What does Ukraine offer?
In a move aligned with tightening anti-Russian sanctions, Kyiv put forward a plan to halt gas deliveries from the Russian Federation to Europe via routes that bypass the Ukrainian gas transport system. The proposal appeared on the official website associated with the Ukrainian presidency.
“We propose sanctions that would suspend all Russian-controlled pipeline paths currently able to deliver Russian natural gas to the European market, with the exception of flows routed through the Ukrainian gas transport system,” the document stated. The initiative was crafted by an international working group led by Andriy Yermak, head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, and Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia.
According to the Yermak-McFaul Commission, acceptance of the plan would effectively end the use of the Turkish Stream corridor. The commission also urged Japan and South Korea, which have limited purchases of Russia’s energy resources in recent years, to fully discontinue these imports. Additionally, Kyiv proposed banning the export of Russian liquefied natural gas. (Source: official Ukrainian presidency communications)
What does this mean
By March 2022, several gas routes carried Russian gas to Europe. The Nord Stream pipeline delivered gas directly under the Baltic Sea to Germany, while the Yamal-Europe route carried gas via Belarus to Poland and onward to Germany. Gas also moved through Ukraine’s gas transport system to reach Slovakia, and two Turkish lines—Blue Stream and Turkish Stream—funneled gas to Southern and Southeastern European nations in transit. (Source: historical energy routes mapping)
Yamal-Europe halted gas flows in March of the previous year following initial sanctions packages, and Nord Stream ceased operation after a sabotage incident in 2022. In this context, Ukraine’s GTS remained the sole functioning route for direct gas transport to Central and Western Europe. The Turkish lines continued to operate but proved logistically less efficient because gas must cross multiple borders to reach Germany. (Source: regional energy security assessments)
Kyiv’s proposal to terminate use of Turkish Stream and Blue Stream—both of which supply payments to Ankara for transit—would impact downstream distribution for Hungary, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, and other EU members. Ukraine’s GTS has a departure capacity of about 146 billion cubic meters per year heading toward European markets, while Turkish Stream and Blue Stream together offer roughly 47 billion cubic meters per year. By contrast, the now-idled Yamal-Europe and Nord Stream pipelines had combined capacities around 88 billion cubic meters per year. (Source: energy capacity statistics)
Why does Kiev need these restrictions?
Kyiv has pressed for restricting gas transit to routes other than its own GTS for years. Similar proposals were voiced even before any military actions, dating back to the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the initial wave of Western sanctions. When European nations intensified energy restrictions on Russia last year, Ukrainian authorities pushed to sever gas flows to the EU altogether, seeking to keep their GTS as the sole transit option. (Source: policy history reviews)
Analysts point to multiple goals behind Kyiv’s plan. First is financial: as the sole transit country for Russian gas to Europe, Ukraine could effectively shape terms of cargo flow and pricing, exercising leverage over Moscow and Brussels alike. Second is security: maintaining a robust Ukrainian GTS could serve as a strategic shield, ensuring that any further escalation could be met with a constrained energy corridor, functioning as a form of political pressure.
Despite this, in 2022 European media noted resistance from Ankara and several EU members—Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary—against blocking Turkish Stream and Blue Stream. They warned that losing access to cheaper gas and the associated transit revenues would raise costs for their own energy users and producers. (Source: contemporary energy policy reporting)
There is also a distinct U.S. involvement in shaping such sanctions, which some observers interpret as a push to reduce Europe’s reliance on affordable Russian pipeline gas and steer more demand toward American LNG, potentially at higher prices. (Source: energy policy analyses and public commentary)