The age of big-power struggle and a full-fledged hot war was believed to be something of the past, often attributed to the Second World War. Therein descended the 'special military operation' of Russia against its smaller neighbour Ukraine, a month after keeping the world on tenterhooks by amassing troupes along the border. The war is now considered as Russia’s desperation to reclaim its former USSR territories from NATO’s extending tentacles, with strategic importance, energy politics, or even to save Putin's dwindling image of a leader projecting Russian hegemony.
There seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel as the pounding missiles and trampling tanks continue unabated. One of the significant aftermaths of the invasion has been the impact on the global oil and energy supply chains. While few nations faced Russia's wrath of shutting off the oil valve, few others reaped the benefit of cheaper Russian oil, depending on which side of Russia they chose to stand on. Russia was accused of using energy as a weapon of war. The region most hit has undoubtedly been the European Union (EU), especially Germany, in the backdrop of the Nord Stream pipeline imbroglio.
The Nord Stream Pipelines
The Nord Stream pipelines are a set of two underwater sets of pipelines running in the sea bed of the Baltic Sea. It aims to supply natural gas from the Western Siberian part of Russia to Germany. Germany further profits from selling the energy to other Western European nations. While Nord Stream 1 has been successfully in operation for over a decade, Nord Stream 2 was completed in September of 2021 and awaited approval for the commencement of operations from Germany and the European Union. The pipelines can transfer 110 billion cubic meters of gas annually to Europe for another 50 years (The Hindu, 2022). In the face of an impending war, the decision to commence operations from Nord Stream 2 was left hanging fire.
As the war clouds were gathering, US President Biden announced, “If Russia invades Ukraine again, then there will be longer Nord Stream II. We will bring an end to it” (Reuters, 2022). Germany as a NATO member, pledged their support for Ukraine. On February 21, 2022, Russia unilaterally announced the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces within Ukrainian territory. In response, Germany and the EU kept the pipeline certification on hold. The war inevitably shot the prices of natural gas up, doubling the cost of energy and electricity for the already inflation-battered European consumers. The pipeline ended up being a tinderbox of sorts.
Russian gas giant Gazprom completed the 11 billion USD Nord Stream II pipeline to bypass Poland and Ukraine and directly supply natural gas to Germany and other European nations. Ergo, Ukraine would lose roughly two billion USD in transit fees when Nord Stream II becomes functional. The European continent depends on Russia for 35-40 per cent of its energy requirements, out of which Germany alone receives 60-65 per cent of its energy from Russia. Conversely, the region is critical for Russia, accounting for 73 per cent of Russian oil and energy exports (Ramirez, 2022). The project garnered the suspicion of the West because the pipeline could double Europe's consumption of Russian resources, and thereby, the region would be overly dependent on Russia for critical energy needs.
Despite this massive energy security concern, German President Olaf Scholz declared support for Ukraine by agreeing to impose onerous economic costs on Russia to halt Russia's earnings from Europe (Prakash, 2022) The European Union collectively decided to phase down energy imports from Russia and scrambled for alternative energy sources in the Middle East and the United States. Germany dealt with the crunch by choosing to operate its coal plants as long as required, installing solar panels and purchasing wooden stoves, following which Russia resolved to cut down its energy supplies to Europe and reneged on the existing oil-supply contracts with Europe. Initially, Russia shut down the pipeline for ten days and, in August 2022, completely closed the operational Nord Stream-I pipeline citing a lack of fulfilment of payment obligations from Europe as well as maintenance of equipment for an indefinite period (BBC, 2022).
A mysterious explosion
In September 2022, three of the four pipelines ripped apart in a massive explosion. The pipelines, which were not in use then, splintered and spewed methane into the waters of the Baltic. Though the actor behind the explosion is yet not known, preliminary investigations revealed an act of sabotage. Russia accused the United States and, specifically, the UK Royal Navy of planting the explosives while the United States traded spars at Russia for threatening Europe's critical infrastructure. A report by journalist Seymour Hersh holding President Biden and the CIA responsible for the well-thought-out plan to attack the pipeline has been dismissed as "utterly false and complete fiction" by the US. At the same time, Russia considers the report based on facts. Denmark, Sweden and Germany are carrying out independent investigations.
In February 2023, the incident was again in the spotlight when Russia’s Ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, requested the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for a separate international investigation. The request focused on a panel constituted by the UN Secretary-General because they felt the proceedings would be more trustworthy. The Ambassador cited a need for more trust in the investigation being carried out by Denmark, Sweden and Germany because of their proximity to America. This request was seen by the United States, United Kingdom and France as a means to swerve the world's attention away from the fact of the Russia-Ukraine war's one-year anniversary and, thus, rejected (The Wire, 2023).
Conclusion
The latest UN General Assembly’s resolution calling for a “just and lasting peace” and condemning Russian aggression was sponsored by 70 nations, voted in favour by 141 countries, voted against by 7 and 32 nations abstained (The Hindu, 2023). This indicates the lack of consensus by the global community to arrive at pragmatic and probable steps towards a ceasefire. The ongoing war, directly or indirectly, portrays the ephemeral nature of international geo-political alliances. As the world battles multiple political, ecological and economic disasters, neo-liberal institutionalism is pushed to the back burner, as can be seen from the lack of will by any UN member to mediate and initiate talks between the warring nations. As rubble, refugees, and ruckus keep soaring, the hopes for collective action and cooperation swirl away in a whirlpool of Machiavellian politics.
Comments