nordstrom 2. i said why is germany
spending billions and billions of
dollars to russia
to get their energy from russia and then
we're supposed to protect germany from
russia what's that all about
so close yet so far the nordstream 2
pipeline meant to carry gas from russia
to germany
is nearly finished but germany is still
having to defend the project
from critics who say it hands undue
influence
to russia
[Music]
our opinion is that nordstrom 2 should
be completed
it is a project that is run by russian
and european industries would send a
strong signal for germany to say right
now that it will withdraw from this
project that comes at the expense of
lithuania
estonia latvia and poland that would
help unify europe
this pipeline splinters it pipelines
today we're coming to you from the gaso
meter in the heart of berlin
now it's hard to imagine now but gas
used to be pumped
into homes from gas supply tanks like
this one built in 1910.
now it's been decommissioned a long time
ago but the question
of how to power germany or europe is an
enduring one
for germany at least part of the answer
for the future
lies in the nord stream 2 pipeline now
that's a controversial choice
and we'll get into why but first here's
a closer look at the project
all seemed well between germany and
russia back in 2018 when vladimir putin
and former german chancellor gerhart
schroeder celebrated the start of
construction work on nordstream 2.
the nordstream 2 pipeline is set to
carry 55 billion cubic metres of russian
gas to germany directly every year
without passing through either ukraine
or poland
the gas will travel from the city of
viburg in russia along the 2
400 kilometer underwater pipeline
through the baltic sea to the german
coast
it's almost complete there are just 150
kilometers still to be laid
but in july this year the us threatened
sanctions against all individuals and
companies
involved in the pipeline work on the
project halted
it even looked like it might be scrapped
much to washington's delight
in 1973 the first gas shipments from the
former soviet union arrived in west
germany
it was the height of the oil crisis and
the u.s was furious
since then the soviet union and later
russia have worked hard
to step up energy supplies to germany
even though there have been plenty of
political conflicts between the two
countries over the years
like when the soviet army marched into
afghanistan in 1979
to rescue its shaky communist regime
or when vladimir putin annexed ukraine's
crimean peninsula
in 2014 so far germany has always
endeavoured to separate politics from
its economic interests when it comes to
russia
but that could now change with the
poisoning of russian opposition leader
alexei
navalny pressure is mounting on
chancellor angela merkel
to take a firm stance how to deal with
russia
for many that's what the question around
nordstrom 2
is really about this pipeline gives
russia
one money and two regional influence
handed to them by europe's power player
germany and some european countries like
poland and the baltic states
argue that the pipeline makes europe too
dependent on russian gas
and the fact that the project bypasses
ukraine
means that russia can turn off supplies
there while still
delivering to and earning from gas sent
to western europe
bad politics shouldn't be rewarded with
good
business at least that's what the
critics say
others again argue against conflating
too many layers
here's michael harms of the german
eastern business association
we need a reaction towards all these
russian interference
but we would say that stop or
to scrap the nostriling tube would be
not the the adequate reaction
because these two things are not
interconnected
i mean we need first of all with any
sanctions we need a clear political goal
what is the clear political goal in in
this atmosphere i hear only
stop putin sorry this is not a
a reliable and clear political goal
second you need an instrument who can
act as a leverage to achieve this
political goal
both things i do not see in that case
[Music]
the best way would be to stick to
just rule of law and
investment security because again
the project was completely approved
within
european regulation and investment
security
is a value for itself so therefore we
can have a political discussion
but the best way is to stick to clear
regulation
and if not if we take the political
decision to stop the project then it's
uh we should clarify that within a also
reliable legal framework and that would
be very problematic in that case
so if i understand correctly the clear
european position should be that this
project was
approved under european regulations and
stopping it now could be illegal
exactly exactly
so we are still believing that the
project will be
implemented again we think it is a
very important european project
we think that reliability of
investment decisions and of our legal
framework is
very important for us very important for
europe for russia
and also for germany and we think that
will be
a project which does not only physically
connect europe with russia but also
