Trial defence says Russia used Nord Stream pipelines as 'weapon'

Sergiy Kuznietsov is the first person to face trial over the 2022 Nord Stream sabotage. He is a 50-year-old former Ukrainian special forces officer. The case matters because the blasts damaged critical energy infrastructure and created diplomatic tension between Germany and Ukraine.

Prosecutors say Kuznietsov led a Ukrainian team of divers and an explosives expert. According to the indictment, he entered Germany in early September 2022 with a forged Ukrainian passport. The group allegedly rented a yacht in Rostock, carried military-grade explosives, and planted timed charges near Bornholm.

Kuznietsov faces charges including a war crime, attacking civilian infrastructure, and causing an explosion. His lawyer says the evidence does not clearly connect him to the sabotage. Kuznietsov will not testify, because his lawyers cite confidentiality rules linked to former Ukrainian special forces personnel. Another alleged diver, Volodymyr Z., is appealing extradition from Croatia to Germany.

The Nord Stream pipelines were underwater gas pipelines linking Russian energy supplies with western Europe. They were built and owned by a corporate consortium led by Gazprom. Their purpose was to transport Russian natural gas to European customers across the Baltic Sea.

Nord Stream 1 contained two pipelines. Russia had already suspended deliveries through them when the blasts occurred. Nord Stream 2 also contained two pipelines, but it had only just been completed and never entered service. Thus, the four-pipeline system had important strategic value even though no pipeline was operating at the time.

The explosions in September 2022 seriously damaged three of the four pipelines. The damage rendered them inoperable. The pipelines therefore became the centre of a major criminal investigation and political dispute. German investigators allege that a Ukrainian cell carried out the attack, while Kyiv has consistently denied orchestrating it.

Three out of four Nord Stream pipelines were seriously damaged by explosions under the Baltic Sea in September 2022. The scale was substantial: most of the system was hit, leaving the damaged lines inoperable.

However, the pipelines were not carrying gas when the blasts happened. Russia had already suspended deliveries through Nord Stream 1, which consisted of two pipelines. Nord Stream 2, also made up of two pipelines, had only recently been completed and had never entered service.

This distinction shapes the dispute over the attack. The immediate damage did not interrupt active deliveries, but it permanently removed infrastructure that could have carried gas later. Prosecutors say the bombing aimed to ensure deliveries through the pipelines would be permanently halted. The defence argues that the lines were not supplying anyone with heat at the time.

The defence framed Nord Stream as part of Russia’s political and economic pressure campaign, not simply as civilian infrastructure. Lawyer Nicola Canestrini said the pipelines were a means of exerting pressure in the war. This argument matters because it challenges the idea that attacking them was equivalent to attacking an ordinary public utility.

Canestrini pointed out that the pipelines were not supplying anyone with heat in September 2022. Russia had already reduced or suspended gas supplies to western Europe after sanctions over its invasion of Ukraine. In that setting, the pipelines represented leverage over energy security and future revenues.

The defence therefore argued that Russia was responsible for war crimes, rather than Kuznietsov. Prosecutors take the opposite view. They say the sabotage targeted infrastructure and was designed to prevent Russia from using gas revenues to finance its war. The court must assess those competing claims.

A war crime is a serious violation of the rules that apply during armed conflict. These rules protect civilians and civilian objects, while limiting how military force can be used. The classification depends on the facts, the target, and the connection to the conflict.

Prosecutor Stefan Schmidt says Kuznietsov committed a war crime by using military means against civilian targets. He also faces charges of attacking civilian infrastructure and causing an explosion. The indictment describes military-grade explosives, divers, and timed charges placed on the pipelines beneath the Baltic Sea.

The case is contested. Defence lawyer Nicola Canestrini says there is no clear evidence linking Kuznietsov to the sabotage. He argues that Russia used the pipelines as a weapon and committed war crimes itself. The Hamburg court will examine the evidence and the legal meaning of the alleged attack; the article does not report a final judgment.

The explosions seriously damaged three of four pipelines and rendered them inoperable. They did not stop active deliveries because Nord Stream 1 was already suspended and Nord Stream 2 had never operated. Still, prosecutors say the attack permanently ended the possibility of deliveries through the damaged routes.

Prosecutor Stefan Schmidt said the goal was to prevent Russia from earning gas revenue that could finance its war effort. Before the blasts, Russia had steadily reduced supplies to Europe in apparent retaliation for sanctions. The sabotage therefore affected a major energy route and removed infrastructure linked to Russia’s future export earnings.

The case also strained Germany-Ukraine relations. Germany is Kyiv’s leading military backer, yet German investigators accuse Ukrainians of the attack. Some Germans objected to a Ukrainian being brought to court. Ukraine denies orchestrating the sabotage, though it has expressed satisfaction with the outcome.

Dependence on a gas pipeline can give the supplier influence because the customer relies on a limited route for energy. The supplier may threaten to reduce, suspend, or restore deliveries. That possibility can affect economic decisions and political relationships, even when gas is not flowing at a particular moment.

The article describes Russia steadily reducing supplies to Europe after sanctions over its invasion of Ukraine. Defence lawyer Nicola Canestrini called the pipelines a political and economic weapon. He said they were a means of exerting pressure in the war, although they were not supplying anyone with heat when attacked.

Nord Stream’s future value also mattered. Prosecutors say the sabotage was intended to permanently halt deliveries and prevent Russia from using gas sales to finance its war. The blasts therefore removed possible leverage for Russia, while intensifying disputes over responsibility, energy security, and Germany’s relationship with Ukraine.