Fight for Europe
In the past few years, all have not ceased passion for the construction of one of the most scandalous branches of the gas routes of Europe under the name "Nord Stream - 2". Let us try to understand what lies behind this "war for resources" and how this is reflected in the distribution of geopolitical forces in the Middle East arena.
It is no secret to the existence of the saying "Who owns information, he owns the world." However, back in the days of "young America" another principle became clear: "Who owns the resources, he owns the world." Already someone, and the United States, which has built up its "power" on plundering the resources of the North America century untouched until 17, is unlikely to dispute this statement.
Since the beginning of the 20 century, the United States waged a fierce struggle for the right to control resources on other continents, and only a person who does not understand geopolitics can object to this conclusion. And if earlier it was expressed in the ability of the United States to trade profitably, then with the growth of "military power" of the United States, the ambitions of overseas "partners" began to grow, and they began to openly abuse military force.
You can list for a long time the list of countries where the US invaded "politically" (using revolutions and regime changes), or with the help of military force, if the more budgetary and less bloody first scenario "did not work."
In the process of conquering world resources outside the country, 1989-2000 became the "golden era" of the United States. Having lost a strong geopolitical rival in the face of the USSR and against the background of China’s still lacking economic and military power, the US government, in alliance with transnational corporations, could completely and cheaply overcome local dissatisfaction of the local population of oil and gas exporting countries and take control of the most important hydrocarbon deposits and arteries of the planet.
Always for the United States were the most attractive areas of oil and gas arteries between the Russian Federation and the EU. They had large reserves of hydrocarbons, powerful volumes of pumping, already completed gas transmission system (hereinafter referred to as GTS). It was necessary only to take it all under control. And it succeeded.
On the territory of the Russian Federation, many companies were established that produced hydrocarbons in different parts of the country and drove them to the solvent EU, which also experienced its “development boom” against the background of the USSR’s loss of its markets both in Europe and in other countries.
In the open access there is a huge variety of estimates and economic calculations, on the basis of which you can find the final "profit" received by the United States from the commercialization of the formerly former state GTS USSR, which for us, the inhabitants of the largest country in the world, is expressed as a "loss" or "under-received profit".
With the change of power in the Russian Federation in 2000, the government of the Russian Federation "understood" that the main issue of restoring the sovereignty of the Russian Federation is to regain control over the export of resources, but the sharp "nationalization" of large energy companies could only contribute to a sharp outflow of capital and investment abroad, which it is quite likely that it would lead to a decrease in the investment climate in Russia, which would have a pitiful effect on an overly credited country. Moreover, many branches of the country simply “laid down” in the 90s and demanded the arrival of foreign investments and technologies.
A different method was chosen: the Russian Federation began to buy up private oil companies, and if there were such legal opportunities, then freeze their activities with all fields bringing the company to bankruptcy and acquiring it for a pittance with part of the GTS and fields. And the point here is not in the “raider” seizure, but rather in the reluctance of the old owners of these companies to fulfill the new requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation (we recall Yukos). By the way, many private traders adopted new laws of the Russian Federation in the field of regulating the export of resources and called them acceptable.
Buying small companies, the Russian Federation introduced them to Gazprom, increasing the share of its shares in this corporation. The main task was to bring the stake to the "control". And it succeeded. After receiving the "decisive vote" in this corporation, Russia gained the right to a one-man decision on the "policy" of this corporation. Gazprom’s policy, by the way, has changed dramatically, the “competitiveness strategy” entered into action, and the company put other gas producers under such conditions that their survival outside this corporation became impossible, which led, in fact, to the fact that the state received a controlling stake over all participants of the gas market in Russia. This was done not with the help of laws, but with the help of price dumping, which put other companies on the level of profitability below profitability. Everything is legal, pure business.
Thus, the gas market of the Russian Federation was returned to the control of the state, although today a decent share of Gazprom still belongs to other countries. However, the United States was removed from the "scheme, the most pernicious and shameless player, which deprived them of their right to vote in matters of gas supplies from the Russian Federation to the EU within Russia. This is, if briefly.
Realizing that such a tidbit is getting out of control, and the once geopolitical adversary is starting its recovery, returning credits and restoring sovereignty that does not meet their interests, the United States tried to "show the world" a new "project" of GTS from the Middle East. Cheap gas production in Qatar should have successfully offset the costs of multi-stage transit and pipeline protection in "troubled" areas, give the US full control over this GTS and weaken the Russian Federation as much as possible.
