Tuesday, February 14, 2012


Features

Will Russia Lose Its Game Of Gas Roulette?

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at Gazprom in Moscow earlier this month
TEXT SIZE - +
By Ahto Lobjakas
BRUSSELS -- The escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian gas dispute into a European crisis flies in the face of common sense.

The "gas war" -- as Britain's "Guardian" daily termed it -- "has been a lose-lose situation."

It's hard to improve on that description. The future of an exceptionally profitable commercial arrangement has been undermined, possibly fatally.

Having now denied many European countries gas for 10 days, Russia may have brutally exposed the vulnerability of the European Union. But it has also shot itself in the foot and forced the EU to get serious about cutting its exposure to Russian provisions. In the end, Moscow's only long-term reward may be the hope it has done irreparable damage to Ukraine's pro-Western ambitions.

EU leaders have repeatedly warned in the past week that the credibility of Russia and Ukraine is about to be "irrevocably damaged." On January 16, the European Commission said the coming weekend represents “the last chance” for both countries.

To the European mind-set, the situation beggars belief. The president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso described the situation to the European Parliament on January 14 as "unacceptable and incredible."

For the third time in four years, Russia has turned off the taps for Europe. In 2006, the problem was Ukraine; in 2007, Belarus; and this year,
Ukraine again.

Win-Win For Everyone

If Russia has a master plan, its goals can only be political -- and perversely so. The tactics border on the suicidal. "Destroy your neighbors, whatever it takes," seems to be Moscow's motto.

The three-way energy relationship has so far been a win-win situation for everyone.

Russia exports 150 billion cubic meters of natural gas to the EU annually. The EU accounts for 90 percent of Russia's gas exports. The affluent bloc is an exceptional customer. There is no other comparable market that Russia can currently reach.

Russia's long-term strategy of hamstringing its neighbors will carry a cost, however. EU governments...are now under immense pressure to deliver on long-term promises to diversify the bloc's energy provisions.
Russian gas accounts for a steady 25 percent of EU consumption. Given its growing needs, the EU could import more -- and provide the investment needed to upgrade and expand Russia's production capacity.

Ukraine, meanwhile, has been a near-monopolistic middleman, making a tidy profit as 80 percent of the EU's Russian imports transit through
its pipelines.

Somehow, this win-win potential was allowed to unravel. On January 12, a three-way deal was signed to allow gas deliveries to resume. In the days that followed, however, the EU learned a bitter truth: The troubles Russia has with Ukraine -- the second-largest post-Soviet state, keen to
join NATO and the EU, and supportive of Georgia -- run very deep and contaminate even the most profitable trade relationships.

As Russia now keeps trying to selectively feed limited amounts of gas into Ukrainian pipelines, the transit of which would stop Ukraine's own
domestic gas deliveries, nearly 20 European countries continue to experience gas outages or shortages.

The EU finds itself powerless in the face of the abject plight of hundreds of thousands of its freezing citizens, the closure of thousands of factories, and the desperate scramble of countries like Slovakia to power up antiquated and outlawed Soviet-era nuclear reactors.

EU's Authority Undermined

The bloc's very raison d'etre -- the delivery of wealth and stability -- has become a plaything in the Russian-Ukrainian standoff. The EU's domestic authority, already weakened by a number of internal crises, is being undermined.

If Moscow had a master plan, it must be based on a very deep calculation. Apart from the potential damage to future commerce, the dispute is costing Gazprom some 125 million euros a day. For a company whose debt burden is reported to run to 40 billion euros, this is no laughing matter -- all the more so since Gazprom says Ukraine owes it a little more than 600 million euros.

Politically, matters are no less puzzling. Much of the list of countries affected by the gas dispute reads like a roll call of the EU's “friends
of Russia club” -- Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Italy, Germany, and France.

Still, there are signs Moscow's actions are premeditated and deliberate. A quick comparison with its August 2008 war with Georgia suggests a
similar blueprint was at work, with similar goals.

In both cases, Moscow sought to involve the EU in the crisis and then subtly manipulate the bloc to promote its own ends. In both cases, Russia has employed uncharacteristically Western rhetoric, painting Georgian and Ukrainian leaders as unable and unwilling to honor and enforce EU values. (Mikheil Saakashvili was accused of genocide and war crimes; Ukrainian leaders are castigated as corrupt and anti-market.)

The reputation of Ukraine's leaders, like that of Georgia's, has been severely damaged by the crisis.

The antics of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko -- who attached a handwritten unilateral declaration to an early deal, thus causing Russia to pull out -- have angered Brussels. EU officials also resent having to negotiate separately with Tymoshenko and her political nemesis, President Viktor Yushchenko.

Kyiv’s protestations notwithstanding, the crisis has also shed an unwelcome spotlight on the murky interplay between Ukraine's politics and its energy sector.

Pressure To Diversify

Russia's long-term strategy of hamstringing its neighbors will carry a cost, however. EU governments, whether they like it or not, are now under immense pressure to deliver on long-term promises to diversify the bloc's energy provisions.

