Nord Stream: Not Just a Pipeline

1 Introduction
The past decade has seen an increased focus on energy-related issues.
Instability in petroleum-abundant regions, skyrocketing commodity
prices, and concerns about CO2 emission levels are all factors that have
contributed to the trend. The focus on energy security has even led some
to speak of a ‘new cold war’ over increasingly scarce commodities
(Follath and Jung 2006; Lucas 2008; SvD 2007a). The crucial point,
however, is that the energy agenda is not only defined by the need for
safe supplies but involves a vast spectrum of related issues, such as
preservation of the environment, historically established power relations
between the states in question, and naturally, current political realities.
This report analyses the planned sub-sea pipeline from Russia to
Germany known as Nord Stream, a project to which the reactions have
varied substantially in the different littoral states of the Baltic Sea. The
report is an extensive study of the divergent attitudes and debates that
have surged in the region regarding Nord Stream, and the aim is to provide
plausible explanations as to why the interpretations of the project
have been so different in the various states.
Previous analyses of Nord Stream have often been country-specific, i.e.
written by a national research institute for the government of the country
in question, and have mostly focused on issues relevant for that particular
country. This report, by contrast, has a wider scope in that it will review
and contrast the different debates about Nord Stream, and the focus is not
merely on energy-related aspects of the project but also on militarystrategic
and environmental ones. Furthermore, since Nord Stream is a
‘moving target’ in that the pipeline has not yet been constructed, the
report is also a contribution to the general research about the project in
that it presents new material from several first-hand interviews.
The question of what a pipeline is seems quite straightforward. Arguably,
a pipeline could be seen as merely a means to transport a substance from
origin to destination – a pipeline in this regard is just a pipeline. The
recently constructed offshore ‘Langeled’ pipeline, which transports natural
gas from Norway to the UK, could be interpreted in such a way.
Few, if any, objections were made against the project prior to its
realisation, and the construction of the pipeline was finished on schedule
and within budget in 2006 (Stoltenberg 2006; Hydro 2006). The ease
with which this project could be realised indicates that no third party
considered it to be more than a bilateral trade-issue, or, in other words,
just a pipeline (DN 2007a).
By contrast, the planned Nord Stream pipeline from Russia to Germany
through the Baltic Sea does not appear as straightforward as Langeled
despite its equal length of 1200 km and its role in supplying (parts of)
Europe with large quantities of natural gas in decades to come. Although
not yet realised, the project has, since its birth, been the subject of harsh
criticism and opposition by a significant number of states that, implicitly
or explicitly, consider themselves affected by the pipeline. Whereas the
Baltic States and Poland have interpreted the pipeline as a politically
motivated strategy that will increase Russia’s leverage on them and
1