I watched this Zoom event Tuesday but my attempt to tweet comments was leading to the longest Twitter thread ever, so I will offer just one extended point here for now @cepa @BLSchmitt @JohnEdHerbst @M_Assenova @apolyakova 1/x https://twitter.com/cepa/status/1288130258374467584

The shared starting point is a firm assumption that Nord Stream 2 represents a threat to EU energy security and "transatlantic security." This is no longer questioned or subjected to debate in Washington DC. Full epistemic closure. Yet it is wrong. 2/x

I didn't expect my rude Zoom question (see attached, the first one) to be acknowledged but it does get at the key point. Diverting some Russian gas from one route to another does not affect the level of EU dependence on Russian gas, nor EU energy security. 3/x

Gazprom currently having a 35% or 40% share of the EU gas market is not a security problem, nor a source of Russian political leverage. (I won’t elaborate here but am happy to get into this.) And it will not be in the future, whether or not Nord Stream 2 is commissioned. 4/x

@PowerVertical commented that the Baltic states saw Nord Stream 2 as a “clear and present danger” suggesting the project would affect them. It won’t! Lithuania (where I just took a fantastic holiday! The best!) solved its region’s security of supply problem with LNG. 5/x

@M_Assenova noted that NS2 would shift some flows of gas within Europe: true. & Certainly one can try to assess how the pipeline would impact gas market dynamics under various scenarios. But it is not a security of supply issue. Ukraine, Slovakia, etc. will get their gas. 6/x

Back to the main issue of the sanctions: The idea that that folks in the US Congress understand European energy security better than hundreds of European policymakers and regulators who spend careers focusing on this issue is silly, and a bit offensive. 7/x

The EU has spent the past 10+ years solving its energy security problem with respect to gas. Thanks to market integration, third party access rules, info transparency, bi-directional flows, and (*critically*) access to LNG, EU energy security has been transformed for the better.

Of course many EU countries and politicians oppose Nord Stream 2. Energy security rhetoric may be used but in fact this is part of overall support for Ukraine against Russian aggression. Understandable and admirable! But it has nothing to do with energy security. 9/10

So: the US is threatening to use the nuke at its disposal - control over USD clearing – to impose its policy preferences on Germany, in the name of “Protecting Europe’s Energy Security.” But sanctions will not, in fact, PEES. Something else going on. That's all for now! 10/10