Denmark permits Gazprom's Swiss subsidiary to preserve Nord Stream 2
The Danish Energy Agency has granted permission to Nord Stream 2 AG, Gazprom's Swiss subsidiary, to carry out preservation work on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea, which was damaged by a series of explosions in 2022.
Source: European Pravda with reference to the Danish Energy Agency
Details: The planned work involves installing specially manufactured plugs at each of the open pipe ends to prevent further gas blowout and injection of oxygenated seawater.
The licence is conditional upon ensuring the pipeline's safe maintenance. Among other obligations, the company must submit an annual plan for the pipeline facilities, enabling the Danish Energy Agency to monitor its activities continuously.
Nord Stream 2 AG intends to perform the preservation work in the second or third quarter of 2025, expecting the process to take 2–3 weeks.
Background:
The Russian gas pipeline Nord Stream 2, in which Russia has invested billions of euros, has not been put into operation since its completion – first because of legal problems, and then because of the outbreak of Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine.
In September 2022, one of the branches of NS2 and both branches of Nord Stream 1 were damaged by explosions, and the investigation is still ongoing.
In 2024, Nord Stream 2 AG lost a lawsuit in the EU Court of Justice over a directive that extends the rules of the internal natural gas market to gas pipelines from third countries.
On 27 January 2025, Polish President Andrzej Duda stated that gas flows from Russia to Western Europe should never be restored, even if Russia and Ukraine reach a peace agreement.
Support UP or become our patron!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Dollar steady as investors monitor Israel-Iran conflict ahead of Federal Reserve
The U.S. dollar held on to gains against major currencies early on Wednesday, buoyed by demand for safety as conflict between Israel and Iran kept investors on edge ahead of a Federal Reserve decision on interest rates later in the day. Israel has pounded Iran over the past six days to halt its nuclear activity and has asserted the need for a change of government in the Islamic republic. The U.S. military is also bolstering its presence in the region, Reuters reported, sparking speculation of U.S. intervention which investors fear could spread into a region replete with energy resources, supply chains and infrastructure. Against this backdrop, the dollar has found support as a safe bid, firming roughly 1% against the Japanese yen, Swiss franc and euro since Thursday, helping it shave declines from earlier in the year. The greenback had lost more than 8% earlier in the year due to eroding confidence in the U.S. economy amid trade policies. "The dollar is still a safe haven because of its depth and liquidity so, yes the structural forces are diluting the dollar safe-haven activities, but they're not eroding them completely," said currency strategist Rodrigo Catril at National Australia Bank. "But in a scenario of big risk aversion, the dollar will still gain support but maybe not to the same it has managed in the past." The dollar firmed as much as 0.1% against the yen on Wednesday to touch a one-week top. It was last at 145.21 yen. In early Asia trade, the Swiss franc was flat at 0.816 a dollar and the euro was up 0.1% at $1.149. A broader index tracking the greenback against six other currencies was little changed after a 0.6% jump in the previous trading session. A jump in crude oil prices to about $75 a barrel has also weighed on the euro and yen given the European Union and Japan are primarily net crude importers as opposed to the U.S. which is a net exporter. Investors' next point of focus is the Fed which is set to decide whether to change its interest rates. Recent data showed the U.S. economy was slowing amid President Donald Trump's erratic policymaking style, and higher crude prices due to conflict in the Middle East is also complicating the Fed's task. Traders expect the central bank to leave borrowing costs unchanged and will be keen to hear the Fed's outlook for interest rates this year and the overall health of the economy. "In the very near term a cautious message will probably be reemphasised, but what will be interesting is how they interpret and navigate the new forecast, which we think will show a lower growth path alongside potentially stickier inflation," Catril said. The Bank of Japan on Tuesday was first among major central banks to announce a rate decision in the latest round of policy meetings worldwide. It left rates unchanged and said it will decelerate its bond tapering plan to calm a recent selloff in bond markets. Central bank verdicts are also due from Britain, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden later in the week. Signs that trade uncertainty was damaging countries across the globe were evident as Japan reported a decline in exports in May for the first time in eight months. An area of frustration for investors was a Group of Seven meeting in Canada yielding little on the tariff front, ahead of Trump's early July deadline for additional levies. Trump said Japan was being "tough" in trade talks and the European Union had not yet offered what he considered a fair deal.
