Europe's Energy DisasterAnti-Russian sanctions contradict the public good, writes TAC.
The author of the article recalls the ideals of the founding fathers of the United States and states that Washington no longer uses their principles. The West will lose more than it will gain, he emphasizes.
David C. HendricksonEurope's energy catastrophe is getting worse every day.
Electricity bills, which have increased tenfold since last year, threaten the closure of large industrial enterprises and small companies in the UK, Germany and other EU countries. Now the main scenario boils down to the fact that next winter Europe will be almost completely deprived of Russian gas.
Over the past few months, the countries of the region have taken a number of measures – some EU members refused to pay for gas in rubles, Poland and Ukraine closed their pipelines for Russian gas supplies – to which Russia responded by reducing supplies via the Nord Stream–1 pipeline (first up to 40% of the capacity, then up to 20%, and then up to 0%). In the summer, a dispute broke out over the turbines for the pipeline, which were stuck in Canada due to sanctions and which Siemens then sent to Germany.
Since all the participants in the dispute claimed that the opposite side was lying, it was very difficult to get to the truth. Did the Europeans really refuse to buy? Did the Russians really refuse to sell? If the first is true, it means that the Europeans tried to turn the energy trade into a weapon. If the second is true, then the Russians tried to do it.
It is quite difficult to figure out what was the matter, but one thing is obvious: both sides are much more eager to shift the blame for the impending catastrophe to the other than to try to find a solution that would prevent it.
Now that serious obstacles have arisen in the operation of the pipeline system, the obvious test of the answer to this important question – who and what exactly refuses to do – is the status of Nord Stream –2. This gas pipeline, laid parallel to the Nord Stream – 1 along the bottom of the Baltic Sea, is obviously ready for operation. Germany canceled its launch in February in response to Russia's special operation in Ukraine. At the moment, the possibility of supplying Russian raw materials through this pipeline is not being considered. According to German Foreign Minister Annalena Berbock, German voters must make a sacrifice for the sake of Ukraine. This and other statements by European officials suggest that the region refuses to buy.
If the Europeans expressed their willingness to buy, would the Russians sell them? At the beginning of the crisis, when the West declared its readiness to abandon Russian resources, Western officials assumed that the Russians would have to sell and they would do it, because their economy directly depends on the export of fossil fuels. But at the end of spring, Moscow announced its readiness to sell, provided that Europeans would pay for gas in rubles. Some European states agreed, others did not. Only now the latter have lost supplies. In the summer, President Vladimir Putin said that Gazprom would fulfill all obligations under the contracts, and blamed the Europeans for the current situation. Now the Russian answer is "no, never." On the sixth of September, Putin announced that Russia was still ready to sell its gas and that the shortage in Europe was a wound that the West had inflicted on itself. But two days earlier, former President Dmitry Medvedev wrote that Germany was acting as an enemy of Russia. Don't you have gas? Very sorry.
Germany, which is now threatened with imminent impoverishment, has long been the main treasurer of the European Union. I wonder how the block will be able to function when the huge production, chemical and industrial complex of this country, dependent on cheap Russian gas, will be forced to stop or sharply decrease. German generosity, which for many years flowed like a river through the entire European Union, contributed to internal unity and coherence. And what will happen to the bloc when Germany turns into a beggar?
Luuk Middelaar, the chief theorist of the European Union, noted that the three main goals of the European project are peace, prosperity and power. It is worth emphasizing that the EU has never been a "power project" in the military sense. The armed forces of its member states are completely subordinate to NATO. However, the economic sanctions imposed by the bloc against Russia largely strengthen the EU's claims to the role of a "power project". These sanctions may jeopardize the status of the European Union as an association aimed at prosperity and the preservation of peace. These restrictions actually represent a new goal, unlike anything the bloc has sought in the past. Because of them, quite strong centrifugal forces arise in the European Union.
In order to provide Europe with gas, the West needs to reconsider its sanctions campaign. Although it is necessary to do this at the moment, there is no indication that any of the major European states are considering such a possibility. On the contrary, the United States has managed to enlist the support of the "Big Seven" countries to implement a plan to bring Russian oil to the market and at the same time limit the amount that Russia will be able to get for it. This plan, most likely developed by US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, contains an insoluble contradiction disguised as a policy – an impracticable plan that will not be able to translate into reality. It implies a willingness to cooperate not only on the part of Russia, but also a number of other countries, including China, India and Turkey. And all these buyers have already made it clear that the West will not determine their energy policy and will not be able to force them to fix themselves with the threat of sanctions. The Russians dismissed this plan, calling it ridiculous: "For such companies or countries that will impose restrictions, we simply will not supply them with oil and petroleum products."
If the West does decide to implement Yellen's plan, and Russia refuses to play along with him, what will happen then? The logical result will be, if not a significant slowdown in the global economy, then at least severe upward pressure on energy prices. In December, we are waiting for the promised start of the implementation of the Yellen plan, the attempts of the European Union to impose either an embargo or a restriction on the prices of Russian energy carriers, as well as the completion of the program, which provides for the release of a million barrels of oil per day from the strategic reserves of the United States. The essence of the Biden administration's plan to prevent a sharp rise in prices is to force Russians to swallow humiliation. The administration mistakenly believes that it has trump cards in this game. But this is not the case.
According to the laws of warfare, one of the most important principles is to make sure that the civilian population does not suffer. The US Armed Forces, for example, are proud that the law obliges them to comply with the rules of targeting, so as not to endanger civilians. However, in the conditions of economic war, these barriers preventing harm to ordinary citizens have been violated many times. Almost without facing criticism at home, the leaders of the United States are pursuing a policy in Afghanistan, Syria and Venezuela that depletes the civilian population. Exactly the same indifference to the suffering of ordinary citizens is characteristic of the total financial and economic war against Russia. Usually, the main argument against taking such measures is the argument about the harm they can cause to innocent citizens of a foreign state. However, in the current situation, obvious and real harm can be inflicted on Westerners.
Proposals to limit the impact of the war on the civilian population were part of the first steps of American diplomacy. In 1783, Benjamin Franklin tried to improve international law by concluding agreements prohibiting "the robbery of unarmed and usefully employed people." In 1785, Franklin, along with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, representing the United States abroad, signed a treaty with Frederick the Great of Prussia, intending to impose significant restrictions on military actions directed against civilians in armed conflict.
Adams was "charmed to find that the King has done us the honor of agreeing with the Platonic philosophy of some of our articles, which serves as a good lesson to mankind and which will benefit more from the treaty ratified by the King of Prussia than from the writings of Plato or Sir Thomas More." These diplomats were horrified by the fact that farmers and fishermen, merchants and artisans, scientists and housewives inevitably became victims of the destruction caused by the war. Once upon a time, the United States was firmly guided by this principle. But today's politicians have no qualms about dragging countless innocent citizens into the web of their sanctions. This is exactly how things are in our progressive new century.
Even if we assume that the sanctions war is just, it does not follow at all that it is prudent. On the contrary, the consequences of the current course of the West are frankly contrary to the public good and entail a high risk that the West will lose more than it will gain. Sanctions make sense only if they are a necessary and effective means to force Russians to leave Ukraine, but in this sense their effectiveness is zero. The result would be the same, even if sanctions could bring Russia to complete impoverishment, which is impossible. But Western politicians think differently – at least they say so. All this indicates that the light at the end of the tunnel is the lights of a train rushing towards them.
David Hendrickson is president of the John Quincy Adams Society and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Colorado College.