Europe, of course, is interested in this project. Then the shifts of the American "democracy" began in the countries of the Middle East, through which this gas pipeline was to pass.
However, at the beginning of the second decade of the 21 century, the main supplier of gas to the EU had already gained political weight, it became clear that international decisions could not influence the policy of the Russian Federation, and its reliability as a supplier of gas to the EU was rated as "very high".
It was then that the EU began to lose interest in the “long-term project”, especially since the constant infusion of funds into the Middle East “hot projects” began to tire the EU, and the volume of gas supplied from Russia fully satisfied its needs. And it demanded from the USA new actions, active and decisive.
2013 year can be considered decisive, it was at this point that the fiercest struggle between the Russian Federation and the United States began over the EU gas market.
Today, I increasingly hear that "the Third World War has already begun" between the United States and the Russian Federation. In fact, this is something different than the battle for the most solvent customer in the oil and gas industry ... No more.
It is unlikely that someone in an attempt to take possession of a new market will put "themselves beloved" under the real threat of destruction, lost profits are not worth such candles, especially since both the United States and Russia understand perfectly well that the chances of the United States in this game of winning are minimal . And the reason for that is the country of the European Union, whose words in the field of resolving European gas issues sound louder and stronger every day - Germany.
The loss of Europe’s interest in Middle Eastern "hot projects" did not suit the United States very much; in the light of this "fading attention", the most interesting option for the United States was a blow to the stability of gas supplies to the EU from its eastern neighbor. Since Germany is a very strong player on a regional scale, Ukraine was chosen as the second gas transit country in the EU. Many political scientists argue that in this way NATO is approaching the borders of the Russian Federation and is seeking to block the military potential of the Russian Federation, however, this statement seems rather doubtful to me. We live in a sufficiently developed era, and modern weapons negate the need to be closer to the "potential enemy", especially since the proximity to the Russian capital of the Baltic countries that are already members of NATO is maximum.
The Ukrainian “project” of democracy, promises of strong US support, is no more than an attempt to limit gas supplies to the EU, making it clear to the latter that the gas pipelines from the Russian Federation to the EU are not so stable and safe in order to rekindle the EU’s interest in alternative sources of supply. gas.
Russia also joined in this struggle, realizing that at least one GTS was lost as reliable, and this would force the EU to look for alternative sources of gas supply, which would reduce not only Russia's geopolitical influence on the EU, but mainly deprive Russia of part revenues to the budget and allow "someone" to rise again on its losses.
In this situation, it was necessary to act as quickly and decisively, the "inertness" of the decisions of the Russian leadership has already led to the fact that Russia has lost its industrial partner, although in this matter Russia was able to benefit in the long term. The transfer of production to Russia is long overdue, and this was the "final impetus" to the growth of industrial sovereignty of the Russian Federation.
The annexation of the Crimea can be considered an act of military struggle, the return of the peninsula plays a purely military significance, it lowers Ukraine as a potential NATO asset below the liquidity threshold, and the deployment of military self-defense equipment of the Russian Federation on the peninsula completely eliminates the military benefits of the west from the seizure of Ukraine In the long term, obviously, the West lost this micro-grab precisely in the military aspect.
The South Stream project was also being actively worked out as an alternative to the Ukrainian transit GTS, but everyone here was against it, since it was not clear who would be the main transit country for gas in this area. It is no coincidence then that Mr. Obama traveled to Germany, not to Brussels. The former US President understood that this project was hitting the interests of Germany, a regional power within the European Union. It was after Obama’s visit to Germany that the “energy package” was adopted, blocking the construction of South Stream, and it was then that “speculation” began on the subject of “poor Ukraine” and the need to support it by preserving transit. Even then, it became clear to me that the already discussed “North Stream -2” would divide everyone who then sang about the “single support of Ukraine” and the “need to preserve its status as a transit country”, and I wrote about this to many “hurray-patriots” Blakitnoy "Republic.
