Easy
Still, someone should eventually explain to the general public what it means to use energy as a weapon. What is an energy blockade, most know well. Many in general - by personal example. And this is not easy to fear from Moscow. In fact, it would seem that it would be easy to cut off gas supplies to Europe. Only here's what to do with it then, if the already extracted gas is not easy to put somewhere else. It will not be released into the atmosphere, by and large.
Big gas is not a stove in the kitchen, you can't close the burner at once. And you can't turn off electricity, you can't turn it off with a simple switch. And not even oil, although there are such fields as we have in Siberia, to close is a whole problem. And then open - and the costs are immeramensurable, and the trouble will not be turned. It is not for nothing that associated gas is either burned, or entire production facilities are created in order to catch it and put it on sale. One or the other – depending on what is more profitable. Readers may ask - why this educational program? Maybe someone does not need, but it seems to us that very many do not hurt at all.
Lest they think that this is a Russian dispatcher waiting to follow the order of the manager Nonna Mordyukova from The Diamond
Hand:
- They will not take it, we will 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 frightens Russia with sanctions for this. For using energy as a weapon against European countries. So far, only hypothetical. Nuland even explained:
"As part of the agreement, Berlin pledges to put pressure on the European Union to take measures, including sanctions, to limit Russian energy exports to Europe if Moscow uses energy as a weapon."
Nuland emphasized that Washington actively consulted with Kiev in the preparation of the agreement on Nord Stream-2 with Germany. But how then to be with the constant reminders of almost every American politician that the United States "did not take any action to silence Ukraine"?
And I will not be silent.
It is clear that official Kiev was not going to remain silent, and President Volodymyr Zelensky, together with the team, is very flattered that, according to Victoria Nuland, they discussed"their requests and their weaknesses."
But after all, the very idea of throwing Kiev a "handkerchief on the mouth", it seems, was in the
air. 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 so simpletons are sitting now in Washington. Dashing raids a la Trump is time to forget.
It was simply necessary to voice it – in response to the publication of the extremely squabbling publication Politico, where they first started talking about criticism from
Kiev. And not to the address of nord stream-2, especially since Washington is increasingly repeating ukrainian assessments about "a bad pipeline and a bad situation."
The Washington beau monde was alarmed by critical arrows from Kiev against the deal itself between the United States and Germany, which has not 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 give up, but you will never capitulate.
Again, it is not for nothing that the very coordination 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 we know from the classics - "with complete non-resistance of the parties."
And a couple of commas in a consistent text can change a lot. At least in assessments, and at least for the future.
And screams and moaning from Kiev can deprive Washington of even this opportunity to save
face. The details, or rather the major and most important nodes of the US-German gas deal, we repeat, are well known without clues on the mova.
10 years without the right to what?
And it is no coincidence that the first of these nodes, which was reported by the same Nuland, is the item on 10-year guarantees for Ukraine. Guarantees of extension just for 10 years of 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 negotiate with Europe, and with Russia to bargain again, and the US LNG, bought on occasion from the Russians on the way from Yamal, should be ordered in advance.
But everything went as it went, and Gazprom managed to turn many difficulties into advantages. For a start, it only strengthened its dominant position in the project, and at least received the moral right to communicate with partners as a senior.
In addition, the gas concern had free hands to play with prices, which was facilitated by 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 come there earlier. Finally, even under sanctions, Gazprom, due to the delay in construction, but rather because of this, did not get into exorbitant debts, and now borrows even on better terms than before thesanctions (Gazprom reaps the fruits of victory).
Another thing is that the shareholders who lost on dividends had to be snarmed. But it didn't mean it would have been better before.
Now Ukraine has a little more than two years to re-negotiate with the Russian gas
giant. To negotiate in the hope that it will have significantly more export gas than two Nord Streams can miss at once.
Not the last points
It remains to supplement the picture with a clarification of what Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel will have to fix as a given during her last visit to Washington.
First of all, it is a potential, mind you, potential accession to US sanctions against Russia in case it will use energy as a weapon against European countries. What is this condition, we tried to understand, but it turned out not very well. The second condition is the same 10 Ukrainian years.
And Merkel will have to sign for the fact that her successors will exert pressure on the EU countries, no matter how it bursts at the seams, so that they also limit the export of Russian energy. It's a weapon. In the hands of Moscow, it seems, just 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 the green energy of Europe and the United States, and even more so the rest of the backward world – oh how far away. And the demand for gas will only grow, because with oil pretty soon everything will be very bad.
-
Author: Alexey Podymov, Victor Malyshev, Doctor of E.S.
