Nord Stream 2: Europe in Russia’s Pocket
A running undercurrent in transatlantic relations over the past few years has been the tumult surrounding the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a pipeline built by Russian gas provisioner Gazprom from Russia to Germany. With European gas shortages and prices soaring, Russia seemed to turn to Europe with an outstretched hand, nobly stepping in to aid Germany and Western Europe with their shortfalls. However, the subjugation of the European gas market to Russian whims will serve as a critical security issue for both Europe and NATO.
The Russians have put on a mass effort to try to convince Europeans and Americans to approve the project. The pipeline has already been built but awaits German regulatory approval to start actually supplying any gas, for a total of 55 billion cubic meters per year. At the start of the forerunner project in 2005, Nord Stream 1, then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder heralded it as a step forward in the Russian-German strategic partnership. After departing office a few weeks later, having been voted out, he took up a board position with Nord Stream’s parent company, Nord Stream AG, and has taken the lead in managing Nord Stream 2 and trying to sell it to the West.
Over the past few weeks, meanwhile, Russia has been slow to supply existing orders for gas around Europe, with one pipeline even reversing the flow of gas. Even while continuously saying they do not use gas or energy for political purposes, Russia and Putin specifically have been using the deepening crisis to pressure European governments into long term contracts, emphasizing that gas will remain critical as renewables have been slow to make up for the necessary shortfall. Emphasizing that this is merely a business deal, Russia would increase the sizable foothold it already has in the European energy market.
Politically speaking, Nord Stream 2 would also sidestep Poland and Ukraine, who have been some of the chief critics of the pipeline. They largely depend on the gas that flows through their countries, which they buy from European countries as opposed to Russia themselves while also earning sizable transit fees. They criticize the pipeline as just another opportunity for Russia to exert influence in Europe, while simultaneously making a healthy profit. The heads of their national gas suppliers have been outspoken about the risks and costs of the pipeline, pointing to unfulfilled Russian promises of lower prices in the past as further proof that this is a charade, simply a smokescreen for further Russian influence and the weakening of historical allies.
Germany and the US recently signed an agreement to place further sanctions on Russia if it seeks to use energy policies to weaken and endanger Ukraine or other European allies or partners. However, based on current actions and recent history, it’s not a question of if but rather of when. Russia has made no secret of its intentions to influence the political situation in the West through energy or electoral interference, or even invasion as we saw in Crimea. Additionally, any arguments about shortages and business deals as the reasoning behind the pipeline have one shortfall according to scholars, who point out the existing pipelines are not used to maximum capacity and could ramp up supply. They point to diversion away from the existing infrastructure as a potential way of minimizing costs incurred by Russia should they invade Ukraine once again.
The US has been opposed to the deal, with Trump imposing sanctions throughout his administration while also using the issue as a cudgel in the constant NATO debates, criticizing Germany for not spending enough on defense while making huge agreements with Russia. Senators on both sides of the aisle have been critical of the effort, but some have been taking it to an unsafe degree. Senator Ted Cruz has put holds on dozens of appointments to the State and Treasury departments in criticism of the moves by the current administration, which has ceased imposing additional sanctions now that the pipeline is complete, and has instead diverted to investments in renewable energy which would make the pipelines obsolete while also lobbying the German government (especially the incoming government, which will likely be more prone to opposition thanks to the inclusion of the Greens) to try to stop the project in its tracks. The very appointments that are being held are the ones that would have the most success in actually taking action: Ambassadors to the European Union, Germany, Poland, and NATO, while some positions at the State Department (including the deputy for Europe) have only been confirmed in the past week. Senator Cruz has said a Senate debate on the issue would be enough to move everything forward, but there is no debate. The Administration is just as committed to stopping the pipeline but considering Trump’s counter-proposal of American gas was proven to be ineffectual (and worse for the environment) the US needs to shift tactics as the Administration has done and come with diplomacy rather than a heavy hand.
For a true transformation of transatlantic relations, with Europe feeling they can depend on the US once again and will be more willing to work cooperatively to address these kinds of issues, we require closer partnership, not using these issues as political ploys or with the US trying to lord over Europe. The European Union and the countries of Europe should be equal partners with the commensurate respect and consideration. By holding the appointment system hostage, the US’s most promising tool for progress and for fixing a frankly broken relationship is unusable. Should Ted Cruz want to actually fix the problem, he should speed through these nominees as soon as possible, so Berlin and Brussels feel the American pressure and see this is a priority.
