[wmiel]

What is more, the Nord Stream I and II pipes were put under the Baltic Sea to bypass Poland and Ukraine and avoid extending existing pipes, not because it was economically viable.

This is a political decision that hits Ukraine geopolitically.

It increased German and European dependency on Russian natural gas and decreases political costs of Russian hostility against Ukraine significantly.

[fuoqi]

No, don't trust the US propaganda used to promote its more expensive LNG and keep European countries in its leash. Both of Nord Streams are commercial projects first and foremost. IIRC they have payback period of something like from 10 to 15 years, which is quite reasonable for an infrastructure project. Look at the map, primary source of natural gas today in Russia is the Yamal peninsula, and path from it to Germany through the Baltic is shorter than through Ukraine. Also take a look at companies which invest into the project, almost half of the cost is paid by the European companies. Do you think they would invest so heavily into a purely geopolitical project?

Also it's a common sense to reduce your transportation risks, both Poland and Ukraine are clearly hostile towards Russia (does not matter why and who is responsible for that in your opinion), so why would you not avoid their territory for transportation of one of your main exports if it's possible? We already have seen how disputes can cause a significant disruption in 2008-2009 and now Poland tries to fine Gazprom for a ridiculous sum for building Nord Stream 2 (sic!). And finally Ukrainian gas transportation system is in a dire need of rehabilitation and modernization, e.g. due to its poor state they recently had a gas explosion near the Lubny city. The Ukrainian state does not have funds for it, Russia will not do it for obvious reasons, and Europe does not want to pay for it either.

>It increased German and European dependency on Russian natural gas

Blatantly false. Consumption of Russian natural gas has been more or less stagnant for a decade and does not show any signs of future growth. It has even shrunk, in 2007 Russia supplied 626 billion m3, while in 2018 only 549. If anything it will only decrease in the following decades. For example according to a Gazprom's model it will peak in 2027 around 580 billion m3 and will steadily decline thereafter.

[wmiel]

You're saying about 'US propaganda' and 'the leash', which pretty much explains clearly why your perspective is a bit distorted, but let me mention a couple of facts:

1. Cost of building the pipe on the sea bed, potential ecological issues and costs of maintenance are much higher than putting it on land. It was quite a lot of effort to do that.

2. Bypassing Ukraine and Poland decreases the political costs of Russian aggression towards these countries, of course it's a good thing from Russian or German perspective, but there's no doubt it increases the probability of military conflict in Eastern Europe. Obviously, as you mentioned, the fact that these countries can no longer influence the German-Russian natural gas transit is the biggest advantage for Russia.

3. It was Russia that seized a part of Ukrainian territory recently, not the other way around, and natural gas was always used as one of the means of Russian influence in the region. In that context saying that Poland and Ukraine are hostile towards Russia introduces a bit of distortion. Why shouldn't they be? Is it not enough reason? This is what will be worse because of that pipe.

4. It is going to increase western Europe dependency on Russian natural gas , if you increase supply that's what happens. Natural gas is the obvious choice to balance the renewables in the grid. Even some German politicians recently mentioned that it may tie German and Russian energy sectors too much.

5. It all plays nicely with German policy to phase out the Nuclear as they will in fact become a major natural gas hub in Europe. It is against the climate and may jeopardise efforts to slow down global warming. They want the same policy for whole European Union.

6. The fact that from Russian perspective there are clear geopolitical benefits doesn't mean that western european companies cannot make money on it. I don't think that potential to destabilize any region or benefit from global warming was ever concern to the oil and gas companies or investment banks. Of cour

7. The list of German and Austrian politicians that received personal benefits out of that project is quite long: https://euobserver.com/foreign/151123 If it was just an economic project, would that be necessary?