At the time of this writing, the natural gas crisis in Europe is entering its 13th day.
StratforSource:
Close the entire text of the article here
While the topic has only penetrated the Western mind as an issue in recent years, Russia and Ukraine have been spatting about the details of natural gas deliveries, volumes, prices and transit terms since the Soviet breakup in 1992. In the end, a deal is always struck, because Russia needs the hard currency that exports to Europe (via Ukraine) bring, and Ukraine needs natural gas to fuel its economy. But in recent years, two things have changed.
First, Ukraine’s Orange Revolution of 2004 brought to power a government hostile to Russian goals. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko would like to see his country integrated into the European Union and NATO; for Russia, such an evolution would be the kiss of death.
Ukraine is home to most of the infrastructure that links Russia to Europe, including everything from pipelines to roads and railways to power lines. The Ukrainian and Russian heartlands are deeply intertwined; the two states’ industrial and agricultural belts fold into each other almost seamlessly. Eastern Ukraine is home to the largest concentration of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers anywhere in the world outside Russia. The home port of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is at Sevastopol on Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, a reminder that the Soviet Union’s port options were awful — and that Russia’s remaining port options are even more so.
Ukraine hems in the south of European Russia so thoroughly that any hostile power controlling Kiev could easily threaten a variety of core Russian interests, including Moscow itself. Ukraine also pushes far enough east that a hostile Kiev would sever most existing infrastructure connections to the Caucasus. Simply put, a Ukraine outside the Russian sphere of influence transforms Russia into a purely defensive power, one with little hope of resisting pressure from anywhere. But a Russified Ukraine makes it possible for Russia to project power outward, and to become a major regional — and potentially global — player.
The second change in recent years is that Russia now has an economic buffer, meaning it can tolerate a temporary loss in natural gas income. Since Vladimir Putin first came to power as prime minister in 1999, every government under his command has run a hefty surplus. By mid-2008, Russian officials were regularly boasting of their $750 billion in excess funds, and of how Moscow inevitably would soon become a global financial hub. Not surprisingly, the 2008-2009 recession has deflated this optimism to some extent. The contents of Moscow’s piggy bank already have dropped by approximately $200 billion. Efforts to insulate Russian firms and protect the ruble have taken their financial toll, Russia’s 2009 budget is firmly in deficit, and all talk of a Russian New York is on ice.
But Russia’s financial troubles pale in comparison to its neighbors’ problems — not in severity, but in impact. Russia is not a developed country, or even one that, like the states of Central Europe, is seriously trying to develop. A capital shortage simply does not damage Russia as it does, say, Slovakia. And while Russia has not yet returned to central planning, rising government control over all sources of capital means the Russia of today has far more in common economically with the Soviet Union than with even the Russia of the 1990s, much less the free-market West. In relative terms, the recession actually has increased relative Russian economic power — and that says nothing about other tools of Russian power. Moscow’s energy, political and military levers are as powerful now as they were during the August 2008 war with Georgia.
This is a very long-winded way of saying that before 2004, the Russian-Ukrainian natural gas spat was simply part of business as usual. But now, Russia feels that its life is on the line, and that it has the financial room to maneuver to push hard — and so, the annual ritual of natural gas renegotiations has become a key Russian tool in bringing Kiev to heel.
And a powerful tool it is. Fully two-thirds of Ukraine’s natural gas demand is sourced from Russia, and the income from Russian natural gas transiting to Europe forms the backbone of the Ukrainian budget. Ukraine is a bit of an economic basket case in the best of times, but the global recession has essentially shut down the country’s steel industry, Ukraine’s largest sector.
Russian allies in Ukraine, which for the time being include Yushchenko’s one-time Orange ally Yulia Timoshenko, have done a thorough job of ensuring that the blame for the mass power cuts falls to Yushchenko. Facing enervated income, an economy in the doldrums and a hostile Russia, along with all blame being directed at him, Yushchenko’s days appear to be numbered. The most recent poll taken to gauge public sentiment ahead of presidential elections, which are anticipated later this year, put Yushchenko’s support level below the survey’s margin of error.
