The 580 mile long TurkStream gas pipeline, built by Gazprom and the Botas Petroleum Pipeline Corporation that stretches from Anapa, Russia to Kıyıköy, Turkey, became operational this January. Over 930 kilometers in length, the line that runs through the Black Sea has two ‘strings’ expected to carry a total of 31.5 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas each year to Turkey, Bulgaria and other parts of southern and southeastern Europe. The 5-year-long construction project now carries forward Russia’s effort to reduce its dependence on Ukraine as a route for the transportation of energy to the European Union.
In the past, Russia has been able to exploit Ukraine through its control of energy resources, including two attempts at cutting-off Ukrainian access to oil in the winters over pricing issues. Ukraine was similarly accused of stealing from the oil intended to reach the EU, and with Russia’s 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula, tensions between Kyiv and Moscow have only worsened. Hence, the arrangement, from which Ukraine gained $3 billion a year, was renegotiated down from 90 bcm being transported through Ukraine in 2019 to 65 bcm in 2020, and 40 bcm every year onward till 2024.
Russia’s $7.8 billion attempt to circumvent Ukraine was not its first. In 2007, it proposed the ‘South Stream’ line which would have taken 63 bcm to Bulgaria; the project was rejected by the European Parliament for its violation of EU energy policies. In 2011, Russia built the ‘NordStream 1’ line through the Baltic Sea and ‘NordStream 2’ is set to be completed later this year. Together, the pipelines will carry 110 bcm a year to German consumers. The United States Senate has criticized and placed sanctions on the second pipeline.
By excluding Ukraine in the energy transit process, Moscow will avoid further energy disputes with Kyiv and consequent delays in what comprises a large part of its export revenue. Russia will also have direct access to its European consumers, which is sure to make for an interesting shift in the dynamics of European politics.
Comments