The anti-Nord-Stream camp has been keen in preaching the doctrine of Russian heinous imperial stratagem: to clandestinely beguile Europe to receive the Trojan horse (i.e. Nord Stream 2); the purpose of which would be destabilizing the continent’s energy security; and bringing European powers to heel before Russia, the result of substantial energy dependency.
It should be all too perspicuous, however, that this is at best sheer paranoia; at worst, utter deceit; devised to achieve specific political scores for certain individuals and parties—chiefly, preventing Russo-European harmonization and keeping the ‘Russian boogeyman (or, wolf)’ myth alive.
For the truth of the matter is this:
In the first article of this series, “Nord Stream 2: More than a Pipeline,” I showcased that it is, foremost, in Russia’s strategic interest not to utilize the Nord Stream projects as means for political and economic leverage so that the projects may fundamentally contribute toward Russia’s integration into Europe (Nasif). Accordingly, in the second article, I explicated how the Russian military buildup along its border with Ukraine is entirely a deterrent signal for potential NATO expansion eastward, and bears no belligerent intension whatsoever against Europe as has been falsely propagated [emphasis added]. More so, the ulterior motive underlying that ferocious propaganda campaign was to dissuade the German regulator from granting the green light for Nord Stream 2 coming into service (Nasif*).
*The citation is made from, “Nord Stream 2: More than a Pipeline [Part II: Migrants Border Crisis and Russian Military Build-up on Ukraine’s Border],” article.
To begin with, the Nord Stream is a joint project owned by a Swiss-based consortium: Gazprom controls the largest stake of shares (51%); Wintershall Dea (15.5%); and, PEG Infrastruktur AG (E.ON) (15.5%); N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie (9%); in addition to Engie with a (9%) stake (AG).
At first glance, one would assume that Gazprom has the final say in all matters concerning the Nord Streams—given that it owns a controlling majority of shares. But, we are all adults to understand that the world is no utopia, where companies’ internal management enjoys an omnipotency and answers to no one. For, like it or not, deny it who will, domestic and international (multinational, too) companies and projects, alike, are subject to the rule of law of the countries in which they operate and conduct business, as well as international law.
For instance, speaking of compliance with international law vis-á-vis the Arctic at the 18th annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in October this year, President Putin made explicit reference to the Nord Stream project, “By the way, consider the Nord Stream—in accordance with these rules, we had to request appropriate permits from the coastal states—Finland, Sweden, and Denmark—when we did not even have to enter their territorial sea, but the pipeline crossed those countries’ exclusive economic zones. This is a requirement of international law, and we abide by this law, and everyone, including Europeans, insisted that we acted within the framework of those international legal norms [my formatting].” Which followed a previous remark regarding shortages of gas supplies to Europe, “Once the second line [Nord Stream 2] is filled, and the German regulator issues its permit [my formatting], we can start supplies on the next day. … By the way, we keep saying: Nord Stream-2, Gazprom… But there are five European companies taking part in this project. Why do you mention Gazprom alone? Have you forgotten about them? Five major European companies are working on this project. So, this affects not only the interests of Gazprom but also the interests of our partners, primarily in Europe, of course.” (“Valdai Discussion Club Meeting”)
And, the German regulator, on its part, demanded that the consortium must, “form a German subsidiary under German law [my formatting] to secure an operating license,” (Eckert).
That being said, it is thus evident to the meanest intelligence that European institutions possess uncontested legal powers and control over the operation of Nord Stream 2.
In a nutshell, while Russia has far more convenient economic alternatives for its gas supplies, such as Asia, it presses forth with the Nord Stream projects, for the cultural symbolism and integration sought in them outweigh any economic and political consideration—that is, the conversion of Russia’s self-perceived European identity into an established universal reality.
On a positive note, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Reference
AG, Nord S. “Our Shareholders.” Nord Stream AG, www.nord-stream.com/about-us/our-shareholders/. Accessed 24 Dec. 2021.
Eckert, Vera. “German Regulator Puts Brake on Nord Stream 2 in Fresh Blow to Gas Pipeline.” Reuters, 16 Nov. 2021, www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-energy-regulator-suspends-nord-stream-2-certification-makes-demands-2021-11-16/. Accessed 22 Nov. 2021.
Nasif, Alan. “Nord Stream 2: More Than a Pipeline.” Intelligence Scoop – A Blog Addressing Politics, Sociology, and Philosophy, Economics, and Psychology, 23 Sept. 2021, www.intel-scoop.com/nord-stream-2-more-than-a-pipeline/. Accessed 22 Nov. 2021.
Nasif, Alan. “Nord Stream 2: More Than a Pipeline [Part II: Migrants Border Crisis and Russian Military Build-up on Ukraine’s Border].” Intelligence Scoop – A Blog Addressing Politics, Sociology, and Philosophy, Economics, and Psychology, 23 Nov. 2021, www.intel-scoop.com/nord-stream-2-more-than-a-pipeline-part-ii-migrants-border-crisis-and-russian-military-build-up-on-ukraines-border/. Accessed 26 Dec. 2021.
Valdai Discussion Club Meeting. 21 Oct. 2021, en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975. Accessed 31 Oct. 2021.