The US was advantageous to leave the transit of gas through Ukraine, in order to regulate the valve, to be able to create tension in the EU with gas supplies from Russia, the USA in this case appropriated Ukraine as a “gasket”, which has a profit from gas transit. Also, the United States has long ago developed a project for shale gas extraction in the territory of the "rebellious republics" of Ukraine, since there is already a ready GTS on the territory of the United States, and the inert power is ready to make any decision in favor of the United States due to the lack of alternative patrons. “Shale projects” in Ukraine would not in any way cover the EU’s needs for gas from the Russian Federation, but would become an excellent subject for trade in the domestic political environment in Ukraine itself.
However, in this situation in the upper ranks of the Russian Federation the correct conclusions were made. And Russia decided to bet on the main player in the region - Germany. I doubt that Merkel supported all these games, clearly and clearly understanding all movements in the GTS network of Europe. For inertness and neutrality, Merkel in Germany does not scold unless she is very lazy. I think it was the calculation from Russia, to include the main gas player of the European Union in the "game", to lure him to his side and give him a DREAM - a monopoly on gas transit to the European Union.
Russia needed to find a "weak link" in the EU that would stand on the side of Russia in solving gas problems, and paradoxically, this "weak link" turned out to be a strong political link of a "regional" scale. Russia proposes Germany to become a transit country for the new branch of the Nord Stream, while construction will imply two branches with an eye to the growth of gas consumption by the European Union according to the trends of recent years. At the same time, Gazprom did not say anything about redirecting gas transit from the Ukrainian direction to a new “pipe”, but the whole world understood this without words.
At this very moment, comparing all these resource battles with the chess game, Russia “removed” from the queen’s chessboard. Moreover, she made this pawn, turning it into a new queen on her side. I believe that this step is, for today, the final victory of Russia in the field of gas supplies to the territory of the European Union, a victory precisely in that for which all this long-term fuss in the Middle East, all this democracy in Ukraine was planned.
Naturally, attempts to block the North Stream - 2 from the United States ended in failure. The promise and inevitability of this project from the very beginning was appreciated by Western companies not only from Germany, but also from France and Holland, who joined this project in order to have at least some kind of "profit" from the new project, which was inevitable and predictable.
Further cries of the "rest of Europe" about the need to preserve Ukraine as a gas transit country and alternative source are already perceived in Berlin as a threat to their interests and unwillingness to put up with the growing political power of Germany in the EU space. The background noise that Ukraine needs help and the EU should oppose the Russian Federation “united front” no longer finds response in the hearts of the major players in the European space, personal benefits are closer to the heart, “nothing personal, just business”.
And all the competent politicians have already understood and calculated the end of this battle in monetary terms for the main players in this market. The opinion of Ukraine does not count and no one is interested. The empty halls at the conference in Munich demonstrate this more than frankly, the interest of the West in the "Norman format" is demonstrated there. A positive decision on the “SP-2” almost immediately turned Ukraine into an illiquid asset ... not interesting ...
The United States also, realizing that the party is lost, is trying to create a general uproar in order to adequately emerge from this defeat in the struggle for resources, trying to have profit at least from sanctions against the Russian Federation, which are obviously not as effective and no longer find support in the EU . At the same time, the “transatlantic partnership”, pushed through the EU by the US, choked. The last "stuffing" about the punishment of companies involved in the program "Nord Stream - 2", also did not scare anyone. The benefits are greater, even with penalties.
The main partner, whose US interests were firmly defended in the EU, sold the Americans for the monopoly of gas transit in the near future, which undoubtedly strengthens the economic power of Germany, which against the general background of EU losses from sanctions looks like strengthening the authority and economy of Germany in the EU exponentially. Russia, on the other hand, has maintained its market share in the EU and will be ready to increase volumes in the coming years in light of the growing gas consumption in the EU.
Germany and Russia emerged victorious in this “fight,” the US lost time and money. It is hard for me to assess that Ukraine has lost in this dispute, it has never been the subject of these tensions, OBJECT and nothing more, it has lost very much in its own price. Now Ukraine is turning into an unprofitable and unprofitable "asset" that needs to be reset either by Russia or the European Union, which has completely lost interest in Ukraine as an OBJECT of geopolitical "battle."
Both Russia and Germany received their benefits, they will still scream about Ukraine in Poland and other countries that fall out of the common European field towards American interests, but these countries do not decide anything in matters of regional policy and are highly dependent on the same Berlin ... economically. So the issues of their dissatisfaction with Berlin will be settled very quickly, after the elections. By the way, Merkel has already received the “pre-election victory”, which is so necessary for herself, and has increased her rating in the eyes of the electorate.
