In a ruling that has stunned people across Europe, a Polish court has refused to extradite a Ukrainian man suspected by Germany of involvement in the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline explosions, arguing that even if Ukraine was behind the attack, it would have been a “just” act of defense against Russian war aggression.
The Warsaw District Court, presided over by Judge Dariusz Łubowski, ordered the immediate release of 46-year-old Volodymyr Zhuravlyov, who had been detained in Poland last month on a European arrest warrant issued by Germany.
The decision, applauded by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and denounced privately in Berlin, has opened a new front in the legal and moral debate over the limits of wartime actions.
“If Ukraine and its special forces organized an armed mission to destroy enemy pipelines,” Judge Łubowski declared in court, “then these actions were not unlawful. On the contrary—they were justified, rational, and just.”
Polish Court Refuses to Extradite Suspect in Nord Stream Explosions Case
Zhuravlyov, identified in German documents as a trained diver, was accused of participating in the underwater operation that destroyed three of the Nord Stream gas pipelines near Denmark’s Bornholm Island in September 2022.
Germany sought his extradition to face charges of “unconstitutional sabotage” and participation in a terrorist act.
The case had been expected to move swiftly through standard EU judicial cooperation mechanisms. Instead, it became a landmark test of political solidarity and the meaning of justice during wartime.
Appearing in handcuffs, Zhuravlyov smiled as the judge announced his release. His wife, Yulianna, told reporters that her husband was a civilian diver and air-conditioning installer, not a saboteur.
The Judge’s Just War Doctrine
In an extraordinary courtroom speech that lasted more than 20 minutes, Judge Łubowski anchored his decision not in procedural technicalities, but in moral philosophy and international law.
He invoked the concept of a “just war,” asserting that Ukraine’s actions against Russian infrastructure—even abroad—could be legally and ethically justified.
“Ukraine, its armed forces, and those acting under its orders are defending themselves against a criminal and genocidal war,” he said. “Destroying enemy critical infrastructure that funds this aggression is not sabotage. It is legitimate defense.”
“We must not forget that the action that Zhuravlyov is accused of was committed in the context of the criminal and genocidal war that Russia has been waging against Ukraine since 2014. Zhuravlev’s alleged action aligns with the traditional notion of a just war. Ukraine, its armed forces, security forces, special services, and those who act on their orders by destroying the enemy’s critical infrastructure are acting within the framework of a just war. The destruction of Nord Stream deprived the enemy of gas payments and weakened Russia’s military potential. Germany, by purchasing Russian gas before that, continued to finance this genocidal war. The act is not sabotage, as the German court claims; these are military actions of a diversionary nature in defense of its country. Ukraine’s actions directed against Russia’s critical infrastructure are justified, rational, and just.”
Łubowski emphasized that the court was not ruling on Zhuravlyov’s guilt or innocence, but only on whether his alleged actions could justify extradition. He added that Germany had provided “only general information” and no concrete evidence.
The judge also questioned Germany’s jurisdiction, noting that the explosions occurred in international waters and on pipelines majority-owned by Russia’s state energy company, Gazprom.
Poland’s Political Backing: “Case Closed”
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk immediately endorsed the court’s decision, writing on X (formerly Twitter):
“The Polish court refused the extradition to Germany of a Ukrainian suspected of blowing up Nord Stream 2 and released him from custody. And rightly so. Case closed.”
Tusk’s comments underline a deep political and moral alignment between Warsaw and Kyiv, as Poland remains one of Ukraine’s most steadfast allies during the ongoing Russian war.
Behind the rhetoric lies a longer history: Poland has opposed the Nord Stream projects for decades, warning that they made Europe dependent on Russian gas and undermined regional energy security by bypassing traditional transit routes through Poland and Ukraine.
Tusk’s remark that “the problem was not that the pipelines were blown up, but that they were built at all” encapsulates Warsaw’s longstanding view that Nord Stream was itself a geopolitical weapon—one that enabled Moscow’s aggression and weakened Europe’s strategic energy independence.
Germany’s Response: Silence and Unease
Berlin’s initial reaction was restrained. A spokesperson for Germany’s Foreign Ministry said the government “respects the independence of the Polish judiciary” and would “await full documentation of the ruling.”
Privately, however, German officials have expressed concern over the political implications. If Poland’s reasoning stands, it could set a precedent for other EU courts to invoke wartime moral arguments in cases involving national allies, a move that could undermine the coherence of European legal cooperation under the European Arrest Warrant framework.
The Nord Stream investigation
The Nord Stream investigation remains one of the most politically sensitive cases in Europe. Early Western intelligence assessments initially pointed to possible Russian involvement, but subsequent findings, including leaks to The New York Times and Der Spiegel, suggested the operation may have been conducted by pro-Ukrainian elements.
Kyiv has consistently denied any involvement in the explosions.
The ruling also highlights the divisions within the EU regarding the management of cases related to the Russia-Ukraine war.
While the Italian court has approved Germany’s extradition request for another suspect, Serhiy Kuznetsov, that ruling was later annulled by Italy’s Supreme Court and returned for retrial—reflecting a similar reluctance to criminalize acts that might be viewed as wartime operations.
A court in Bologna did rule he should be extradited to Berlin, but earlier this week that verdict was annulled by the top appeals court in Rome, and the case has been returned to Bologna to begin all over again.
The Nord Stream sabotage case is therefore no longer just a criminal investigation—it is a moral and political battleground, testing how far Europe’s legal systems will go in defining the boundaries between sabotage, warfare, and legitimate defense.
A Verdict that Redefines “Justice in War”
Judge Łubowski’s verdict represents more than a judicial opinion; it is a philosophical declaration of wartime ethics within a European legal framework.
By framing Ukraine’s alleged actions as part of a “just war,” the Polish court effectively placed moral legitimacy above procedural neutrality—a position likely to resonate in Eastern Europe but raise alarms in Western capitals.
Legal scholars argue that the ruling could blur the line between national solidarity and judicial independence, complicating future extradition cases tied to wartime operations or intelligence activities.
However, for many in Poland and Ukraine, it also represents a moment of profound moral understanding. As Russia’s war drags into its fourth year, countries that have long warned against appeasement may increasingly find sympathy for the idea that striking Moscow’s assets—even indirectly—is part of legitimate self-defense.
The Warsaw court’s decision to free Volodymyr Zhuravlyov and reject Germany’s extradition request has forced the EU to confront a more profound question: Can the principles of law remain neutral when war itself defines morality? Poland has established its own boundaries, both legally and morally.