Even if Yushchenko’s future were bright, Russia has no problem maintaining or even upping the pressure. The Kremlin would much rather see Ukraine destroyed than see it as a member of the Western clubs, and Moscow is willing to inflict a great deal of collateral damage on a variety of players to preserve what it sees as an interest central to Russian survival.
Europe has been prominent among these casualties. As a whole, Europe imports one-quarter of the natural gas it uses from Russia, and approximately 80 percent of that transits Ukraine. All of those deliveries now have been suspended, resulting in cutoffs of various degrees to France, Turkey, Poland, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Austria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Serbia and Bulgaria — in rough order of increasing severity. Reports of both mass power outages and mass heating failures have been noted in the countries at the bottom half of this list.
A variety of diversification programs have put Europe well on its way to removing its need for Russian natural gas entirely, but these programs are still years from completion. Until then, not much can be done for states that use natural gas for a substantial portion of their energy needs.
Unlike coal, nuclear energy or oil, natural gas can be easily shipped only via pipeline to previously designated points of use. This means the decision to link to a supplier lasts for decades and is not easily adjusted should something go wrong. Importing natural gas in liquid form requires significant skill in cryogenics as well as specialized facilities that take a couple of years to build (not to mention a solid port). Alternate pipe supply networks, much less power facilities that use different fuels, are still more expensive and require even more time. All European countries can do in the immediate term is literally rely upon the kindness of strangers until the imbroglio is past or a particularly creative solution comes to mind. (Poland has offered several states some of its share of Russian natural gas that comes to it via a Belarusian line.) Some Central European states are taking the unorthodox step of recommissioning mothballed nuclear power plants.
Because Russia’s goal in all this is to crack Kiev, there is not much any European country can do. But one nation, Germany, is certainly trying. Of the major European states, Germany is the most dependent upon Russian resources in general, and energy in particular.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Putin spent three nights this past week on the phone with each other discussing the topic, and the pair has a two-day summit set for later this week. The Germans have three primary reasons for cozying up to the Russians at a time when it seems they should be as angry as anyone else in Europe.
First, because most of the natural gas Germany gets from Russia passes not through Ukraine, but through Belarus — and because the Russians have not interrupted these secondary flows — the Germans desperately want to avoid rocking the boat and politicizing the dispute any more than necessary. The Germans need to engage the Russians in discussion, but unlike most other players, they can afford not to be accusatory, because they have not been too deeply affected so far. (Like all the other Europeans, the Germans are working feverishly to diversify their energy supplies away from Russia, but while Berlin can keep the lights on, it doesn’t want to ruffle any more feathers than it needs to.)
Second, as any leader of Germany would, Merkel recognizes that if current Russian-Western tensions devolve into a more direct confrontation, the struggle would be fought disproportionately with German resources — and perhaps even on German soil. Germany is the closest major power to Russia and would therefore be the focus of any major action, Russian or Western, offensive or defensive. France, the United Kingdom and the United States enjoy the buffer of distance — and in the case of the last two, a water buffer to boot.
German national interest, therefore, is not to find a way to fight the Russians, but to find a way to live with them. Germany traditionally has been Russia’s largest trading partner. Every time the two have clashed, it has been ugly, to say the least. In the German mind, if Ukraine (or perhaps even adjusting the attitude of Poland) is what is necessary to make the Russians feel secure, so be it.
Third, Germany has a European angle to think about. To put it bluntly, Merkel is always on the lookout for any means of easing Germany back into the international community with a foreign policy somewhat more sophisticated than the “I’m sorry” that has reigned since the end of World War II. After the war, France successfully hijacked German submission and used German economic strength to achieve French political desires. Since the Cold War’s end, Germany has slowly wormed its way out of that policy straitjacket, and the natural gas crisis raises an interesting possibility.
If Merkel’s discussions with Putin result in restored natural gas flows, then not only will Russia see Germany as a partner, but Germany might win goodwill from European states that no longer have to endure a winter without heat.
Still, it will be a tough sell: the European states between Germany and Russia have always lived in dread that one power or the other — or, God forbid, both — will take them over. But Germany is clearly at the center of Europe, and all of the states affected by the natural gas crisis count Germany as their largest trading partner. If Merkel can muster sufficient political muscle to complement Germany’s economic muscle, the resulting image of strength and capability would go a long way toward cementing Berlin’s re-emergence.
