By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is pressing for the resumption of Russian natural gas exports to Europe through pipelines crossing Ukraine as part of negotiations aimed at securing an energy ceasefire before winter, according to a report published Monday, Nov. 2, by The Wall Street Journal.
The proposal, discussed by U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner during visits to Moscow and Kyiv in September, would allow Russian gas to return to European markets through an American intermediary, potentially generating revenue for Ukraine while offering Moscow an economic incentive to suspend attacks on energy infrastructure.
According to The Wall Street Journal, American, European and Ukrainian officials familiar with the discussions said the arrangement could help ease Europe’s elevated energy prices while creating commercial opportunities for U.S. investors.
White House officials also proposed placing Russian gas-sale proceeds into an escrow account in a third country, restricting Moscow’s access to the money to prevent it from financing military operations in Ukraine.
The initiative faces substantial obstacles, including opposition from European governments that have spent years reducing their dependence on Russian energy following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Under current European Union legislation, member countries must phase out Russian natural gas purchases by the end of 2027. European leaders have repeatedly argued that restoring large-scale imports would undermine the continent’s energy security and renew Russia’s leverage over European economies.
The proposal would therefore require extensive political negotiations and a legally workable arrangement addressing European restrictions.
U.S. negotiators view renewed access to European gas markets as a potential incentive for Russian President Vladimir Putin to accept an agreement limiting attacks on Ukrainian energy facilities.
Ukraine would receive transit fees for allowing Russian gas to pass through its territory, providing revenue to a country whose infrastructure and economy have suffered extensive damage during the war.
The plan would use the Soviet-era pipeline network connecting Russia’s Urengoy gas fields in Siberia to European markets through Ukraine, Slovakia and other countries.
That infrastructure remained operational during much of the war, with limited Russian gas continuing to cross Ukraine until the transit agreement expired at the end of December 2024.
Ukraine declined to renew the arrangement, ending deliveries through its territory in January 2025.
Unlike the Nord Stream pipelines beneath the Baltic Sea, which suffered extensive damage in September 2022 explosions, the Ukrainian transit network could potentially resume operations relatively quickly if the parties reached an agreement.
However, the availability of pipeline infrastructure does not resolve the diplomatic, regulatory and commercial barriers to restarting deliveries.
The Trump administration’s interest in the proposal has intensified as Ukraine and Russia continue attacking each other’s energy facilities.
According to Bloomberg’s account of the negotiations, the administration temporarily set aside the gas initiative in October after Kyiv suspended strikes against Russian oil refineries under pressure from President Donald Trump.
Ukraine reportedly halted those operations for nearly two weeks while Russia continued attacking Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
Kyiv resumed strikes against Russian refineries Friday, Oct. 30, carrying out attacks against three major facilities over the following three days.
The renewed military operations have increased the urgency of negotiations concerning a broader ceasefire protecting energy infrastructure.
The United States, Russia and Ukraine are expected to participate in three-way peace discussions in Abu Dhabi in mid-November.
American negotiators are seeking to establish terms that could halt attacks on power stations, refineries and other facilities essential to civilian life and economic activity.
Russia has so far rejected American efforts to reach an energy ceasefire.
The potential consequences of continued attacks are particularly serious for Ukraine as colder weather approaches.
Russian missile and drone strikes have repeatedly damaged Ukrainian electrical generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure, forcing authorities to impose emergency power restrictions.
Additional attacks during winter could leave large numbers of civilians without reliable electricity or heating.
European diplomats have warned that widespread outages could create humanitarian emergencies in major Ukrainian cities and potentially prompt another wave of refugees seeking shelter elsewhere in Europe.
The situation is complicated by shortages of air defense interceptors, including missiles used by American-made Patriot systems.
The ongoing conflict involving Iran has increased global demand for air defense equipment, limiting the availability of some weapons Ukraine relies upon to protect its cities and infrastructure.
Washington’s proposed gas arrangement would attempt to connect the protection of Ukrainian energy facilities with economic incentives for Moscow.
But European officials remain skeptical that increased Russian energy revenue could be adequately separated from the Kremlin’s broader finances.
