(International relations) – Nord Stream-2 succeeds or fails to indicate whether the world is already unipolar or multipolar …
It is undeniable that Russia and the US are having strategies (art, ways) to use power (military, economic) to exert political influence over Europe. This, called a “geopolitical war” between Russia and America, but when it was called a war, the two sides did not use any measures or tricks to win.
One of the strategic decisive battles of this geopolitical war is the Nord Stream-2 (SP-2) – the pipeline of gas from Russia to Germany. Here, the US and Russia have an uncompromising confrontation …
Is the Nord Stream-2 route an economic or political goal?
VI Lenin defines: “Politics is a concentrated manifestation of the economy”. And war (military) is just the next development of politics. In other words, war is only for political, political, military purposes of the economic category.
The Russians claim that they build the gas pipeline for economic purposes only, that is to sell gas to Europe, that’s all.
The US claims that the SP-2 has a gas monopoly, so politically it allows Russia to strongly consolidate its position in Europe (including the West, where Russia’s main gas consumer and East, where Russian gas is transshipped).
If based on the definition of VILenin, the US statement is not unreasonable. However, if there is an absurdity, then the absurd is: So Europe does not want Russia to strengthen its position in Europe, does Europe, and specifically the EU, think its relationship? What about America? Are they not dependent on the US? Are they “allies” and not “dependents”? …
So, the takeaway here is: “There is no free lunch”, neither is Russia or America, when you buy, as a customer, there is always an interdependent relationship, the problem is Which side is good, cheap (quality) and reliable, the contract, the rest is competitive with Russian-American sellers.
Economically, Russia doesn’t need Nord Stream-2
Russia never puts eggs in one basket in strategic matters. The gas issue has also been comprehensively resolved by the Kremlin.
First, in addition to the gas pipelines going through Eastern Europe, gas pipelines have been built from Russia to the Asian market (China, Japan).
Second, Russian gas companies have significantly increased (tripled in just the past three years) their LNG output and continued to increase capacity and build a fleet of gas carriers capable of supplying LNG is available to consumers all year round by the Northern Sea Route.
All of this together provides the opportunity for the quick maneuvering of gas supplies to a more profitable market. Whereas Asia, where spot prices are often higher than European prices, Russian LNG carriers are aiming for a higher price.
LNG, although more expensive than pipeline gas, has the advantage that it is easier to maneuver in the directions and supply mass instead of a fixed direction like a pipeline. In addition, Russia’s LNG is still cheaper than its competitors.
Reality shows that the total amount of gas flowing along alternative routes, consumed domestically and transferred to LNG terminals, allows Russia to abandon Nord Stream 2 without significant damage, because, in while the EU still has to buy Russian LNG on the spot market, but of course, it will be more expensive than the pipeline under the long term contract.
It was for these reasons that Gazprom alluded to its European counterparts that they were ready to give up the SP-2, because the EU partners themselves viewed the project as if Gazprom needed it, not themselves. At the state level in the EU, only Germany protects the SP-2 but not always consistently. The rest are pretending that this is none of their business …
Obviously, from an economic perspective, Gazprom could have left it immediately, but from a political perspective, the Kremlin would not allow it.
Nord Stream-2: Confronting Russian-American political will
If Gazprom stopped building the SP-2 today and waited for a better timing than on the one-business level, but on the Russian state level such a decision is unacceptable to the Kremlin – Putin.
Everyone knows that SP-2 is always under pressure and embargo by the US … which means that the US does not take any measures to prevent Gazprom-Russia from completing SP-2. If Gazprom-Russia stops the project, in the eyes of the world, it will be a failure for Russia to face the US directly.
Accordingly, not only the political power of the Kremlin will be reduced, but also the possibilities of developing trade and economic cooperation not only in the direction of Europe but also in other regions if the United States wants to. mind intervention …
On the other hand, this is an important point: When deciding to whom to conclude strategically important contracts, both the state and the private company must take into account the possible political risks. If you fulfill your contractual obligations, no matter what, then the contract will be signed with you. If a project is in danger of political disruption and you appear politically vulnerable, of course, priority will be given to others.
If project SP-2 is completed, the whole world will see that American power is just that much … The world is no longer unipolar, but multipolar.
Project SP-2, therefore, is not purely economic in nature, it presents significant political risks for both sides, builders (Russia) and destroyers (US). And it is this that increases the cost and intensity of the fierce, uncompromising in the Russia-US battle over the SP-2.
It is no coincidence that since last year the ships of the Russian Navy and now the Baltic-Russian Fleet had to support the ships spreading pipes, protecting them from provocative actions by the US … This speaks volumes. How important political significance is the completion of SP-2 for Russia-America.
Le Ngoc Thong