2 are large underwater gas pipelines. They cross the Baltic Sea and connect Russia’s gas network with Germany. Their purpose was to move Russian natural gas directly to Germany, creating an important supply route beneath the sea.

The article states that the pipelines were designed to carry Russian gas to Germany. More specifically, established background information places Nord Stream 1 between Vyborg, Russia, and Lubmin, Germany, while Nord Stream 2 ran from Ust-Luga, Russia, to Lubmin. Both routes passed under the Baltic Sea.

Their design made them more than ordinary infrastructure. They linked an energy producer with a major consuming country through a fixed route that could be damaged or disrupted. The article focuses on the alleged sabotage, the German trial and the charges involving civilian infrastructure, rather than the pipelines’ engineering details.

Nord Stream 1 and 2 were exceptionally large energy projects. Each pipeline system was designed for roughly 55 billion cubic metres of gas per year, giving a combined planned capacity of about 110 billion cubic metres. These figures come from established background information, not the provided article.

Their importance came from scale and direction. The pipelines were intended to move Russian gas directly to Germany beneath the Baltic Sea. Nord Stream 1 carried gas before supplies were disrupted, while Nord Stream 2 was completed but never entered normal commercial operation. Together, they represented a substantial potential route into Europe.

The article only states that the pipelines were designed to carry Russian gas to Germany. It does not quantify their role in Germany’s or Europe’s gas supply. Their damage therefore mattered both as physical infrastructure loss and as a sign of vulnerability in a politically sensitive energy relationship.

Kuznietsov faces several charges linked to the pipeline explosions. The article lists offences involving property damage, disruption of public services and an alleged war crime involving civilian infrastructure. These remain allegations. He has not been convicted, and the trial is intended to test the prosecution’s case.

Civilian infrastructure can be protected under the laws of armed conflict. A deliberate attack may be treated as a war crime if the object is civilian, the attack is unlawful, and the required intent or knowledge is proven. The legal outcome depends on evidence, context and the court’s interpretation. Damaging infrastructure alone does not automatically establish a war crime.

The protesters challenged the decision to bring war crimes charges. One placard distinguished between damaging a gas pipeline and bombing buildings or killing civilians. That disagreement shows the central legal issue: whether the pipeline’s civilian function and the alleged operation meet the threshold for a war-crime charge.

The provided article does not describe the blasts’ effects on gas supplies, prices or European energy security. Established background information indicates that the damage made the Nord Stream route unavailable and ended the possibility of normal deliveries through the damaged lines. Nord Stream 2 had not entered commercial operation.

The loss mattered because Europe was already dealing with severe disruption in Russian gas flows after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Gas markets reacted to uncertainty, and European countries increased purchases of liquefied natural gas and supplies from other sources. Prices were affected by the wider supply crisis, so the pipeline blasts were one factor rather than the only cause.

The longer-term consequence was greater concern about dependence on one supplier and vulnerability in undersea infrastructure. Europe sought more diversified energy sources and routes. The German trial now adds a legal dimension, with prosecutors alleging that the damage involved public services and civilian infrastructure.

Gas pipelines can create power because they connect a producer and a dependent buyer through fixed infrastructure. Building a route takes years and large investments, while replacing it quickly may be difficult. A supplier can gain influence through pricing, volume or delivery decisions, and a buyer can respond by seeking other routes or sources.

Nord Stream shows this mechanism clearly. The pipelines were designed to carry Russian gas directly to Germany beneath the Baltic Sea. That route could support trade, but it also created dependence on continued access and cooperation. If supplies were interrupted or the infrastructure damaged, the buyer would need alternatives, often at higher cost or with less flexibility.

This power relationship affects security as well as commerce. Countries may diversify suppliers, build storage and develop other import routes to reduce vulnerability. Producers may also use pipeline access to strengthen their political position. The article’s trial highlights how damage to energy infrastructure can become an international legal and strategic issue.