Suchergebnisse

Das Projekt Nord Stream 2 stellt die Bundesregierung vor das Dilemma, sich zwischen energie- und außenpolitischen Interessen entscheiden zu müssen. Eine Priorisierung sollte nicht ohne den Blick auf den energiepolitischen Kontext erfolgen. In der Frage der Güterabwägung gibt es keine einfachen und 'billigen' Antworten. Das gilt umso mehr, als die Energietransformation in Kooperation die größte Dividende für einen Interessenausgleich zu sein verspricht. Allerdings setzt sie einen Minimalkonsens innerhalb der Europäischen Union (EU), mit den USA, der Ukraine und auch Russland voraus. ; Zweite, am 21.04.2021 korrigierte Version

Germany's energy sovereignty is undermined by US sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. As a result, questions surrounding states' strategic capability in energy affairs have recently become a matter of discussion, particularly in Germany, where little attention was previously paid to the notion of energy sovereignty. In view of today's fundamental upheavals in international politics, especially with regard to the geostrategic US-China rivalry, debates about a state's ability to formulate its strategic interests, prioritise its actions and shape its options for energy policy are becoming increasingly important. China's industrial and connectivity policies, the role of the US in energy markets and the energy transformation at large are rapidly changing the global energy landscape and tipping balances of power. The Covid-19 pandemic further accelerates and reinforces these trends. Therefore, it is necessary to integrate energy sovereignty into political debates on the future of sustainable and resilient energy supplies, particularly at the EU level. In order for this to occur, strengthening EU cohesion remains a prerequisite, if not a conditio sine qua non.

The Nord Stream 2 project presents the German government with the dilemma of choosing between energy and foreign policy interests. Geopolitical arguments often prevail in the political discourse. Yet, a weighing of priorities requires a look at the energy policy context, too. When it comes to balancing interests, there are no easy or 'cheap' answers. With a focus on the energy context, it has to be emphasized that a cooperative approach toward energy transformation promises the greatest dividend for a balance of interests, but it presupposes a minimum consensus within the Euro­pean Union (EU), along with the United States (US), Ukraine, and Russia.

Russia is the world's largest gas exporter and Germany is its most important market. Moreover, natural gas is a centerpiece of the Russian economy and the backbone of its energy supply to the Russian population. In terms of its external gas relations, Germany has always kept a special and strategic position, both in terms of volumes, but also in substance. This contribution explores the impact of the energy transition on the bilateral gas relationship. It argues that the bilateral gas relationship has been subjected to various paradigm shifts in the past, but, until recently, the relationship has been seen as in line with the strategic energy triangle of climate change/sustainability, supply security and economic competitiveness. This perception has come into question over two issues: climate change and supply security. Moreover, Germany's authority over the conduct and the legal framework of bilateral gas relations has been increasingly contested, by Brussels, but also horizontally by other EU member states. At this stage, it is very uncertain whether both sides will manage to maintain and redefine their close energy partnership to address climate change. Decarbonizing the gas value chain would be a centerpiece. This would require a political shift away from securitization to decarbonization, not only in Germany, but even more so in the EU, and in particular, in Russia.

Russia is the world's largest gas exporter and Germany is its most important market. Moreover, natural gas is a centerpiece of the Russian economy and the backbone of its energy supply to the Russian population. In terms of its external gas relations, Germany has always kept a special and strategic position, both in terms of volumes, but also in substance. This contribution explores the impact of the energy transition on the bilateral gas relationship. It argues that the bilateral gas relationship has been subjected to various paradigm shifts in the past, but, until recently, the relationship has been seen as in line with the strategic energy triangle of climate change/sustainability, supply security and economic competitiveness. This perception has come into question over two issues: climate change and supply security. Moreover, Germany's authority over the conduct and the legal framework of bilateral gas relations has been increasingly contested, by Brussels, but also horizontally by other EU member states. At this stage, it is very uncertain whether both sides will manage to maintain and redefine their close energy partnership to address climate change. Decarbonizing the gas value chain would be a centerpiece. This would require a political shift away from securitization to decarbonization, not only in Germany, but even more so in the EU, and in particular, in Russia.

Deutschlands Energiesouveränität wird durch die US-Sanktionen gegen die Gas­pipeline Nord Stream 2 beschnitten. Damit rücken Fragen der strategischen Handlungsfähigkeit in der Energiepolitik in den Fokus, die bisher in Deutschland kaum diskutiert werden. Die Auseinandersetzung mit strategischen Interessen, Handlungs­maximen und Gestaltungsoptionen wird immer wichtiger angesichts der fundamentalen Umbrüche in der internationalen Politik, insbesondere der strategischen Rivalität zwischen China und den USA. Chinas Industrie- und Konnektivitätspolitik, die Rolle der USA auf den Energiemärkten und die Energietransformation verändern die globale Energielandschaft und die Machtverhältnisse rasant. Die Corona-Pandemie beschleunigt und vertieft die Trends zusätzlich. Deshalb tut es not, Fragen der Energiesouveränität in die politische Debatte darüber zu integrieren, wie eine nach­haltige und resiliente Energieversorgung ausgerichtet werden sollte. Nicht zuletzt gilt es, den Zusammenhalt in der Europäischen Union (EU) zu stärken.