Nord Stream 2 has been a source of controversy from the very beginning – not only in Europe but across the globe. The impressive pipeline – 1,234 kilometers long – was intended to connect Russia and Germany via the Baltic Sea. Its primary goal was to double the capacity of the existing Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline. Although construction began in 2011 and was completed in September 2021, the pipeline has yet to become operational.
From the outset, Nord Stream 2 has divided opinions. For Western European countries, which were to be the main recipients of the gas, the project promised: stable gas supplies (it was meant to reduce the risk of supply disruptions), as the additional infrastructure was expected to ensure the reliability of the energy system.
However, the United States and Eastern European countries viewed it with a great deal of skepticism. Concerns primarily revolved around:
These differing perspectives perfectly illustrate how deeply divided international energy policy was (and still is).
The controversies surrounding Nord Stream 2 go beyond just energy issues. The project has become a symbol of global tensions shaping contemporary international relations. In the face of these challenges, the future of the pipeline remains uncertain, even though it seemed to have been buried.
Nord Stream 2 is a German-Russian energy project aimed at increasing the supply of natural gas from Russia to Germany. The pipeline runs through the Baltic Sea, making it independent of so-called transit countries (such as Poland, Ukraine, or Slovakia), thereby marginalizing the influence of these countries on European energy policy.
The pipeline's route, connecting Russia's Ust-Luga to Germany's Lubmin, reflects the complexity of international relations that accompany such projects. Amid global political tensions, it has become a key point in the debate about the future of the European energy market. In the understanding of Russian strategists, this could deprive Ukraine of its geopolitical significance (which was important because key gas pipelines previously ran through its territory – these, however, were expected to become less significant after the launch of the new Baltic route). The loss of influence over gas transit through Ukraine meant that it would no longer be a significant partner for the West – which could facilitate Russia's control over it. This was the view held by Eastern Europe, including Poland and Sweden, but Germany dismissed these arguments, citing the project's "purely business" significance. However, the attempt to seize Ukraine occurred almost immediately after the completion of the infrastructure – which would support the validity of Eastern European capitals' concerns.
The route of Nord Stream 2 through the Baltic Sea is one of the key elements of the project. The pipeline runs through the Gulf of Finland (between Estonia and Finland). The Baltic Sea, as a strategic region, plays a crucial role in the logistics and supply of gas, enabling a direct connection between Russia and Germany.
The choice of the Baltic Sea route was intended to:
At the same time, the route sparked controversy – both due to its environmental impact and concerns about the energy security of the region. Adding to the intrigue was the fact that Germany, by marginalizing Eastern Europe, was effectively acting against countries with which it was (and still is) allied through NATO, while cooperating with a state traditionally seen as a rival to NATO.
The map comes from the OSW website – the Centre for Eastern Studies (Polish Think-Tank)
The key player in this venture is the Russian state-owned company Gazprom, which is the main owner and operator of the pipeline. However, the project would not have been possible without the financial support of German partners, such as Nord Stream 2 AG, Uniper SE, Wintershall Dea GmbH, OMV AG, Royal Dutch Shell, and ENGIE SA.
Gazprom, as Russia's largest energy company, is responsible for the construction and operation of the pipeline, highlighting its strategic importance in Russian energy policy. However, by the time of construction, the name Gazprom was already associated by many observers with a tool used for political pressure on Eastern Europe.
The company Nord Stream 2 AG, a subsidiary of Gazprom, was established specifically to manage and implement the Nord Stream 2 project from the German side. It was headed by Matthias Warnig – adding to the intrigue was the fact that he was a former Stasi officer (the former East German secret service, closely collaborating with the Russians during the communist era). In Germany, this was not widely commented on or met with significant outrage, although in Eastern Europe, it was definitively criticized.
The Nord Stream 2 project was part of a larger political and geopolitical puzzle, which has been controversial from the very beginning. The discussions extended far beyond energy issues, impacting international relations. Is Nord Stream 2 just infrastructure, or is it something more – an instrument of influence and pressure?
In the face of the energy transition, Germany viewed Nord Stream 2 as a way to meet its growing demand for natural gas. This was meant to support its efforts to reduce CO2 emissions by gradually phasing out coal and nuclear energy – as the West was simultaneously experiencing the peak of so-called climatism. Despite the fact that, for example, in 2021 Poland purchased goods worth €78 billion from Germany, while Russia's purchases were three times smaller – politicians in Berlin decided that the project was worth the risk of damaging certain international relations with Warsaw or Stockholm, as having significant influence in the European Union as its largest contributor – they would be able to impose on other countries the transition from coal (and even nuclear) to Russian gas – purchased in Germany, with a markup for transmission. Germany believed in this fairy-tale scenario to such an extent that at one point, it even decided to shut down its nuclear power plants, despite the fact that they provided cheap and relatively clean electricity.
The Nord Stream 2 project was immediately met with sharp criticism from the United States and Ukraine. These countries raised:
On the other side, arguments emerged that closer cooperation should not be seen as hostile, and that ultimately, energy policy decisions should be made in Berlin and Moscow. The US responded with sanctions on entities involved in Nord Stream 2, but these did not significantly change the situation.
