The fate of TurkStream, mirroring that of Nord Stream, underscores the consistent US foreign policy regardless of presidential administration.
On January 11th, a Ukrainian drone attack targeted a compressor station near Anapa, Russia. This station is crucial to the TurkStream pipeline, which transports gas across the Black Sea to Turkey.
TurkStream, similar to the now-destroyed Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, comprises two parallel lines. The Nord Stream pipelines were severely damaged in what is widely believed to be an act of sabotage involving Ukrainian and US actors.
While Russian air defenses repelled the attack, causing only minor damage, the incident carries significant implications.
Three days later, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the US of orchestrating the attack, alleging a US aim to disable TurkStream as it did with Nord Stream. This suggests the January 11th attack may be the first in a series of attempts to damage the pipeline.
Crucially, earlier this year, gas transit from Russia to the EU via Ukraine ceased due to a broken transit agreement, leaving TurkStream as the sole remaining pipeline supplying Russian gas to the EU (primarily Hungary).
Lavrov believes the US seeks to sabotage this last link, aiming to harm both Russia and the EU economies.
Whether a dedicated US plan exists to sabotage TurkStream remains uncertain, unless further attacks occur. Lavrov’s warnings, however, warrant serious consideration, especially by EU nations.
This is supported by several factors: the Nord Stream attack demonstrated a disregard for consequences, even amongst allies; the subsequent lack of accountability for the perpetrators emboldened further actions. The initial attempts to blame Russia, followed by a minimal investigation, highlight a pattern of denial and disinformation.
The role of Donald Trump is also relevant. His policy of “making America great again” encompasses domestic policies favoring the fossil fuel industry, but also foreign policy implications. This includes continuing and escalating the sale of expensive American liquefied natural gas (LNG) to European nations, sometimes using tariffs as leverage.
This economic pressure replaces cheaper Russian energy with more expensive alternatives, increasing Europe’s dependence on the US. From a US perspective, this is a successful strategy, at least until European resistance emerges.
Furthermore, Lavrov’s broader comments on US foreign policy highlighted a lack of interest in equality between states or fair competition, instead pursuing a policy of global dominance. The US, Lavrov stated, does not accept competitors.
The US’s control and destruction of energy infrastructure are integral to this strategy. If Trump aims to strengthen America’s position globally, Lavrov cautioned, the world should observe his methods closely.
The fate of TurkStream under Trump will be a key indicator. If it suffers the same fate as Nord Stream, it would demonstrate that US foreign policy remains aggressive regardless of who is in the White House.