US Envoys Want Russian Gas Flowing to Europe Through Ukraine Again—Can Energy Trade Become a Peace Deal?
US envoys are reportedly exploring renewed Russian gas sales through Ukraine as part of a wider energy ceasefire and peace proposal. EU leaders remain opposed and EU law requires a phase-out by 2027.
US envoys are reportedly exploring a plan to restart Russian natural-gas sales to Europe through pipelines crossing Ukraine, potentially as part of an energy ceasefire and a broader peace agreement. The proposal could offer Europe lower prices, give Ukraine transit revenue and create an economic incentive for Moscow to negotiate. It could also restore revenue to a government still waging war and undermine Europe's attempt to end dependence on Russian energy. No deal has been reached, and major European governments oppose the idea.
How the proposal might work
The Wall Street Journal reports that US negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff have discussed a framework in which Russian gas would move through Ukraine, potentially via a US intermediary. One reported idea would place proceeds into escrow so that the Kremlin could not immediately use the money to finance its military. The proposal would rely on Ukraine's Soviet-era pipeline network, which could resume deliveries more quickly than the damaged Nord Stream lines.
Washington views renewed exports as leverage: if Europe resumes buying gas, Moscow could have a financial reason to accept an energy ceasefire or a wider settlement. Ukraine could collect transit fees. European consumers facing high energy prices might benefit from greater supply. But an escrow arrangement would not erase the political symbolism or strategic consequences of paying Russia while the war continues.
Why Europe is resisting
EU law requires Russian gas imports to be phased out by the end of 2027. European leaders have described Russian dependence as a strategic vulnerability, especially after Moscow used energy supply as leverage before and during the invasion. Some officials have argued that the phase-out should be permanent, even if a peace agreement is reached. The plan would therefore face not only market questions, but legal, regulatory and political resistance across Europe.
Russia currently supplies a much smaller share of Europe's gas than before the invasion, while US liquefied natural gas and other suppliers have filled part of the gap. Yet the Iran war has disrupted energy markets and Qatar LNG flows, while European storage levels have been unusually low for the season. Those pressures could make the proposal more tempting to some governments, even if others see it as appeasement.
Could energy trade buy peace?
Supporters could argue that carefully monitored revenue and resumed transit create incentives for de-escalation. Critics may say the plan rewards aggression, weakens sanctions and gives Moscow time to rebuild. Escrow also raises practical questions: who controls the account, what conditions release funds and what happens if either side violates the ceasefire?
Can a pipeline deal create a durable incentive to stop attacks, or would it become another source of Russian leverage? Would Ukraine's transit revenue justify renewed Russian gas purchases? And should Europe prioritize cheaper winter energy or the long-term security goal of ending dependence? The proposal is a negotiating idea—not yet a policy shift—and its terms would determine whether it is a bridge to peace or a return to a risky status quo.
Ukraine's role cannot be treated as a pipeline detail
Any plan would require Kyiv's consent to transit Russian gas across infrastructure that has itself been targeted during the war. The proposal could give Ukraine income and a role in monitoring, but it could also make its infrastructure a bargaining chip between Washington and Moscow. The safety of workers, contract enforcement and compensation for future damage would need to be addressed.
Europe's energy policy has shifted toward diversification precisely because supply dependence can create political leverage. Reopening Russian flows might lower prices in the short term while weakening incentives to develop renewables, storage and alternative suppliers. Is there a credible escrow system that could prevent Russia from using proceeds for war? Would European courts and regulators permit the contracts? The peace proposal cannot be assessed without answers on ownership, oversight and exit conditions.