Skip to main content

A Pipe, A Chancellor, Security and the New President of Russia

Nord Stream is the extremely controversial plan to build an undersea gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. It is controversial for two different sets of reasons. One is concerned with the potential environmental damage of the pipeline on the already damaged and degraded waters of the enclosed Baltic Sea. The seabed of the Baltic is said to contain a large amount of different poisons in its sediments that would be stirred up by the construction. Such poisons included heavy metals, phosphate and other pollutants that have run off from the land, but also includes the remains of large numbers of mines that were laid during the first and second world war, which have not been fully mapped and have never been entirely cleared.

However it is not so much the environmental issues that have created the greatest controversy, it is the political issues. Firstly, the undersea route by passes the already existing pipelines between Russia and Western Europe- it avoids land transit through countries such as Poland and Belarus. Although one argument suggest that this saves running costs from transit fees, in fact the costs of construction and maintenance of an undersea pipe are substantially higher than any conceivable pipe over land. Furthermore, given the occasional cuts in supply, the Central and Eastern European transit states believe that the major purpose in by-passing them is to be able to use the threat to cut off supply for credibly- enforcing a de facto monopoly and raising prices beyond the global market level. More to the point, the new pipe would be able to supply the major Western European markets and increase their economic dependence on Russian gas supplies. Again, the CEE states believe that this would be to their considerable disadvantage, since Western European support for the East, in their periodic disputes with an authoritarian and assertive Russia might be much less forthcoming.

These concerns may not be baseless paranoia either.

Germany, which has been particularly courted by both Gazprom and the official Russian government, now has a series of public conflicts concerning how Russia has used its relations with key individuals. The first and growing scandal concerns Gerhard Schroeder, the one time Chancellor, who took the job of chairman of Nord Stream, and with it some extremely large financial arrangements. As Chancellor, Schroeder had championed the scheme and drawn a veil over the gathering gloom about Russian democracy. He and his wife, indeed had adopted Russian children from the Russian city of St. Petersburg, the home city of President Vladimir Putin- an exceptionally rare occurrence to gain official sanction. As a result, Mr. Schroeder seems to have become exceptionally loyal to Russia- trying to lobby Estonia to back down, for example during the Bronze statue crisis- a crisis to a very great degree of Russia's making. If Nord Stream was trying to allay the security fears of the countries between Russia and Germany, he could hardly have done a better job- at destroying confidence.

The fact that the Managing Director of Nord Stream, Matthias Warnig, has confirmed that he was an agent of the feared and hated East German secret police, the Stasi has only added to the atmosphere, not only of sleaze that surrounds the company, but of something far more sinister.

Now, the costs of the pipe are set to grow dramatically. First thought to be EUR 5 billion, now the construction cost is estimated to be EUR 8 billion, and some are even forecasting EUR 11 billion. These numbers would probably not be economic for a commercial organisation, but Gazprom, ever more increasingly, is not such an organisation but in fact a significant part of the Russian state. Certainly, in Sweden, there are growing concerns that a proposed platform, close to the coast of the Swedish island of Gotland, would be used to spy upon the Royal Swedish Navy. Indeed, Swedish legislators look increasingly set to refuse permission for the construction of any pipe in its zone of exclusive economic interests without major changes. Given that Latvia and Estonia already oppose the pipeline, it may be that Nord Stream will need radical changes- including spurs to the countries that it was intended to by-pass.

As costs escalate and the political heat is turned up on the project, it is interesting to note that the prospective new president of Russia, Dimitri Medvedev has been on the board of Nord Stream for several years, in his capacity as Head of Gazprom.

This is a wilfully divisive project- a Trojan Horse that will increase West European dependence on Russian gas supplies, but allow Russia to blackmail Eastern European customers with threats of cutting supply. It will create a Russian listening post in the middle of the Baltic Sea, compromising Swedish and NATO security. It has already created scandal at the heart of German politics. All of which the Siloviki at the heart of the Kremlin will regard as being well worth the extra costs already.

However, NATO should have forced major changes to the project, and indeed have been prepared to ensure that the project did not go ahead at all without major safeguards. Now, it is up to Sweden - and for all of our sakes, I hope that they play a much harder game than the subverted German establishment.

In the new cold war, one of the most important battle lines is money. The West must resist the blandishments and inducements- as Gerhard Schroeder seems to have so signally failed to do- and stand up for its own best interests.

This is a serious and significant battle- we shall see what the result will be in the Swedish Riksdag.


So? said…
Actually 6-7 years ago the plan was to build the pipeline through Belarus and Poland. Except the Poles (or rather their politicians) threw up a big stink about imperialist Russia impinging on their sovereignty, using the fibreoptic cable that would have run along the pipeline to spy on Poland, etc.. So the Russians are damned if they do, damned if the don't. As any sane business would, Gazprom decided that they should deal with as few entities as possible. Who can blame them?
Anonymous said…
You've basically got this story just right - except that Alexander Medvedev is not related to Dmitri Medvedev, who is expected to become Russia's next president. Dmitri, however, is indeed chairman of the board of Gazprom.
Cicero said…
Thanks James- a slip of the keyboard, although in fact there is an Alexander Medvedev on the board of Nord Stream, it is Dmitri that I am refering to.

Popular posts from this blog

Concert and Blues

Tallinn is full tonight... Big concerts on at the Song field The Weeknd and Bonnie Tyler (!). The place is buzzing and some sixty thousand concert goers have booked every bed for thirty miles around Tallinn. It should be a busy high summer, but it isn´t. Tourism is down sharply overall. Only 70 cruise ships calling this season, versus over 300 before Ukraine. Since no one goes to St Pete, demand has fallen, and of course people think that Estonia is not safe. We are tired. The economy is still under big pressure, and the fall of tourism is a significant part of that. The credit rating for Estonia has been downgraded as the government struggles with spending. The summer has been a little gloomy, and soon the long and slow autumn will drift into the dark of the year. Yesterday I met with more refugees: the usual horrible stories, the usual tears. I try to make myself immune, but I can´t. These people are wounded in spirit, carrying their grief in a terrible cradling. I try to project hop

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo

KamiKwasi brings an end to the illusion of Tory economic competence

After a long time, Politics seems to be getting interesting again, so I thought it might be time to restart my blog. With regard to this weeks mini budget, as with all budgets, there are two aspects: the economic and the political. The economic rationale for this package is questionable at best. The problems of the UK economy are structural. Productivity and investment are weak, infrastructure is under-invested and decaying. Small businesses are going to the wall and despite entrepreneurship being relatively strong in Britain, self-employment is increasingly unattractive. Red tape since Brexit has led to a significant fall in exports and the damage has been disproportionately on small businesses. Literally none of these problems are being addressed by this package. Even if the package were to stimulate some kind of short term consumption-led growth boom, this is unlikely to be sustainable, not least because what is being added on the fiscal side will be need to be offset, to a great de