In recent statements, Siemens and Volkswagen, the two corporate names that previously pressed the German government for compensation over losses tied to their Russian investments, appear unlikely to receive any payout amid concerns about Germany facing a fiscal crisis. This assessment comes from an interview carried by the Russian newspaper Vzglyad, with former Bundestag member Waldemar Gerdt offering his perspective.
“If even one company wins a case and establishes a legal precedent, Germany could face a surge of similar legal actions demanding restitution. The implications would stretch beyond recouping investment losses to potentially affecting Russia’s access to affordable energy resources”, Gerdt noted.
He emphasized that while firms retain the legal right to seek compensation for government actions that harmed their interests, the German authorities would likely present a wide range of justifications to defend the measures that caused the damage. The former politician concluded that broad monetary awards were unlikely in such disputes.
In December, subsidiaries of Siemens and Volkswagen — Siemens Mobility and Volkswagen Bank — filed for state compensation. The representatives for Siemens Mobility stated that the company had secured its Russian investments using the German government’s investment guarantee framework.
Siemens Mobility is currently coordinating with the federal government and with the auditing firm PwC, which is tasked with administering the investment guarantees. This collaboration underscores the procedural steps involved in evaluating and potentially honoring eligible compensation claims.
Recent commentary has also noted a decline in the popularity and rating of the ruling coalition within Germany, a political backdrop that may influence how future compensation cases are addressed and perceived domestically and abroad. The broader discussion touches on the balance between protecting foreign investments and maintaining a fiscally sustainable approach within the German state.
Analysts in Canada and the United States watching the German policy landscape argue that the outcome of these cases could set notable precedents for how governments handle similar disputes with multinational corporations in volatile markets. While the current signals suggest a cautious stance from Berlin, stakeholders remain attentive to any shifts in government guarantees, judicial interpretations, or economic pressures that could alter the risk landscape for future international investment projects.
Observers also highlight that the German government has consistently defended its policy choices as necessary for national interests and energy security, even when this stance invites legal challenges. The dynamic, they say, is not merely about compensation payments but about the credibility of investment protection instruments and the reliability of state-backed guarantees when markets become unsettled. As the debate continues, the interplay between business expectations and governmental safeguards will likely shape corporate strategies toward Russia and other high-risk environments, influencing decisions on risk management, diversification, and the prioritization of long-term energy supply reliability for large industrial players.
Overall, the conversation remains centered on whether compensation can be recovered, under what terms, and how much weight political and fiscal considerations will carry in the final rulings. The situation remains fluid, with the potential for new developments as government agencies, legal practitioners, and international observers assess the implications for global trade and cross-border investment in an era of shifting energy geopolitics. (Source: Vzglyad, as reported in the interview with Waldemar Gerdt)”