Eighteen months after the launch, in September 2015, of the Russian project to double the Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea, Nord Stream-2 continues to arouse distrust and hostility at the European Parliament, where several members of the foreign affairs committee, (members from countries bordering the Baltic) have criticised the project’s geopolitical risks.
The first of the three experts invited by the foreign affairs committee to a public hearing on the geopolitical implications of Nord Stream-2, Andreas Goldthau from Royal Holloway University in London, said he thought the gas pipeline could be shown to be consistent with EU law and that is was “not so problematic” from the economic point of view. “It is important to have a system of competition that functions well and good interconnectors in the EU. It is important to build the infrastructure and ensure it respects our rules. Many countries lag behind in ensuring the respect of competition. Then we will be able to force the hand of external operators”, he added.
Sijbren de Jong, an analyst at the Centre for Strategic Studies in The Hague, underlined Sweden’s concerns about Russian spying on the island of Gotland, with Stockholm having decided to monitor the presence of companies linked to Nord Stream-2 in the port of Karlhamn, where the pipes needed for the work will be stocked. De Jong also underlined “the enormous geostrategic impact” of the project for Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine. If the EU supports Nord Stream-2, Gazprom’s “dominant position” in central and eastern Europe “will be strengthened”, he said. Furthermore, he pointed out “the active lobbying of German politicians” and warned of the risk of pressure on Germany, like that which led Hungary to stop its reverse gas flows to Ukraine.
Agata Łoskot-Strachota, a researcher at Warsaw’s Centre for Eastern Studies, spoke of the threat that Nord Stream-2 had “on the feasibility of the goals of the Energy Union project, particularly the construction of new infrastructure for diversification in central and eastern Europe, and the goal of three different sources of gas”. Łoskot-Strachota highlighted “the risks for the EU’s cohesion, for its policy on Russia and its partnership with Ukraine” – risks linked to a greater presence of Russian Gazprom gas in Germany – and at the regional level “the main goal of this project is to reduce the transit across Ukraine in order to destabilise the country, and weaken the power of European energy actors”, she said.
“It is important to understand that this gas pipeline will increase Russia’s presence in the Baltic Sea”, said Tunne Kelam (EPP, Estonia), expressing concern at the risk of this project enabling Russia to increase its “political blackmail” to EU countries in crisis situations. “The EU needs a more realist approach, unity and coordination”, he said.
Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D, Lithuania) argued that the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline project is purely economic, and he assured that his country would suffer from higher gas prices as "punishment" for it joining the EU. The rejection of the Polish competition authority in summer 2016 with regard to creating a joint venture between Gazprom and its five European partners (Germany's E.ON and Wintershall, Austria's OMV, France's Engie and the UK-Netherlands' Shell) – on the grounds that this project could strengthen Gazprom's dominant position in the Polish market, which could lead to the withdrawal of the five Europeans from direct participation in the project – "is totally justified", he said.
"It is evident that the Russians want to take our region – the Baltic countries, Poland and Ukraine – into their grip so they can strengthen their power of blackmail. Nord Stream-2 will make the stability of the region worse", warned Anna Elżbieta Fotyga (ECR, Poland).
"Ukraine is a trustworthy partner. An alternative supply route for Russian gas to the EU is pointless. Nord Stream-2 cannot be justified from the economic point of view and the construction of gas pipelines bypassing Ukraine is politically motivated", said Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE, Lithuania). "This project threatens to harm our security of supply, our solidarity, and our competition rules – and it undermines the Energy Union project", he said, accusing former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who heads the Nord Stream consortium, and other European politicians of lining their pockets and being bought off by Russia's President Vladimir Putin.
Rebecca Harms (Greens/EFA, Germany) criticised a project that runs counter to the EU's plans to strengthen its energy security and the diversification of its supply, and she called for "the Energy Union to be achieved in the face of the challenge posed by Putin's Russia".
Answering Michael Gahler (EPP, Germany), who suggested that the national authorities of the countries bordering the Baltic put up obstacles to slow down the Nord Stream-2 project, Łoskot-Strachota underlined the potential role of Denmark, whose national waters will be crossed by the pipeline, but she nevertheless stated that this country was not "very keen to play the legal card, given its joint interests with Russia in the Arctic area". (Original version in French by Emmanuel Hagry)