3 ms·

Nordstream 2 hasn't transported a single m^3 of natural gas for sale (there was probably some minor net flow from initial pressurization), as promised in case o

Nordstream 2 hasn't transported a single m^3 of natural gas for sale (there was probably some minor net flow from initial pressurization), as promised in case of russia ending the peace. That thing was a money sink: About 5bn€ of Gazprom money, about 1bn€ each for 5 energy traders from Germany (2x), France, Austria and Great Britain. > There were repeated votes strongly in favor (like, 8-to-1 ratio) of halting the project in European Parliament And the natural gas they used came from a random non-russian pipeline. Nevermind that it was ~half russian in origin. Hypocrites. > strong and vocal opposition from the US, Ukraine, Poland and the Baltics - US: Hey, buy our LNG. (and now: no, not like that!) - Ukraine, Poland: Hey, don't bypass our pipelines, we want the money! - Also Poland: "Germany is bad", practically all the time, practically on every subject. At some point you tune out the noise from Warsaw.

dralley 3y ago
> Nordstream 2 hasn't transported a single m^3 of natural gas for sale (there was probably some minor net flow from initial pressurization), as promised in case of russia ending the peace. Yes, this was the agreement that the US made in return for dropping US sanctions on the pipeline project. Which was made only after it became obvious that Germany was insistent on completing the project against everyone else's wishes because "they knew better" and the talk about it being threat to the national security of Eastern Europe was irrational (/s). >And the natural gas they used came from a random non-russian pipeline. Nevermind that it was ~half russian in origin. Hypocrites. > - Ukraine, Poland: Hey, don't bypass our pipelines, we want the money! You understand that there is a legitimate difference? Without Nordstream, Russia can't turn off the gas to Ukraine and Poland (or damage the pipelines) without turning it off for all of Western Europe. Nordstream lets them do that, and that is (was) a significant wedge between Germany and Eastern Europe.
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  Before 2022 Ukraine shut down the pipeline to the EU in 2009 and threatened to do so again in 2014. I'm not sure what other country or bloc would ever accept the national security concept of "we can cut you off from energy at any time, to keep you aligned against that other guy" as something they're supposed to support. Meanwhile the pipelines existed and can be configured to work the other direction, so the somewhat friendly relations at the time between Germany and russia could have secured gas supplies for Poland and Ukraine. So "we'll cut you off when we want", "you're evil anyway" and "hey, don't bypass us", all at the same time. No, thanks. That said, the "moral high ground" solution would have been to get rid of fossils earlier - which wasn't much of a talking point by the objectors to Nord Stream 2, except for the Green party. Of course, Poland and Ukraine would have lost their leverage that way as well, while Germany would have lost the lever of economic relations with russia, so that option might have been even more fragile for Eastern Europe.
  - dralley 3y ago
    > Before 2022 Ukraine shut down the pipeline to the EU in 2009 and threatened to do so again in 2014. That is a complete lie, Ukraine did not "shut down the pipeline", Russia did - both times - because of their disputes (both trade and physical) with Ukraine. During those shutdowns, Ukraine was not receiving gas either. The root of the dispute being that Russia massively increased the price Ukraine had to pay for gas as political punishment. Russia then used that as leverage to try to get other nations, like Germany, to put pressure on Ukraine themselves.
    - pgeorgi 3y ago
      In 2009, Gazprom proposed various alternatives to the main route, some including alternative routes through Ukraine that Ukraine rejected. In the end they shipped some ~12% of their usual through-Ukraine amount as additional shipments on other routes. Doesn't sound like russia was unwilling to deliver. But I'll concede that point as uncertain, given that the EU fact finding mission to figure out who stopped the shipments to the EU didn't come to conclusive results. (some data in https://www.cep.eu/Analysen_KOM/KOM_2009_363_Sicherheit_der_Erdgasversorgung/SEC_2009-977.pdf https://www.cep.eu/Analysen_KOM/KOM_2009_363_Sicherheit_der_...) 2014: "Asked if sanctions could affect Russian gas transit, Yatsenyuk said the move could possibly mean halting 'all types of transit, from air flights to transit of resources.'" (https://webarchive.archive.unhcr.org/20230603044044/https://www.refworld.org/docid/54003eba8.html https://webarchive.archive.unhcr.org/20230603044044/https://...) In the end, I think Germany should have gotten out of fossils in general, no matter what happens to Eastern Europe once the mafia-run petrol station that cosplays as a country feels the pressure. would've-should've-could've.
      - khokhol 3y ago
        This is a dodge, and you are (rather verbosely) wiggling away from acknowledging a plainly counterfactual statement you just made: In 2022 Ukraine shut down the pipeline to the EU in 2009 and again in 2014 You can dissect the 2009 and 2014 gas disputes, and speculate about who "provoked" whom all you want -- but as a matter of public record that it was the the Russian operator who cut the flow of gas in each case, not its counterpart.