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
Tucker Carlson Confronts Ted Cruz on Iran: 'You Don't Know Anything'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Conservative commentator and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson got into a heated back-and-forth this week with Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas about the latter's views on Iran. Carlson told Cruz he doesn't know "anything about the country" whose government he seeks to "topple," in an interview set to air on Wednesday. The Context Israel ignited a new war with Iran on Thursday when it fired a series of strikes that decimated Tehran's military chain-of-command and destroyed critical nuclear infrastructure. Iran retaliated by launching missiles of its own and the conflict has rapidly escalated in the days since, with President Donald Trump said to be weighing a U.S. strike against Iran's underground nuclear stronghold in Fordow. The conflict—and America's role in it—has splintered Trump's MAGA coalition, as the movement's isolationist wing stands staunchly opposed to hawkish pro-Trump lawmakers who favor a more hard-line stance toward Iran. That split has also put Carlson—a longtime anti-interventionist who's been railing against "warmongers" in his party—directly at odds with Cruz, who has cheered Israel's strikes against Iran and said there's "no reason" a "theocratic lunatic" like Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei should possess nuclear weapons. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson is shown gesturing during an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin in Moscow on February 6, 2024. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson is shown gesturing during an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin in Moscow on February 6, 2024. Gavriil Grigorov, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP What To Know Cruz appeared on Carlson's show on X, formerly Twitter, for the interview. The ex-Fox News staple posted a short clip of the conversation to X on Tuesday night, a day before it's set to air in full, in which he tore into the Texas Republican over his stance on the Iran conflict. "How many people live in Iran, by the way?" Carlson asked Cruz. "I don't know the population," Cruz replied. "At all?" Carlson said. "No, I don't know the population," Cruz repeated. Carlson continued pressing the GOP lawmaker: "You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple?" Cruz then turned the question back on Carlson, saying, "How many people live in Iran?" "92 million," Carlson replied, adding: "How could you not know that?" "I don't sit around memorizing population tables," Cruz said. "Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government," Carlson said. Cruz fired back at the former prime-time host, asking why it's "relevant whether it's 90 million or 80 million or 100 million? Why is that relevant?" "Well, because if you don't know anything of the country—" Carlson began, before Cruz cut him off. "I didn't say I don't know anything about the country," the Texas senator said. "OK, what's the ethnic mix of Iran?" Carlson said. Cruz said that Iranians are "Persian and predominantly Shia," prompting Carlson to ask him the percentage breakdown. "OK, this is cute," Cruz said, cutting Carlson off again. But Carlson continued: "You don't know anything about Iran—" Cruz then appeared to mock Carlson: "I am not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran—" "You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of the government and you don't know anything about the country," Carlson interjected. Cruz shot back, saying Carlson doesn't "know anything about the country. You're the one who claims they're not trying to murder Donald Trump." Carlson said he never made that claim and went on to say he doesn't believe Cruz thinks Iran is trying to assassinate Trump—and that if Cruz did believe it, he would have been calling for the U.S. to carry out military strikes against Iran in retaliation. "If you really believed that—" Carlson began, but Cruz interjected, saying, "We are carrying out military strikes today." "You said Israel was," Carlson said, referring to Israel's ongoing military campaign against Iran, which has decimated Iran's military and intelligence chain-of-command, destroyed nuclear infrastructure and killed key nuclear scientists. "Right," Cruz said. "With our help. I said 'we.' Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them." Carlson latched onto Cruz's comments, pointing out that the National Security Council's spokesperson denied that the U.S. is taking an active part in Israel's attack on Iran. "We're not bombing them," Cruz said of Iran. "Israel's bombing them." "You just said 'we' were," Carlson pressed. "We are supporting Israel as they're—" Cruz said, before Carlson cut in: "This is high stakes. You're a senator. If you're saying the United States government is at war with Iran right now, people are listening." Ted Cruz on Iran. Full interview tomorrow. — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) June 18, 2025 Cruz is among several lawmakers, both Republican and Democratic, who support the U.S. taking on a more prominent role in the battle. South Carolina GOP Senator Lindsey Graham said this week that Trump should go "all in" on Iran and Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania said America's "commitment to Israel must be absolute." Democratic Representative Greg Landsman of Ohio also lamented that "diplomacy has been given every opportunity" and "force is now necessary." On the other side are Carlson and other right-wing figures like former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. "You think we're going to join in the offensive combat [operation]?" Bannon asked Carlson on his War Room podcast earlier this week. "Yes, I do," Carlson said. "I do." "Well, we have to—we can't—we have to stop that," Bannon said. Greene, meanwhile, scorned people in the MAGA movement who are "slobbering" for the U.S. to get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. What Happens Next The U.S. has taken a defensive posture in the conflict at the moment, intercepting some of the missiles Iran has fired toward Israel. But Israeli officials have called for the U.S. to play a larger role, including by giving Israel bunker-busting munitions, without which Israel cannot destroy Iran's main nuclear facility in Fordow. Axios reported that Trump is seriously considering launching a strike on the facility and two that Israeli officials told the news outlet that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes the U.S. will join the war in the coming days.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Are Lindsey Graham's contortions about to prod Trump into Russia sanctions?
