As recently as in March 2019, members of the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for a cancellation of Nord Stream 2 because of its obvious political nature and its negative effect on the European energy security. The resolution was adopted by a large margin – 402 votes to 163, with 89 abstentions, including by a majority of MEPs from Germany and Austria. The vote took place after the Gas Directive had been amended to extend the European rules on incoming offshore pipelines.

Earlier, on 12 December 2018, MEPs alled for construction to cease on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which bypasses Ukraine, stating: “The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a political project that poses a threat to European energy security and efforts to diversify European energy supplies.” The European Parliament adopted the resolution by a large majority 433 votes to 105, with 30 abstentions.

On November 13, German Bundestag has finally made up mind as for the controversial energy legislation addressing the Nord Stream 2. The decision implementing EU Gas Directive into the German legislation was backed by CDU/CSU, social democrats and free democrats.

However, apparently this decision may become an open door for the Russian manipulations. Though loud declarations of diversification of energy routs, the actual state of affairs may significantly differ. Still some states considering themselves as defenders of Ukrainian interests truly believes that project won’t hurt Ukraine. Actually, Russian gas exports would be concentrated into a single pipeline corridor in the Baltic Sea, bypassing Ukraine and reducing that country’s gas load to 10 percent of current capacity. Gazprom plans to decommission export pipelines with a combined capacity several times higher than that of Nord Stream 2. That is, under the cover of delivering more gas to Europe, we may face its sharp decrease.

Today Gazprom is currently on the way to it. The company has already decommissioned three compressor shops and is working on four other. It means, more than 2,600 miles of pipelines and 62 compressor shops shall be liquidated making Europe more dependent on Russian moods. Any technological failure, i.e. a mine from World War II, an underwater drone, or a technical breakdown, may invoke gas shortage for months required for reparation works.

Don’t forget the fact that such gas transit monopoly will be a master card in Putin’s political games. Once he had cut the exports to Germany via the new Nord Stream 2 as a response to active European involvement in gas resell to Ukraine at a lower price that that of Russian. Should we be sure that the history may not repeat itself?

Acting like a judge and executioner, Putin shaows that financial loses mean nothing for him. For him, being able to demonstrate that he could cut off supply to Europe on a whim outweighted $6 billion losses and the reputation of the Nord Stream.

Meanwhile, rapidly developing wind power also requires flexible gas to cover electricity shortages during calm weather. According to the European Commission’s Quo Vadis gas market study, Nord Stream 2 combined with elimination of Ukrainian transit “creates a serious congestion and related price divergence between NW and CSEE Europe.” With a start-up time of just a few minutes, gas turbines can theoretically respond to a shortage of electricity on a winter day with low wind, for example. both Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 are designed to ship equal daily volumes through the year regardless of seasonal change of demand. Ukraine is the only export route for flexible supplies of Russian gas to Europe.