Rügen is best known as a popular German tourist destination. But now the Baltic Sea island has taken on a new role as staging point for an energy project that is as ambitious as it is controversial: the Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. Next spring the first pipeline segments will likely be dropped to the sea floor in a line that will wind through Russian, Finish, Swedish, Danish and German waters—conspicuously avoiding the Baltic states and Poland.
This is because the Nord Stream project is part of an exclusionary agreement between Moscow and Berlin—nicknamed in circumvented Warsaw the “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact,” after the 1939 Soviet-Nazi deal to carve up Poland. It would have been much cheaper to build an overland pipeline through Eastern Europe, but the 
purpose of Nord Stream from the beginning was to bypass countries Moscow still considers to be part of its sphere of influence.
Russia’s geopolitical message here is clear: It doesn’t trust the new EU member states as transit countries or even as energy consumers and is willing to incur enormous costs to bypass them. The other message—or implied threat—is that Nord Stream will allow the Kremlin to cut off gas deliveries to Eastern Europe through current pipelines without reducing energy supplies to Germany. But what sort of message does Germany, a fellow EU member, intend to send to its neighbors?
Nord Stream was championed by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who now serves as one of its executives. From within her previous coalition government, current Chancellor Angela Merkel lobbied successfully for EU endorsement of the project even though the pipeline consortium is registered in Switzerland and controlled by Russia’s Gazprom. Of the dozens of companies involved in the pipeline’s construction, not one is from the Baltics, Central or Eastern Europe.
Germany’s recent election results produced a ripple of hope among the countries on Russia’s periphery. With the traditionally pro-Moscow Social Democratic Party out of the governing coalition, would Mrs. Merkel perhaps seek to change the terms of the Nord Stream agreement and push Russia to alter the route so that the pipeline would cross the waters or territories of Eastern EU members? Perhaps she would lobby Moscow to include also East European companies in the Nord Stream consortium? At least, it was hoped, Berlin would throw its weight behind the Nabucco pipeline, which seeks to improve Central and Eastern Europe’s energy security with the help of Caspian and Middle Eastern gas. After all, Germany’s RWE is part of the Nabucco consortium and Mr. Schröder’s pro-EU former foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, is now a lobbyist for the project.
Recent progress on Nord Stream, however, has dashed those hopes. The Nordic countries had until now delayed the project’s approval, raising environmental concerns, which most interpreted as unease about the pipeline’s geopolitical implications. Last Thursday, though, Finland and Sweden—which holds the European Union presidency until the end of the year—joined Denmark in signing off on the project. It is this political momentum that has spurred the rush to get pipeline segments out to Rügen and other staging points. The very realistic prospect that construction on Moscow’s pet project might begin early next year is a symbolic blow to those seeking to reduce Europe’s energy dependence on Russian gas. Most of all, it is a blow to any semblance of EU unity on energy security. Russia’s neighbors, both within and without the EU, are already reeling from a sense of Euro-Atlantic abandonment following Washington’s “reset” policy toward Russia and the EU’s lackluster outreach to its Eastern neighbors.
It would be unrealistic to expect Berlin to change tack on Nord Stream so late in the game. But a newly re-elected Angela Merkal should carefully consider the foreign policy messages that come with laying pipe on the Baltic Sea floor.
In order to reassure fellow EU members and the institution as a whole, Berlin would do well to support what the European Commission considers its “strategic priority”: The so-called Southern Corridor, which includes Nabucco and several smaller pipeline projects. As a European heavyweight, Germany’s mere rhetorical and diplomatic support would go a long way in encouraging EU energy unity. Most importantly, it would send the message to Moscow that its “divide and conquer” energy policy has its limits.
This post was previously published in the Wall Street Journal.
#1 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on November 11, 2009 - 10:46 am
It is another blatant example of a case where a united EU is badly needed and clearly absent. Despite all claims of the contrary, there is no united EU energy policy, not even in cases (such as this one) where it is clearly in the advantage of everyone involved. However, nobody has asked the right question: did Schröder acted legally about the North Stream project, or was he corrupted by a foreign power to subvert the interests of Europe?
