> No, Nord Stream 1 pipeline was filled with water during construction.

Not exactly, at least not like that: https://www.nord-stream.com/download/document/74/?language=r...

> Anyway, Russian news agency TASS reported about a possibility of a pipeline repair: https://tass.com/economy/1555677

Did you even read the article? "Maybe, possibly, requiring money and time". How does this counter my point that underwater pipes will have to be rebuilt? Are you sure you are not confusing the underwater component of the pipeline with the whole pipeline itself, with all the related infrastructure, compressing stations and so on and so forth?

> It wasn't open. There was no gas delivered and sold to Germany. "permissions" means that the German authorities would have to allow the Nord Stream AG to deliver natural gas over Nord Stream 2 into the German market. Such a permission was never given.

We are going in circles. NS2 was delivering gas up to Greifswald. The fact that Greifswald wasn't delivering it further is not a property of NS2.

> I was talking about Russia. Russia has removed themselves from the European market because of their war against the Ukraine.

"Russia has removed themselves from the European market", yeah, right. This was purely a decision of several (not all, mind you) European states. Followed by "heeeeelp, evil Russia wants to freeze us to death!". All while acting like any interaction with it is some kind of privilege. Pathetic.

> There was no such moment.

Well that is just denialism. Europe expected to freeze the payments as soon as they hit the accounts, along with other assets. The whole shenanigans with paying "with roubles" was exactly about this whole deal. Yeah "technically" they would pay, but Russia would never receive the funds and they would remain circling through European economy by remaining in European banks. This was exactly "such a moment".

> European leaders were expecting that Russia would be a peaceful neighbour. One which one wants to have trade with.

Well if that's your tune, then back at you, I can refer you to Putin's Munich speech in 2007.
In any case, you are engaging in demagogy and digressing. Point is, European leaders started an economic war against Russia and suddenly it hit them too. So that's why we are hearing narratives like "Russia using energy dependency as a weapon" - this is basically an attempt to hide incompetence.

> A customer can choose where to buy from. Europe chose to reduce and minimize economic relations with Russia.

Sure, that's just business. And it is you who says that it is Europe's own choice.
So tell me, how come the customer making their own choice is whining that "Russia uses energy as a weapon"?

> Sure, selling into a foreign market is a privilege. Russia lost that privilege.

No, normally that's just business relations. It's only "a privilege" with Europe, just like basically any other interaction with it. Which is just another iteration of the same lesson learned time and time again over centuries of interacting with that chauvinistic culture.

> Given that the trust for Russia is currently zero, it will take many years to repair that

Fat chance. This will be Turkey's business from now on. Dealing with Europe directly is worthless pain. And in any case, someone on the other end of the Ukrainian pipeline is still buying a shit load of Russian gas, mixing it and distributing it to the rest of the Europe under the guise of non-Russian gas ("Latvian blend" like schemes). So as long as the funds keep flowing, all this is just a cheap self-appeasing talk.