The Democratic Party, like the Five Star Movement, "does not rule out" buying gas from Russia again.

Returning to buying gas from Russia? The Democratic Party hasn't ruled it out; in fact, it's a possibility they see on the horizon. The Democratic Party's Green Paper on industrial policies makes an ambiguous reference to it, on page 12: "Further reflections on the need for a single market that prevents dangerous national fragmentation should be placed in this context, even in the face of the not-unlikely possibility of a reopening of flows from Russia."

Secretary Elly Schlein , responding to a question from Staffetta Quotidiana, flatly denied the evidence: "I haven't read anything similar in our document." She likely hadn't read it at all and wasn't informed of its contents. In fact, former minister Andrea Orlando , who edited the "Industry Forum" and the publication of the volume, gave an opposite and far from ambiguous interpretation in an interview with Staffetta: "Today we reasonably believe that [the purchase of LNG from the US, ed.] is an obligatory path, linked to the presence of the conflict, but we also believe that the purchase should be conditioned on a rethinking of the United States' position." So, Staffetta insisted, could Russian gas be a negotiating lever to be used against Trump on tariffs? Orlando's succinct response: "Yes."

Just a few weeks ago, the Russian gas issue— raised by the Five Star Movement —had stirred up the Democratic Party. On June 23, in a resolution presented to the Chamber of Deputies , Giuseppe Conte 's party asked Giorgia Meloni to commit to "finding an effective solution to the issue of gas transit and supply that does not a priori and pro-future exclude a possible collaboration with Russia." The text had sent the broader political spectrum into a frenzy, so much so that the Democratic Party and the AVS did not vote for the Five Star Movement resolution. The mere suggestion of "not excluding" such an eventuality had provoked a wave of scandal and indignation within the Democratic Party. "I find it unacceptable," commented Senator Filippo Sensi . "It's shocking that it's being presented today, with Kyiv being bombarded by bombs." Pina Picierno , Vice President of the European Parliament, attacked: “As usual, Conte is beyond comment. This being said, he favorably states that Ukraine is a discriminating factor for the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is clear in its judgment that this position of the 5 Star Movement is unacceptable.”

The issue now arises again. Returning to Russian gas, which was "unacceptable" just a few days ago, now seems like a valid negotiating tool with Trump: you impose a 30% tariff? Then we'll abandon your LNG and get supplies from Putin. Technically, the issue is extremely complicated, not as trivial as Conte and Orlando believe. In 2024, the European Union imported just over 50 billion cubic meters of gas from Russia (compared to over 150 billion cubic meters before the crisis). Of this, approximately 60% was imported via pipeline (through Turkey and Ukraine). Supplies via Ukraine will be cut off as of January 1, 2025 , with the expiration of the transit contract between Gazprom and Naftogaz, the company that manages the pipeline. Finally, of the two pipelines connecting Russia to Germany— Nord Stream 1 and 2 —only the latter is potentially usable (the former was damaged by an explosion in 2022).

Therefore, not all infrastructure is physically available, and among those that are, the Ukrainian pipeline presupposes the unlikely approval of Volodymyr Zelensky (who would be asked to simultaneously do a favor to his enemy Putin and trip up Trump, whose support he desperately needs). Furthermore, contrary to simplistic narratives, gas imports are not a tap that can be turned on, off, or redirected at will: they rely on a complex contractual structure that binds European importers to foreign producers. Resuming imports from Russia to replace American LNG would mean drafting new agreements with Gazprom and canceling just as many contracts with American producers: the long time it took to emancipate themselves (and still not completely) from Russia gives an idea of how complicated it is.

The technical and economic complexity of the operation, along with the impossibility of immediately reopening channels with Russia, requires Orlando's proposal to be evaluated in more strictly political terms. And on the political level, the obstacles are far greater. First, as already mentioned, the route through Ukraine is closed. The Kremlin has expressed its willingness to reopen the German corridor, which can transport 110 billion cubic meters of gas annually, but German Chancellor Friedrich Merz publicly stated during a meeting with Zelensky that Germany will do "everything possible to ensure that Nord Stream 2 cannot be restarted."

Then there's the European obstacle: the EU is pursuing an energy security and political strategy that calls for a gradual halt to gas and oil imports from Russia by 2027. The European Commission's gas roadmap calls for a ban on new contracts with Moscow starting January 1, 2026; the suspension of existing short-term contracts by June 17, 2026; and the end of imports under existing long-term contracts by 2027.

The Democratic Party's proposed negotiating strategy on US tariffs thus conflicts with another negotiating principle the Democratic Party has repeatedly urged Giorgia Meloni to uphold: Italy should not enter into separate negotiations and agreements with the United States on tariffs, but should act in concert with Brussels. Therefore, if the threat of Russian gas is to be used against Trump, the von der Leyen Commission's energy and international policy must change. Since the positions of the EPP, PES, Renew, and the Greens on the issue are well-known in Europe, Elly Schlein should lead this battle alongside Viktor Orbán and Robert Fico (not the M5S member, but the Slovakian prime minister), as well as the AfD and her fellow M5S members. It seems like an absurd hypothesis, but if the Democratic Party considers a reopening of flows from Russia "not unlikely," it must be considered plausible.