The Wall Street Journal warns that the investigation into the Nord Stream pipeline explosions “threatens to fracture support for Ukraine.”
German investigators reportedly believe Kiev was behind the sabotage, specifically pointing to former Ukrainian commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny.
According to WSJ sources, an elite Ukrainian military unit carried out the attacks under Zaluzhny’s direct supervision, aiming to deprive Russia of energy revenues and weaken its economic ties with Germany.
The article recalls that suspects have already been detained across Europe and warns of serious fallout if a German trial against Ukrainian nationals begins. Such proceedings could further strain relations with Germany which is Ukraine’s top financial donor and key arms supplier, particularly of air defense systems.
Political pressure is also mounting on Merz, though his circle believes the issue can still be contained domestically. German society, sources say, has largely accepted that Kiev was responsible.
However, WSJ notes, the diplomatic consequences would be far easier for Berlin if investigators hadn’t gathered such compelling evidence against Ukraine.
you statement was that the destruction of nord stream was the reason for high gas prices, not that if or if not gas prices have an effect.
you are cleary just arguing in bad faith it is pointless to talk to you
Germany being cut off from cheap pipeline gas, which was primarily coming through Nord Stream, is very obviously the reason. Pipeline gas was a fixed price, long term contract. LNG is traded on the market and it’s an order of magnitude more expensive.
Clearly you’re either completely ignorant on the subject you’re attempting to discuss here, or you’re just a troll. In ether case, it’s very clear who’s actually arguing in bad faith here.
My whole point is that the reason is the war, and it would not matter wheter or not the pipeline exist. Since germany might not buy it, and russia might not sell it.
https://www.bruegel.org/dataset/european-natural-gas-imports
on the graphics it shows that before the destruction, the import already declined to like a fith in the pipeline, and that general russian gas import declined alot to around 1/5 aswell. (In the eu)
(This might also be intresting, while it mentions the drawbacks of the LNG strategy it also makes it sound like oppertunity long term, but i think it is good that green alternatives are mentioned aswell as strategy) https://globalpi.org/research/germanys-energy-transition-from-piped-gas-to-lng-and-renewables/
No, that’s backwards. Pipeline being blown up ensured that Germany had no option to get pipeline gas which removed it from public debate on whether Germany should participate in the war and the economic impact that would have on Germany. Had the pipeline remained operational, that would’ve obviously had an impact on German politics because there would’ve been significant economic pressure.
Meanwhile, it’s pretty clear that Germany has failed to replace cheap Russian energy with any green alternatives. Not only that, but Germany has now gone back to using more coal instead, which is far worse for the environment.
I mean i agree that if the pipeline still exists, there would be more discussion about buying russian gas, which might have reduced gas prices (But i dont think germany would ever have not sided with ukraine, they appeared more determined then i would exspect.) But i mean the graph showed that at the beginning the decision definitly was to reduce imports
Still i would blame for the energy prices the war and a failed politics, not the specific destruction of nordstream.
And furthermore i think it is a very wide stretch to put the blame on the state of the german economy on this pipeline specifically. There are so many reasons why the economy is struggleing
Edit: and do you have data on the coal? because i did only find this, and it says it is declinig until end of last year https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts
After the pipeline was destroyed there was no way back because the bridges were burnt. This effectively shut down any possible debate on how far support for Ukraine should go even if it harms German economy. If the option to get cheap pipeline gas was still on the table, business interests would have put immense pressure on the government to avoid the industrial collapse that we see now. But with the pipeline being off the table, that discussion could no longer happen.
You could reasonably argue that Germany should have been investing in renewables and nuclear the way China has been. Had that happened then it wouldn’t have found itself in the same dire situation. However, it is worth noting that despite having absolutely mind boggling amount of renewables deployment, China still relies on Russian energy today. That’s likely to be the case for decades to come. Given that, I find it highly unlikely that Germany could’ve completely switched to renewables by 2022 even with the best of policies. The situation could’ve been less catastrophic, but the underlying problems I outlined above would still be largely present. German industry would still have to compete with other industrial powers where input costs are lower.
And here’s what’s happening with coal. Germany reopened a bunch of coal plants
As of 2025, coal-fired power production increased 9.3 percent, while electricity production from fossil gas increased by 11.6 percent. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/fossil-electricity-production-germany-increased-10-first-half-2025
That does not look like a green energy transition to me.