Good comment ! And you may add that from the very begining US did everything to bar Russian-European normalization in every sphere. During last 40 years they attacked our cooperation in gas supplies without offering an alternative. Even the NABUCCO is a dead born political idea to let the US stay in Asia but not a real attempt to help Europe. To my mind Atomic stations and Algerian gas are more real than the NABUCCO trick.
Wim Roffel
You know that Yushenko is another failing US project in the backyard of Russia. Like Saakashvili this year he will have to leave his Fatherland forever. So the main player in the gas war was the US lame duck.
They have reached their goals to poison our realations with most of the Europeans. But Putin's counter attack is as well a part of the Presidential campaign to start in Ukraine this autumn. Russia can not afford loosing this campaign again.
Aleks, 15
One thing I disagree is that in your comment there were some "cheap words" ! I hope very soon such viewings will start to prevail in the West. People there sometimes do not think of what will happen if Russia stops opposing US hegemony. Even today US pays little attention to what the Europeans think and what their interests are. EU is interested to have friendly Russia by it's side to equalize the US influence.
(Rote Kapelle, 26 January 2009 04:36)
Great comment and I agree with all of your points. I found this quote of yours rather interesting "Unfortunately there are many people still out there who think human rights trump strategic interests." Human rights can be spun any way to serve any strategic interest just as in the case of Kosovo. The media was claiming human rights were being violated on a massive scale when in fact it was simply domestic anti-terror operations.
Like Nikita Kruschev said "The media is our chief ideological weapon". I love this quote because so many people blindly follow the media and not seek the truth.
Its interesting how during Soviet times religious freedom or really any other major ideology was nonexistent/persecuted and now with Capitalism it is force-fed to us. Only the religion here is not Christianity, Islam or any other actual religion but rather the religion/ideology of money. That it can buy anything including but not limited to: a human life, people's integrity and loyalty.
(DJ MeHighLow, 15 January 2009 23:27)
Not impressed either by this report. The mass privatizations of the 1990s were pushed by the US on Russia precisely to stop Russia from returning to communism (ask Noreen Hertz).
How is it that now the russians are as red-blooded capitalists as the rest of us they are still the 'enemy'? Because Russia wouldn't continue to play the role of subservient to western interests as it had done throughout the 1990s.
Why is the Ukraine in the WTO and not Russia? Surely not just a question of economics? Why isn't China or India in the G8? Why is Jackson-Vanik still applied to Russia?
All of the above proves that the west is only interested in allies, however corrupt and undemocratic they are. Azerbaidjan has just banned the BBC, VOA & DW from its radio waves - where is the outrage in western capitols? None, because it is a 'strategic partner', i.e. the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.
Lukashenko is 'Europe's last dicator' as the media illiterati love to tell us, yet close to silence on Azerbiadjan.
Unfortunately there are many people still out there who think human rights trump strategic interests. Semi-state human rights institutions such as HRW (basically an arm of the USDoS) get far more coverage for their critical reports when it concerns 'enemies'.
Quite a useful media and foreign policy tool.
Well the EU states (and the US) can prove what great buddies they are with the Ukraine by simply paying their bills, in full but they don't (except in Georgia's case the US actually gave the Georgians money to buy gas from Iran!).
So much for supporting the half of the Ukraine that thinks everything to its west is a land of milk and honey...
Words are cheap, money isn't.
(Aleks, 15 January 2009 18:24)
Yes I agree with Wim that there is a severe lack of Ukraine in this article. Ukraine like Georgia is bashing Russia to get western ears. For some reason lots of people in the west like to hear Russia bashing. Also with Putin being in the former KGB neocons love to bash him and Russia. So the fault is really with Ukraine and its failure to pay bills and now ship oil to Europe but as along as its president and prime minister are seen as mainly anti-Russia figures who came to power in the "orange revolution" they will not get all the blame that they deserve.
(Brian, 15 January 2009 17:20)
Stratfor publishes many reports - some good, some bad. I would like to place this one in the latter category and I am amazed B92 copied it.
Yushenko's popularity in the Ukraine is close to zero, so it is hard to believe that Russia would harm its relations with other countries in order to damage Yushenko. Given the stream of conflicting explanations and outright lies we hear from the Ukraine to explain why no gas is transported I consider it very probable that the Ukraine is the main culprit in this conflict.
