Russian aggression towards Ukraine has not changed much in a
while so I have not blogged about it. Lies are spread about Ukraine every day
on Russian news and on the internet. Cyber warfare keeps our IT people working
overtime. Militarily, every day is much the same. Cease-fire agreements are
made, and the Russian side continues to attack several times a day along the
front line, with Ukrainian casualties of one or two killed and a few more
wounded every day. Russia continues to support their proxies with money,
munitions, equipment and of course officers and specialists, all the while
denying that fact.
A couple
of things have happened just recently that may signify a change for the
worse. In April, Putin massed 100,000 troops and heavy equipment along the
Ukrainian border complete with full operative logistical support. Most of them
are still there. Then last month Russia has (illegally) threatened with bombing
any “enemy” ship passing within their (illegally claimed) 12 mile limits around
Crimea.
And finally, Putin self-published a 5000 word paper On the Historic
Unity of the Russian and Ukrainian People in which he attempts to
tell Ukrainians that their statehood is an accident, their resistance to
Russian aggression futile and their fate as a people inextricably tied to
Russia’s. His conclusions are questionable and the whole thing has
nothing to do with history as a modern academic discipline.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is obsessed with pretending
that Ukraine does not exist and that Ukrainians have no independent agency. Putin
presents
the Soviet Union as the savior of Ukrainian reunification. “In 1939, lands that
had previously been seized by Poland were returned to the USSR. Their main part
was given to Soviet Ukraine.” Putin shamelessly concludes that “contemporary
Ukraine was fully created by the Soviet epoch.” And declares Russia
always treated Ukraine “with great love.”
Putin has long expressed sympathy for the Russian Empire and
his new article vividly manifests this worldview. He sees Russian Federation,
not as a new state that emerged after the collapse of the USSR, but as a direct
continuation of the Russian Empire. Putin interprets the nation not as a
civil phenomenon, but as an ethno-religious community. This imperial mentality
is incompatible with modern international law and is dangerous for all of
Russia’s neighbours. The President of Russia calls today’s Ukraine “our
historical territory” although it would be more correct if the Ukrainians
called the region of Muscovy “ours”, since initially it was ruled by the Kyiv
princes.
Putin can’t deal with two peoples
who are similar in many respects but who want to live separately. And he is
prepared to use force to achieve full domination of Ukraine as he did in Crimea
and is doing in the Donbass. From the point of view of the West, his actions
are those of an aggressor; but from Putin’s point of view, what he has done is
an internal matter because they are already properly Russian. Putin considers
present-day Ukraine ‘the anti-Russia,’ that is as simply “one more Western
project the struggle against which is what he supposes is his mission handed
down to him by the Moscow princes.”
To put Putin’s conclusions in perspective, imagine Boris
Johnson declaring that the Great English nation includes the Scots, the Welsh
and the Irish, based on their common history. It is as accurate historically as
Trump’s 1776 report. This linked article is a hilarious satirical take off on
Putin’s approach according to which anyone except the Ukrainians formed the
nation in Ukraine by applying the Putinist approach to Russia.
Ukraine is taking Putin’s paper seriously as it is almost a
declaration of war. Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the former Prime Minister of Ukraine
said, “Putin’s mission is to restore the greatness of the Russian empire.” Ukrainians
overwhelmingly believe that they are a different
nation and want to continue building their national state and
overwhelmingly want to escape the historic domination, occupation, colonial
exploitation and repression by Russia. Putin’s own stance now appears to be
hardening. If he acts upon the precepts he enunciates in his essay, it
could transform the East-West confrontation into something much nastier and
more foreboding.
The second major item with a bearing on Ukraine’s future and
perhaps more dangerous to the country’s future as an independent state are Russian
pipelines encircling the former East Bloc countries under
the influence of the USSR, in particular Ukraine. Nord Stream II,
the pipeline under the Baltic Sea linking Russia directly with Germany will
double the volume of Nord Stream I to a total of 110 bcm/y. TurkStream pipeline
starts from Russia’s Krasnodar region, crossing the Black Sea to the receiving
terminal in Turkey. It consists of two lines with a capacity of 15 bcm/y each.
The first line is already in operation, delivering 15 bcm/y of gas to Turkey
for its internal needs. The second line is designed to run from Turkey to
Bulgaria, across Serbia to Hungary and Slovakia.
|
Gas Pipelines from Russia to Europe |
Nord Stream II (NS2) for years has been a source of friction
within Europe and between Europe and America. Germany supports it very
strongly. Ukraine sees it as “a noose around its neck.” USA says it puts too
much power in Russian hands. Putin says America just wants to sell LNG to
Europe.
Gazprom has reduced
supply to Europe to a contractual minimum through existing pipelines
across Ukraine, driving prices up and reducing Europe’s ability to replenish
stockpiles which are currently at 50%. Gazprom says that when NS2 goes on
stream there will be lots of gas for Europe. That is rather compelling evidence
that Gazprom,
which wholly owns NS2, will try to force the hand of Gazprom to ensure that it
is not just completed, but that it also receives all European Union (EU)
regulatory clearances rapidly. Failure to do so will ensure that Europe
and Ukraine will freeze in the dark this coming winter.
