Follow us on social

Shutterstock_358800029

Senate barely beats back Ted Cruz's Nord Stream 2 sanctions bill

The measure would have punished Russia and anyone working on the gas project, which is supported by our German partners.

Analysis | Europe

The Senate floor today featured a rare event — a legislative showdown over a crucial current foreign policy issue. Last month, Senate Democrats granted Senator Ted Cruz’s desire for a floor vote on his bill re-imposing sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project in exchange for lifting his hold on President Biden’s ambassador nominations. He just couldn’t bring it home: today Democrats narrowly beat back Cruz’s bill by a 55-43 vote, which failed to gain the necessary 60-vote majority for passage.

But the episode contains important and disturbing lessons about the narrow domestic political boundaries constraining U.S. diplomatic flexibility abroad as we adjust to an increasingly multipolar world.

With its recent shipments of additional arms to Ukraine and its refusal to accommodate stated Russian security concerns during negotiations this week, the Biden Administration can hardly be called soft on Russia (which of course doesn’t stop domestic opponents from trying). The decision to suspend Nord Stream 2 sanctions was not motivated by a desire to accommodate Putin, but by concerns about pushing unilateral economic sanctions against our allies too far.

Germany’s decision to proceed with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was a decision by the German government and German corporations to purchase badly needed energy resources for German citizens from a neighboring state. Imposing unilateral sanctions on all of the companies involved with the construction and functioning of the pipeline would have swept some German companies into the U.S. sanctions regime. More importantly, it would have been a blatant attempt to use raw U.S. economic muscle to reverse the domestic decision of an important ally.

While European states are and have been highly deferential to U.S. security priorities, such sanctions would have raised questions about U.S. respect for the sovereignty of our allies at a time when Germany is a crucial actor in the attempt to maintain a united European front against Russia. The July 21 joint statement by the U.S. and Germany regarding European security and climate concerns showed that Washington won commitments by Germany to oppose Russia and support Ukraine even as Nord Stream 2 moved forward without sanctions.

Russia’s actions in moving troops to the Ukrainian border raised even more questions about an immediate imposition of Nord Stream 2 sanctions. Imposing these sanctions immediately, disconnected from Russian actions against Ukraine, would have eliminated their potential deterrent value in preventing a Russian invasion. Reserving the card of cutting off Nord Stream for use in case of Russian aggression against Ukraine maximizes U.S. and European economic leverage.  

In the end, these arguments (barely) won the day in the Senate. But the fact that it was such a close call, and that Congress so aggressively questioned the reasonable decision to suspend the sanctions, shows the extreme current politicization of U.S. diplomacy today. It’s remarkable that a prominent Republican senator, at a time when the GOP is claiming that Biden’s domestic policies are having all kinds of disastrous effects, used all of his political capital for almost a year to force a vote attempting to reverse a domestic decision made by a close U.S. ally located four thousand miles away from his constituents.

It’s equally remarkable that he would have carried a majority of his fellow senators. The Biden Administration’s choice to suspend the sanctions reflects exactly the kind of diplomatic maneuvering that will be increasingly necessary to maximize U.S. influence in a world where we are no longer the unquestioned hegemon and do not have the power to simply punish all those who disagree with us.


Sen. Ted Cruz (R) (Shutterstock/Rich Koele)
Analysis | Europe
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.