(Wim Roffel, 15 January 2009 13:59)
of course it is in german interest to find a way to live with russia, just as it was in its interest to find a way to live with france. france and germany waged several wars before they realised that they can't go on like that anymore and now the franco-german alliance is the backbone of the european union. if they find a way to live with russia that would mean the continent would probably never ever see a major war again. i really hope this will happen.
it is understandable that smaller countries feel that they would be taken over by bigger ones. however, they will depend on the bigger countries economically, so they could as well learn to live with that. unfortunately presently some east european countries rely heavily on the us and americans can afford to antagonise russia. in fact they probably want to do that since a russo-german alliance combined with franco-german alliance would create a very powerful block and they would lose a lot of influence.
(malcolm x, 14 January 2009 18:21)
As soon as we, in the west, recognize that every country has to protect its own interest just as we do, there should be peace in the world. Russia is not stealing anything from anybody, they just want to be paid for their product. Because we want to isolate and weeken Russia, we have to bad mouth them w/media help. We also are instigating their neighbors to become their enemies. Our western motto is: You do as we tell you, or else. I hope that Mr Obama will take different approach w/Russia, who is not our enemy, it just takes normal person to see it. There are just too many interest groops who potray Russia as a bad bear for their own beneffit.
(L, 14 January 2009 16:39)
As soon as we, in the west, recognize that every country has to protect its own interest just as we do, there should be peace in the world. Russia is not stealing anything from anybody, they just want to be paid for their product. Because we want to isolate and weeken Russia, we have to bad mouth them w/media help. We also are instigating their neighbors to become their enemies. Our western motto is: You do as we tell you, or else. I hope that Mr Obama will take different approach w/Russia, who is not our enemy, it just takes normal person to see it. There are just too many interest groops who potray Russia as a bad bear for their own beneffit.
(L, 14 January 2009 16:39)
Stratfor publishes many reports - some good, some bad. I would like to place this one in the latter category and I am amazed B92 copied it.
Yushenko's popularity in the Ukraine is close to zero, so it is hard to believe that Russia would harm its relations with other countries in order to damage Yushenko. Given the stream of conflicting explanations and outright lies we hear from the Ukraine to explain why no gas is transported I consider it very probable that the Ukraine is the main culprit in this conflict.
(Wim Roffel, 15 January 2009 13:59)
Not impressed either by this report. The mass privatizations of the 1990s were pushed by the US on Russia precisely to stop Russia from returning to communism (ask Noreen Hertz).
How is it that now the russians are as red-blooded capitalists as the rest of us they are still the 'enemy'? Because Russia wouldn't continue to play the role of subservient to western interests as it had done throughout the 1990s.
Why is the Ukraine in the WTO and not Russia? Surely not just a question of economics? Why isn't China or India in the G8? Why is Jackson-Vanik still applied to Russia?
All of the above proves that the west is only interested in allies, however corrupt and undemocratic they are. Azerbaidjan has just banned the BBC, VOA & DW from its radio waves - where is the outrage in western capitols? None, because it is a 'strategic partner', i.e. the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.
Lukashenko is 'Europe's last dicator' as the media illiterati love to tell us, yet close to silence on Azerbiadjan.
Unfortunately there are many people still out there who think human rights trump strategic interests. Semi-state human rights institutions such as HRW (basically an arm of the USDoS) get far more coverage for their critical reports when it concerns 'enemies'.
Quite a useful media and foreign policy tool.
Well the EU states (and the US) can prove what great buddies they are with the Ukraine by simply paying their bills, in full but they don't (except in Georgia's case the US actually gave the Georgians money to buy gas from Iran!).
So much for supporting the half of the Ukraine that thinks everything to its west is a land of milk and honey...
Words are cheap, money isn't.
(Aleks, 15 January 2009 18:24)
of course it is in german interest to find a way to live with russia, just as it was in its interest to find a way to live with france. france and germany waged several wars before they realised that they can't go on like that anymore and now the franco-german alliance is the backbone of the european union. if they find a way to live with russia that would mean the continent would probably never ever see a major war again. i really hope this will happen.
it is understandable that smaller countries feel that they would be taken over by bigger ones. however, they will depend on the bigger countries economically, so they could as well learn to live with that. unfortunately presently some east european countries rely heavily on the us and americans can afford to antagonise russia. in fact they probably want to do that since a russo-german alliance combined with franco-german alliance would create a very powerful block and they would lose a lot of influence.