#2 by EUro-star on November 11, 2009 - 7:13 pm
I am not from Russia but I don’t trust the new EU member states as transit countries too, not to mention Ukraine or Belarus. Those countries have often tryed to blackmail Russia by threatenig to cut off russian ressources from its western clients. Where’s solidarity of those countries? A russian/german deal to bypass them is therefor only logical. That’s business.
#3 by Manuel Ghersinich on November 11, 2009 - 8:48 pm
What is the point of the article?
Russia is and will continue to be the main supplier, Germany its main partner.
Both Russia and Germany (Russian and German companies) will control gas supply in Europe in the years to come. Even the UK will have to import in the long run.
There is nothing wrong with national interests. certain resources are essential, as you well know.
#4 by Povilas Kuprys on November 12, 2009 - 1:06 pm
United Europe should have one common European community energy plan. “Schroderisation” of EU is not the best example and lesson Germany is going to deliver to other EU countries by indicating that money and business is more important European value that solidarity. Economic interest is important, of course, but Germany never before faced the reality – energy security and energy dependency on Russia. Dealing with Russia this way Germany will have that opportunity and ,,satisfaction” to experience it quite soon. It is strange to observe that history lessons are forgotten so easily.
#5 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on November 12, 2009 - 1:16 pm
Indeed Povilas, I would like to remind EUro-star that if we all know that new members states can hardly be trusted in the matter, the exact same stands for Russia. We all know Russia does not feel itself bound by the rule of law nor by contracts, as Shell, BP and other Western firms (and some Russian ones) have discovered at their own costs.
#6 by Mindaugas Zentelis on November 12, 2009 - 1:41 pm
@ EUro-star. It may be seen as “just” business from the European point of view, but for Russia it is more than that. New EU members have firsthand experience dealing with russian “business”, so it would be wise if the rest of the European Union members started to listen, because the same tactics WILL definitely be used against Germany or other members of EU. Remember – Kremlin and Gasprom is the same thing…
#7 by Mihai on November 12, 2009 - 2:16 pm
@#2 eurospar
Why is it that you don’t trust the new member states (NMS) as transit countries?
Please tell me one example when one of the NMS threatened or cut the gas going to western Europe.
#8 by Kazimierz on November 12, 2009 - 10:50 pm
One of directors of Nordstream said that the pipeline across the Baltic Sea is less expensive than the pipeline by land through Estonia, Latwia, Lithuania and Poland. I have no reason not to believe him.
But Alexandros knows better. I can only wonder if he asked an expert or he just invented that it should be cheaper by land.
Unfortunately, the rest of his article (opinion?) is not better than the beginning. The author apparently believes that he is entitled to his own facts. Good luck!
#9 by Ronald Grünebaum on November 13, 2009 - 10:29 am
Poland gets off very lightly in this silly article.
Inviting US troops to its territory, hosting CIA secret prisons and making every possible move to undermine EU solidarity have certainly not been helpful in convincing Germany that Poland is a reliable partner.
And the Baltic states still think that they have a axe to grind with Russia: Dwarfs on steroids thanks to EU membership. Again not particularly trustworthy fellows.
The solution has to be an internal energy security arrangement in the EU based on the Lisbon Treaty. This is how the EU works. Silly geo-strategical games by nations that have systematically failed in these games throughout their history are not productive.
#10 by Casper on November 13, 2009 - 12:35 pm
Ronald,
As far as I’m aware not a single US soldier has been stationed in Poland to date, and CIA secret prisons exist more likely in your (without a doubt creative) imagination. So far it’s Russia that has been trying to grind axes with all the ex-eastern bloc states, at the same time playing some west European ones to their advantage. Treating a semi-authoritarian regime run by ex-KGB officers on par with democratic states is a slight misunderstanding to say the least.
And finally, I would really think twice before calling east European states “nations that have failed systematically in geo-strategical games”. In the context of the article’s title, it might be considered by some (to put it lightly) a slight faux pas.
