Will Trump and Putin Reopen Nord Stream?
Maurizio Blondet – October 10, 2026 @Geopolitik_2030
Ending the war in Ukraine in exchange for an energy hub: – The “territory for security” formula: Trump has promoted a scheme in which Ukraine would cede Donbass territory in exchange for security guarantees from the US and Europe. Reports indicate that Washington has accepted the Russian sequence: Ukraine cedes territory first and receives guarantees later. Russia already controls nearly 95% of the Donbass and demands a Ukrainian withdrawal from the remainder.
US energy interests regarding Russian gas: Talks have been reported between Jared Kushner and Kirill Dmitriev regarding American investors acquiring co-ownership stakes in the Nord Stream pipelines, allowing US capital to profit from the flow of Russian gas to Europe once the war ends.
Lavrov has stated that Washington seeks to control the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine in order to dominate the European energy market. The logic is for the US to secure a central role as an intermediary and shareholder, profiting from the resale of Russian gas. “Energy hub” · A US consortium, backed by funds from Qatar and the UAE, acquires stakes in the Nord Stream pipeline, transit operations through Ukraine, or Lukoil assets. The White House seeks agreements that benefit American companies and taxpayers, under the supervision of the DFC and the Treasury. ·
Russia retains ownership of its resources, but the US controls marketing to Europe, acting as an intermediary that purchases Russian gas and resells it to Europe at very high prices. · Ukraine secures security guarantees—though not NATO membership—and reconstruction funding. In exchange, it cedes territories that Russia already almost fully controls. ·
Europe remains trapped in a new dependency—this time on Russian gas managed by the US—a setup Washington views as a way to maintain influence over Brussels without Moscow exercising direct control.
For the US: direct economic gains from energy intermediation, geopolitical control over European supplies, and a “peace dividend” allowing it to cut military spending in Ukraine and redirect resources to Asia.
For Russia: an end to sanctions, recognition of its annexations, and a return to the European market via US mediation—offering a way to bypass some isolation and a trade relationship that ensures revenue without relying solely on China.
For Europe: short-term energy stability, albeit at the cost of accepting a scheme that creates dependency on intermediaries and contradicts its stated goal of weaning itself off Russian gas.
Obstacles: The EU has banned operations involving Nord Stream and approved phasing out Russian gas;
Germany opposes reopening the pipelines. * – *in Germany the pro Russia and pro Trump Party AfD is though at 30% Nationally and 40% to 44% in the East, at 28% int he rich western industrialised NRW, which means next German Government will be pro Russian gas & pro USA, the actual German Chancellor cannot win next election, his party went below the threshold of 5% to enter Parlaiment alreadyin one State (Meckelnburg Vorpommern), so “Germany opposes reopening the pipline” is a statement which si true today, won’t be true anymore in a couple of months.
Ukraine fears ceding territory without genuine guarantees, while Russia rejects any significant guarantees that would limit its future actions. Any agreement involving territorial concessions is viewed as “state suicide” and would not stop Russia in the long run.
Poland and the Baltic states reject any energy ties with Russia, while Germany faces internal divisions.
“Economic Yalta”: In political theory, this model resembles an economic version of the Yalta Conference, where the victorious powers—the US and Russia—redraw the map and spheres of influence, leaving Ukraine and Europe as mere spectators to the deal. A senior European official has already described Trump’s energy plan as the “economic Yalta of 1945.”
If this scenario were to materialize, the end of the war would not be a just peace but a transfer of power in which the US emerges as the primary economic beneficiary, Russia consolidates its territorial gains, and Europe remains trapped in a new energy dependency brokered by Washington. Its actual feasibility depends on overcoming the legal, political, and trust-related obstacles that currently make it unlikely—though not impossible—amidst mounting pressure to end the conflict.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
P.S.
Elon Musk and AI Lords agree with Trump and Putin.
What do you want more?
Ah yeah, your Sudnay Roastbeef.
Happy Sunday