The European Commission is saying it is ready to back legal action by member states and their energy companies against Russia and Ukraine.
Although litigation is time-consuming, it is something the bloc's executive is good at. In 2004, it forced a major U.S. tobacco company to pay more than 1 billion dollars in damages for circumventing EU excise tax.

In Berlin on January 16 for talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel (right), Putin said there was a need not to blame any one party or to "politicize" the gas dispute.
In the medium term, Moscow may calculate that undermining Ukraine's credibility could help the chances of the Nord Stream pipeline planned
to link it directly with Germany. Germany, the EU's largest nation, is key for the future of the EU-Russia energy relationship.

But Berlin has rebuffed Moscow's earlier requests to fund Nord Stream. And it may now want to spend its money on alternative supply lines. Germany -- which draws more than 40 percent of its gas from Russia -- is showing a keen interest in tapping into North African and Nigerian gas
reserves.

The "Handelsblatt" newspaper quotes Peter Hintze, a top official at Germany's Economics Ministry, as saying the EU needs to broaden its selection of suppliers. “The disruptions we have lived through are something that never happened throughout the decades of the Cold War,”
Hintze said -- indicating a hardening of Berlin's stance toward Moscow.

If Tbilisi and Kyiv are part of the same plan, then one of the functions of the August war in Georgia would have been to divert investors' enthusiasm from Nabucco -- a project to bring Central Asian gas to European consumers without Russian mediation. Support for a stronger EU
commitment to the project has been growing fast among member states over the past few days.

Rethinking Nuclear Energy

Russia is also courting support for the South Stream pipeline project to be built under the Black Sea, bypassing Ukraine and competing with
Nabucco. But in the current climate, it's difficult to see gas-strapped Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Serbia turning the other cheek.

The crisis could prompt an EU-wide rethink on nuclear energy. Slovakia has reopened its Soviet-era Bohunice power plant. Bulgaria has similar
plans for its Kozloduy facility, and Lithuania is keen to avoid having to shut down its Ignalina power station. All three would be in violation
of commitments made to the EU on accession, but given the circumstances, Brussels may have to bend the rules.

Germany Economy Minister Michael Glos has also hinted Germany could reverse a decision to phase out all nuclear power by 2020.

One positive feature of the events of the past two weeks has been the sturdy performance of the current EU president, the Czech Republic.
Diplomats say the Czechs have received backing from Germany. But Germany has been content to remain in the shadows, allowing Prague to take the laurels.

Thus, Russia's gas brinkmanship has also contributed to bringing together the bloc's “old” and “new” member states.

Ahto Lobjakas is RFE/RL's correspondent in Brussels.


Tangled Web
Many sections of Ukraine's gas-pipeline system date back to the Soviet era and make it difficult to precisely control gas flows.

 More

 
Pipelines & Projects

A factbox on how gas gets to Europe from Russia and some of the new pipeline projects aimed at bringing more Russian gas to Europe and diversifying supplies. More

 
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments page of 2
    Next 
by: Anton from: Auck
January 17, 2009 21:24
I agree with the way Ahto presents the today's state of affairs, widening it from just a business disagreement between two countries to an attempt by several countries at once to reshape EU policies and strategic planning. The same time the conclusions I myself can make appear to be slightly different from his. This relates to the future of Nabucco, prospects of reaching Nigerian gas and return to nuclear energy in Europe.

1. Nabucco. After Georgian war Russia is not in a hurry to settle the issues between Georgia and S Ossetia. Now it starts to be more clear, why Russian troops stopped short of capturing Georgian capital and occupying the entire country - instead they played "nice" and... left SOssetia to be run by the gangsters (literally!). If Abkhasia is rich in fruit production and can live by housing hundreds of thousands Russian tourists every year, SO has no source of earnings and fully depends on Moscow supplies. This makes SO a convenient tool for keeping pressure on Georgia, and we see that the shootouts along their border continue no matter what. As a result Russia can restart the war with Georgia in any convenient moment - and who would ever invest billions in a pipeline, going through a conflict zone?

2. African gas. Part of it is already controlled by Gazprom (in Algeria), while Nigeria is a civil war zone. Russia strengthens its presence in Syria, Libya and generally in Northern Africa, many local Muslim states have been alienated by the War on Terror, Iraq threatens to fall apart, initiating multiples local wars, which may extend instability to Iran and Turkey. Neither pipelines from Africa nor LNG plants look as a reality at the moment.

3. Nuclear EU. Despite all political correctness of EU, Germany in it remains undermind and still is seen as a WW2 loser (specially by new member-states). Massive return to nuclear energy may assist Germany in acquiring a nuclear state status, which would turn the existing wold order upside down. Moreover this return would not eliminate the dependency on RF and USA, as they are the largest suppliers of nuclear fuel.