___
Now, last but not least.
With regards to Syria. Russia entered there in case negotiations with Germany fail. Yes, of course, in no way can we deny the fact that terrorism in the Middle East is a threat to the Russian Federation, as well as the fact that all these people with beards and machine guns can come to the Russian Federation as the “last revenge” from the United States, Moreover, they stated this not once, but the economic component of the state played an important role here.
I do not see politicians as people who say that "our guys are dying for the interests of Putin in Syria". Gas supplies to the EU are state profits (BUDGET) and leverage on a huge number of EU countries in order to get political preferences for our country, including our guys in Syria are fighting for it.
I myself am liable for military service, I flew 2 to Syria once in the crew of a transport plane, and I have no questions “need it or not” - definitely needed!. Because the sale of hydrocarbons, including, it is revenues to the budget and the economic sovereignty of my country. These are the salaries of teachers, doctors and other state employees, these are social programs and much more. So, I, just like any person “in uniform”, should protect any interests of my country, the infringement of which could put her position on the edge, worsen the situation inside society. I will go to war with penguins in Antarctica, if it threatens, including the economic sovereignty of my country.
In the end, we are doing the right thing, and the "impotent" aircraft carrier from France, who had bravely arrived on the shores of Syria and escaped through 2 of the day without a single shot, would not solve the problems of the peaceful population dying under the wheels of religious fanatics in Paris, whose ideological mentors are today It is in the black zones of ISIS in our theater.
Of course, it is possible to talk a lot about corruption and about the fact that other people besides gas have other people besides the state, about corruption and other negative things about my country and you. Of course, this is the case, as in any country. But if you do not protect the economic interests of our country today, then tomorrow, when you defeat internal enemies, no one will let you go to the foreign market, because with your “economic impotence” and lack of understanding that to defend today, you will let everything go what could have tomorrow.
And it will be like in a sphere close to my heart aviation, where the country of Antonov, Yakovlev, Ilyushin, Tupolev, Lavochkin and other great designers rejoices with only one hundred sold passenger aircraft in 10 years.
It is no secret to the existence of the saying "Who owns information, he owns the world." However, back in the days of "young America" another principle became clear: "Who owns the resources, he owns the world." Already someone, and the United States, which has built up its "power" on plundering the resources of the North America century untouched until 17, is unlikely to dispute this statement.
Since the beginning of the 20 century, the United States waged a fierce struggle for the right to control resources on other continents, and only a person who does not understand geopolitics can object to this conclusion. And if earlier it was expressed in the ability of the United States to trade profitably, then with the growth of "military power" of the United States, the ambitions of overseas "partners" began to grow, and they began to openly abuse military force.
You can list for a long time the list of countries where the US invaded "politically" (using revolutions and regime changes), or with the help of military force, if the more budgetary and less bloody first scenario "did not work."
In the process of conquering world resources outside the country, 1989-2000 became the "golden era" of the United States. Having lost a strong geopolitical rival in the face of the USSR and against the background of China’s still lacking economic and military power, the US government, in alliance with transnational corporations, could completely and cheaply overcome local dissatisfaction of the local population of oil and gas exporting countries and take control of the most important hydrocarbon deposits and arteries of the planet.
Always for the United States were the most attractive areas of oil and gas arteries between the Russian Federation and the EU. They had large reserves of hydrocarbons, powerful volumes of pumping, already completed gas transmission system (hereinafter referred to as GTS). It was necessary only to take it all under control. And it succeeded.
On the territory of the Russian Federation, many companies were established that produced hydrocarbons in different parts of the country and drove them to the solvent EU, which also experienced its “development boom” against the background of the USSR’s loss of its markets both in Europe and in other countries.
In the open access there is a huge variety of estimates and economic calculations, on the basis of which you can find the final "profit" received by the United States from the commercialization of the formerly former state GTS USSR, which for us, the inhabitants of the largest country in the world, is expressed as a "loss" or "under-received profit".
