Unused pipes intended for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in Sassnitz, Germany, on July 6, 2023. Photo: Stefan Sauer/picture alliance/Getty Images.
By RT Explainer – Aug 24, 2025
A man has been arrested in Italy and will stand trial in Germany, but the pipeline mystery remains unresolved
The Nord Stream bombing is back in the news after the recent arrest of a Ukrainian national, identified as Sergey Kuznetsov, at a resort in Italy. Kuznetsov is set to be extradited to Germany, where he will stand trial accused of leading a six-man sabotage team that attempted to blowing up the pipelines.
It is the first arrest in a case which is widely viewed as the largest instance of industrial sabotage in Europe since World War II. Probes were launched by Denmark, Sweden and Germany, but the first two were ended with no suspects identified.
Russia owns 51% of Gazprom, which controls the majority share of Nord Stream One and all of Nord Stream Two, but was not allowed to participate in any of the official probes and has consistently been denied access to the evidence.
It remains to be seen what emerges from the trial of Kuznetsov, but one thing seems clear: many questions remain about an event which still has major repercussions today. RT looks at why doubts persist nearly three years on.
What is the latest version being touted?
German prosecutors claim Kuznetsov led a six-person team on a yacht called the ‘Andromeda’, rented in the city of Rostock with forged papers. The group then allegedly managed to avoid detection in the heavily monitored Baltic Sea in order to plant the explosives at a depth of 70-80 meters.
This version of events bears a close resemblance to an account published nearly exactly a year ago in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Mixing investigative journalism with cinematic flair, the WSJ wrote of a group of Ukrainians “buoyed by alcohol and patriotic fervor” who concocted a scheme to bring down the pipelines on a shoestring budget.
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky supposedly initially approved the plan before changing his mind on advice from the CIA – but it was too late as the team had already gone incognito.
The report was, at the time, treated by many observers in the West as a definitive breakthrough in a case that had gone largely cold despite the efforts of investigators working on the official probes.
What has Russia said about the recent developments?
Russian officials have not publicly commented on the recent arrest of Kuznetsov, but Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov previously ridiculed the idea that such an act of sabotage could have been carried out by a small team lacking the extensive training and support that such a mission would require.
Commenting on the media reports about the Ukrainian group last September, Lavrov said: “Five people were sitting around drinking, having a laugh, and decided ‘Why don’t we blow up the Nord Stream pipelines?’ They had diving skills, allegedly hired a little boat, sailed to the place where the Nord Streams were passing, went down, planted explosives and detonated them.”
“If someone can actually believe this version, then it’s only people who are afraid of the truth and are trying to protect the criminal Kiev regime in any way possible,” Russia’s foreign minister suggested.
What happened to the state actor theory?
Initial reactions by Western officials and commentators almost universally pointed to the likelihood of a state actor – with Russia generally assumed to be behind the sabotage.
Just days after the attack, the editorial board of the Washington Post published an opinion piece warning the West to “prepare for more attacks” and explaining that this is the “kind of capability usually wielded by a state actor,” adding that “everyone suspects unofficially” that the perpetrator was Russia.
Yet, as the narrative shifted away from Russian culpability, the state actor theory began being downplayed in the Western media. Nevertheless, recent reports indicate that German prosecutors believe the operation required “military-level planning.”
Could such a small boat accommodate such powerful explosives?
A number of experts have expressed skepticism that a vessel the size of the ‘Andromeda’ (15 meters) could facilitate an operation involving such high-energy (RDX-HMX) explosives – four bombs weighing up to 27kg each. It’s not just a question of weight, but one of bulk and safety.
The limited space and lack of a cargo hold on such a yacht would have made transporting highly potent explosives impractical. Such material typically requires reinforced containers, lifting gear, and complex detonation systems – which would push the limits of what a small vessel could reasonably handle.
Many observers question whether the extensive diving gear, mixed-gas systems, and detonation and transport equipment – plus the explosives themselves – could have been carried and deployed all while maintaining cover as a casual sailing trip.
How practical is a 70-80 meter dive to plant explosives?
The logistics of such a deep technical dive have also elicited skepticism. Recreational scuba diving typically doesn’t go deeper than 40 meters.
This operation, entailing explosives placed on two pipelines 4km apart, is believed to have required four dives, each of which would have necessitated the boat being in place for roughly three hours, according to experts. Furthermore, such extended dives would have likely required a decompression chamber for the divers, which would be almost impossible to fit on a vessel the size of the ‘Andromeda’.
How could the Ukrainian team have managed to avoid detection?
Another one of the puzzles lingering around the sabotage is how an operation almost certainly requiring several days could be carried out in one of the most surveilled maritime regions in the world. This is particularly the case given that NATO naval and aerial patrols were heightened due to the conflict in Ukraine.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that even fishing boats are often tracked in the Baltic, NATO somehow failed to pick up on any unusual activity.
If a six-person team on a small yacht really pulled this off undetected, it would imply a catastrophic failure of NATO surveillance – something many experts find hard to accept.
In June 2022, NATO conducted its BALTOPS exercises involving underwater operations near the site of the explosions. Pulitzer Prize-winning US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has alleged that the exercise was used as a cover for planting remotely triggered explosives that were activated three months later.
(RT)
