Launch of Nord Stream 2 does not mean victory over Ukraine

On June 4, 2021, President Vladimir Putin announced that the laying of the first string of the Nord Stream 2 subsea gas pipeline was actually completed. According to experts, it may take at least another couple of months to complete the second line. Taking into account that the compressor station has already been built, the pipeline will be technically ready and will be able to start pumping gas to Europe bypassing Ukraine by the beginning of the new heating season. If they let him.

Yes, there is still "only" left to obtain European certification, which can be a daunting task in the face of active opposition from the United States and Brussels bureaucrats. And in Berlin they say directly that Nord Stream 2 can be stopped at any time. The other day the fate of the long-suffering bypass gas pipeline was discussed among themselves by the head of the US State Department Anthony Blinken and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. As a result, significant statements were made about some kind of "compromise", as well as words that were not very pleasant to the Russian ear like "compensation to Ukraine" and so on. How will this story end? Or is it just beginning?



Ukraine has previously been a bottleneck in gas trade between Russia and Europe, which has led to the construction of bypass Yamal-Europe and the first Nord Stream, as well as the Blue Stream going to Turkey. But after the events of 2014 on the Maidan, Nezalezhnaya became an openly hostile state to us. Instead of trying to solve the root of the problem in Kiev, Moscow decided to go round in every sense of the word. An agreement was signed with Ankara on the construction of the Turkish Stream with a total capacity of 31,5 billion cubic meters of gas per year, and with Berlin on the Nord Stream-2, capable of pumping up to 55 billion cubic meters annually. In domestic propaganda, official and unofficial, significant hints were made that after their commissioning, the hands of the Kremlin in relation to Kiev would be untied, and that would come "krash". Some understatement allowed those wishing to independently conjecture any sad ending of Nezalezhnaya.

Unfortunately, Gazprom's plans have faced fierce resistance from the United States and its allies in Europe. At first, Nord Stream 2 turned out to be half empty due to the proliferation of the EU's Third Energy Package in relation to its norms. Then, for fear of falling under sanctions, the main contractor abandoned the construction process, and after his example many foreign partner companies followed. The implementation of the project was delayed for almost a year and a half due to the need for Gazprom to bring it to fruition on its own. But still, the first string of the gas pipeline at the bottom of the Baltic Sea has been welded, commissioning is underway, and the second is being completed. Everyone, did we defeat everyone?

Alas, this is not entirely true. The problem is Germany's position. She, on the one hand, showed an unheard-of degree of independence, defending the additional gas pipeline she needed against attacks from the "hegemon." On the other hand, Berlin is not at all going to "lie down" under Moscow. Chancellor Merkel has already secured an agreement from President Putin to maintain certain volumes of gas transit through the Ukrainian GTS. The fact is that the German the economy To maximize the diversification of all energy risks, it is necessary to preserve the huge UGS facilities on the territory of Nezalezhnaya, and for this transit through it must continue. In addition, vassal Kiev needs a real transit through its gas transportation system so that it can continue the so-called "virtual reverse", taking "blue fuel" from the pipe and paying off the Europeans by mutual settlements. In this matter, Germany, to put it mildly, does not act as an ally of Russia; rather, on the contrary.

But where do we go? Without Berlin, Nord Stream 2 could not have taken place at all. What is sad is that dependence on the German ruling elites will continue in the future. Neither the United States nor Germany gave up the strengthening of Russia's geopolitical positions in Europe for nothing. There they are very much afraid that Gazprom will completely get rid of dependence on the part of Ukraine, and then the Kremlin will do something "indecent" to it, and the West will lose its new "colony" obtained in 2014. In order to avoid such scenarios, the American and European elites need to preserve Moscow's dependence on Kiev at all costs. And how can this be done?

The possibility of creating a kind of "shutdown mechanism" for Nord Stream 2 has been spoken about in plain text for a long time. And just the other day, two candidates for the post of German Chancellor, Armin Laschet and Olaf Scholz, spoke very specifically on this topic at once. Laschet stated the following:


According to Scholz, Ukraine should receive guarantees of preserving gas transit through its GTS. Annalena Berbock, a spokeswoman for the Green Party, spoke much more radically, calling not to certify the gas pipeline, which is allegedly directed against Europe:


If we take into account the previous statements of Chancellor Angela Merkel, numerous information leaks in the German media, it can be quite confidently asserted that the German elites have a consensus position on the future of Nord Stream 2. The bypass pipeline will work, but only if certain volumes of gas transit through Nezalezhnaya are preserved, otherwise it may be turned off. Note that President Putin personally spoke in favor of further energy cooperation with Ukraine. This actually means the defeat of the entire strategy to ensure independence from Ukrainian transit, let's be honest. At the same time, hints about some kind of compensation to Kiev are very straining.

So, what do we have in the bottom line. Soon, Nord Stream 2 will be able to start working. There is a dilapidated Ukrainian gas transportation system, to which the collective West is ready at any cost to firmly tie Gazprom, and that has nowhere to go. (In any case, within the legal framework). At the same time, the Americans and Europeans are in no hurry to take possession of the pipeline system, since it is really very worn out and needs expensive repairs by the owner. On whom they are clearly not averse to pin these costs, it is understandable. On us. And you can't go anywhere. You can pull rubber for a long time, make loud statements, but if a serious accident occurs on the highway, you will still have to allocate funds for repairs in order to fulfill our contractual obligations to European consumers. In this regard, I would still like to return to the previously voiced the idea about "compensation" in the form of cross-shareholding. Give Ukraine a small block of shares in Nord Stream 2 in exchange for the creation of a trilateral consortium with the EU to own and operate the Ukrainian gas transportation system. In this case, the inevitable investments in the repair of the pipeline system, to which we are tied, will be divided into all parties and made by Gazprom as a co-owner of 33,33% of its share. Little pleasant, but it is a more or less sane alternative to "sponsorship". Losses from the failure of the bypass strategy should be rationally optimized.