Biden's plans, Merkel's plans and Putin's thoughts
As easy as pie
And yet someone must, in the end, explain to the general public what it means to use energy as weapon... Most people know quite well what energy blockade is. Many in general - by personal example. And to be afraid of this from Moscow is somehow not easy.
Generally speaking, it would seem as easy as shelling pears to cut off gas supplies to Europe. Only this is what to do with it later, if it is not at all easy to let the already produced gas go somewhere else. By and large, it will not work to release it into the atmosphere.
Large gas is not a stove in the kitchen, you cannot close the burner at once. And not electricity, you can't turn off a simple switch. And not even oil, although there are such deposits as we have in Siberia, to close - this is a whole problem. And to open it later - and the costs are unmeasured, and you won't end up with a hassle.
It is not just that associated gas is either burnt, or entire industries are created in order to catch it and put it up for sale. One or the other - depending on what is more profitable.
Readers may ask - why this educational program? Maybe someone does not need it, but it seems to us that very many will not hurt at all. In order not to think that this is a Russian dispatcher and is waiting, as it were, to follow the order of the house manager Nonna Mordyukova from the "Diamond Hand":
- They won't take it, turn off the gas!
So why all these maxims? And to the fact that not the last official from Washington - and the official representative of the US State Department for Europe and Eurasia, Victoria Nuland, first of all scares Russia with sanctions precisely for this.
For using energy as a weapon against European countries. So far, only hypothetical. Nuland even explained:
"As part of the agreement reached, Berlin is committed to putting pressure on the European Union to take measures, including sanctions, to limit the export of Russian energy to Europe if Moscow uses energy as a weapon."
Source: flickr.com
Nuland (pictured) emphasized that Washington actively consulted with Kiev when preparing an agreement on Nord Stream 2 with Germany. But then what about the constant reminders of almost every American politician that the United States "did not take any action to force Ukraine to remain silent?"
And I will not be silent
It is clear that official Kiev was not going to be silent and did not intend to, and President Volodymyr Zelensky and his team are very flattered that, according to Victoria Nuland, they discussed with them “their requests and their weaknesses».
But the very idea of throwing a “headscarf on the mouth” seemed to be in the air for Kiev. More precisely, on the sidelines of the State Department and in the short corridors of the White House. Otherwise, it would not have been voiced - not such simpletons are sitting in Washington now. It's time to forget the dashing raids a la Trump.
They just had to voice them - in response to the publication of an extremely quarrelsome publication Politico, where for the first time they started talking about criticism from Kiev. And by no means to the address of Nord Stream 2, especially since in Washington they are repeating more and more precisely Ukrainian assessments about “a bad pipeline and a bad situation”.
The Washington elite was alarmed by critical arrows from Kiev towards the very deal between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, which has not yet even become the property of the general public. It is clear that its main parameters have long been clear to everyone.
You will have to surrender, but never surrender. Again, it is not just that the very agreement of the plan, which the United States and Germany outlined even before Angela Merkel's visit to Washington, is announced by the Western media as a great victory.
But consent is a product, as is known from the classics - "with complete non-resistance of the parties." And a couple of commas in the negotiated text can make a lot of difference. At least in assessments, and at least for the future.
And the screams and groans from Kiev can deprive Washington of even this opportunity to save face. The details, or rather, the major and most important nodes of the American-German gas deal, we repeat, are well known even without any hints on the move.
10 years without the right to what?
And it is no coincidence that the first of such nodes, which was reported by the same Nuland, is the item on 10-year guarantees for Ukraine. The guarantees of extending just for 10 years the old transit agreement between Moscow and Kiev, which expires in 2024.
It is clear that if Nord Stream 2 had been built a couple of years earlier, it would have been much more difficult for Ukraine. Although during this time it would be possible to come to an agreement with Europe, and bargain with Russia again, and the US LNG, bought on the occasion from the Russians on the way from Yamal, should be ordered in advance.
Source: minprom.gov74.ru
But everything went the way it did, and Gazprom managed to turn many difficulties into advantages. To begin with, he only strengthened his dominant position in the project, and received at least the moral right to communicate with partners as a senior.
In addition, the gas concern had a free hand to play with prices, which was facilitated by both the oil war and the OPEC + agreement. As a result, gas from Nord Stream 2 will cost Europe and specifically Germany more than if it had arrived there earlier.
Finally, even under the sanctions, Gazprom, due to the delay in construction, or rather due to this, did not incur excessive debts, and now borrows even on better terms than before the sanctions (Gazprom is reaping the fruits of victory). Another thing is that the shareholders who had lost on dividends had to shrink. But before that it didn’t mean that it would have been better.
Now Ukraine has just over two years ahead of it to renegotiate with the Russian gas giant. To negotiate in the hope that the latter will have substantially more export gas than the two Nord Streams will be able to pass at once.
Not the last items
It remains to supplement the picture by specifying what Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel will have to record as a given during her last visit to Washington.
First of all, the potential, mind you, it is the potential joining the US sanctions against Russia in case it uses energy as a weapon against European countries. What is this condition, we tried to figure it out, but it didn't work out very well.
The second condition is those same 10 Ukrainian years. And Merkel will have to sign for the fact that her successors will put pressure on the EU countries, no matter how it bursts at the seams, so that they also restrict the export of Russian energy. This is a weapon. In the hands of Moscow, it seems, is simply terrible.
America also has it, but it is more expensive, and it is much less - even Ukraine will not have enough. One hope is that Europe and the United States, and even more so for the rest of the backward world, are far from green energy. And the demand for gas will only grow, since everything will be very bad with oil pretty soon.
Information