 Hello and welcome to NewsClick's show Mapping Fault Lines. In this show, we have talked a lot about the energy situation across the globe. For instance, we have talked about important choke points when it comes to the delivery of oil. Today we are going to be talking about another key energy resource that's natural gas. And this is in the context, of course, of the recent agreement between Joe Biden and Angela Merkel of Germany that the Nord Stream 2 project would continue. Now what is the Nord Stream 2 project? It supplies natural gas from Russia to Germany, a pipeline under the Baltic Sea. And of course, it's soon becoming an alternative. It'll actually double the supply of natural gas from Russia to Germany. And it seems to be becoming an alternative to the traditional supply routes which go through Ukraine. So what is the significance of this agreement? What is the significance of this pipeline as a whole? And what does it mean for energy supplies from Russia and for Europe? To talk more about this, we have with us Prabir Prakash. Prabir, so I think the basic question here is that the US and Germany have agreed that a pipeline from Russia to Germany should move ahead. So could you maybe take us through what is the significance of this agreement between these two world leaders? And what does it imply for the global energy supply, especially from Russia to Germany? You know, why should the US even be concerned? What is essentially a bilateral issue between Germany and Russia? So the question is that this did not become only a bilateral issue because US was threatening sanctions or the Nord Stream 2 project. There is a Nord Stream 1, which is not as large as this one, this pipeline threatens to be for what the United States considers as helping Russia. So effectively, this was something that the Americans wanted to stop. Why did they want to stop this? I'll come to that later. But what they were threatening is continuously sanctions. And there have been a lot of contractors who are working on the pipeline who withdrew because of the threat of sanctions. And they have been threatening Russian entities with sanctions, also German entities with sanctions, though the sanctions had been temporarily waived. This is a threat they were holding. In spite of that, the Nord Stream 2 project didn't stop and it's near completion. Now the question is, does the United States accept a fair company or do they try to do some face-saving and still retain some leverage? What they seem to have done is done face-saving in the sense that we've drawn the threat of sanctions from Germany. That was the real threat for Germany. Germany didn't buckle under. Angela Merkel staked a lot on this issue because she thinks that it's important for Germany's energy independence to have this pipeline. And the second thing is that she has conceded, Germany has conceded that this pipeline will not be used to stop Ukraine supplies or Russian supplies through Ukraine. There's a pipeline agreement there till 2024. It was extended, I think, in 2019. So that agreement has to be extended beyond 2024. And Germany has said that they will see to it that this extension does take place. How much leverage Germany has or will have is another question. But that is a promise they have made that they will keep Ukraine in the play, so to say, in this gas train which Russia does with European Union and other countries in Europe. So that's the big issue. So one is, of course, what did the US gain out of it? The US continues, therefore, to have some leverage in German-Russia relationship. And that will also mean with Ukraine coming into the picture. Ukraine has always been the picture. In fact, Ukraine has always been strongly against Nord Stream 2 because then they lose their leverage vis-à-vis Russia because a large part of the European supplies were being sent through the Ukrainian pipeline. And Ukraine has stopped it a number of occasions, as it's claimed by Russia, stolen gas from it. They have, by virtue of sitting in the middle, they have extracted their pound of flesh periodically on this. So they get a lot of money from the transit of the gas. Yes, so the extension of this would be important for them. You see, Ukraine believed that they were getting gas free. That was par for the cause. But they should be paid in international currency. Now that didn't work out for them. So that's the genesis of the problems of their economy and problems with Russia as well. But I'm not going to repeat the Ukraine-Russia problem here. But the clear issue is that Nord Stream 2 continuing in this form means that the European and Russian energy markets will come together in some way. Of course, Russia is a much bigger energy market and is also supplying to China. It has huge reserves of gas. The Siberian gas reserves are well known. So if we look at all of that, the European interest in Russian gas is more than Europe's interest in the European Union market because they have the Chinese market also. And that threatens to be a much bigger market in the future. So I think given all of this, it will be interesting to watch which way Europe goes. Does Europe go with the United States trying to contain Russia, which is what they have been doing till now? Do they keep on continuing their play in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States? Do they want to extend NATO further? All of this is in play or has been in play. And which is one of the reasons that Russia is also now deciding that this cannot be allowed to go on and they are going to respond in some way or the other. So I think that's a bigger picture that we see. But interesting times because finally, Biden may have taken out the more blatant use of force which Trump was doing using sanctions. But the underlying policy really has not changed, which is to keep Europe on the boil, keep Eastern Europe and the Baltic States in play against Russia and use the sanctions card against Russia continuously. I think that still remains. Probably in this context also taking a bit deeper look at the Ukrainian situation because like you said, Ukraine was sitting pretty, getting money out of this. And the whole U.S. response in the recent statement and deal with Angela Merkel seems to sort of want to protect Ukrainian interests, trying to extend the agreement past 2024, investing in some green energy fund for Ukraine and so on. So could you maybe also take us to the strategic importance of Ukraine as far as the U.S. is concerned as in why is Ukraine such a big deal? Ukraine is one of the countries, apart from Georgia, where Russia essentially drew a red line and said, this is threatening quote-unquote our homeland. So this is something that we will not accept. It reverses the policy that the United States had taken for granted, that Russia is too weak to respond. And Obama dismissing it as regional player at best, not