Such a curious dance. About 5 years ago the headline was, "President Donald Trump has signed a law that will impose sanctions on any firm that helps Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish [Nord Stream 2]." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50875935 Of course, Trump isn't the only one to do an about-face. In 2019, Germany supported Nord Stream 2, but now opposes Russian gas imports.
The story that the parent is referring to, so far, hasn't actually been attributed to anyone in the govt. A US-based consortium is trying to get it reopened, the FT weren't able to say who this person met with, one of the people thought to be involved (a German) denied meeting with anyone, and there is no actual evidence of anyone in the government saying they are working on this...it is just a story that aligned with something that the journalist thinks the US govt is doing...but was unable to produce any evidence of this.
What is possible is for NS2 to come into ownership of the US who will be able to cut it off when they choose. One of the issues with NS2, as Trump said before the war but the EU literally laughed at him for saying, was that it would make an invasion of Ukraine possible.
In reality, Russia was still paying Ukraine transit fees until earlier this year. So NS2 didn't actually make a difference because Ukraine kept transiting Russian gas through the war. It made a difference before the war because Russia thought Ukraine would cut them off, Germany didn't listen and Putin gambled based on this that Germany would keep NS2 open.
The time to do something was BEFORE the invasion...obviously.
"EU member states bought €21.9bn (£18.1bn) of Russian oil and gas in the third year of the war, according to estimates from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), despite the efforts under way to kick the continent’s addiction to the fuels that fund Vladimir Putin’s war chest.
The amount is one-sixth greater than the €18.7bn the EU allocated to Ukraine in financial aid in 2024, according to a tracker from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel)."
That's down from 112bn in 2019[1]. That's a huge drop in just a couple of years.
Other than optics, I don't see the relevance to simplistic nominal comparisons with Ukraine aid.
[1] 68bn in 2020 and 123bn 2021, but 2019 is better baseline given COVID.
Was it hypocritical of Ukraine to permit transit of Russian gas while they were engaged in unadulterated warfare?
If yes, then we have fundamentally different ideas about how to analyze morality in a situation like this.
If no, then you're being inconsistent. The reason Ukraine permitted transit is much the same the EU permitted imports of Russian gas. To shut it off abruptly would threaten support for Ukraine's defense--EU aid in the case of transit, the EU electorate and their support for aiding a foreign nation in the case of imports. You shouldn't cut off your nose to spite your face. This is reality, not a morality play.
I think it proves the opposite: an 81% reduction in a few years is remarkable. Heating and power generation infrastructure is not something you can pivot quickly. These transitions usually take decades.
Such a curious dance. About 5 years ago the headline was, "President Donald Trump has signed a law that will impose sanctions on any firm that helps Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish [Nord Stream 2]." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50875935 Of course, Trump isn't the only one to do an about-face. In 2019, Germany supported Nord Stream 2, but now opposes Russian gas imports.
It isn't a curious dance.
The story that the parent is referring to, so far, hasn't actually been attributed to anyone in the govt. A US-based consortium is trying to get it reopened, the FT weren't able to say who this person met with, one of the people thought to be involved (a German) denied meeting with anyone, and there is no actual evidence of anyone in the government saying they are working on this...it is just a story that aligned with something that the journalist thinks the US govt is doing...but was unable to produce any evidence of this.
What is possible is for NS2 to come into ownership of the US who will be able to cut it off when they choose. One of the issues with NS2, as Trump said before the war but the EU literally laughed at him for saying, was that it would make an invasion of Ukraine possible.
In reality, Russia was still paying Ukraine transit fees until earlier this year. So NS2 didn't actually make a difference because Ukraine kept transiting Russian gas through the war. It made a difference before the war because Russia thought Ukraine would cut them off, Germany didn't listen and Putin gambled based on this that Germany would keep NS2 open.
The time to do something was BEFORE the invasion...obviously.
And Germany and other European countries, despite all their tough talk, are spending more on Russian gas than they are on aid to Ukraine:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/eu-spends-more...
"EU member states bought €21.9bn (£18.1bn) of Russian oil and gas in the third year of the war, according to estimates from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), despite the efforts under way to kick the continent’s addiction to the fuels that fund Vladimir Putin’s war chest.
The amount is one-sixth greater than the €18.7bn the EU allocated to Ukraine in financial aid in 2024, according to a tracker from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel)."
That's down from 112bn in 2019[1]. That's a huge drop in just a couple of years. Other than optics, I don't see the relevance to simplistic nominal comparisons with Ukraine aid.
[1] 68bn in 2020 and 123bn 2021, but 2019 is better baseline given COVID.
I think it undermines their moral arguments when they are still buying gas off their "enemy".
It's not optics, it's hypocrisy.
Was it hypocritical of Ukraine to permit transit of Russian gas while they were engaged in unadulterated warfare?
If yes, then we have fundamentally different ideas about how to analyze morality in a situation like this.
If no, then you're being inconsistent. The reason Ukraine permitted transit is much the same the EU permitted imports of Russian gas. To shut it off abruptly would threaten support for Ukraine's defense--EU aid in the case of transit, the EU electorate and their support for aiding a foreign nation in the case of imports. You shouldn't cut off your nose to spite your face. This is reality, not a morality play.
The only reason Germany are that dependent is because they turned off their nuclear power plants. It's an unforced error caused by stupidity.
If you don't think funding your enemy isn't a bad move i don't know what to tell you.
I think it proves the opposite: an 81% reduction in a few years is remarkable. Heating and power generation infrastructure is not something you can pivot quickly. These transitions usually take decades.
I think giving your enemy money is beyond stupid.