A Nord Stream Story

The 1973 Global Oil Crisis is among the major developments that have caused many phenomena around the world to be reconsidered. This is undoubtedly true for international politics as well. In fact, the devastating effects of the crisis played a major role in the realization of many things by the states, the current dominant actors of the international system. Perhaps the most important of these are that war is not only fought through armies and that the function of diplomacy is not limited to the establishment of a "peace" order after armed conflicts. In this context, it is possible to characterize the global oil crisis as a state of war in which armies and military ammunition were replaced by other types of weapons. The weapon in question is oil, which is one of the vital inputs of economies that can be diversified under the heading of strategic energy resources in the following periods. As a matter of fact, the moves made primarily by Arab oil producers fighting against the Israeli front led to the emergence of the crisis process.

The 1973 Global Oil Crisis had an impact on almost every part of the world in one way or another. Undoubtedly, the effects of this process have caused a number of phenomena to become more important. The key role of energy security in the sustainability of the functional functionality of states emerges at this point. In fact, with the oil crisis, almost every state, starting from the dominant actors of the international system, has started to include energy security strategies among the most important agenda items of their policy agendas. In fact, it has been witnessed that energy security has become one of the main components of the national security of states in the process. In this context, it is possible to consider the phenomenon of energy security as one of the vital issues for states, especially with the 1973 Global Oil Crisis.

The developments that we can consider as a result of the global oil crisis are undoubtedly not limited to the understanding of the importance of energy security. Because it should not be ignored that such an approach would be highly theoretical in terms of solving problems. In fact, the initiatives of the states in the following process clearly reveal that the practical situation is beyond a theoretical framework such as understanding the importance of energy security. In the practical context, one of the most important advances has been seen within the framework of the strategic steps taken by states to ensure their energy security. In this context, it is possible to talk about a number of initiatives that can be evaluated under the title of diversification strategies based on the aim of eliminating the threats that have emerged on the basis of supply in relation to the steps taken to ensure energy security. Initiatives within the scope of diversification strategies have been carried out in two different ways. The first of these is the diversification of suppliers. In this context, it is possible to state that many states have preferred to overcome the energy security problems caused by being dependent on a limited number of suppliers by turning to alternatives in their import channels. However, another option of states is to diversify their energy resources. Therefore, it is possible to state that the main practices of the states in the direction of diversification of energy resources are based on the aim of diversifying the energy consumption baskets along with the orientation towards fuels that will substitute the oil that caused the crisis. In this context, the rapid global increase in natural gas consumption is undoubtedly a natural consequence of these strategies. In fact, a rapid increase in global natural gas consumption has been observed shortly after the oil crisis.

The reason for the global increase in demand for natural gas is not limited to the fact that it is a substitute for oil. Therefore, it is possible to mention the impact of a number of other dynamics on the upward trend. Perhaps the most important of these is that natural gas is non-polluting compared to oil. This is because natural gas is the cleanest burning hydrocarbon and when burned to generate electricity, it produces about half of the carbon dioxide (CO2) and only one tenth of the air pollutants that coal does. In this context, natural gas can be characterized as one of the least environmentally damaging fossil energy sources compared to other polluting fuel types. Therefore, in the first stage, it appears to be one of the most rational choices for states to turn to natural gas as an alternative to oil. Developments in the post-crisis period confirm the attempts in this direction. However, the developments since the mid-term have made this option a moot point. In fact, the effects of the increasing consumption of natural gas in the context of solutions to energy security threats in the post-crisis period turned out to be short-term. Especially the developments since the early 2000s have shown the world that natural gas, like oil, can be one of the main actors of global energy crises.

It is indisputable that the shift towards natural gas has brought new problems in the context of energy security. This is because the crises, especially those originating from Russia, have led us to face the fact that natural gas, like oil, can be used as a weapon in international politics. The qualities of natural gas play an extremely important role in turning it into a weapon in the hands of states. Therefore, we can say that some features of natural gas, which we can express as disadvantages, carry energy security threats to a different dimension. In this context, the main disadvantages arise in transportation and storage. In fact, natural gas is currently most efficiently transported through pipelines and cannot be stored in large quantities. Given all this, natural gas is becoming an inevitable part of pipeline wars. Therefore, the increasing consumption of natural gas and its high import dependency has become an energy security problem for many states, especially developed economies.

Since the beginning of the 2000s, natural gas-related energy security problems have been among the main agenda items of international politics. In this direction, it has been witnessed for years that actions have been taken on a global scale to solve the problems. However, it is not entirely possible to talk about an effective solution for the time being. In fact, there is no major difference between Russia's cutting off natural gas to many continental countries, including members of the European Union, via Ukraine in 2006 and the recent crisis with the suspension of Nord Stream 1, except for the time frame. However, this statement does not mean that nothing has changed in the process. In fact, the increasing importance of natural gas and the developments in line with the possibility of its weaponization have caused some things to change in the process. The realization of the vital importance of the continuity of natural gas flow in the context of energy security can be considered in this context. In this context, the facilities where strategic energy resources are transmitted, especially natural gas transmission lines, have been included in the scope of states' initiatives to ensure the security of critical infrastructures and have begun to be seen as a casus belli for their national security. In fact, in recent years, it is seen that initiatives in this context have been addressed within the framework of global cooperation mechanisms.