With the change of power in the Russian Federation in 2000, the government of the Russian Federation "understood" that the main issue of restoring the sovereignty of the Russian Federation is to regain control over the export of resources, but the sharp "nationalization" of large energy companies could only contribute to a sharp outflow of capital and investment abroad, which it is quite likely that it would lead to a decrease in the investment climate in Russia, which would have a pitiful effect on an overly credited country. Moreover, many branches of the country simply “laid down” in the 90s and demanded the arrival of foreign investments and technologies.
A different method was chosen: the Russian Federation began to buy up private oil companies, and if there were such legal opportunities, then freeze their activities with all fields bringing the company to bankruptcy and acquiring it for a pittance with part of the GTS and fields. And the point here is not in the “raider” seizure, but rather in the reluctance of the old owners of these companies to fulfill the new requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation (we recall Yukos). By the way, many private traders adopted new laws of the Russian Federation in the field of regulating the export of resources and called them acceptable.
Buying small companies, the Russian Federation introduced them to Gazprom, increasing the share of its shares in this corporation. The main task was to bring the stake to the "control". And it succeeded. After receiving the "decisive vote" in this corporation, Russia gained the right to a one-man decision on the "policy" of this corporation. Gazprom’s policy, by the way, has changed dramatically, the “competitiveness strategy” entered into action, and the company put other gas producers under such conditions that their survival outside this corporation became impossible, which led, in fact, to the fact that the state received a controlling stake over all participants of the gas market in Russia. This was done not with the help of laws, but with the help of price dumping, which put other companies on the level of profitability below profitability. Everything is legal, pure business.
Thus, the gas market of the Russian Federation was returned to the control of the state, although today a decent share of Gazprom still belongs to other countries. However, the United States was removed from the "scheme, the most pernicious and shameless player, which deprived them of their right to vote in matters of gas supplies from the Russian Federation to the EU within Russia. This is, if briefly.
Realizing that such a tidbit is getting out of control, and the once geopolitical adversary is starting its recovery, returning credits and restoring sovereignty that does not meet their interests, the United States tried to "show the world" a new "project" of GTS from the Middle East. Cheap gas production in Qatar should have successfully offset the costs of multi-stage transit and pipeline protection in "troubled" areas, give the US full control over this GTS and weaken the Russian Federation as much as possible.
Europe, of course, is interested in this project. Then the shifts of the American "democracy" began in the countries of the Middle East, through which this gas pipeline was to pass.
However, at the beginning of the second decade of the 21 century, the main supplier of gas to the EU had already gained political weight, it became clear that international decisions could not influence the policy of the Russian Federation, and its reliability as a supplier of gas to the EU was rated as "very high".
It was then that the EU began to lose interest in the “long-term project”, especially since the constant infusion of funds into the Middle East “hot projects” began to tire the EU, and the volume of gas supplied from Russia fully satisfied its needs. And it demanded from the USA new actions, active and decisive.
2013 year can be considered decisive, it was at this point that the fiercest struggle between the Russian Federation and the United States began over the EU gas market.
Today, I increasingly hear that "the Third World War has already begun" between the United States and the Russian Federation. In fact, this is something different than the battle for the most solvent customer in the oil and gas industry ... No more.
It is unlikely that someone in an attempt to take possession of a new market will put "themselves beloved" under the real threat of destruction, lost profits are not worth such candles, especially since both the United States and Russia understand perfectly well that the chances of the United States in this game of winning are minimal . And the reason for that is the country of the European Union, whose words in the field of resolving European gas issues sound louder and stronger every day - Germany.
The loss of Europe’s interest in Middle Eastern "hot projects" did not suit the United States very much; in the light of this "fading attention", the most interesting option for the United States was a blow to the stability of gas supplies to the EU from its eastern neighbor. Since Germany is a very strong player on a regional scale, Ukraine was chosen as the second gas transit country in the EU. Many political scientists argue that in this way NATO is approaching the borders of the Russian Federation and is seeking to block the military potential of the Russian Federation, however, this statement seems rather doubtful to me. We live in a sufficiently developed era, and modern weapons negate the need to be closer to the "potential enemy", especially since the proximity to the Russian capital of the Baltic countries that are already members of NATO is maximum.
The Ukrainian “project” of democracy, promises of strong US support, is no more than an attempt to limit gas supplies to the EU, making it clear to the latter that the gas pipelines from the Russian Federation to the EU are not so stable and safe in order to rekindle the EU’s interest in alternative sources of supply. gas.