mentally and
maybe even will be a future project of
our common challenges to fight common
challenges in europe
loftier goals of a united europe are one
thing
but let's not forget this was a really
expensive project to build
and if it came to it it'll be a really
expensive project to stop
take a look fifty percent of north
stream two shares are owned by russian
energy company gazprom
the other half are divided between five
european companies
gaspom would have to write off around 5
billion euros of investment
marking them as losses the rest of the
shares are divided among german
companies winters holland juniper
ng from france omv from austria and
british dutch company shell
these partners have all invested 950
million euros each
and they could demand compensation from
the german government
and the companies might even go to the
international courts to sue for loss of
income
but it's not just that scrapping the
pipeline might result in higher gas
prices for consumers
given the dwindling supply of gas in the
northern sea
the best and cheapest alternative would
be additional supply from russia
so goes the argument anyway but experts
on the other side
of this debate say those costs are
bearable and that the nordstream 2
pipeline
is just more trouble than it's worth
time to speak to claudia comfort of the
german institute for economic research
we don't need a further pipeline we
don't need
north stream too we have enough existing
pipelines
right now the geopolitical aquarius are
so intense that we should
really think over whether we should
really stick to this very expensive
unnecessary
and also conflicting pipeline
right now
[Music]
it does not function as a check i think
because
we could negotiate in many ways we could
cooperate in so many ways we could
cooperate on renewable energy we could
cooperate on hydrogen
on whatever products but why don't we
why should we cooperate on
fossil natural gas because we don't need
fossil natural gas in the future because
of emission reduction goals
and also because we have different goals
in europe to
really simply go for an energy
transition
[Music]
it's very difficult to understand why
the berlin government is still
so much focusing on it because i think
we think it's a mistake
because of economic reasons because of
climate policy reasons because of energy
transformation reasons
because we have to diversify energy
imports so it contradicts so many goals
it's very difficult to understand why
they still still stick to it
[Music]
well actually the right response would
be to follow the energy
transformation and go away from fossil
fuel in any
any kind of source oil natural gas and
coal
simply because to avoid these kind of
quarrels so geopolitical queries which
are
increasing there some kind of war
actually
now
[Music]
well it's very difficult to say what is
the future right now because it's a very
difficult project it's
almost finished so it's most likely
that it will be finished but the
question is though whether
the situation will be better after it
because
also the us has some strategies the
russia has some strategies
so it would be wise really to to move
to move forward and to go into the
future
without natural gas
whichever side of the debate you're on
you probably don't feel as strongly
about nordstream 2 as the u.s does
the u.s is against this pipeline
ostensibly because it affords the
kremlin
too much control over the european
energy market
the americans also want to sell their
own liquefy natural gas to europe
the americans by the way call it freedom
gas
and they're prepared to take drastic
measures in order to prevent the
pipeline's completion
drastic measures like sanctions in fact
ever tightening sanctions on the
companies working on the pipeline
have already caused a de facto
suspension of the project
the latest target has been the port of
mukron in the resort town of sasnits
that's where the last of the pipeline
operations were being held
senators ted cruz ron johnson and tom
cotton wrote a letter to the port's
pledging
quote crushing legal and economic
sanctions for the board members
shareholders and employees working on
the pipeline
well that's something the people there
did not appreciate
what does trump have to do with it
nothing he should stay where he is and
let europe do its thing
these are trump's political death throes
he won't be re-elected
i hope he won't be re-elected we don't
need a clown like that in world politics
i think sasnets knows how to defend
itself against such a threatening letter
this construction has been in
preparation for a long time
now it's all supposed to get torn down
we're not going to stand for it
in case you haven't gotten it yet
germany is in a tight spot
there are those who say proceeding with
a pipeline is enabling russia and others
still who say
not completing it is bowing down to the
u.s the nordstream 2 pipeline
is more than just a pipeline the debate
around it has become a proxy discussion
for how germany
engages with the rest of the world
however they choose to respond next
the world will be watching