The problem is that fossil gas is a much cleaner alternative to German coal, as a way to complement German renewables (see this). Like it or not, saying \"no\" to nuclear means saying \"yes\" to fossil fuel. *

I think the best compromise would be to tightly regulate operation of the pipeline terminal. Don't allow any commercial usage of the gas until the German government has stockpiled at least a 5 year supply (Is gas storage too expensive and dangerous? That's the price to be paid for clean energy without nuclear power). And apply a transit tax on the gas that is high enough to be consistent with the Ukrainian alternative.

* Note that this fossil fuel is needed, in spite of Germany's extremely large pumped hydro storage fleet, which is already 6.3 GWatt and growing (source), equivalent to 10% of their average grid demand. They routinely call up another 3.4 GWatts of pumped hydro plants located in neighboring countries (bringing the total to 15% of average demand). Germany also has 0.5 GWatts of large scale batteries (as of 2020), but these are typically only an hour of storage, which is only enough for \"frequency services\" (i.e. easing ramping at coal fired plants).

Nord Stream 2: how Putin's pipeline paralysed the west