However, while we may argue about Russia, it does not change the fact that Europe’s dependence on imported energy is tremendously high, and relying on one country’s supply is never a good thing, regardless of what our take on geopolitcs may be.
#11 by SJB on November 14, 2009 - 10:04 pm
President Bush seems to concede that secret CIA prisons existed during his presidency.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5321606.stm
… and the “alleged 9/11 mastermind, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, appear[s] to have been held at Szymany airport in northern Poland.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/23/secret-prisons-closure-obama-cia
#12 by Wim Roffel on November 16, 2009 - 11:17 am
Caspar wrote “Treating a semi-authoritarian regime run by ex-KGB officers on par with democratic states is a slight misunderstanding to say the least.”
Nonsense. Being democratic gives you no right to blackmail others. Unfortunately Poland has a long history of having antagonistic relations with its neighbors. In the past this resulted in Molotov-Ribbentrop. Now it results in Poland missing yearly transit fees. The European values of having good relations with your neighbors – no matter the past – obviously still haven’t reached Poland.
#13 by Mindaugas Zentelis on November 16, 2009 - 2:00 pm
@#12 So… Poland is responsible for Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and not, say, Hitler and Stalin? Wow.. Then maybe Poland had started the WWII? Maybe Katyn massacre was also organised by poles themselves? It is interesting how some Western members will blame Poland and Baltic states for the lack of sense of unity and at the same time they would strike deals with Russia, thus allowing it to exercise the “Divide and Conquer” tactics so easily. And after all that, how can you expect Eastern members not to be pro-american…
#14 by Casper on November 16, 2009 - 3:08 pm
“Unfortunately Poland has a long history of having antagonistic relations with its neighbors. In the past this resulted in Molotov-Ribbentrop”
Wim, with all due respect, this is such historical nonsense, that I’m not even going to take this discussion further. By your logic, one could equally say that Jews were reponsible for Holocaust.
Not to mention, that this has nothing to do with the EU’s energy dependency issues – take the Nabucco pipeline, for example.
#15 by Kazimierz on November 17, 2009 - 2:10 am
Problem with the thinking of Mindaugas and Casper is that hey want to divide the fault into 0 percent fault – 100 percent fault. In real life the fault should be divided more like 50 percent – 50 percent. This is true about conflicts between individual people and this is true about conflicts between nations. This is true about Ribbentrop – Molotov pact. Poland’s behavior in preceding months was pretty improper, to say the least.
#16 by Wojciech on November 17, 2009 - 12:40 pm
“possible move to undermine EU solidarity have certainly not been helpful in convincing Germany that Poland is a reliable partner”
Since when is Russia a member of EU ?
And it’s Germany with its alliance with Russia that makes it an uncredible member of EU in the eyes of EU members like Poland or Latvia.
“Poland’s behavior in preceding months was pretty improper, to say the least”
Yeah, how dare Poles refuse to be occupied by Germany or Russia…
#17 by Mindaugas Zentelis on November 17, 2009 - 3:01 pm
@#15 We are not talking about “conflicts” between nations. Nazi Germany and Soviet Union DIVIDED Eastern Europe. It was a clear act of unprovoked aggression. The only “fault” of Eastern states is that they were weak and couldn’t defend themselves against german-russian onslaught. So your point about Poland and Baltic Stats being resposible for their occupation is exactly the same as Hitler’s – weaklings don’t have the right to exist and they have to be destroyed…and THEY are the ones to blame. Talking about individual people it would be like a man rapes and murders a girl, because her mini-skirt has provoked him to do so. Will the judge say the blame is 50-50?
#18 by Alex on November 18, 2009 - 4:17 pm
Why should Germany care about the East european states? Maybe because of the their “pro european” position during and after the Iraq intervention, or maybe because of the Polish ban on EU-Russian negotiations in 2007, or maybe because of the fact that Germany is charity funding everyone and everything in East Europe…
Yes indeed, the pipeline is something very good for Germany; for Russia and for all those who knows what gratitude and good manners are.
