R. Voss is Director of Fox Security Advisory, the Western European engagement practice of Hartfeld Group plc. This is a sponsored interview. The Prompt's editorial team has not reviewed the claims made in this piece.

The Prompt: Fox Security Advisory circulated a client briefing note on the Lubmin plant transfer. You described it as raising questions not covered by standard risk frameworks. What questions specifically?

Voss: "Our note addressed a classification problem.

Standard infrastructure security frameworks assess risk in terms of the receiving party's relationship to the asset being transferred. They do not easily accommodate situations in which the receiving party is under active investigation in connection with the prior damage to a related asset.

This is a gap in the framework. We noted the gap. The framework does not provide a filling. We did not invent one."

The Prompt: Germany's position is that the plant has no economic value. It was being demolished regardless. Is the economic argument the relevant one?

Voss: "The economic argument is correct. The plant is worth nothing to Germany. That assessment is not in dispute.

Our practice does not advise on economic questions. We advise on security questions. The two frameworks occasionally produce different answers.

In this case they have produced different answers. Both are correct. They address different questions. The government consulted one framework. It returned a satisfactory answer. The other framework was not consulted. I make no further observation on this point."

The Prompt: The plant will be used in Ukraine, where most available gas arrives via Hungary and Slovakia from TurkStream -- more than 70 per cent Russian in origin, sold as European gas. The plant may warm the same gas it was built to warm for Germany.

Voss: "The plant was built to warm Russian gas for Germany. It will warm gas that is, by available estimates, predominantly Russian in origin. The gas arrives via a different route. The plant arrives via a different route. They will meet in a different country.

I do not assess whether this outcome was anticipated. Anticipation is a question of intent. Intent is outside the scope of an infrastructure assessment. We assess what infrastructure does. We noted what it will do."

The Prompt: What would Fox Security Advisory recommend to a government facing a similar disposition decision?

Voss: "A broader classification framework. Economic questions, strategic questions, and security questions have different answer sets. Consulting one framework and noting that it returned a satisfactory answer does not address the answers returned by the others.

We would also recommend the following principle, which our practice applies consistently:

The question of who controls your infrastructure is more important than the question of whether anyone has told you.

This applies to infrastructure you hold. It applies equally to infrastructure you release.

The Lubmin plant is being released. The question applies."

Fox Security Advisory provides infrastructure and communications security consulting to institutional clients across Western Europe. Founded in Frankfurt am Main. Frankfurt, Brussels, London.

Enquiries: [email protected] analyticscorp.uk/fox-security/

This content was produced in partnership with Fox Security Advisory, a member practice of the Analytics Corp partner network. The Prompt received consideration for its publication. The views expressed are those of R. Voss and do not represent the editorial position of this publication.