(malcolm x, 14 January 2009 18:21)
Yes I agree with Wim that there is a severe lack of Ukraine in this article. Ukraine like Georgia is bashing Russia to get western ears. For some reason lots of people in the west like to hear Russia bashing. Also with Putin being in the former KGB neocons love to bash him and Russia. So the fault is really with Ukraine and its failure to pay bills and now ship oil to Europe but as along as its president and prime minister are seen as mainly anti-Russia figures who came to power in the "orange revolution" they will not get all the blame that they deserve.
(Brian, 15 January 2009 17:20)
Great comment and I agree with all of your points. I found this quote of yours rather interesting "Unfortunately there are many people still out there who think human rights trump strategic interests." Human rights can be spun any way to serve any strategic interest just as in the case of Kosovo. The media was claiming human rights were being violated on a massive scale when in fact it was simply domestic anti-terror operations.
Like Nikita Kruschev said "The media is our chief ideological weapon". I love this quote because so many people blindly follow the media and not seek the truth.
Its interesting how during Soviet times religious freedom or really any other major ideology was nonexistent/persecuted and now with Capitalism it is force-fed to us. Only the religion here is not Christianity, Islam or any other actual religion but rather the religion/ideology of money. That it can buy anything including but not limited to: a human life, people's integrity and loyalty.
(DJ MeHighLow, 15 January 2009 23:27)
Good comment ! And you may add that from the very begining US did everything to bar Russian-European normalization in every sphere. During last 40 years they attacked our cooperation in gas supplies without offering an alternative. Even the NABUCCO is a dead born political idea to let the US stay in Asia but not a real attempt to help Europe. To my mind Atomic stations and Algerian gas are more real than the NABUCCO trick.
Wim Roffel
You know that Yushenko is another failing US project in the backyard of Russia. Like Saakashvili this year he will have to leave his Fatherland forever. So the main player in the gas war was the US lame duck.
They have reached their goals to poison our realations with most of the Europeans. But Putin's counter attack is as well a part of the Presidential campaign to start in Ukraine this autumn. Russia can not afford loosing this campaign again.
Aleks, 15
One thing I disagree is that in your comment there were some "cheap words" ! I hope very soon such viewings will start to prevail in the West. People there sometimes do not think of what will happen if Russia stops opposing US hegemony. Even today US pays little attention to what the Europeans think and what their interests are. EU is interested to have friendly Russia by it's side to equalize the US influence.
(Rote Kapelle, 26 January 2009 04:36)
Stratfor publishes many reports - some good, some bad. I would like to place this one in the latter category and I am amazed B92 copied it.
Yushenko's popularity in the Ukraine is close to zero, so it is hard to believe that Russia would harm its relations with other countries in order to damage Yushenko. Given the stream of conflicting explanations and outright lies we hear from the Ukraine to explain why no gas is transported I consider it very probable that the Ukraine is the main culprit in this conflict.
(Wim Roffel, 15 January 2009 13:59)
As soon as we, in the west, recognize that every country has to protect its own interest just as we do, there should be peace in the world. Russia is not stealing anything from anybody, they just want to be paid for their product. Because we want to isolate and weeken Russia, we have to bad mouth them w/media help. We also are instigating their neighbors to become their enemies. Our western motto is: You do as we tell you, or else. I hope that Mr Obama will take different approach w/Russia, who is not our enemy, it just takes normal person to see it. There are just too many interest groops who potray Russia as a bad bear for their own beneffit.
(L, 14 January 2009 16:39)
Good comment ! And you may add that from the very begining US did everything to bar Russian-European normalization in every sphere. During last 40 years they attacked our cooperation in gas supplies without offering an alternative. Even the NABUCCO is a dead born political idea to let the US stay in Asia but not a real attempt to help Europe. To my mind Atomic stations and Algerian gas are more real than the NABUCCO trick.
