The recent report by the Financial Times suggesting that U.S. investors might back the launch of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline has stirred quite a debate. However, the narrative presented by foreign media seems to miss the mark, focusing more on sensationalism than on the underlying dynamics. Contrary to the prevailing portrayal, it’s unlikely that the United States initiated these discussions. Instead, the real story appears to involve a strategic move by the pipeline’s operator, Nord Stream 2 AG, to gauge both American and European reactions.
The speculation that American investors might support the launch of Nord Stream 2 could very well be a test balloon floated by Nord Stream 2 AG itself. The operator’s intent might be to assess the feasibility of reviving the project by exploring potential cracks in the Western front on sanctions and public sentiment. This move would not only measure U.S. receptivity but also serve as a litmus test for Europe’s stance amid its ongoing energy crisis.
While U.S. interests in the Nord Stream pipelines are undeniable, they are not what the media narratives suggest. The idea that the U.S. might support the launch of Nord Stream 2 contradicts Washington's broader strategic objectives. The United States has been aggressively promoting its liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Europe, aiming to edge out Russian gas and secure a larger share of the European energy market. Encouraging the flow of Russian gas through Nord Stream 2 would be a counterproductive move, undermining American LNG exports that are set to double in the next three years.
The U.S. is keen on eliminating any competitors, not only Russia but also other suppliers like Norway, Azerbaijan, Algeria, and others. This strategy is evident in Washington’s consistent efforts to tighten its grip on the European energy market by reducing dependency on alternative suppliers and expanding its LNG exports.
For the U.S., the real value in the Nord Stream debate lies in its leverage over Russia. The Trump administration, in particular, might consider using the prospect of relaunching Nord Stream 1-or even discussing Nord Stream 2-as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Moscow. This tactic would aim to test the Kremlin’s sensitivity to sanctions and its willingness to make concessions, rather than genuinely pushing for the pipeline’s operationalization.
Photo credit: Mikhail Klimentyev / AFP - Getty Images
It’s also worth considering the commercial interests at play. Some American businessmen might indeed lobby for the relaunch of Nord Stream pipelines, but their motives would be driven purely by profit, not by any alignment with U.S. foreign policy. Reports of American investors seeking exemptions from sanctions to participate in Nord Stream 2’s bankruptcy proceedings reflect this opportunistic streak. Their goal is clear: to acquire assets at a discount, betting on a future normalization of relations between Russia and the West.
However, this speculative interest should not be conflated with official U.S. policy. The Biden administration, much like its predecessor, has made it clear that any easing of sanctions, especially on the Russian energy sector, is off the table unless there is a significant shift in Moscow’s stance on Ukraine.
From a strategic standpoint, the U.S. has every reason to oppose the launch of Nord Stream 2. Allowing additional volumes of Russian gas to flow into Europe would not only boost Gazprom's influence but also depress market prices, affecting American LNG competitiveness. The intact string of Nord Stream 2 has a potential capacity of 27.5 billion cubic meters annually-equivalent to the output of several mid-sized American LNG terminals. Supporting such a competitor would be economic folly for Washington.
Photo credit: CNN
Moreover, the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG and its CEO, Matthias Warnig, seems implausible under current circumstances. The Biden administration’s stance is clear: sanctions on Russia’s energy sector will be among the last to be lifted, if at all. Even Trump’s rhetoric, favoring tariffs over sanctions, is unlikely to translate into any meaningful reprieve for Nord Stream 2, given his focus on expanding American energy exports.
In reality, the initiative to revive Nord Stream 2 is likely coming from Moscow, not Washington. The Russian side's interest is evident-they stand to gain significantly by shifting the European energy balance in their favor. But to interpret American investors' interest as an official U.S. endorsement of Nord Stream 2 is to fundamentally misunderstand the situation. For the United States, the priority is clear: to maintain dominance in the European gas market by eliminating competitors, not enabling them.
As tempting as it might be for media outlets to paint a picture of secretive deals and American plots, the facts suggest otherwise. The Nord Stream 2 saga is less about U.S. support and more about Russian maneuvering and the commercial interests of opportunistic investors.
If anything, the story of Nord Stream 2 serves as a reminder that in geopolitics, the real motives are often buried beneath layers of rhetoric and speculation. For now, the chances of seeing Russian gas flow through Nord Stream 2 remain slim-unless there is a seismic shift in U.S. policy, which seems highly improbable.