Russia also joined in this struggle, realizing that at least one GTS was lost as reliable, and this would force the EU to look for alternative sources of gas supply, which would reduce not only Russia's geopolitical influence on the EU, but mainly deprive Russia of part revenues to the budget and allow "someone" to rise again on its losses.
In this situation, it was necessary to act as quickly and decisively, the "inertness" of the decisions of the Russian leadership has already led to the fact that Russia has lost its industrial partner, although in this matter Russia was able to benefit in the long term. The transfer of production to Russia is long overdue, and this was the "final impetus" to the growth of industrial sovereignty of the Russian Federation.
The annexation of the Crimea can be considered an act of military struggle, the return of the peninsula plays a purely military significance, it lowers Ukraine as a potential NATO asset below the liquidity threshold, and the deployment of military self-defense equipment of the Russian Federation on the peninsula completely eliminates the military benefits of the west from the seizure of Ukraine In the long term, obviously, the West lost this micro-grab precisely in the military aspect.
The South Stream project was also being actively worked out as an alternative to the Ukrainian transit GTS, but everyone here was against it, since it was not clear who would be the main transit country for gas in this area. It is no coincidence then that Mr. Obama traveled to Germany, not to Brussels. The former US President understood that this project was hitting the interests of Germany, a regional power within the European Union. It was after Obama’s visit to Germany that the “energy package” was adopted, blocking the construction of South Stream, and it was then that “speculation” began on the subject of “poor Ukraine” and the need to support it by preserving transit. Even then, it became clear to me that the already discussed “North Stream -2” would divide everyone who then sang about the “single support of Ukraine” and the “need to preserve its status as a transit country”, and I wrote about this to many “hurray-patriots” Blakitnoy "Republic.
The US was advantageous to leave the transit of gas through Ukraine, in order to regulate the valve, to be able to create tension in the EU with gas supplies from Russia, the USA in this case appropriated Ukraine as a “gasket”, which has a profit from gas transit. Also, the United States has long ago developed a project for shale gas extraction in the territory of the "rebellious republics" of Ukraine, since there is already a ready GTS on the territory of the United States, and the inert power is ready to make any decision in favor of the United States due to the lack of alternative patrons. “Shale projects” in Ukraine would not in any way cover the EU’s needs for gas from the Russian Federation, but would become an excellent subject for trade in the domestic political environment in Ukraine itself.
However, in this situation in the upper ranks of the Russian Federation the correct conclusions were made. And Russia decided to bet on the main player in the region - Germany. I doubt that Merkel supported all these games, clearly and clearly understanding all movements in the GTS network of Europe. For inertness and neutrality, Merkel in Germany does not scold unless she is very lazy. I think it was the calculation from Russia, to include the main gas player of the European Union in the "game", to lure him to his side and give him a DREAM - a monopoly on gas transit to the European Union.
Russia needed to find a "weak link" in the EU that would stand on the side of Russia in solving gas problems, and paradoxically, this "weak link" turned out to be a strong political link of a "regional" scale. Russia proposes Germany to become a transit country for the new branch of the Nord Stream, while construction will imply two branches with an eye to the growth of gas consumption by the European Union according to the trends of recent years. At the same time, Gazprom did not say anything about redirecting gas transit from the Ukrainian direction to a new “pipe”, but the whole world understood this without words.
At this very moment, comparing all these resource battles with the chess game, Russia “removed” from the queen’s chessboard. Moreover, she made this pawn, turning it into a new queen on her side. I believe that this step is, for today, the final victory of Russia in the field of gas supplies to the territory of the European Union, a victory precisely in that for which all this long-term fuss in the Middle East, all this democracy in Ukraine was planned.
Naturally, attempts to block the North Stream - 2 from the United States ended in failure. The promise and inevitability of this project from the very beginning was appreciated by Western companies not only from Germany, but also from France and Holland, who joined this project in order to have at least some kind of "profit" from the new project, which was inevitable and predictable.
Further cries of the "rest of Europe" about the need to preserve Ukraine as a gas transit country and alternative source are already perceived in Berlin as a threat to their interests and unwillingness to put up with the growing political power of Germany in the EU space. The background noise that Ukraine needs help and the EU should oppose the Russian Federation “united front” no longer finds response in the hearts of the major players in the European space, personal benefits are closer to the heart, “nothing personal, just business”.