Gazprom has several times in the past decades used gas
supplies as political weapons. One expert identified approximately forty
politically motivated Russian energy cutoffs between 1991 and 2004. From 2014
to 2015, Russia attempted to cut off Slovakian, Hungarian, and Polish supplies
in order to forestall contracted Russian gas being resold to Ukraine via
reverse flow.
However, the 2009 crisis resulted in a new EU law that the
pipelines and the suppler must be independent of each other, that the pipelines
can be used by supply competitors and that there must be tariff price
transparency. Gazprom will fight this tooth and nail as it challenges their
monopolist position.
A new pipeline will not increase supply, it will simply
divert it from one pipeline to another. Reduce gas flow through Ukraine and its
pipelines become uneconomic and then scrap. Then EU loses a significant energy
security hedge that stems from the huge capacity of the Ukrainian transit
network, which has 146 bcm of pipeline capacity and 32 bcm of storage capacity.
This sort of capacity makes it possible to meet peak demand, manage atypical
supply surges, and support the intermittent availability of renewable power.
And the effect of the loss of that route, in addition to the
flooding of the west to east interconnectors, is to make it much more difficult
for competitors to enter the gas market in the region, effectively splitting
the Northwest European market from the Central and Eastern European market
Nord Stream 2, therefore, is likely to have a very
problematic journey through the EU’s energy liberalization regulatory clearance
regime, and Gazprom is making that journey more problematic by seeking to
manipulate gas supplies to ensure it obtains all the necessary clearances to
operate the pipeline. The Kremlin by attempting to blackmail Europe, is
inadvertently in the process of triggering an existential threat to the
European Union which will force the EU institutions and member states to
robustly oppose it.
In the course of this conflict, the operation and functioning
of Nord Stream 2—and who supplies gas to the European market—will become
secondary issues to that of sustaining the EU’s legal order, the entire basis
upon which the EU operates. The Kremlin’s public willingness to
manipulate the supply of gas and send the price spiraling upward in order to
force its pet energy project through the EU’s legal machinery will lose Moscow
the support of most of its remaining allies. It also opens up the prospect of EU
action, supported by the United States, to seek to remove Gazprom as a major
supplier in Central and Eastern Europe, and limit the amount of gas EU states
as a whole take from Gazprom.
So where is America in all this? At the June 16, 2021, Geneva
Summit with Vladimir Putin, President Joe Biden told President
Putin, that we need to have some basic rules of the road that we can all abide
by.” The “rules of the road” were legislated by two global wars. They are the
predicate for international relations in all respects, including cooperation on
climate change, arms control, COVID-19, and cyber as sought by Biden. Rule #1
is territorial integrity and inviolability of borders, yet Biden did not
place Russia’s de-occupation front and center . . . or anywhere. Instead of
requiring reinstatement of the rule, Biden simply repeated “unwavering
commitment” to Ukraine.
Everyone gravely intoned Putin’s lecture that the resolution
of “the conflict” must be in accord with Minsk agreements. America (and Europe)
is in lockstep with Russia’s ukase that Ukraine must surrender key aspects of
its national sovereignty under the coercive fraud of Minsk. Russia, a rogue
state, uses Minsk to displace the United Nations Charter, Helsinki Accords, and
all else that constitutes the “rules-based international order.”
As of yesterday (July 21), Biden and Merkel have settled
their disagreements over NS2. Germany will invest in
Ukraine’s green technology infrastructure, and Berlin and Washington will work
together on initiatives to mitigate Russia’s energy dominance in Europe. The decision
drew immediate criticism from Russia hawks in Congress as well as Ukraine and
Poland. However, “the Biden administration by contrast recognizes that the
United States has more important foreign policy problems than a faraway
pipeline, not the least of which is the geopolitical competition with China. Those
problems require a strong alliance with partners like Germany.”
Under the terms of
the deal, the U.S. and Germany committed to countering any Russian attempt to
use the Nord Stream 2 pipeline as a political weapon. And, they agreed to
support Ukraine and Poland, both of which are bypassed by the project and fear
Russia's intentions, by funding alternative energy and development projects.
The two sides committed to supporting a $1 billion fund for
Ukraine to diversify its energy sources, of which Germany will provide an
initial $175 million grant and appoint a special envoy to help Ukraine negotiate an extension of its
transit contact with Russia up to 10 years. Germany also guaranteed that it
would reimburse
Ukraine for gas transit fees it will lose from being bypassed by
Nord Stream 2 until 2024, with a possible 10-year extension. Germany also agreed to press for sanctions
in the event Russia attempts to use its energy clout as a weapon against
Ukraine, according to the joint statement signed by Washington and Berlin
Kremlin
spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia would never use gas and oil
as levers of political pressure. But last month Putin warned that Ukraine would
have to show “good will” if it wanted gas transit to continue.
How this plays out remains to be seen. Russian agreements are
worthless and apparently so are agreements to defend the borders of Ukraine for
giving up nuclear weapons. I wouldn’t give a plugged nickel for all the
promises from Germany and Biden either. But if Ukraine falls, given Putin’s
mission to reconstitute the former Soviet Union as the Russian Empire, eastern
and central European countries should be worried. So should the rest of the “free
world”.