Energy independence is a national security issue, not just environmental.
Correct title:
Nord Stream 2: how Germany made Europe less independent and gave Russia more leverage
Can’t agree with the title, as Nord Stream 1 exists already
Was there also this fearmongering with Nord Stream 2?
By now, there is almost nothing that this pipeline hasn’t been blamed for lmao
The very first line of the article says the pipeline cost $11bn. Ukraine is estimated to earn at least $2bn annually from transit fees. Therefore, the pipeline will pay for itself in 6 years at most, after which Russia will be saving an extra $2bn per year. And yet the article says that this is not a commercial project! Sure, it also has huge strategic political benefits for Russia, but let’s not pretend that money has nothing to do with this (for both Ukraine and Russia).
It’s amazing how much energy dependence sucks and takes away a nation’s independence.
Well, Germany failed to view it as the geopolitical issue that it is.
Or, perhaps they knew that but didn’t want to decide against it for other reasons.
Simple as that.
Eh it’s a bit late now. Should’ve reacted to this 10 years ago when Nord Stream wasn’t even in the sea yet.
Genuinely curious why this became an issue? Is production in Germany growing or something? Because just building a pipeline will not drive demand in natural gas. And for Russia it’s obviously better to cut off the middleman (such as Ukraine, Poland, Belarus and Slovakia) and pump gas straight to Germany. Also, I hear a lot of “Europe is going to become dependent on Russia”, but this goes both ways, no?
10 comments
Energy independence is a national security issue, not just environmental.
Correct title:
Nord Stream 2: how Germany made Europe less independent and gave Russia more leverage
Can’t agree with the title, as Nord Stream 1 exists already
Was there also this fearmongering with Nord Stream 2?
By now, there is almost nothing that this pipeline hasn’t been blamed for lmao
The very first line of the article says the pipeline cost $11bn. Ukraine is estimated to earn at least $2bn annually from transit fees. Therefore, the pipeline will pay for itself in 6 years at most, after which Russia will be saving an extra $2bn per year. And yet the article says that this is not a commercial project! Sure, it also has huge strategic political benefits for Russia, but let’s not pretend that money has nothing to do with this (for both Ukraine and Russia).
It’s amazing how much energy dependence sucks and takes away a nation’s independence.
Well, Germany failed to view it as the geopolitical issue that it is.
Or, perhaps they knew that but didn’t want to decide against it for other reasons.
Simple as that.
Eh it’s a bit late now. Should’ve reacted to this 10 years ago when Nord Stream wasn’t even in the sea yet.
Genuinely curious why this became an issue? Is production in Germany growing or something? Because just building a pipeline will not drive demand in natural gas. And for Russia it’s obviously better to cut off the middleman (such as Ukraine, Poland, Belarus and Slovakia) and pump gas straight to Germany. Also, I hear a lot of “Europe is going to become dependent on Russia”, but this goes both ways, no?