"It seems that we need to rely on our own strength" (c) A. Merkel
And all the competent politicians have already understood and calculated the end of this battle in monetary terms for the main players in this market. The opinion of Ukraine does not count and no one is interested. The empty halls at the conference in Munich demonstrate this more than frankly, the interest of the West in the "Norman format" is demonstrated there. A positive decision on the “SP-2” almost immediately turned Ukraine into an illiquid asset ... not interesting ...
The United States also, realizing that the party is lost, is trying to create a general uproar in order to adequately emerge from this defeat in the struggle for resources, trying to have profit at least from sanctions against the Russian Federation, which are obviously not as effective and no longer find support in the EU . At the same time, the “transatlantic partnership”, pushed through the EU by the US, choked. The last "stuffing" about the punishment of companies involved in the program "Nord Stream - 2", also did not scare anyone. The benefits are greater, even with penalties.
The main partner, whose US interests were firmly defended in the EU, sold the Americans for the monopoly of gas transit in the near future, which undoubtedly strengthens the economic power of Germany, which against the general background of EU losses from sanctions looks like strengthening the authority and economy of Germany in the EU exponentially. Russia, on the other hand, has maintained its market share in the EU and will be ready to increase volumes in the coming years in light of the growing gas consumption in the EU.
Germany and Russia emerged victorious in this “fight,” the US lost time and money. It is hard for me to assess that Ukraine has lost in this dispute, it has never been the subject of these tensions, OBJECT and nothing more, it has lost very much in its own price. Now Ukraine is turning into an unprofitable and unprofitable "asset" that needs to be reset either by Russia or the European Union, which has completely lost interest in Ukraine as an OBJECT of geopolitical "battle."
Both Russia and Germany received their benefits, they will still scream about Ukraine in Poland and other countries that fall out of the common European field towards American interests, but these countries do not decide anything in matters of regional policy and are highly dependent on the same Berlin ... economically. So the issues of their dissatisfaction with Berlin will be settled very quickly, after the elections. By the way, Merkel has already received the “pre-election victory”, which is so necessary for herself, and has increased her rating in the eyes of the electorate.
___
Now, last but not least.
With regards to Syria. Russia entered there in case negotiations with Germany fail. Yes, of course, in no way can we deny the fact that terrorism in the Middle East is a threat to the Russian Federation, as well as the fact that all these people with beards and machine guns can come to the Russian Federation as the “last revenge” from the United States, Moreover, they stated this not once, but the economic component of the state played an important role here.
I do not see politicians as people who say that "our guys are dying for the interests of Putin in Syria". Gas supplies to the EU are state profits (BUDGET) and leverage on a huge number of EU countries in order to get political preferences for our country, including our guys in Syria are fighting for it.
I myself am liable for military service, I flew 2 to Syria once in the crew of a transport plane, and I have no questions “need it or not” - definitely needed!. Because the sale of hydrocarbons, including, it is revenues to the budget and the economic sovereignty of my country. These are the salaries of teachers, doctors and other state employees, these are social programs and much more. So, I, just like any person “in uniform”, should protect any interests of my country, the infringement of which could put her position on the edge, worsen the situation inside society. I will go to war with penguins in Antarctica, if it threatens, including the economic sovereignty of my country.
In the end, we are doing the right thing, and the "impotent" aircraft carrier from France, who had bravely arrived on the shores of Syria and escaped through 2 of the day without a single shot, would not solve the problems of the peaceful population dying under the wheels of religious fanatics in Paris, whose ideological mentors are today It is in the black zones of ISIS in our theater.
Of course, it is possible to talk a lot about corruption and about the fact that other people besides gas have other people besides the state, about corruption and other negative things about my country and you. Of course, this is the case, as in any country. But if you do not protect the economic interests of our country today, then tomorrow, when you defeat internal enemies, no one will let you go to the foreign market, because with your “economic impotence” and lack of understanding that to defend today, you will let everything go what could have tomorrow.
And it will be like in a sphere close to my heart aviation, where the country of Antonov, Yakovlev, Ilyushin, Tupolev, Lavochkin and other great designers rejoices with only one hundred sold passenger aircraft in 10 years.
Information