The UK had a decidedly critical stance on NS2, essentially aligning itself with the positions of Eastern Europe and the US – and joining the sanctions. London viewed the project as a threat to Europe's energy security and a tool of Russian political influence, which was undesirable for the UK. Although geographically, London was in a safer position than Stockholm or Warsaw – as a NATO member, the UK showed much greater understanding of the situation than political factors in Berlin.
The project ultimately was not launched, as the shock the world experienced following Russia's aggression against Ukraine led to a broader response and moral justification for halting the project, even though billions of euros worth of infrastructure had just been completed. In an attempt to accelerate bureaucratic procedures for opening the project on the German side – in 2022, after the aggression against Ukraine, Russia halted gas supplies to Europe (via existing pipelines) to create the specter of gas shortages ahead of the approaching winter. This was meant to pressure Berlin into launching the now even more controversial project – however, international pressure had become too strong, and European countries were working to accelerate the diversification of gas supplies at an unprecedented pace. The foundation of Germany's energy future, the plan to dominate the sector – and the previous foundation of the German economy's competitive advantage, i.e., access to cheap energy resources from beyond the Urals – collapsed.
On September 26, 2022, explosions damaged the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines near the Danish island of Bornholm. The explosions sparked a wave of speculation about their causes and potential consequences.
Shortly after the incident, numerous suspicions of deliberate sabotage emerged. Traces of explosives found nearby seem to confirm these suspicions, suggesting that the explosions could have been the result of a carefully planned operation. This event became a flashpoint in the debate about the security of energy infrastructure in Europe, forcing a reflection on its protection. No definitive culprit has been identified.
In light of these events, a key question arises: what steps should be taken to strengthen the protection of energy infrastructure and prevent similar incidents in the future?
The explosions of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in 2022 had catastrophic environmental consequences, including the release of vast amounts of methane into the Baltic Sea. This potent greenhouse gas has a destructive impact on the climate. Its release into the atmosphere and sea waters poses a serious threat to the Baltic ecosystem, which is already facing numerous ecological challenges.
We do not want to engage in conspiracy theories, but it is hard not to notice certain coincidences. Until the moment when Russian gas was expected to flow in large volumes through NS2 to Germany, European policy shaped by the European Commission – perfectly aligned with Berlin's economic plans. Gas was widely recognized as an ecological fuel. Gas power plants in EU plans were supposed to play a major role in replacing old coal-fired power plants in Poland or Slovakia – presented as clean and super-stable. They were even expected to replace nuclear power plants (though here, significant resistance from France, whose energy sector is largely based on nuclear power, was encountered).
At the moment the NS2 project collapsed, the European Commission suddenly declared gas as non-ecological, despite the fact that no such voices had previously emerged, neither in the political elite circles of Europe nor in the world of scientific think tanks considered close to these circles. Doesn't it seem strange that gas was declared non-ecological and the EU announced a move away from gas and a ban on subsidizing gas boilers? Would anyone have believed that the EU would prohibit its member states from developing gas systems if the German NS2 project had succeeded? After all, gas is available, and after temporary difficulties, Europe is sourcing it from other sources – and prices are stabilizing.
Interestingly – in the European Commission's new plans, the green revolution was to continue with the exclusion of gas, which was now to be replaced by ... heat pumps. We probably don't need to mention that the country producing the most heat pumps in Europe is ... Germany.
Has the European Union become a tool for realizing German economic interests, at least in terms of energy policy?
The fate of Nord Stream 2 remains uncertain, and possible future scenarios are both diverse and difficult to predict. The main reason for this situation is the political and geopolitical tensions that have accompanied the project from the very beginning. In light of dynamic changes on the international stage, the question of whether the pipeline will ever be launched remains unanswered. Moreover, speculation has emerged regarding the potential sale of the infrastructure, which could open new opportunities and directions for Nord Stream 2. But will it be opened?
Despite current difficulties, the issue of reactivating Nord Stream 2 continues to generate interest. In light of changing political and economic realities, some experts suggest that restoring the pipeline to operation could be considered in the future, following the signing of an impending peace agreement in Ukraine. Cynics say this would be a return to "business as usual," and it's hard to disagree, as there is a significant grain of truth in the fact that without the completion of Nord Stream, Russia might not have invaded Ukraine (it would not have risked it, as Ukraine repeatedly mentioned the possibility of blowing up pipelines on its territory, though this ultimately did not happen).
In this context, the future of Nord Stream 2 remains a great unknown, and its fate depends on further developments in the global political and economic situation.
The controversies surrounding Nord Stream 2 provide Europe with valuable lessons in energy security and international politics. Key takeaways include:
Thanks to these experiences, Europe has the opportunity to avoid past mistakes and ensure a stable and sustainable energy future. What further steps can European countries take to achieve these goals? This question remains crucial.
Mixing valves, three-way, four-way - what exactly are they?
How to choose a pellet stove for your home?
Check valve in the central heating system
Liquid thermal media - water, glycol? What to use in a heating system?
Gas boiler servicing - is it necessary?
Leave a comment