When you are small, insignificant, and nothing depends on you should better keep silence instead of raging your neigbours.
#19 by Alex on November 18, 2009 - 4:19 pm
…who know* (not “knows”)
#20 by Wojciech on November 18, 2009 - 6:58 pm
“Why should Germany care about the East european states?”
Because it tried to exterminate around 100 milion people within them. Of course if Germany doesn’t care about moral responsibility its free to demonstrate so.
“maybe because of the fact that Germany is charity funding everyone and everything in East Europe… ”
So far Poland has been very charitable to Germany, as it didn’t seek out war reparations for German inflicted war damage during Second World War estimated at around 520billion euro.
That’s only in Poland. I can only guess how our economy would look like without those losses(and I am not even going to start about doctors, lawyers, scientists Germans mass murdered).
And I can only guess how German economy would look like, if certain East European states would demand war reperations from Germany.
“Yes indeed, the pipeline is something very good for Germany; for Russia and for all those who knows what gratitude and good manners are.”
Oh certainly Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was good for Soviet Russia and Germany as well, and their collaborators as well. Not so for the nations they murdered together…. What’s your point then ?
#21 by Manuel Ghersinich on November 20, 2009 - 10:53 pm
Dear Wojciech,
It is time to move on.
What if Germany decided to get Pomerania, Posen, Silesia, West Prussia, East Prussia and a slice of Brandenburg back from Poland?
What if…? What if…? You need to wake up, the war is over.
Russia is and will be the main supplier.
#22 by Alex on November 21, 2009 - 4:40 pm
I don’t know, maybe Wojciech is right… maybe the Polish could seek some reparations… But in this case I belive it would be cheaper to proceed to a new partition of Poland… I think the Russians won’t mind
#23 by Alex on November 21, 2009 - 4:40 pm
believe*
#24 by Casper on November 24, 2009 - 1:46 pm
It is somehow sad that instead of a pragmatic discussion about energy this has turned into a “you’re bad/no, you are” kind of a blame-game. It’s even more saddening when you realise that Polish-German relations have never been better. A small bunch of haters on both sides (there will always be some) should not distort the true picture.
“When you are small, insignificant, and nothing depends on you should better keep silence instead of raging your neigbours” This echoes Jacques Chirac’s infamous words about new EU member states who lost their opportunity to keep quiet.
Let me end with a quote: “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” (Article 2 (1) of the UN Charter). Let’s keep it this way.
#25 by Wojciech on November 26, 2009 - 3:17 pm
“Dear Wojciech,
It is time to move on.”
If it is time to move on, why is German state funding organisations originally created by former nazis, who represented among others removed colonists from Poland, and who now seek claims against Polish state ?
“What if…? What if…? You need to wake up, the war is over. ”
Yes, the war is over, but it doesn’t stop the Germans from supporting organizations remembering the war in their “Special” way, does it ?
“What if Germany decided to get Pomerania, Posen, Silesia, West Prussia, East Prussia and a slice of Brandenburg back from Poland?”
Since all those territories were originally part of Polish state in one way or the other, before becoming part of Germany, you of course mean rob or conquer back, correct ?
“Idon’t know, maybe Wojciech is right… maybe the Polish could seek some reparations… But in this case I belive it would be cheaper to proceed to a new partition of Poland… I think the Russians won’t mind ”
How telling that at the first mention of Germany paying for destruction and murder of whole country, some try to think of new ways to ally with Russia against it, rather then facing German moral responsibility.
#26 by Manuel on August 27, 2010 - 3:56 pm
Wojciech,
At the time Stalin moved the Polish population westwards, East Prussia was German, Pommern was German, Silesia was German, etc. and had been German for a long time…
It is true Germany colonized the east (more than a thousand years ago), like England colonized Wales… But most of the territory on the balatic was inhabited by baltic cultures, not poles.
We can talk about the later partition of Poland, Posen etc, in that case you might have a point.
You need to improve your geography and history before talking about such sensitive subjects.