Has Lindsey Graham been playing the long game with Donald Trump? Graham, who has calibrated his pro-Ukraine support since the inauguration to stay in the US president's orbit, has said he expects this week that the Senate will begin moving his Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, a bill that he says would impose 'bone-breaking sanctions' on Vladimir Putin and a 500% tariff on goods imported from countries that buy Russian oil and other goods, potentially targeting China and India. The fate of the bill still depends on whether Trump gives the go-ahead, according to congressional insiders. But Trump's growing frustration with Putin has emboldened some in the GOP to begin speaking out on the conflict again – with the notoriously flexible Graham leading the charge for tougher sanctions on the Kremlin. Is it nearing a critical mass moment in Congress – a body that has largely abdicated its role in foreign policy since Trump's inauguration? 'I hope so, because it is the right action to take,' said Don Bacon, a Republican House representative who has criticised the White House on its Ukraine policy. 'But it is risky to speak for others. I know where I stand. The Senate has an overwhelming majority in support of sanctions and we should move out. It is in our national security interests that Russia fails here and it should be obvious that Putin doesn't want peace, but wants dominance over Ukraine.' Trump's shift on Russia has come as his efforts to negotiate a speedy ceasefire have failed. Talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul on Monday led to little progress, and continued outreach from his personal envoy, Steve Witkoff, to the Kremlin has not brought concessions from Vladimir Putin. A leaked draft of Russia's demands at the negotiations depicted a capitulation: withdrawal from Ukrainian territory claimed by Russia, no Nato membership for Ukraine, caps on the size of the country's military. Yet it has specifically been the bombardment of cities that has upset Trump, proving once again that Putin has managed to be his own worst enemy when it comes to negotiations. 'I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him,' Trump said last week, repeating part of the comments in public. 'He has gone absolutely CRAZY! He is needlessly killing a lot of people, and I'm not just talking about soldiers. Missiles and drones are being shot into Cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.' As the White House looks for means to increase pressure on Russia and its enablers like China, the bill backed by Graham and the Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal has become a convenient tool to do just that. One person in GOP circles said that the White House was considering letting Republicans 'vote their conscience' – in effect allowing Congress to support the bill without facing blowback from the Trump administration. But that would involve a final decision by the White House, and Trump has still not openly backed new sanctions as more than just a contingency. 'Despite support of 82 or so senators, the bill can't move without support in the House, and the speaker of the House won't move it without the president's support,' said Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute. 'And it's not clear the president has really decided Putin's the impediment to a ceasefire. Additionally, the Senate will be consumed with passing the reconciliation bill for the next few weeks.' But as of Tuesday, the leadership appeared ready to move forward. The weather vane for Trump's gusty foreign policy on Ukraine has been Graham, a veteran political survivor who has built a strong relationship with the president through relentless flattery and has tailored his views to match Trump's when convenient. On Ukraine, he has been so bendable that he could not be broken. 'They play a very careful game because they don't want to upset their relationship with the big guy,' said one person knowledgable about discussions among congressional Republicans. 'At the same time, I do think his heart and his head is in the right place. Just really not quite his own courage.' Graham's interventions have been meaningful. He was instrumental in pushing the minerals deal that Ukraine signed with the US as a way to get Trump's buy-in for its defense. Over a game of golf, he pitched Trump on the 'trillions' in mineral wealth in Ukraine and later showed him a map (Trump said he wanted 'half' according to one account). At the same time, he publicly fumed about Volodymyr Zelenskyy following the disastrous White House meeting of late February when Trump and JD Vance argued with the wartime leader. 'I don't know if we can ever do business with Zelenskyy again,' Graham said, also suggesting that the Ukrainian leader should resign. (Zelenskyy shot back later that he was ready to offer him citizenship if he wanted to discuss who should lead Ukraine). Graham's latitude has stunned some of his former colleagues. A former colleague who had worked with Graham on Ukraine policy said that his remarks about Zelenskyy had given him 'whiplash'. Asked if Graham had a coherent strategy to influence Trump, the person said: 'Graham's strategy is to put Graham first.' 'I think that he understands the big game,' said another person familiar with discussions over the bill. 'He would like the policy to be sound, which means [putting sanctions] on the Kremlin. But he values his relationship with the president and that that trumps the first calculation. So if he really feels the president's against, he's not going to go for it.' Now, with Trump signaling greater readiness for sanctions, Graham has traveled to Kyiv to meet with Zelenskyy (all smiles) and to Brussels, where he and the EU president, Ursula von der Leyen, discussed potential EU and US sanctions packages to turn up the pressure on Moscow. 'Senator Graham deserves a lot of credit for making the case for tougher pressure on the Kremlin,' said John Hardie, the Russia program deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a conservative thinktank. 'Carrots clearly haven't worked, so it's time to start using some sticks, including by going after Russia's oil revenue. This economic pressure should be paired with sustained military assistance for Ukraine.' Hardie and others noted that Trump could increase pressure on Russia without the Senate bill. 'If President Trump were to decide to go the pressure route, he already has the tools at his disposal to do so,' said Hardie. 'For example, he could immediately designate the rest of Russia's shadow fleet and other non-western entities facilitating Russian oil exports and could join with G7 partners in lowering the G7 oil price cap.' And even if the sanctions are passed, they will ultimately rely on Trump's decision to enforce them. 'The Senate is prepared either way,' Graham wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week. 'I have coordinated with the White House on the Russia sanctions bill since its inception. The bill would put Russia on a trade island, slapping 500% tariffs on any country that buys Moscow's energy products. The consequences of its barbaric invasion must be made real to those that prop it up. If China or India stopped buying cheap oil, Mr Putin's war machine would grind to a halt.'