Although an escrow account could restrict direct access to proceeds from specific transactions, critics question whether the arrangement would prevent Russia from benefiting economically from renewed exports.
European governments also fear that restoring the pipeline relationship could create renewed dependence on Moscow.
Before the invasion, Russia supplied approximately 45% of Europe’s natural gas.
That share has fallen to roughly 11%, according to figures cited by The Wall Street Journal.
Europe has replaced much of its former Russian supply through increased imports of liquefied natural gas, alternative pipeline suppliers and measures intended to reduce consumption.
American LNG now accounts for approximately 30% of European gas consumption.
Some Russian gas continues entering Europe through LNG shipments and the TurkStream pipeline network, which supplies countries including Hungary and Slovakia.
The proposed Ukrainian route would represent a significant expansion of Russia’s remaining access to European markets.
European resistance to the plan has been particularly strong among governments that view reducing dependence on Russian energy as a central element of their national security strategies.
According to Hromadske’s reporting on the proposal, a senior Norwegian official said reopening Russian gas purchases would contradict Europe’s broader strategic objectives.
Another European official compared the proposed concessions to the 1938 Munich Agreement, reflecting concerns that economic arrangements could weaken opposition to Russian territorial aggression.
Those objections illustrate the political difficulty facing American negotiators, even if the proposal could reduce energy prices.
Europe is entering the winter heating season with natural gas reserves below their average seasonal level.
Underground storage facilities are approximately 75% full, below the nine-year average, according to European energy regulators cited by The Wall Street Journal.
Prices have also increased as the war involving Iran disrupts global oil and gas markets.
Qatari liquefied natural gas shipments have faced restrictions in the Persian Gulf, contributing to tighter global supplies and additional pressure on European buyers.
The European Union estimates that the conflict with Iran has added approximately 100 billion euros, or $112 billion, to the continent’s energy costs.
These conditions have increased interest in potential measures to lower natural gas prices before winter.
U.S. officials believe that economic pressures could eventually encourage some European governments to reconsider their objections to Russian gas, particularly if Ukraine supports the proposal as part of a broader peace arrangement.
An American official told The Wall Street Journal that negotiators had discussed various economic arrangements during negotiations and that any final agreement would be incorporated into a comprehensive peace settlement.
The Kremlin, however, has downplayed the prospect of quickly restoring gas flows.
According to The Moscow Times, Russian officials indicated Monday that an immediate restart of deliveries through Ukraine was unlikely.
The response underscores the gap between Washington’s proposal and a negotiated agreement acceptable to Moscow, Kyiv and European governments.
The Trump administration has also reportedly explored whether damaged Nord Stream infrastructure could eventually return to service as part of a broader settlement involving Russia and Europe.
That possibility faces even greater technical obstacles because the pipelines were damaged by underwater explosions and would require extensive repairs and approvals before operations could resume.
The Ukrainian pipeline system presents fewer immediate engineering challenges, making it the more practical option under discussion.
Nevertheless, the proposal raises questions about the relationship between economic incentives, sanctions enforcement and long-term European security.
The administration’s approach would seek to use access to energy markets as leverage for reducing military attacks, while opponents argue that restoring Russian exports risks undermining years of efforts to reduce Moscow’s economic influence.
For Ukraine, the potential financial benefits of transit fees must be weighed against the security implications of renewed Russian energy sales and the reliability of any ceasefire agreement.
The proposal also creates a possible commercial role for American companies, which could serve as intermediaries in gas transactions.
Any such arrangement would require further examination of applicable sanctions, European import restrictions, payment procedures and contractual responsibilities.
No final agreement has been announced, and there is no indication that Russian gas shipments through Ukraine have resumed.
As U.S., Russian and Ukrainian officials prepare for additional negotiations in Abu Dhabi, Washington’s initiative remains one of several proposals intended to reduce attacks on energy infrastructure and create conditions for a broader settlement.
Its outcome will depend on whether Russia accepts meaningful restrictions on military strikes, Ukraine agrees to reopen its transit network and European governments are willing to authorize renewed purchases of Russian natural gas.
For now, the administration’s proposal highlights the increasingly important role of energy supplies, winter heating costs and infrastructure security in diplomatic efforts to negotiate an end to the war.
Original article
Comments