The Bear in the Room of EU Security: Nord Stream 2 and Tensions on the Ukraine-Russia Border
The recent “muscle-flexing” by Russian forces on the Ukrainian border is an unbidden reminder of Putin’s insatiable itch to tighten his grip on the former Soviet state. While the troops move, the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany edges closer to its first use. Europe has found its energy needs dependent, and its security threatened, by Russia. These juxtaposing proprieties depict an increasingly difficult reality. So, how exactly will the EU maintain military security in eastern Europe and Ukraine, while safeguarding its energy security?
Russian Militarisation on the Ukrainian Boarder
As early as November of last year, Russian troops, tanks, medical provisions, and heavy artillery began to amass along its western border with Ukraine. Current estimates suggest around 100,000 troops are already positioned along the border, distributed both in mainland Russia and in Russian-backed separatist provinces, Donetsk and Luhansk. US Security officials suggest this represents 70% of the required force to mount a full-scale invasion. Minimising the disruption by weather conditions would suggest an invasion’s optimal timing to occur between mid-February and the end of March. Even in the event of a peaceful resolution, squaring Russia’s fears of eastern integration into western institutions is incompatible with EU expansion and energy security. However, the EU’s likely future role in mitigating Ukrainian Russian tensions is likely to conflict with its energy needs. As recently as this year, the Nord Stream pipeline quite literally embedded EU dependency on Russian energy into the earth.
Russia’s military advances to date are generally considered an expression of its security concerns. Experts have cited the goal of inducing concessions from the Ukraine and EU as a factor at the heart of recent developments. Russia has long lamented over increased Ukrainian orientations towards the West. Towards these considerations, Putin has requested NATO should restrain its presence in Eastern Europe, and that the West cease opposition to Russian involvement in Ukrainian affairs. Evidentially, the Kremlin is signalling a willingness to employ force on Ukraine, if necessary. At worst, a full-scale invasion could be on the way, a prospect that seemed alien until the 2014 annexation of Crimea.
Increasingly close relations between the former Soviet states and bastions of traditional western power such as the EU and NATO are perceived as security threats. NATO expansion means that Moscow could be hit with a missile in five minutes. Additionally, the Kremlin accuses Ukraine of violating the Minsk Agreements by failing to uphold its commitments on decentralisation in Donetsk and Luhansk.
After hours of talks with Putin, French President Macron voiced faith in the prospect of peaceful resolution of the dispute. Even with exhalations of common goals and a desire for compromise, Ukrainian president Zelensky is sceptical, especially given the failure of Minsk, and the talks of the past few weeks, which have all ended in stalemate.
Moving towards the Ukrainian border can additionally be viewed as an expression of Vladimir Putin’s idolisation of Ukraine-Russia unity, a unity of Cold War competition. In past blog posts, Putin has expressed his view of Ukrainians as Russia’s “own close people.” According to the most recent Ukrainian census, conducted in 2001, 58% of Crimean residents identify as ethnically Russian, compared to a mere 17% of the overall Ukrainian population identifying as ethnically Russian. Additionally, the majority of Ukrainian citizens are against the idea of a union with Russia. As such, Putin’s claim to cultural unity is not reflective of the preferences expressed by the majority of Ukrainians.
Promised Friendships between the EU & Ukraine
The Russia-Ukraine relationship is less of a romance, and more of unrequited love, if the trends of the past decade are an indicator. A recent signal of Ukraine’s intentions for EU accession was found from the Ukrainian foreign minister. Kuleba called for the EU to welcome expansion to Ukraine and its Eastern neighbours, as a means of bolstering the EU’s ability to stand among the global powers of today. Additionally, Ukraine has considerably increased its connections to the EU and NATO, notably since the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. Post-annexation, a core facet of Ukrainian security has relied on EU and NATO economic sanctions, NATO forces in Eastern Europe, and increased defence spending of NATO forces to 2% of GDP by 2024. Strategic advantages aside, NATO and EU accession is supported by the majority of Ukrainians today, according to a poll by the International Republican Institute (2021), which found that if asked to choose at most one union 54% of respondents would favour EU accession.
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen echoed this with the comments “whatever the solution, Europe has to be involved.” The EU is to engage in talks with Russia and has voiced its intention to increase its diplomatic presence in all future talks. Ukraine’s geostrategic importance to EU security has been cited by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell, on a recent visit to Luhansk, Ukraine. Due to the narrow reach of EU defence forces, the protection of these interests is heavily contingent on economic sanctions and NATO protection.
