Click to see the full-size image
Written by Uriel Araujo, PhD, anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts
The issue of Nord Stream is once again in the spotlight: the Washington Post reported on Friday that “an American businessman is seeking to acquire the Swiss company that controls Russia’s Nord Stream 2.” The timing is quite interesting: one may remember that on November 15 German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called President Vladimir Putin (first time in two years), they talked for an hour, and Putin reportedly said that Russia has “always honoured” energy sector contracts and would still be “willing” to promote mutual cooperation, if Germany is interested. Earlier Putin said at the BRICS Summit that “there is still a functional pipeline in the Baltic Sea.” Meanwhile, German populist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has urged the United Nations (UN) to investigate Berlin’s own involvement in the 2022 sabotage of the pipelines.
Putin’s conversation with Scholz did not go unnoticed and was described by the New York Times (NYT) as “breaking the ice with the West.” Ukraine’s leader Vladimir Zelensky called this development “a Pandora’s box”, worrying that from now on there might be “other conversations, other calls.”
It was supposedly Putin’s first discussion with a major Western leader since late 2022. According to Berlin, the topic of it had to do with prospects for ending the ongoing armed conflict in Ukraine. The “Ukrainian war” has often been described as a proxy war between the United States and the Russian Federation. Albeit the election of US President Donald Trump has indeed been a cold shower for Western war hawks, the truth is that the so-called “Ukraine’s fatigue” has been lingering for quite a while. Already in November 2023, James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, made the case that Washington should learn from “the lessons of South Korea” and negotiate a “land for peace conclusion to combat” in Ukraine.
According to Christian Mölling (a former security expert at the German Council of Foreign Relations quoted by the NYT), “the Europeans are worried that Trump could negotiate over their heads,” and so “they want to make sure they are at the table too.” It makes a lot of sense. Scholz has elections coming up as well and voters are increasingly demanding peace.
The two topics (ending the conflict and energy cooperation) are of course connected. As recently as 2021, the (now gone) Nord Stream 2 German-Russian pipelines project was being completed to deliver Russian gas directly to Western Europe. Moreover, Russia used to provide about 40% of Europe’s natural gas, as recently as 2022, before a series of explosions damaged the pipelines under the sea.
No one denies it was a terrorist attack which is still under investigation and might have been carried out (according to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh) by a United States sabotage operation – probably in collaboration with other actors. Nord Stream 1, as two of the pipelines were collectively known, had in fact been providing cheap natural gas to Germany for more than a decade, something which Washington by the way always opposed; Nord Stream 2 pipelines in turn could double the volume of gas provided. The explosions hurt all of Europe and the United Kingdom as well, even bringing back the ghost of a new depression – but mainly in Germany.
As I wrote before, when it comes to Russia, Ukraine and the European continent, American energy/geoeconomic interests and geopolitical goals are very much intertwined and the issue of Nord Dream is the very embodiment of such a complex entanglement. One could say the drama of the European continent lies in the paradox that it remains heavily dependent on Washington for security, while it can greatly benefit from energy cooperation with neighboring giant Russia (geography is destiny, as the saying goes). The US has been consistently betraying European interests to its own benefit, and Germany is just the clearest instance of that contradiction.
The fact that Stephen Lynch, the aforementioned American businessman, is trying to acquire the (Swiss-based) operating company that controls Nord Stream 2 pipelines is being seen by many as something which could “lay the ground” for the Russo-German pipeline to be reactivated in the event of a cease-fire in Ukraine, according to the Washington Post, which had access to leaked documents.
This would be a major cause of concern for a large part of the American Establishment, which now seems to be quite divided, with the rise of Trump. Lynch in fact was “a large contributor” to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, and is seeking a license from the US Treasury Department, which would “allow him to negotiate for the pipeline with entities currently subject to US sanctions”, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The Florida-based entrepreneur is described as a “pro-Trump” businessman. Of course, in such matters it is impossible to insulate business from politics, and, at this point, one can only speculate what kind of pressure and intrigue might be going behind closed doors in the realm of a divided “deep state” (as this grey zone – where contractors and intelligence services interact).
Regarding the acquisition of Nord Stream 2, an unnamed source says that “a lot of investors will not place a bid due to the intricate geopolitics involved with the conduit, and the other bidders will probably be Chinese companies, Russian proxies, or other parties who are opposed to American interests.”
Journalist Paolo Cordova writes that “with the pipeline’s debt restructuring deadline looming in January, failure to reach an agreement could lead to its liquidation, potentially attracting buyers less aligned with Western interests. Lynch’s goal is to preempt such a scenario by transforming Nord Stream 2 into a diplomatic asset in future negotiations between Moscow and the West.”
Pragmatically speaking, reactivating the pipeline would benefit both Russia and Germany (and Europe in general, in the context of the continent’s energy crisis). The relationship between the United States and its transatlantic European “allies” however does bear a colonial character, as I argued elsewhere. Any such development would therefore be a kind of breakdown of the status quo, which could be driven, for instance, by an electoral outcome: populism after all is on the rise in Germany and all over Europe.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
they tried to corner scholz but he’s no dummy .