Europe's broken artery… Nord Stream, the enigma that has returned to shake the European alliance and Denmark's role within it

On September 26, 2022, huge explosions rocked the seabed of the Baltic Sea, near the Danish island of Bornholm, damaging the Nord Stream pipelines that connected Russia to Germany across the sea. These explosions were not a technical accident, nor an accidental gas leak.

After an investigation that lasted more than a year, Denmark officially declared that what happened was deliberate sabotage of the gas pipelines, while Sweden also concluded that the pipelines had been subjected to sabotage. The two countries soon ended their national investigations without filing criminal charges in a case considered highly sensitive, leaving Germany as the main European country to continue the criminal investigation.

Today, nearly four years after the explosions, the question is no longer just: Who blew up Nord Stream? The more sensitive question has become: What happens if the answer leads to people linked to a country that Europe supports politically, economically, and militarily with enormous resources in its war against Russia?

It is precisely here that the Nord Stream affair has transformed from a crime of sabotage against energy infrastructure into one of the most embarrassing security and political issues in Europe.

Who owned the "gas artery"?

The Nord Stream system consisted of two main pipelines, each extending for a distance of approximately 1,224 kilometers under the Baltic Sea. Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 together had a design capacity of approximately 110 billion cubic meters of gas per year; that is, they represented one of the largest routes for transporting Russian gas directly to the German and European market. Therefore, the pipeline explosion was not merely the destruction of an industrial facility.

It struck one of the most important symbols of the energy relationship that has linked Russia to Germany and Europe for decades, and it came at a moment when Europe was already experiencing a severe energy crisis against the backdrop of the Russian war on Ukraine.

But the great irony is that Nord Stream is no longer just an energy project since the moment of the explosion; it has become a test of European security itself.

Four explosions... and a story that still has no final, publicly declared version.

The explosions occurred in a sensitive maritime area near the Danish island of Bornholm, where the security and economic interests of several northern European countries intersect.

According to German investigations, the suspected group used a sailing yacht known as "Andromeda," and the German prosecution believes that the group included a coordinator, a captain, a number of divers, and an explosives expert.

German authorities say explosives were planted on the pipelines and then detonated on September 26, 2022.

But so far, there is no definitive legal account that conclusively proves who issued the political order for the operation.

This is where the sensitivity of the issue lies.

Proving that the sabotage was intentional is one thing, proving the identity of the perpetrators is another, and proving who is politically behind the operation is a completely different matter.

Germany is getting closer to the answer

After Denmark closed its investigation in February 2024, authorities said they did not find sufficient grounds for criminal prosecution within Denmark, but at the same time confirmed that the investigation proved that deliberate sabotage had occurred, and that Danish authorities had cooperated with foreign partners.

Germany, however, continued its investigation.

In July 2026, the case took a major turn when the German public prosecutor's office filed charges against Ukrainian citizen Serhiy K., who the prosecution says was a key coordinator of the group that used the yacht "Andromeda" in the operation.

Most sensitively, the German prosecution accused him of participating in an attack on civilian energy infrastructure, causing an explosion and destroying facilities and disrupting public services. The attack was also considered a war crime as part of the charges against him.

Then came a new step on August 19, 2026, when the German Federal Prosecutor's Office announced the arrest of a second Ukrainian citizen, Vladimir Z., in the Croatian city of Pula, on suspicion of his involvement in the operation. According to the German arrest warrant, Vladimir Z. is a trained diver, and the prosecution accuses him of participating in the diving operations necessary to plant explosives near Bornholm. This means that the case is no longer just an investigation into a crime of unknown perpetrator, but has now entered an actual judicial phase. However, there is a political problem bigger than the names of the accused. The accused on whom the German prosecution is focusing are Ukrainians, and this fact alone is enough to make the case extremely sensitive in Europe. But it is important to differentiate between the nationality of the accused and proving the involvement of the Ukrainian state itself.

The German prosecution accuses Serhiy K. of acting on behalf of Ukrainian government entities, charges that have not yet resulted in a final court ruling, while Kyiv denies responsibility for the bombings.

On August 24, 2026, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reiterated his denial that Ukraine had participated in the Nord Stream pipeline bombing, stressing that his country was cooperating with the German investigation. Herein lies one of the most sensitive paradoxes of the case: What happens if a German court concludes that Ukrainian individuals are responsible for an attack targeting European infrastructure, while Ukraine was simultaneously a key military and political partner of Germany and the rest of Europe in confronting Russia? This is the question that makes the case bigger than just a criminal matter.