If RF fulfills its threat to switch to LNG production instead of using existing pipelines, then it would easily diversify it markets, embracing China, Japan, S Korea and USA as the buyers - so Europe seems to have a little choice and to assist Russia in regaining control over Ukraine, as it is the simplest and cheapest possible solution to the today's problem.

by: dritan
January 17, 2009 21:29
for giving lessons you are n°1, it's clear that russia in your article is as responsable as ukraine , and that's not quite true. the ucrainian have to pay as all europian country , as for their desire to enter UE and Nato let it be , but you have to finance their gas oil and not russia any more

by: Richard Mimna from: www.herbalindex.com
January 18, 2009 03:50
The simplest and easiest way to deal with this would be for the EU to assist the Ukraine with a loan, followed by trade agreements, since they have expressed interest in joining NATO. The russians can deliver gas at that point until other options can be implemented. From that point on, Russia can compete rather than monopolize. It seems that Ruasia still hasn't learned to play nice yet with ANYONE in the arena. Modern U.S. built nuclear steam generator plants can also be built where needed to replace the unstable (Chernobyl style) soviet era reactors currently rotting in remote regions; Nuclear energy is still a viable option.

by: Peter from: Toronto
January 18, 2009 04:50
The European position, very well verbalized here by Ahto Lobjakas strikes me as hypocritical to the highest degree. "Give us our gas! We don't care how you do it!", they yell at Russia while another ("good, pro-Western") country is holding Russia and Eastern Europe hostage.

The implication (or, rather, a rough translation from European) of this hypocritical statement would be this: "We want Russia to continue subsidizing Ukraine while we're figuring out how to make it a member of NATO, an anti-Russian military block".

It defies common sense to see this problem as damaging Russian credibility. Yet this is the angle Europe wants to push:

"if Russia has a master plan, its goals can only be political -- and perversely so."

Russia's master plan is for Ukraine to pay a little more than 35% of the real price as it was the case until Dec 31.

It also amazes me how Europe portrays evil Russia always mixing business with politics (to apply pressure on innocent democratic neighbors), yet when push comes to shove it is Europe and, astonishingly, NATO who talk about reprisals - from sanctions to - one would assume - military actions. Is anybody seeing the hypocrisy in this? So, Russia is supposed to sell gas at a *loss* while the Ukrainian government is doing everything it can to insult Russia (I am not going to go into this, but their language policies not to mention the NATO push are deeply insulting), because doing otherwise would be "punishing" Ukraine for its political course. Yet, the *minute* Europe is hurting, they are willing to use all and every tool at their disposal, including political, military and what-not.

Shame on you, Europe!

by: not russian
January 18, 2009 06:39
If Ukraine to pay " as all Europian country" for gas than Russia is to pay $5-$20 for transit not $1.7

by: David Hernández from: Salamanca, SPAIN
January 18, 2009 17:10
Peter from Toronto: 1. Didn't Russia breach its contractual obligations to supply its European customers when it stopped pumping gas, whatever the cause? 2. Isn't it the US, NOT THE EU, who is pulling the strings behind Ukraine (provided we assume that simplistic explanation)? 3. Do you have an idea how much would Ukraine have paid for Russian/Turkmen gas if it had accepted Gazprom's first "offer" (i.e. how much more for instance than Germany, since contractual pricing mechanisms will push down the price Germany pays to Russia within the next weeks)?

by: Bill Webb from: Phoenix AZ
January 18, 2009 17:41
I wanted to comment on the article about Afghan poppy production: As long as southern Afghanistan continues to be ruled by criminals, the poor starving farmers that would cut your throat or their own children's for money, there will be no solution in sight.

by: Anton from: Auckland
January 18, 2009 21:16
David, this is not to argue with you but just to clear, as I was more or less following the negotiations details:

1)Russia is definitely in breach of contract - but so is EU, which is obliged to pay for the gas pumped to it in full. If, say, in order to deliver 70 units, Russia has to give away for free another 30 units to Ukraine, because Ukraine otherwise fails to honour its part of the same contract, then in it hard to blame the supplier for stopping supplies.

3)Russia buys Turkmen gas at $340 since this year - and transports it to Ukraine at the same charge as Ukraine itself charges for transporting Russian gas to EU. This settles the score even - Ukraine transports more gas but at shorter distance as per map. Price, initially offered for Ukraine was $250 only, i.e. Gazprom agreed to have a net loss in order to deliver to Europe, but Ukraine refused and offered $205... Then only it was offered European price and closed the pipes.

Technically Gazprom was in its right all the way.

by: Alex from: USA
January 19, 2009 02:07
Mister Lobjakas,
Please forgive my ignorance, but I don’t understand your article.
You blame Russia for the gas crises and promote the idea that it was engineered in Moscow. I tried to find the facts about the European gas prices and the events that preceded the crises, which I should mention are both conspicuously missing from your piece, and I believe that your story does not correspond to reality.
I guess that one of the best ways to understand someone is to try to put yourself into their shoes. What would you do, if you run Gazprom? Would you continue pumping your gas, while there is no agreement on price and Ukrainian side did not agree to pay anything for it? Would you continue pumping gas while 30-40% of it disappears without a trace? It appears that Ukraine uses its position on the gas supply routes for the blackmail. Are you aware that Ukraine was baying the gas from Russia paying Russian price (25-30% of European price) and immediately selling it to the neighboring countries with European price tag? Ask Ukraine prime minister where her fortune is coming from? