Energy projects are often politically controversial, be it nuclear power plants or oil drilling.

However, it is rare for the political debate and construction progress to develop in opposite directions, as is the case with Nord Stream 2.

For years, their opponents could not prevent the gas pipeline, which is supposed to connect not only Germany but all of Europe with Russia.

Now that it is complete, for the first time its commissioning appears seriously endangered.

Nicholas buses

Responsible editor for foreign policy.

  • Follow I follow

The US government has agreed that the pipeline would be stopped in the event of a Russian attack on Ukraine, and the federal government appears to have accepted that.

Even if that didn't happen now, for example because there was no war, the operation of the line would always be subject to political reservations.

In a German-American agreement that came about under Merkel, the federal government committed itself to reacting to Russian aggression with measures that could also affect Nord Stream 2.

Built to bypass Ukraine?

Why has there been such a heated argument about this pipeline?

"Looked at soberly, Nord Stream 2 doubles the transport capacity through the Baltic Sea by 55 to 110 billion cubic meters per year," writes Kirsten Westphal from the Science and Politics Foundation.

If you only look at the technical side, it is not even said that the line is necessary.

There are other pipelines west from Russia whose combined capacities are currently under-utilized: "Fraternity" through Ukraine, Yamal through Belarus, Turk Stream and Blue Stream to Turkey, and Nord Stream 1, the first two strands of the Baltic Sea pipeline, which have been in operation since 2011.

The Research Service of the European Parliament states that these existing pipelines can theoretically transport almost 300 billion cubic meters of gas to Europe every year.

In fact, in 2019 it was just 199 billion cubic meters.

So why is Nord Stream 2 being built at all?

The project company says that Europe will have an additional import requirement of 120 billion cubic meters by 2035;

Nord Stream 2 could cover about a third of that.

It is undisputed that European gas production is declining.

In Great Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany, it has recently fallen faster than was assumed when Nord Stream 2 was planned.

Added to this are the advantages over the existing lines, especially those through Ukraine, which have the largest capacity.

These are in poor condition and would probably cost billions to clean up.

Nord Stream 2 is not only more modern, it is also significantly shorter and there are no transit fees to the government in Kiev.

This is where it gets political.

Not only in Kiev, many believe that Nord Stream 2 was built to replace the old lines through Ukraine.

One argument in favor of the Baltic Sea pipeline is that it creates a direct connection between Russia and the EU or Germany, which means that gas crises like the one in 2009 are no longer possible.

At that time, a dispute between Moscow and Kiev led to supply interruptions to the EU.

However, the Ukrainian leadership sees one of their few effective means of exerting pressure on Russia in jeopardy.

The fear is that if Nord Stream 2 makes the transit through Ukraine superfluous, then Putin will no longer have to take Ukraine into account politically.

That he ignited the present conflict just as the line was completed,

This leads to the larger strategic question of whether Moscow would use Europe's growing dependence on Russian gas as a bargaining chip.

Russia has often used gas supplies for political purposes, whether in the form of changes in supply volumes or prices.

Eastern European countries were mostly affected.

Despite high prices, Gazprom is currently not supplying any additional gas to Europe, which is unusual for a profit-oriented company and also points to a possible political background.

However, it seems unlikely that Russia will stop deliveries to Europe altogether, at least in peacetime.

Western Europe and Turkey accounted for 78 percent of Russian gas exports in 2020;

the share of Russian gas in EU imports was 43 percent.

Concerned about dependency on Russian gas

The main argument against the pipeline is a geopolitical one.

An even greater dominance of Russia on the EU gas market opens up a wide range of influence opportunities for Moscow and is likely to lead to political consideration again and again.

This has just been shown again by the difficult Berlin decision-making process on whether Nord Stream 2 should be part of possible sanctions against Russia.

The American government in particular views this development with concern.

The EU has long been looking for other gas suppliers.

Norway (23 percent) and Algeria (6 percent) were the next largest suppliers in 2020, and recently Europe has also been sourcing gas from Azerbaijan.

The share of liquid gas was also 23 percent, here the USA was the largest supplier ahead of Qatar.

Liquid gas is usually more expensive, and the corresponding infrastructure is often still lacking.

In Germany, for example, there is no port for tankers.

The outcome of the Ukraine crisis is likely to have a major impact on how this issue is dealt with.