The Danish surprise: Why did Copenhagen refuse to help Germany?

Here, one of the most interesting details emerged in August 2026. According to a report based on a German indictment obtained by the Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR), Germany had asked Danish authorities for help in questioning people, including port officials and owners of recreational boats, in Bornholm and Kristiansø Island. The aim was to help the German investigation track movements related to the yacht "Andromeda" and the possible route of the perpetrators.

According to the German document, the Danish response came on February 14, 2024, just twelve days before Copenhagen announced the end of its national investigation.

Interestingly, the German prosecution described the rejection as being due to the possibility of a threat to the security and safety of the Danish state, and this is where the more mysterious story begins.

Denmark denies that it "refused to cooperate".«

From the Danish point of view, it is very important that this point does not turn into an unproven conclusion. The Danish authorities do not accept the characterization of what happened as a refusal to cooperate with Germany. According to what the Ritzau news agency quoted from the Danish prosecution office, the authorities did not refuse to cooperate with Germany, but rather referred the continuation of cooperation to the existing channels between the intelligence services of the two countries.

The Danish Minister of Justice also confirmed that Danish agencies cooperated with their German partners, while PET said that cooperation with the German side was good.

But this explanation does not eliminate the question, and perhaps makes it even more intriguing: Why was the cooperation at this stage through intelligence channels, and not through the police and judicial assistance that Germany had requested?

Was the reason simply to protect sensitive information related to Danish national security? Or does Copenhagen have information that it cannot or does not want to put into an open criminal case that could end up in court and in the media? There is not enough public evidence to answer this question.

Bornholm... the island that became the heart of the mystery

Bornholm is not just a geographical location in the Nord Stream story. The Danish island is located in the heart of the Baltic Sea, close to the explosion sites, and has appeared in German, Danish, and Swedish investigations since the early days of the incident.

Furthermore, some of the communications and sea voyages associated with the investigations passed through a wide area that included ports and surrounding islands.

Therefore, requests for questioning and verification of boat movements in Bornholm and Kristiansø became an important part of the attempt to reconstruct the hours and days leading up to the bombing.

Now that the details of the Danish rejection have emerged, a new question has arisen on top of the old one: What did Germany want to know in Bornholm, and why did Denmark believe that this type of cooperation should remain within a different security and intelligence framework?

From the "Nord Stream mystery" to a test of confidence within Europe

Initially, the European fear was that the Nord Stream bombing was part of a new war on vital infrastructure, then the question became: Who did it? Today, as the German investigation progresses, a third, more serious question has emerged: Can Europe investigate a crime that affects its strategic security even if the evidence leads to people linked to one of its most important partners in the war?

This is not a theoretical matter; Germany is pursuing legal action, has formally charged a Ukrainian suspect, and announced the arrest of a second suspect. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to deny any responsibility for the operation.

Denmark, near whose territorial waters the explosion occurred, has concluded its national investigation, but maintains that it cooperated with its foreign partners, while new German documents reveal a dispute over the nature and scope of the cooperation required.

Why has the issue become more serious now?

Because the early years of the investigation revolved around a mysterious explosion on the seabed, now there are names, arrest warrants, accusations, trials, and evidence being judicially tested. Every new German step presents European governments with a difficult equation: If Ukrainian individuals are found responsible for the operation, will the case be treated as a criminal act committed by individuals? Or will it open the door to a larger question about any possible connection between the operation and official bodies or agencies in Ukraine?

Conversely, if the courts cannot prove this link, one of the biggest acts of infrastructure sabotage in Europe in recent decades will remain without a definitive answer as to who ordered it.

The pipelines were destroyed... but the story isn't over.

Nord Stream's life practically ended with the September 2022 explosions, but the political and legal issue that those explosions generated has not ended. On the contrary, it seems that the file has now entered its most dangerous phase.

Germany is pursuing suspects in court, Ukraine denies any involvement, and Denmark maintains that its investigation found no basis for local criminal prosecution, while new German documents reveal an unprecedented dispute over the nature of cooperation between Copenhagen and Berlin.

Therefore, the historical question about Nord Stream may not only be: Who blew up the pipelines? But perhaps the question that will have a long-lasting impact on European politics is: What will Europe do if justice leads to a truth that European politics does not want to face?

So far, the answer remains buried in the Baltic Sea, but for the first time since 2022, pieces of the puzzle are beginning to emerge in court, not just at the bottom of the sea.