Nord Stream 2: Russia’s Ticket to Concessions?
European energy security and state security, particularly in the EU’s Eastern Bloc have irrefutably tied the EU to all future trajectories of these tensions. Plans for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline indicate EU dependency on Russian gas is unlikely to wane in the years to come. The €9.9bn pipeline transports gas from Siberia to Germany, as a plan to decrease German dependence on nuclear energy. The pipeline can fuel half of the German energy requirements annually.
In brief, Nord Stream 2 endows Putin with a jewel of leverage over the EU. Germany is the largest contributor to EU GDP. Therefore, its energy security is an issue of economic and geopolitical significance, in addition to the promise of solidarity among member states. Proponents of the pipeline, such as senior German SDP officials, lament tendencies to link the pipeline to political disputes, arguing that political and security policy should be separate from the pipeline. Beyond the German border, 41% of all EU gas is sourced from Russia. All things considered, to deny that energy is a pollical weapon defies logic and precedence. Politically, Nord Stream 2 defies European security by increasing its dependence on Russia.
Russia’s leverage could allow the Kremlin to pull the plug on energy supplies to Europe’s manufacturing giant, cutting off 26 million German homes. The ability of EU diplomats to handle these tensions and protect EU interests is instrumental at this time. Previously employed tactics of economic sanctions and increased NATO military armament have the potential to provoke retaliation. However, cutting off energy supplies is considered a drastic move. Russia will likely exhaust all other diplomatic resources before cutting a stable energy supply to 26 million Germans. Such actions would cause irrevocable damage to relations with Germany, the EU, and NATO.
German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz has met with G7 leaders to confirm that an invasion of Ukraine would cancel or suspend the project. However, it is unclear how Germany would replace the energy supplied by Russian gas. The Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which is already in use, ensures that German homes are already dependent on Russia. The primary implication of Nord Stream 2 is its bypass of the Eastern states, and political signal to continue energy dependence on Russia. German officials have not assured the public that the state possesses the necessary reserves or infrastructure to transition from one energy source to another. Hence, the practical implications of cancelling the pipeline do not appear realistic. If the Kremlin is not discouraged by the comments from the G7, it jeopardises the EU’s capacity to discourage a Ukrainian invasion.
A Geopolitical Catch-22
Ukraine has voiced its commitment to a future with the EU. However, it is set to lose an estimated 4% of its GDP as Nord Stream 2 takes over from Nord Stream 1, the latter of which runs through the country. Despite Ukraine’s lobbying for the pipeline to be cancelled, Nord Stream 2 has gone ahead and has made smooth relations between the EU and Russia, a central tenet of EU security. On the other hand, the EU has shown no indication of withdrawing its commitment to Ukraine, according to von der Leyen’s recent comments. De-escalating tensions in the region will therefore be a large burden for European diplomats to bear. Continued diplomacy may potentially subdue the tensions to an extent, but not offer a solution to Russia’s posturing in Ukraine.
The primary demand sought by Putin concerns NATO presence in Eastern Europe. However, acquiescence is rarely seen without a domino effect. NATO is unlikely to pull out its forces to the extent demanded by the Kremlin. The US and Germany have threatened economic sanctions, but no evidence suggests any retreats in NATO powers in Eastern Europe.
To prepare for all future eventualities, diversification of EU energy sources, specifically in Germany, would safeguard the EU against energy security threats, protection which would bolster the EU’s capacity to become a pro-active defender of Ukrainian interests. Aside from energy, the EU and NATO must find a means of ensuring they are prepared for a Russian invasion of Ukraine while minimising the perceived threat NATO poses to Russia through its Eastern European presence. How will the EU balance its security and military incentives towards these aims? While Macron is optimistic about the future, concrete promises have yet to be made. As such, compromise is unclear, and the threat of escalation is a tangible threat to security that should be factored into EU defence for the future. In any case, Nord Stream 2 is still underway, as is Russia’s determination to keep Ukraine strongly in its orbit. As discussions on the future of EU defence continue, the questions of energy security and the EU’s ability to defend itself along the Russian border should be central to how member states vote on the expansion of European defence policy.
