Following the poisoning of thepolitician Alexei with a nerve agent from the Novichok group, the possibility of using 2 to put pressure on has been widely discussed. Specifically, there are calls to abandon the project, to impose a moratorium or to block gas deliveries through the pipelines if refuses to assist investigations.
The2 Baltic gas pipeline is highly symbolic, embodying the willingness of and other European partners to cooperate with . Five European energy companies hold stakes in the project, which is led by . It began in 2015 — one year after ’s annexation of Crimea — and has been the target of unrelenting criticism ever since, initially concentrating on ’s declared goal of bypassing Ukraine.
How Alexei Navalny Created Russia’s Main Opposition Platform
The German government recognizes the project’s economic benefits for consumers and the gas market and has backed it within the existing legal framework under the paradigm of keeping politics out of business. In order to cushion Ukraine’s losses,also backed a -Ukrainian agreement guaranteeing Kyiv gas transit revenues for another five years. To keep its options for completing the pipeline open, blocked attempts by Brussels to assert control. That is now both a burden and an opportunity.
Pressure From Washington
Recent developments have been largely driven by the US, which has successively stepped up pressure to abandon the project. The American Protecting Europe’sAct has succeeded in stopping pipelaying since the end of 2019, and Congress has taken steps to make it impossible to resume the work. The US administration has also altered the guidance of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, threatening to penalize any entity or individual involved in construction since July 15, 2020.
If construction is to resume,will have to act more proactively to counter the impact of Washington’s sanctions. On the one hand, it will be difficult to politically justify actively supporting the construction of Nord Stream 2, while on the other hand, must continue to reject and criticize such secondary sanctions as a matter of principle.
Stopping Nord Stream 2 would be seismic. But what happens when the dust has settled? The government will have to make difficult choices. The following four aspects need to be considered.
First, the immediate effect on the energy supply would be marginal. The project is neither — as so often asserted — a danger to, nor is it essential. Existing pipelines through Ukraine retain an annual capacity estimated at 100 to 120 billion cubic meters, with the Yamal-Europe pipeline through Poland and Belarus adding 33 billion cubic meters and Nord Stream 1 another 55 billion. There are also pipelines to Turkey and Finland. Together, these would easily cope with the peak volume of more than 190 billion cubic meters, which supplied to Europe in 2017-18.
That means, conversely, that stopping2 would not in the slightest reduce the volume of gas purchased from . But this direct, efficient modern pipeline would reduce the risks of transit and technical failure. Without it, 1 and its connecting pipelines become crucial.
Second, indirect effects on the economy and energy supply are hard to estimate. Sunk costs in the Baltic would hurtbut would also be costly for European companies. Aside from the commercial repercussions, it should be remembered that 2 would improve the resilience of the European gas supply and that an expanded gas supply would benefit industry and consumers.
The gas reserves on the Siberian Yamal Peninsula have already been developed, while the global LNG market can quickly tighten again. The “” (green energy transition) will naturally reduce demand for natural gas, but the speed with which that occurs will also depend on an expansion of the power grid and a rapid, consistent transformation in heating and industry. Here, there is still much work to be done.
Third, abandoning an economic infrastructure project for political reasons would represent a paradigm shift for. Major infrastructure projects undeniably have (geo)political implications, and other states do link business and politics in pursuit of national interests, too. That new geo-economic reality represents a challenge for ’s strategic sovereignty, also in the energy sphere.
But that is precisely the point: Other states act in pursuit of their interests. For all the political fireworks, the project is a strategic asset for German commerce and industry.and its EU partners would only be harming themselves if they stopped construction just to send a normative message to . Putin would probably interpret this as simply caving to US pressure, further weakening the political signal
Fourth, the normative justification raises questions: Is the situation really qualitatively new? Would earlier events not actually have offered more solid grounds? Here, we are confronted with an almost insoluble dilemma of the fossil-based energy system: We purchase oil and gas from authoritarian regimes every day. In that regard, thehas a geopolitical dividend.
But make no mistake: Even a successful energy transition will rely on energy imports from these countries, and on the ability to reliably realize major infrastructure projects. The days of the special strategic energy partnership withare over, but a functioning modus vivendi for trade and exchange with this big and resource-abundant neighbor remains essential. From that perspective, a moratorium would gain time for all involved. But the conditions for resumption would have to be clearly communicated, agreed with EU partners and implementable for .
*[This article was originally published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which advises the German government and Bundestag on all questions relating to foreign and security policy.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money.
Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.
Support Fair Observer
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
Will you support FO’s journalism?
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.