Briefing
On 9 November 2026, a chemist from the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), called as a witness, told the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court in Hamburg that the substances found on the sailing yacht Andromeda and at the Nord Stream pipelines were highly likely to belong to the same group of explosives. The expert said they were not random residues, but characteristic components that had consistently matched in laboratory tests.
The expert’s testimony relates to the four explosions on the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea on 26 September 2022 and the state of the investigation that led to charges being brought against the defendant now standing trial in Hamburg, Serhii K. According to the Federal Prosecutor General, the defendant is alleged to have led a sabotage team; investigators believe the explosives were placed in steel containers or diving cylinders and attached to the pipelines from the outside. The court has been hearing the case since October 2026.
The BKA expert stressed that certain types of explosives — including ammonium nitrate-based mixtures and plastic explosives — are suitable for underwater sabotage because they can penetrate pipe casings, but pose different handling risks. The witness gave no specific quantities or sources of manufacture; such investigative findings are subject to disclosure rules and remain part of ongoing proceedings.
In the view of observers at the trial, the new forensic evidence strengthens the link between the yacht Andromeda, where trace elements were discovered, and the damaged sections of the pipelines. However, relevant findings must be consistently corroborated by the other evidence heard — including witness testimony, analysis of telecommunications data and forensic trace evidence — to be legally sufficient in criminal proceedings.
Politically, the case remains controversial: it touches on international questions of state responsibility and the security implications for Baltic Sea countries, as well as Europe’s energy supply. In the coming days of hearings, the court will consider whether the traces of explosives are sufficient, together with other circumstantial evidence, to support a conviction. The expert’s testimony, by contrast, should be understood as technical and forensic findings, not as legal conclusions about who carried out the act or who commissioned it.
Editor: Mira Cadena (Article created with AI assistance).