an international player. The point is, the Russian military forces are still pretty strong. As you know, they have dukes and parity with Americans, not a good thing for the world, for either of them as well. But they have that strategic depth in terms of military capacity. And they also have, now as we know, sophisticated missile, rocketry, plus what would be called the wireless systems by which the radar, all of this, Russia seems to be quite strong. Given all of it, it's not a big player. So in that they showed when it came to Georgia, when it came to Ukraine, when basically Sevastopol as the warm water base, the only one they have, was threatened in this part of the world. So they decided that that was where the red line was. So that's one part of it. And I think that will continue. That eastward march of NATO, NATO trying to expand its allies in the region, they already have a number of them who have joined the NATO formally, trying to see whether Belarus can be broken. All of that I think is going to continue. So I think that's a geo-strategy that the Americans are going to continue to play. But there was also an economic interest here because Americans wanted the European market for their fracking gas. Now fracking gas, if the pipelines start to work as they're intended to, then fracking gas most probably will not be competitive. How long it will last, we don't know. The economics of fracking doesn't look as good unless the oil price really rises significantly. All of that makes Americans not so attractive. European energy not so attractive for Europe. So we'll have to see whether the US has that economic interest also to stop, try and stop the Ukraine, stop the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which is what it was trying to do. When it comes to Ukraine, it's a very simple issue. Ukrainian economy has collapsed. They were highly dependent on Russia and the Russian market, trying to switch over to NATO and European Union in the hope they would be subsidized for the transition. That hasn't worked well partly because of a kleptocratic state, the kind of theft that has taken place, money that has been stolen from the coffers by the Ukrainian presidents, leadership, as well as their robber barons who now control the Ukrainian economy. All of that has meant the Ukraine has become a basket case for European Union, which is subsidizing in the hope that this is something they can put into play politically against the Russians. Now because gas pipeline was such a source of money for them, therefore they were deeply unhappy that there is an alternative. And the American interest, of course, keeping Ukraine in play against Russia is very clear. There is this question about already the Donbas region, and of course, there is the issue of Sevastopol, which has been Crimean peninsula, which has always been there for the Americans. So I think this is to try and keep Russia on the defensive, keep it on the threat of sanctions repeatedly, which I don't think is going to change. But if European Union integrates in energy terms with Russia, I think this will build a counter ballast into what the European Union then will have to think, that where does its future lie? Does it lie with the Eurasian land mass? Does it lie across the Atlantic? And I think that's the geo-strategic issue that we always discuss. Where does Europe see itself, a part of Eurasia, or does it see as a part of the Atlantic? And that, I think, is the key issue here too. Would you like to do a bit of crystal ball gazing and talk a bit more about that? Because that is, like we said, an issue we've talked about quite a bit on this show. Because Europe always being used as a front against Russia, a long history of the Cold War. But right now, like we discussed, 40 percent of Europe's natural gas supplies are coming from Russia. And that is already a huge amount, and in the future it could even increase. So how do we see the countries in Europe actually dealing with this quandary of the U.S. on one side and their own cheap energy needs on the other? This has shifted significantly because Europe has shifted as a bridging fuel to natural gas. Of course, long term, 20, 25 years down the line, all of this is going to be phased out in favor of renewables. That's what Europe seems to be doing. What most of the world is also doing, including China itself, I don't know about United States. That seems to be still, if you take the Republicans in a different era. But if you look at that, then this 25, 30 years, which is what we are talking about as a period, the bulk of the energy supply, that energy usage in Europe is going to be from gas. And this happened, the switch happened with the Nazi gas. Now, of course, you have the West Asian gas, which is likely to come. There may be other gas sources, oil sources, which will come. But also Russia, as you've said, is one of the biggest suppliers of gas to European Union. Now, for Russia, this is not such a big issue because they have got the Chinese market and that's a huge energy guzzler at the moment. You also have another issue, which I think is going to redraw the strategic calculations of a lot of the players. You also see what is called the Belt Road Initiative, which is linking China through railways, through Central Asia to Germany, for instance, which is one of the poles, of course, through Russia as well. So if you take all of this, the Eurasian configuration, the economic configuration is changing. How much it will change is an open question. But there's no question that Central Asia now has access to both China on one side or Russia on the northern side and through all of these initiatives also to West Asia as well as Europe. So I think the Eurasian landmass is going to get integrated much more, much more than the next 20, 25 years than we have seen till now, where the integration was largely to sea trade. And I think this is where India and the United States are both missing out. They're not recognizing that Eurasian market, this is where four-fifths of the people of the world are, it connects to Africa much more easily. It connects to Southeast Asia as a growing market. South Asia, yes, but South Asia is still South Asia. It is not integrated with Central Asia or any other region. So given all that, I think the economic center of gravity is going to shift to Eurasia. And if that happens, I think what the United States is trying is something which goes against this entire changing scenario. March of history. March of history. And therefore, I think gas pipeline is going to be a bridge rather than what US hopes divide or what Ukraine wants as a divide between Europe and Russia. So I think that is the, as you say, the long arc of history. Seems to be moving in the directions diversion, digression, society. Thank you so much, Pravir. That's all we have time for today. Keep watching NewsClick.