With discussions on how to end the war in Ukraine under way, European leaders have been adamant that no peace settlement should be imposed on Kyiv against its will. Allowing Russia to achieve a perceived victory would reward Russian aggression and further undermine the security of the Continent. And yet, even with Russia’s war on Ukraine still ongoing, European countries, notably Germany and Italy, are undermining their own stated position.

Last week, Italian police arrested a Ukrainian man on suspicion of involvement in blowing up the Nord Stream gas pipelines in 2022, acting on a European arrest warrant issued by Germany. The timing could hardly be more politically charged. At a moment when Ukraine is fighting for its survival and Europe is debating its future security architecture, such a prosecution risks fracturing the very unity that Europe claims is essential.

The Ukrainian man, identified by German prosecutors only as Serhii K, was detained in the province of Rimini. Investigators allege that in 2022, he was part of the group of people who used the yacht Andromeda to set off from the German Baltic port of Rostock. The group is accused of planting explosive devices to attack Nord Stream 1 and 2, causing damage to three of the four pipelines and rendering them unusable. Prosecutors said Serhii K would be brought before a German court after being extradited from Italy.

However, the facts remain deeply contested. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Ukrainian authorities have consistently denied any Ukrainian role in the sabotage. Intelligence assessments across Europe and the United States have pointed in different directions — from Russian involvement, to rogue pro-Ukrainian groups, to state-sponsored actors. None have provided definitive proof. To single out a Ukrainian citizen — who says, via his lawyer, that he has never been approached for questioning and would have gladly cooperated with the investigation to prove his innocence had he been approached — at this stage and in this way, risks politicizing a judicial process that should demand the highest evidentiary standards.

Additionally, military law experts believe that if the attack on the Russian pipelines was intended to stop Russian gas exports to Western Europe, then such action was portrayed as entirely justified, and Nord Stream 2 was a legitimate military target. The pipeline symbolized Europe’s dependency on Russian energy and its financing of the Kremlin’s war machine. Moreover, the pipeline’s operator and sole gas provider — Russian state-run monopoly Gazprom — ran its own private military company that was a direct participant in the invasion of Ukraine. By disrupting the pipelines, Ukraine or any allied actor would have struck at a critical element of Russia’s economic leverage — without causing human casualties.

This stands in sharp contrast with Russia’s war crimes. In June 2025, Ukraine suffered the highest monthly civilian death toll in more than three years, as Russian missiles rained down on apartment blocks, schools and hospitals. The European Union itself has acknowledged the role of energy in Russia’s war economy. Its 18th package of sanctions included a ban on transactions related to Nord Stream 1 and 2, effectively designating them as part of Moscow’s war apparatus. If the EU considers the pipelines an instrument of aggression, targeting them should not be treated as a crime but as an expected and legitimate form of self-defense.

Critically, the arrest comes at a politically charged moment, when the future of Ukrainian security guarantees is being discussed. As France and the U.K. are spearheading the preparation for a mainly European peacekeeping force for Ukraine, Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has spoken against such an initiative, and further said that Italy would not send its troops to Ukraine. In Germany, public opinion is even more cautious: a recent poll found 51% of Germans opposed to any role in a peace mission. Meanwhile, industrial lobbies and parts of Berlin’s political establishment are already pushing toward a return to cheap Russian gas.

Against this backdrop, extraditing a Ukrainian citizen to face trial in Germany raises serious questions of fairness. Can Kyiv trust that a country where powerful interests yearn for reconciliation with Moscow will treat Ukrainian defendants impartially? The optics alone risk feeding a dangerous narrative: that Europe is more willing to criminalize Ukrainian resistance than Russian aggression.

The only beneficiary of the prosecution of the Ukrainian individual is Russia. Predictably, Russia has already jumped on the opportunity to divide and conquer as it summoned an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council to further villainize Ukraine using Italy and Germany as its unwitting proxies. Moscow has long sought to divide Ukraine from its Western backers, portraying Kyiv as reckless, untrustworthy, or even criminal. Prosecuting a Ukrainian for striking what many see as a legitimate military target only plays into this strategy. International law, moreover, presumes immunity for military actions in wartime, provided they are not war crimes. Attacks on critical infrastructure supporting an aggressor’s war effort fall squarely into the realm of legitimate military operations. To equate the disabling of a pipeline with Russia’s deliberate killing of civilians is not only unjust, it is unlawful.

Europe cannot afford such double standards. On one hand, leaders proclaim that Ukraine is fighting for the security of the Continent. On the other hand, they treat actions that weaken Russia’s war machine as criminal offenses. This inconsistency undermines Europe’s credibility both in Kyiv and in Washington, where American patience for Europe’s hesitations is already running thin. If Europe is serious about trans-Atlantic unity and about safeguarding its own future, it must abandon the illusion of its own untouchability. Modern wars do not respect borders, and infrastructure once considered sacrosanct can become legitimate targets. Pretending otherwise only blinds Europe to the realities of the conflict it claims to be confronting.

Wes Martin, a retired U.S. Army colonel, has served in law enforcement positions around the world and holds a MBA in International Politics and Business.