Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources, Jonathan Wilkinson, stressed that routing gas through Ukraine to Europe cannot substitute the Nord Stream pipeline. The remark was highlighted in remarks summarized by Bloomberg.
In a parliamentary address, Wilkinson expressed disagreement with Kyiv’s position on permitting the return of the Russian turbine for Nord Stream. He argued that Canada should not rely on Ukraine’s transit capacity because it is not sufficient to meet expected demand.
Wilkinson noted that Kyiv’s proposals were evaluated with the help of technical experts from the International Energy Agency as well as officials from the European Union and Germany. The assessment indicated that volumes flowing through Ukrainian territory would be significantly smaller than what Nord Stream could deliver at full capacity.
He also pointed to potential risks linked to ongoing military activity, noting that Russia could alter or reduce gas flows through Ukraine at any time.
Ukraine’s Ambassador to Canada, Yulia Kovaliv, countered in parliament by stating that more gas is currently moving through Ukraine than through Nord Stream.
She asserted that Ukraine is capable of adjusting its gas supplies to Germany if necessary, challenging the notion that Kyiv cannot redirect flows.
Former Gazprom executive has labeled the Siemens turbine for Nord Stream as an “impossible” supply under current sanctions and contractual constraints. Gazprom explains that sanctions imposed by Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom, along with Siemens’ existing obligations, render delivery of the 073 engine to Portovaya Compressor Station unfeasible.
Gazprom also accused Siemens of substandard repair work on Nord Stream turbines. Siemens, in response, rejected the accusation and stated that the gas pumping units have been maintained to standard procedures and schedules.
These exchanges occur amid broader debates about how best to secure energy supplies to Europe while balancing geopolitical constraints, supply reliability, and the practical limits of sanctions and maintenance regimes. Analysts note that while Nord Stream offers a direct route to European markets, staffing and infrastructure expectations, along with potential political and military disruptions, create a more complex risk profile than alternative transit routes. In this context, Canadian officials emphasize the importance of evaluating multiple pathways and maintaining diversified energy strategies to minimize exposure to single-point failures in critical supply lines.
Industry observers also highlight the technical and logistical challenges involved in turbine replacements, the role of international oversight bodies, and the ongoing tension between sanction regimes and long-term contractual commitments. The discourse underscores how decisions about gas flow and infrastructure can ripple through energy security calculations, market predictability, and regional diplomacy. The situation remains fluid as policymakers, industry players, and international partners continue to monitor developments and reassess credibility, capacity, and compliance with evolving regulatory frameworks.
Ultimately, the core question centers on whether Ukraine can provide a viable transit corridor that could supplement or replace portions of Nord Stream capacity, and how sanctions and maintenance obligations interact with practical delivery guarantees. The dialogue among Canada, Ukraine, the EU, and industry stakeholders reflects a broader effort to balance economic needs with strategic stability in energy markets across North America and Europe.