dralley 3y ago

> Nordstream 2 hasn't transported a single m^3 of natural gas for sale (there was probably some minor net flow from initial pressurization), as promised in case of russia ending the peace. Yes, this was the agreement that the US made in return for dropping US sanctions on the pipeline project. Which was made only after it became obvious that Germany was insistent on completing the project against everyone else's wishes because "they knew better" and the talk about it being threat to the national security of Eastern Europe was irrational (/s). >And the natural gas they used came from a random non-russian pipeline. Nevermind that it was ~half russian in origin. Hypocrites. > - Ukraine, Poland: Hey, don't bypass our pipelines, we want the money! You understand that there is a legitimate difference? Without Nordstream, Russia can't turn off the gas to Ukraine and Poland (or damage the pipelines) without turning it off for all of Western Europe. Nordstream lets them do that, and that is (was) a significant wedge between Germany and Eastern Europe.

pgeorgi 3y ago
Before 2022 Ukraine shut down the pipeline to the EU in 2009 and threatened to do so again in 2014. I'm not sure what other country or bloc would ever accept the national security concept of "we can cut you off from energy at any time, to keep you aligned against that other guy" as something they're supposed to support. Meanwhile the pipelines existed and can be configured to work the other direction, so the somewhat friendly relations at the time between Germany and russia could have secured gas supplies for Poland and Ukraine. So "we'll cut you off when we want", "you're evil anyway" and "hey, don't bypass us", all at the same time. No, thanks. That said, the "moral high ground" solution would have been to get rid of fossils earlier - which wasn't much of a talking point by the objectors to Nord Stream 2, except for the Green party. Of course, Poland and Ukraine would have lost their leverage that way as well, while Germany would have lost the lever of economic relations with russia, so that option might have been even more fragile for Eastern Europe.
- dralley 3y ago
  > Before 2022 Ukraine shut down the pipeline to the EU in 2009 and threatened to do so again in 2014. That is a complete lie, Ukraine did not "shut down the pipeline", Russia did - both times - because of their disputes (both trade and physical) with Ukraine. During those shutdowns, Ukraine was not receiving gas either. The root of the dispute being that Russia massively increased the price Ukraine had to pay for gas as political punishment. Russia then used that as leverage to try to get other nations, like Germany, to put pressure on Ukraine themselves.
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    In 2009, Gazprom proposed various alternatives to the main route, some including alternative routes through Ukraine that Ukraine rejected. In the end they shipped some ~12% of their usual through-Ukraine amount as additional shipments on other routes. Doesn't sound like russia was unwilling to deliver. But I'll concede that point as uncertain, given that the EU fact finding mission to figure out who stopped the shipments to the EU didn't come to conclusive results. (some data in https://www.cep.eu/Analysen_KOM/KOM_2009_363_Sicherheit_der_Erdgasversorgung/SEC_2009-977.pdf https://www.cep.eu/Analysen_KOM/KOM_2009_363_Sicherheit_der_...) 2014: "Asked if sanctions could affect Russian gas transit, Yatsenyuk said the move could possibly mean halting 'all types of transit, from air flights to transit of resources.'" (https://webarchive.archive.unhcr.org/20230603044044/https://www.refworld.org/docid/54003eba8.html https://webarchive.archive.unhcr.org/20230603044044/https://...) In the end, I think Germany should have gotten out of fossils in general, no matter what happens to Eastern Europe once the mafia-run petrol station that cosplays as a country feels the pressure. would've-should've-could've.
    - khokhol 3y ago
      This is a dodge, and you are (rather verbosely) wiggling away from acknowledging a plainly counterfactual statement you just made: In 2022 Ukraine shut down the pipeline to the EU in 2009 and again in 2014 You can dissect the 2009 and 2014 gas disputes, and speculate about who "provoked" whom all you want -- but as a matter of public record that it was the the Russian operator who cut the flow of gas in each case, not its counterpart.