What did the German prosecutors allege about the suspects in the Nord Stream investigation?
Executive summary
German federal prosecutors allege a small group of men — largely identified as Ukrainian nationals and including experienced divers — carried out the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines by sailing from Rostock on a hired yacht, using forged identities and commercial diving equipment to attach explosive charges to the lines near Denmark’s Bornholm, causing multiple undersea explosions and massive gas leaks [1][2][3]. Prosecutors have charged or sought suspects with collusion to cause an explosion, “anti‑constitutional sabotage” and destruction of important structures while stressing they have not publicly accused any state of ordering the attack; Kyiv denies any role [2][4][5].
1. The core criminal claim: coordinated underwater bombing by a diving team
German prosecutors say the pipeline ruptures were not accidents but a coordinated operation in which a crew of divers planted multiple explosive devices on Nord Stream infrastructure in September 2022, detonating charges at depths of roughly 70–80 metres and severely damaging both Nord Stream 1 and 2 so gas could no longer flow [2][5]. The indictment language reported by outlets frames the acts as deliberate explosives attacks and “anti‑constitutional sabotage,” elevating the incident from property damage to an assault on critical national infrastructure [2].
2. Who the suspects are alleged to be: Ukrainians, ex‑military and diving instructors
Reporting aggregated by German and international outlets describes the suspects as Ukrainian nationals, including professional divers and at least one former Ukrainian military officer; German media named a diving instructor as Volodymyr Z. Prosecutors have identified a suspect designated under German privacy rules as “Serhii K,” whom they describe as a coordinator rather than one of the actual undersea divers [6][1][7][3].
3. The operational detail prosecutors say ties the group together
Prosecutors allege the group rented a sailing yacht from Rostock using forged identity documents, sailed to the area near the Danish island of Bornholm, and used commercial diving gear to emplace and detonate several charges — documents submitted in extradition filings even quantify individual devices and explosive weights in some accounts [2][3]. German statements to partners led to European arrest warrants and cross‑border police actions, including an arrest in Italy of the man identified as Serhii K and detention proceedings in Poland for others [7][6].
4. Legal charges, extradition fights and procedural disputes
The federal prosecutor’s office has accused suspects of collusion to cause explosions, destruction of important structures and anti‑constitutional sabotage, but extradition and court decisions have complicated the case: Polish and Italian courts at times blocked or delayed handovers on varied grounds, and prosecutors in Poland said at least one Berlin warrant was not entered into the Schengen database in time, allowing a suspect to leave the country, a point both reported and disputed in the press [2][8][9][6].
5. Limits of the allegation: state direction, evidentiary gaps and competing narratives
While German prosecutors contend the suspects acted as an organized unit, they have stopped short of publicly alleging they were acting on direct orders from the Ukrainian state; the investigation’s public filings and prosecutors’ comments do not assert government involvement, and Kyiv denies any role — an explicit gap that critics and Russia leverage to promote alternate narratives, seen in coverage from outlets like RT and state actors who allege foreign intelligence responsibility [4][10][5]. Independent national probes in Denmark and Sweden were closed without identifying culprits, underscoring that much of the German case rests on investigative reconstruction and cross‑border evidence that has provoked legal and political pushback [9][6].
6. What this means going forward: prosecutions, political fallout and public record
Prosecutors’ allegations have produced arrests, extradition battles and anticipated trials in Germany that will test the strength of forensic, documentary and witness evidence tying named suspects to the yacht voyage, forged documents and underwater operations; outcomes in courts in Poland, Italy and Germany will ultimately determine whether the claims translate into convictions or remain contested narratives in an already geopolitically charged story [11][8][12].