By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Secret negotiations between Russia and U.S. representatives regarding American acquisition of the damaged Nord Stream pipelines have reportedly been ongoing for weeks, with Richard Grenell allegedly involved. These discussions, viewed by some German officials as a realistic possibility, raise concerns about a potential Trump-Putin deal reviving gas supplies and strengthening Kremlin ties. German officials are actively assessing preventative measures, citing the strategic importance of independence from Russian gas and the pipeline’s lack of certification. Expert warnings highlight the symbolic implications of such a deal, emphasizing that Nord Stream’s reactivation would undermine peace efforts.
Read the original article here
Germany is actively exploring ways to prevent the potential revival of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, even amidst rumors of a US-Russia agreement that could see American investors acquiring the damaged infrastructure. The idea of a deal brokered between Russia and the United States, potentially involving former President Trump, is viewed by German officials as a realistic possibility, spurring a comprehensive evaluation of preventative measures.
This concern stems from the inherent strategic implications of renewed reliance on Russian gas. The significant investment made by Germany in diversifying its energy sources and reducing dependence on Russia, following the initial pipeline’s sabotage and the subsequent war in Ukraine, would be undermined by a Nord Stream 2 resurgence. The considerable shift in German energy policy would be rendered largely ineffective. Simply put, the political ramifications of re-establishing a major energy dependency on Russia, especially given the ongoing conflict, are viewed as unacceptable.
Germany’s geographical position provides a significant advantage in this matter. The pipeline’s termination point lies within Germany’s economic zone, granting the nation significant control over its operation. This control extends beyond simply shutting down the pipeline; it allows for the complete prevention of any gas transit. The physical infrastructure itself is well within German jurisdiction, negating the need for international negotiations or complex diplomatic maneuvers. Active intervention, from measures as simple as refusing to allow gas flow through the pipeline to more forceful methods, are firmly within the realm of possibility.
The bankrupt status of the company overseeing Nord Stream 2 further strengthens Germany’s hand. The financial instability of the pipeline’s operator significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful revival, even with external investment. Furthermore, any attempts to resurrect the pipeline would likely face substantial hurdles, including navigating the legal and logistical challenges associated with a damaged and effectively dormant infrastructure.
Beyond the practical considerations, the political implications are significant. A revival of Nord Stream 2, irrespective of the investors, would be widely seen as a step backward in Germany’s efforts to distance itself from Russian energy influence. The considerable investment and effort made to transition away from Russian gas would appear wasted. Such a move would severely damage Germany’s international credibility and potentially harm its relations with allies who have strongly supported its efforts to reduce energy reliance on Russia.
Furthermore, the potential involvement of figures like Matthias Warnig, a former Stasi agent and close associate of Vladimir Putin, in any negotiations surrounding the pipeline only reinforces German concerns. The perception of continued Russian influence over European energy supplies is a considerable factor in shaping Germany’s response. The presence of individuals associated with the Russian government raises serious questions of transparency and trustworthiness, further incentivizing a hard line stance from Berlin.
Germany’s position appears exceptionally strong. The combination of national jurisdiction over the pipeline, the bankrupt status of the operating company, and the substantial political ramifications of a revival, provides ample opportunities to effectively block any potential agreement between the United States and Russia aiming to restore Nord Stream 2. While the “exploring ways to block” phrasing might suggest hesitancy, the reality suggests a firm resolve to maintain energy independence from Russia, regardless of any external agreements. The sheer practical ease of preventing the pipeline’s reactivation suggests that the current focus is more on maintaining strategic leverage and bolstering its international standing than on any genuine uncertainty over the capabilities to prevent Nord Stream 2’s use.