Nordstream pipelines and the art of making peace

From The Barrel

THE diplomatic back channels of Europe and those of the United States are agog with the possibility that the Nordstream II pipeline could be commissioned into utility.

The excitement or angst, as the case may be, has been triggered by the unspoken expectation that, at the heart of the proxy war with Russia, the destruction of both the Nordstream I and II pipelines would ultimately cower the Russian bear to submission.

Inexorably, this led to the understanding that the destruction of this gas infrastructure is apt symbolism of Europe’s triumph over Russia’s financial leverage and its military dominance in the long contact line of battle with Ukraine.

Conversely, the resuscitation of this $11 billion (about R200bn) and 122km gas monolith from Ust Luga to Greifswald, with an annual carrying capacity of 55 billion cubic feet, would mean the opposite.

There was a time when the Russian gas flowing from Vyborg to Lubmin was a sweet German gig. And no doubt the Nordstream I leadership was celebrated as German heroes. In the profitability of that relationship, volumes of fugacious molecules flowed ceaselessly and accordingly, engendering the growth of the German economy into the European behemoth they became.

Cheap, voluble, and reliable, the Russian hydrocarbon leverage became so important that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder facilitated the expansion of its capacity by laying the Nordstream II gas network. And so Matthias Warnig was tipped for its stewardship.

Considering that the destruction of both pipelines represented the critical centrepiece of the European proxy war effort, anyone agitating for its revival, in the same way as the rising Alternative for Germany (AfD) is campaigning for it, would be tarred and feathered and branded an enemy.

To be sure, and to the vexation of the NATO warlords, the Nordstream I and II pipelines represented Russia’s most successful endeavour in laying critical gas infrastructure that did not pass through Ukraine.

It is a small wonder then that the mention of Warnig, who was the chief executive of Nordstream II until 2023, is couched in derisive terms befitting that of a scoundrel. The 69-year-old ex-Stasi, who is under an asphyxiating European sanctions regime, is deliberately targeted and subject to hostile scrutiny.

What, if anything, is being discussed, and by whom? Nobody seems to know for certain. And Switzerland, the favourite destination of secret meetings, is not telling either. Context is important, however.

Against the ongoing low-intensity negotiations to end the NATO proxy war in Ukraine, the US administration is desperately looking for leverage against the Russians. It already has a Svengali stranglehold over Ukraine and its war machinations.

And to bring the Russians within reach, the reactivation of the Nordstream II, the surviving of the two pipelines, presents itself as such a fortuitous opportunity. The mechanism of peacecraft seems to be the same. A minerals contract with Ukraine and gas supply through the Nordstream II with Russia.

Peace, however, is not good for war and its fervent advocates. Under a number of pretexts and broad swipes against proponents of peace, including US Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and their inimitable principal, the con must continue, unless and until the peace dividend yields for them as much benefit as the war profits.

Two German politicians, self-appointed praetorian guards of the European leviathan, have emerged as opponents against the peace and pipeline initiatives. These are Ursula von der Leyen with an €800bn (about R15.8 trillion) war chest plan and Frederick Metz, who is determined to free Germany from American political apron strings.

In the case of the former, the capitulation will be less than spectacular, imploding as it is wont, from within. As for Metz, either Hegseth or Blackrock, his former employers, will get to him first.

With Germany hosting the largest US military bases in Europe, getting to him is a foregone conclusion, attended no doubt by the art of the deal that would be curated so as to embarrass him less.

This looming confrontation with the Americans raises a terrifying spectre. Will Europe impose sanctions against the US as a measure of rebuke, making it abundantly clear that Europe is ready to venture it all alone?

In a Bretton Woods universe, such infantile indulgences could be countenanced to some degree of tolerability. But Trump is King in the Mar-a-Lago Interregnum, a transition order from a unipolar world to a multipolar one. In this order, such egregious exuberance will be too costly to contemplate.

The options available to Europe are fast diminishing. Even the military option of deploying boots on the ground is limited. Between the continental 27-member union and the United Kingdom, only France and Britain are prepared to commit. Only one snag. Such commitment is predicated on one condition, a very difficult one to fulfil. The Trump administration must guarantee it.

Aside from the sobering reality that some of the British and German long-range missiles can only be launched from American proprietary launching systems, the US has also suspended sharing intelligence data with Ukraine. To compound matters, the US has proscribed against the UK sharing similar intelligence with their common client proxy.

To rub salt over a festering European injury, in an interview on Fox News with Vance, the US vice president quipped sarcastically that it is ironic that some random country that had not fought any war in 20 or 30 years can somehow send 20 000 soldiers to defend Ukraine.

The UK, expectedly, went into a meltdown over the comment. They rationalised that accounting to their Prime Minister suggesting deploying 20 000 soldiers in Ukraine, the insouciance of the randomness comment was directed at them, a demeaning reference they have never imagined as an erstwhile imperial power.

In Mary Shelley’s 1818 classic, the humanoid, created out of mangled steel and eclectic pieces from putrid human flesh, had no name, contrary to popular belief. Dr Frankenstein, who was the experimental scientist in the book with an eponymous title, created the ghastly monstrosity.

And so, in this minerals and pipelines for peace epic, the US is Dr Frankenstein, whose hubris created the grotesque humanoid called Ukraine and its leader.

The gas pipeline will start flowing again, and the mineral deal will be signed with vainglorious pomp and constrained ceremony. But one thing is certain. Trump, who has displayed the instincts of Palmerston, has demonstrated that there are no permanent enemies or permanent friends.

Instead, in the hierarchy of interests, Dr Frankenstein is responsible for creating all political interests as well as how the relations that govern them are ordered.

* Ambassador Bheki Gila is a Barrister-at-Law and writes in his personal capacity.

** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.