Nord Stream 2: Schwesig also sees the federal government as responsible

Nord Stream 2: Schwesig also sees the federal government as responsible

Released on 06..2022

  • “All federal governments have opted for Nord Stream 2”: Manuela Schwesig Photo: Bernd W├╝stneck/dpa

Have you heard?

You can now have your messages read out to you. Simply click the play icon on any article or add the post to your personal playlist via the plus icon and listen to it later.

Listen to article:

Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania’s Prime Minister Schwesig rejects criticism that the responsibility for the energy project that was stopped in the Ukraine in the course of the war was solely blamed on her state.

Heavy.

Prime Minister Manuela Schwesig believes that Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania should not be held solely responsible for supporting the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline.

“All federal governments have opted for Nord Stream 2,” said the SPD politician in an interview with ZDF Morning magazine (Moma). The country has implemented this – since the German-Russian pipeline lands in Western Pomerania.

Schwesig doesn’t think it’s right to blame Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania alone for the energy project that was stopped in the course of the war in Ukraine, while large parts of Germany continue to rely on gas from the sister pipeline North Stream 1 can be supplied, which also reaches German soil in Lubmin in Western Pomerania. Regarding the motives of the state government, Schwesig said in Moma that it was about avoiding an investment ruin in the Baltic Sea.

The support of the pipeline by the MV climate foundation set up by the state government is again an issue before the district court in Schwerin on Thursday afternoon. A journalist from the newspaper “Welt” had filed a lawsuit against the foundation run by ex-Prime Minister Erwin Sellering (SPD): He wants to receive information about the way in which the climate foundation supported the completion of the gas pipeline.

According to a court spokesman, the foundation had already answered the questions after a penalty payment had been threatened in the meantime. Whether the answers given are sufficient from the point of view of the plaintiff is still open. (dpa)

Related Articles

Back to top button