Russia and Turkey signed an agreement to build a gas pipeline early this month, provoking worry that the Turkish Stream pipeline could render Ukraine obsolete as a gas conduit to Europe.
Ankara appears to have ambitions to become a gas transit hub connecting Central Asia, the Black Sea region and the Middle East to Europe. Those ambitions, however, may be tempered by reality as experts cast doubt on the project amid fears that it could change the balance of power in Europe’s energy trade.
Big ambitions
Turkey and Russia began negotiations in 2009, four years after the completion of the Blue Stream gas pipeline. As envisioned, Turkish Stream will consist of two separate pipes – one that will deliver gas from Russia to Turkey, and another that will deliver gas onwards to the European Union.
It’s this second pipeline that has Ukraine worried. If built out to full capacity, the transit pipeline would have an annual capacity of roughly 60 billion cubic meters of gas – enough to totally replace the amount that goes from Russia across Ukraine to Europe.
After remaining steady at about 112-121 billion cubic meters per year from 2005 to 2008, Ukraine’s transiting of Russian gas to Europe has dipped sharply in recent years. In 2014, when Russia started its war on Ukraine, it dropped to 62.25 billion cubic meters, according to figures reported by Ukrainian newspaper Zerkalo Nedeli.
But Turkish Ambassador Yonet Can Tezel argues that the Turkish pipeline is only part of a larger effort to provide his country with more sources of energy.
“Like Ukraine, we need to diversify our sources. We don’t want to depend on one supplier,” the ambassador said, adding that the “main project” is a bid to pipe gas from the Caspian Sea across Turkey.
“I think Ukraine would understand,” Tezel added, noting that Russia supplies Turkey with 55 percent of its natural gas imports.
Some analysts, however, see the move as part of a larger bid to establish Turkish hegemony in the region. If Russia and Middle Eastern nations have to depend on Turkey for energy transit to the European market, the thinking goes, Turkey will have a powerful lever.
Yusuf Cinar, the president of Turkish think tank Strategic Outlook, said that the pipeline fits into a larger Turkish bid to secure its position as a regional power.
“Turkish Stream would put Turkey in an important position,” Cinar said, explaining that Ankara would like to use the pipeline as part of a larger strategy to become a regional gas conduit to Europe. “Turkey wants to be at the center and this could help.”
20 percent threat
The agreement to launch the pipeline has provoked worry in Kyiv. Naftogaz CEO Andriy Kobolev called it a threat and added that Ukrainian diplomacy should create “maximum preconditions” to ensure that the pipeline is not built.
But analysts said that even if the pipeline goes ahead, it’s unlikely to deal a fatal blow to Ukraine’s gas transit.
“The main threat is in the reduction of gas deliveries to Romania,” said Gennadiy Kobal, an analyst with oil and gas consultancy UPEKO. The South Stream pipeline, cancelled in 2014, would have linked Turkey to the rest of Europe via Bulgaria. But without that project, Kobal said, Turkey’s ability to deliver gas is limited.
Kobal placed the total amount that Ukraine would lose from a completed Turkish Stream at 20 percent of the volume of gas currently transiting Ukraine.
Furthermore, a number of uncertainties could still prevent the deal from going into effect.
Russia-Turkish relations, although warmer after Russia strongly supported the Tayyip Erdogan regime during the July coup attempt, have been historically unstable. Turkey remains part of NATO and still wants to join the EU.
The two countries have also only agreed to build a part of the pipeline, the transit capacity of which would fail to render Ukraine’s obsolete.
And finally, EU approval will be needed for the crucial portion of the pipeline that brings gas into Europe.
“The EU has the option to put up bureaucratic barriers against Turkstream,” said Cinar.
Kobolev echoed Cinar’s comments, saying that he hoped the EU would be as “harsh as it was on South Stream.”
Kobal added that even if the pipeline is built to specifications, the EU would have to “completely give up Ukrainian gas” for it to be a real threat.
“I see more of a threat from the expansion of the Nord Stream (Baltic undersea pipeline from Russia to Germany),” Kobal added.
