The destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline ranks among the largest environmental disasters in history, with more than 450,000 tonnes of methane released into the atmosphere, according to a 2025 study published in Nature. The political ramifications were just as immense, with Europe facing record high energy costs and economic stagnation, while the perpetrators remained a mystery.
Without any public pronouncements after official inquiries, the story went quiet for a while, left to swirl in the minds of conspiracy theorists like the currents of the Baltic Sea. However, the Nord Stream bombing is finally back in the news after the recent arrest of a Ukrainian national.
Sergey Kuznetsov was arrested in Italy and is set to be extradited to Germany to stand trial for blowing up the pipelines as the head of a six-man sabotage team. It is the first arrest in a case that deals with the largest example of industrial sabotage in Europe’s history.
Considering the lack of answers after years of official investigations, the arrest of Kuznetsov has drawn significant attention. The initial claim that only a state actor could have undertaken an operation of such sophistication appear to have been abandoned, and the world awaits his trial to understand how he pulled off such a spectacular feat.
Clearly, doubts remain about the official narrative. To begin with, the various explanations put forward have shifted frequently, which strains credibility. Contradictions between the various versions of events have further eroded public trust, and none of the explanations advanced so far appear entirely plausible.
The consensus, promoted by German prosecutors, alleges that Kuznetsov directed a six-member team operating from a yacht named Andromeda, rented in Rostock using falsified documents. According to this account, the group managed to plant charges 70-80m underwater, while eluding detection in the most closely monitored sea in the world.
Politically contentious
Of course, Germany has a strong motivation to pin the blame on non-state actors to avoid the political fallout that would ensue if the US, Ukraine or Russia were directly involved. Sending Ukraine weapons after they disrupted Germany’s energy supply would be extremely politically contentious, as would an attack from a Nato ally. Similarly, if Russia was responsible it would be an act of war, requiring an unwilling German military to respond.
The new narrative, first published in the Wall Street Journal almost a year ago, is a convenient one. It describes a band of Ukrainians “fuelled by alcohol and patriotic fervour” who devised a low-budget plan to destroy the pipelines. President Volodymyr Zelensky apparently approved the mission at first before later reversing his position after consulting the CIA, but by then the saboteurs had already gone off grid and could not be reached.
This miscommunication between Zelensky and the alleged culprits seems unlikely considering the high degree of sophistication Ukraine has exhibited in conducting other attacks on Russian infrastructure, including the car bombing of the Kerch Strait Bridge, as well as the controversial drone attack on Russia’s strategic nuclear bombers.
As such, the suggestion that Zelensky changed his mind could be an effort to shield the leader over an incident that risks stoking anger among German voters, voters who’ve seen their tax euros sent to Ukraine while facing skyrocketing energy prices as a direct result of the pipeline’s destruction. The fact that the Ukrainian leader had discussed these plans with US intelligence agencies also hints at foreign involvement.
The Wall Street Journal report was received in Western capitals as a breakthrough in a case that had largely run cold despite months of formal investigations. Treated as a decisive narrative, it gave officials and commentators a line they could use publicly in the absence of hard evidence.
Kuznetsov’s arrest has backed up these claims, but it has also given credence to the theory that Russia was not responsible for the attacks. Ironically, Russia remains sceptical about the latest version of events, claiming that the destruction of the pipelines would have required the support of foreign intelligence services and qualified military personnel.
This was the initial position taken by Western politicians and press, who maintained that Russia was to blame. But in the months that followed no evidence was produced that implicated the Kremlin, and confidence in the official narrative began to wane. Media figures such as Tucker Carlson in the US, argued that Russia was unlikely to have destroyed their own revenue generating infrastructure, and the blame quickly shifted to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, German prosecutors were initially in agreement that the attacks displayed signs of military involvement due to the complexity of the operation. This is why the new theory about a small yacht rented by non-professionals still leaves many technical questions unanswered.
The 15m yacht had no cargo hold and limited deck space, and yet the operation would have required several large bombs requiring reinforced containers for safe handling. A single small vessel designed for leisure sailing appears unlikely to have been able to accommodate all the equipment required.
Beyond the transport issue, there is the problem of the dive profile. Recreational scuba diving seldom exceeds 40m in depth. The Nord Stream pipelines lie at depths of 70m-80m. Technical dives of that sort require mixed gas systems, extended bottom times and precise decompression procedures. The pipeline strings are also separated by about 4km, implying multiple dives, each lasting several hours.
These dives would require a decompression chamber to reduce the risk of injury. A chamber of that size and capacity cannot realistically be fitted onto a yacht of 15m. Even if smaller portable systems were used, the available space would be strained by the combined demands of the explosives, diving gear and provisions for the crew.
As one of the most monitored maritime zones in the world, Nato surveillance of the Baltic adds further doubts, with heightened patrols after the outbreak of war. For a multi-day operation to go unnoticed would suggest a significant lapse in Nato monitoring. That’s why the US investigative journalist and Pulitzer-prize winner Seymour Hersh alleges the US had the greatest means, motive and opportunity to plant the explosives, with gas exports from the US to the EU skyrocketing after the explosions.
We may never be certain whether Russia, Ukraine or the US is to blame, or to what extent their leaders were involved. However, the damage to Europe’s economy is obvious, and the saga of the Nord Stream pipelines can be expected to run for some time.
• Shubitz is an independent Brics analyst.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.