My five cents in a thread https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/world/europe/navalny-poisoning-merkel-nord-stream.html?referringSource=articleShare @LaurentRuseckas @RugeBoris @v_madalina @agata_loskot @StevenErlanger @MarcoGiuli @BLSchmitt @katyafimava

Germany needs to weigh foreign policy, environmental, economic and legal tradeoffs. NS2 is neither a threat to nor key for energy security! It is an add-on to liquidity and flexibility, to efficiency and less methane leakages. Political considerations can tipp the balance.+

Different trade-offs demand for a normative and interest-based debate. #NordStream2 has high symbolic weight. Stopping it would mean a fundamental paradigm shift. GerGov does not lightheartedly mix economic and security policies. This is why NS 2 was treated in a silo+,

Silo Approach was also based on energy-market and legal assessments. Yet, in mere game-theory terms it can also be seen as Germany keeping an instrument of foreign policy leverage vis-a-vis Russia in its own hands.+

German government has always pursued a dual strategy of containment and cooperation with Russia, being instrumental for keeping the EU’s consensus on Russia sanctions. NS2 has been part of the cooperation story. The fundament for cooperation has suffered another serious blow+

Trade offs not to be neglected. First hit are European companies and consumer pockets. There maybe a liability issue @KatjaYafimava. Not to mention the fact that we import fossil energy from many authoritarian countries. So transform the energy system and reap the co-benefits+

In response to the Kremlin, it is time to partner within the EU. The German government has let opportunities pass by to shift (full) political and regulatory competences to Brussels at least two times. This is the point in time to act and weigh jointly. US sanctions complicate.