The argument about the gas pipeline “Nord Stream 2” between Russia and Germany, which is meant to be built next year, is escalating.

In St Petersburg on Wednesday, German foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel again supported the completion of the project: “The question of where companies in the European market receive their gas supply from must be made on the basis of these companies’ market-based decisions. We have always known Russia to be a highly reliable supplier”.

Just one day later, the Danish government adopted a law that will allow the country to prevent the pipeline from running through its territory. The justification is that the project allegedly poses a potential threat to national security. The EU commission has previously announced its resistance to the project. Brussels is apparently working on changing the guidelines for building pipelines between the EU and non-EU states so that the project could be stopped.

Now one of the harshest critics of the massive endeavor by Russian state-owned company Gazprom is speaking out. This critic is the former Secretary General of NATO (2009-2014), Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Talking to BILD, he explains why the project is basically a “weapon” of the Kremlin and why the SPD is “naive” in wanting to tie Nord Stream 2 to Willy Brandt’s ostpolitik approach



BILD: German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel sees the Nord Stream 2 project as an important part of Europe’s energy supply network. How would you describe the project?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: "A trap that Germany is walking into, with serious consequences for its European neighbours. NS2 is the flagship project in Russia’s campaign to keep Europe dependant on its gas, to consolidate its influence in the heart of the EU, and to deprive Ukraine of gas transit fees that it needs to make the European transformation that Germany has rightly been encouraging."

BILD: Two of the five financial investors of Nord Stream 2 – Uniper and Wintershall – are from Germany. Given their already accomplished investments of 1,9 billion Euros into the project, who would compensate them for their financial losses?

Rasmussen: "That would be a legal question, but these companies make these investments in full knowledge of the risks. Many European countries lost out greatly when Russia cancelled the proposed South Stream pipeline through the Black Sea, so it should not be a scenario they are unprepared for.

However, concerned customers of these companies should be asking them a different question: why are they having to pay to build a pipeline that they don’t need, just to please Moscow? German gas demands can easily be met within the existing Nord Stream 1 pipeline and other pipelines running across Eastern Europe, so this is nothing short of a Putin vanity project paid for by German consumers."

BILD: Already earlier, you have described the project as a “geopolitical tool” by the Kremlin. What do you mean by that?

Rasmussen: "Gas is not the only thing that will flow through the pipeline; Russian influence will flow too. Europe is seeking to diversify away from its dependence on Russian gas, which Moscow has deployed as a political weapon in recent years. Russia currently supplies 34 percent of European gas. With NS2 that would increase to around 40 percent. Meanwhile the EU is spending over five billion Euros as part of its efforts to diversify away from Russian energy. With one policy, Germany is backtracking on all the good work that the EU has carried out.

Russia lost out economically from the collapse in oil prices so it will fight to keep its European gas markets open. European efforts to diversify away from Russian gas and onto other forms of energy are an economic and geopolitical threat to Moscow, which is why they are so highly active in keeping this pipeline alive.

Russia also gets to hurt central European states like Slovakia, and particularly Ukraine. With NS2 it can bypass these reliable transit states and, in Ukraine’s case, deprive them of around 2 billion Euros in transit fees per year – equal to six percent of the country’s entire budget revenue. Germany has rightly invested in Ukraine, to make it a more secure and stable country with a reform process that brings it closer to the EU; yet the government gives with one hand and takes away with the other if they allow this pipeline."

BILD: It is clear that central and eastern European countries would welcome a cancellation. But what would be the benefit for Germany in cancelling the project?

Rasmussen: "Germany would not lose out on its ability to import Russian gas. I have no wish to lecture Germany on its energy mix, and it could increase gas use without ever building this pipeline. Even the current Nord Stream 1 pipeline is not operating at full capacity.

However, Germany has become the de facto leader of the EU, whether it wishes to hold that position or not. A responsibility of leadership is to lead by example, and if Germany is showing that it is willing to sacrifice its neighbours’ security for its own commercial interests, then Germany should not be surprised when other countries decide to do the same – even if that harms Germany. So, economically, I think Germany has little to lose, but politically it has a lot to gain by finally cancelling this project."

BILD: Especially within the leadership of the German Social Democratic Party, the adherence to Nord Stream 2 seems unbreakable. Why do you think, this is so?

Rasmussen: "Of course, everyone knows the direct link between Mr Schröder and Gazprom but I think the SPD’s view on Nord Stream goes back to Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik and a view that cross-border commerce can help to build a rapprochement between estranged states. This is a noble position to hold, but in my many dealings with Vladimir Putin over the years, I’m afraid it is a little naive. President Putin wants to restore Russian greatness, and that means keeping his sphere of influence in central and eastern Europe. The tool he has to leverage his position is Russian energy. I also doubt whether SPD support for Nord Stream 2 accurately translates Brandt’s approach into the 21st century. If you want to bring about change through trade today, it is surely accomplished by increasing commerce between small and medium-sized businesses, not by buying a highly valuable energy source from Russia’s state-run monopoly.

Chairman of the Shareholders Committee at Nord Stream AG Gerhard Schroeder, Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin Foto: Getty Images News/Getty Images

I want to see a better relationship between Russia and Europe, but that can only happen when Russia stops invading sovereign states, and desists from interfering in our elections and political processes. If we protest on day one but then continue to support Russian state-owned energy companies on day two, what message are we sending?"