It is seen that various global cooperation mechanisms are already in operation within the scope of solving energy security problems caused by many other strategic energy resources, especially natural gas. However, no effective result has been achieved in terms of using both critical infrastructure and strategic energy resources as diplomatic weapons. One of the indicators of this is the transformation of the events during the Ukraine-Russia War, which erupted in recent months, into an energy crisis in Europe. In fact, the possibility of these events turning into an energy crisis made itself felt even before the war. In this context, it is possible to state that the negotiations between most of the European countries and Russia within the framework of natural gas agreements foreshadowed a possible crisis. Therefore, with the outbreak of the war between Ukraine and Russia, we can say that the energy crisis, which was already foreshadowed, has come to light. However, the developments in the following process appear as a kind of pouring gasoline on the crisis.

The Russia-Ukraine War has triggered a number of developments such as the opening of a different front in Europe, which we can characterize as an energy crisis, with mutual confrontation on the Brussels-Moscow line and sanctions targeting each other. On the other hand, the tense environment that has recently turned into a crisis in the energy context is not a new situation. In fact, since the beginning of the 2000s, especially with the change in Russia's foreign policy approach with Putin's coming to power, the threat of energy security has become a potential problem for the continental countries, especially for the EU. However, with the Ukraine-Russia War, this situation has turned into a reality beyond a threat. In this context, it is possible to characterize the developments that took place when the EU sanctions targeting Russia reached damaging dimensions for the country's energy sector as the realization of threats. Therefore, we can say that the tensions that started with the EU's suspension of the licensing process required for the commissioning of Nord Stream 2 in the past have reached a different dimension with the war. It is in this context that the tensions in EU-Russia energy relations deepened the existing crisis.

The most important development that deepened the crisis in EU-Russia energy relations is related to the Nord Stream pipeline. In this context, first of all, the announcement that Nord Stream 1, one of the main transmission lines of natural gas from Russia to Europe, will not operate at full capacity due to technical reasons has been one of the most important turning points in terms of energy relations. With the announcement, the Russian side gradually reduced the gas flow to Europe and emphasized the disruption in the maintenance process of Nord Stream 1's turbines due to sanctions. Although this development caused repercussions around the world, especially in the EU, it soon turned into a permanent interruption with the European Commission's announcement of sanctions against Russia.

Russia's interruption of the flow in Nord Stream 1 caused a serious panic in the EU. So much so that many member states attempted to overcome the crisis with minimal damage and implemented a series of action plans in this context. It is noteworthy that the practices within the scope of the action plan in question cover a wide range of measures that will severely restrict individual consumption habits. However, a critical development on September 27, 2022 fundamentally shook the predictions that "winter is coming big". In this context, it is possible to state that the news that leaks occurred in the sections of Nord Stream 1 and 2 lines passing through the Swedish and Danish economic zones caused the predictions related to the European energy crisis to be replaced by a new scenario.

The sudden drop in pressure in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from 105 to 7 is the beginning of a new scenario in the European energy crisis. The first statement after the mysterious drop came from Germany. In its statement, the German Ministry of Economy announced that they do not have clear information about the cause of the pressure drop and that investigations are ongoing. However, with the statement made by Denmark, some things started to become clear. So much so that Denmark announced that they found a leak in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which carries natural gas from Russia in the Baltic Sea, threatening maritime traffic. However, the developments were not limited to this. In this context, another statement by Denmark led to the realization that the incident was beyond what was believed. In a statement, the Danish Ministry of Energy said that they took action after receiving a report of a pressure drop in the pipeline, which is not currently operating, and shortly afterwards, in a final statement, they stated that there were two similar leaks in Nord Stream 1. Thus, a situation has emerged in which perhaps one of Russia's biggest trump cards against the EU has been targeted.

Although the causes of the leaks in the Nord Stream 1 and 2 natural gas pipelines have not been conclusively established, the widespread belief is that it was sabotage. Kremlin spokesperson Peskov's statement that there are rumors that the incident was sabotage supports this idea. So much so that no possibility should be ignored in the face of such a serious incident. In addition to this, one after another arguments are emerging to strengthen the case that the leaks on the lines were sabotage. For instance, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, during her visit to Poland, pointed out that the leaks were suspicious and said, "It is unusual to have three leaks far away from each other. Therefore, it is hard to imagine that it is coincidental".

The leaks that occurred near Bornholm Island, where the Nord Stream 1 and 2 natural gas pipelines pass, appear at a total of four points. In the first stage, a number of practices have been put into effect against these leaks, which are clearly visible from the sea surface. In this context, the Swedish Maritime Administration issued a Navtex warning ships not to approach the area and a 9 km no-entry zone was established near Bornholm Island, where the pipelines pass through. However, no definitive information on the causes and extent of the leaks has yet been reached. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov emphasized that the problems in the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipelines were a very disturbing development and said, "There is some damage to the lines, but it is not clear what kind of damage. The pressure has dropped significantly. This is an unprecedented situation that requires urgent investigation. We are extremely worried about the developments" are among the indicators that no definite conclusion has been reached.

Despite the lack of a definitive conclusion on the causes and dimensions of the incident, a number of scenarios have been derived. In this context, it is possible to consider the claims that the lines were damaged as a result of the explosion, as well as the statements that they became unusable again. However, it is still impossible to reach a conclusion without conclusive evidence. Therefore, the available data is extremely insufficient for "passing judgment". What is certain, however, is that critical infrastructure is a vital component of energy security. In fact, it is indisputable that this incident would have caused different consequences in an environment where the lines were operating at full capacity. In this context, if the same leakage situation had occurred in a different conjuncture, perhaps we would be talking about greater damages. Therefore, with this incident, the vital importance of the security of energy transmission lines has once again become clear. In light of all this, we can say that the possibility of similar problems in another part of the world should not be ignored.