Wim Roffel
You know that Yushenko is another failing US project in the backyard of Russia. Like Saakashvili this year he will have to leave his Fatherland forever. So the main player in the gas war was the US lame duck.
They have reached their goals to poison our realations with most of the Europeans. But Putin's counter attack is as well a part of the Presidential campaign to start in Ukraine this autumn. Russia can not afford loosing this campaign again.
Aleks, 15
One thing I disagree is that in your comment there were some "cheap words" ! I hope very soon such viewings will start to prevail in the West. People there sometimes do not think of what will happen if Russia stops opposing US hegemony. Even today US pays little attention to what the Europeans think and what their interests are. EU is interested to have friendly Russia by it's side to equalize the US influence.
(Rote Kapelle, 26 January 2009 04:36)
Yes I agree with Wim that there is a severe lack of Ukraine in this article. Ukraine like Georgia is bashing Russia to get western ears. For some reason lots of people in the west like to hear Russia bashing. Also with Putin being in the former KGB neocons love to bash him and Russia. So the fault is really with Ukraine and its failure to pay bills and now ship oil to Europe but as along as its president and prime minister are seen as mainly anti-Russia figures who came to power in the "orange revolution" they will not get all the blame that they deserve.
(Brian, 15 January 2009 17:20)
of course it is in german interest to find a way to live with russia, just as it was in its interest to find a way to live with france. france and germany waged several wars before they realised that they can't go on like that anymore and now the franco-german alliance is the backbone of the european union. if they find a way to live with russia that would mean the continent would probably never ever see a major war again. i really hope this will happen.
it is understandable that smaller countries feel that they would be taken over by bigger ones. however, they will depend on the bigger countries economically, so they could as well learn to live with that. unfortunately presently some east european countries rely heavily on the us and americans can afford to antagonise russia. in fact they probably want to do that since a russo-german alliance combined with franco-german alliance would create a very powerful block and they would lose a lot of influence.
(malcolm x, 14 January 2009 18:21)
Not impressed either by this report. The mass privatizations of the 1990s were pushed by the US on Russia precisely to stop Russia from returning to communism (ask Noreen Hertz).
How is it that now the russians are as red-blooded capitalists as the rest of us they are still the 'enemy'? Because Russia wouldn't continue to play the role of subservient to western interests as it had done throughout the 1990s.
Why is the Ukraine in the WTO and not Russia? Surely not just a question of economics? Why isn't China or India in the G8? Why is Jackson-Vanik still applied to Russia?
All of the above proves that the west is only interested in allies, however corrupt and undemocratic they are. Azerbaidjan has just banned the BBC, VOA & DW from its radio waves - where is the outrage in western capitols? None, because it is a 'strategic partner', i.e. the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.
Lukashenko is 'Europe's last dicator' as the media illiterati love to tell us, yet close to silence on Azerbiadjan.
Unfortunately there are many people still out there who think human rights trump strategic interests. Semi-state human rights institutions such as HRW (basically an arm of the USDoS) get far more coverage for their critical reports when it concerns 'enemies'.
Quite a useful media and foreign policy tool.
Well the EU states (and the US) can prove what great buddies they are with the Ukraine by simply paying their bills, in full but they don't (except in Georgia's case the US actually gave the Georgians money to buy gas from Iran!).
So much for supporting the half of the Ukraine that thinks everything to its west is a land of milk and honey...
Words are cheap, money isn't.
(Aleks, 15 January 2009 18:24)
Great comment and I agree with all of your points. I found this quote of yours rather interesting "Unfortunately there are many people still out there who think human rights trump strategic interests." Human rights can be spun any way to serve any strategic interest just as in the case of Kosovo. The media was claiming human rights were being violated on a massive scale when in fact it was simply domestic anti-terror operations.
Like Nikita Kruschev said "The media is our chief ideological weapon". I love this quote because so many people blindly follow the media and not seek the truth.
Its interesting how during Soviet times religious freedom or really any other major ideology was nonexistent/persecuted and now with Capitalism it is force-fed to us. Only the religion here is not Christianity, Islam or any other actual religion but rather the religion/ideology of money. That it can buy anything including but not limited to: a human life, people's integrity and loyalty.
(DJ MeHighLow, 15 January 2009 23:27)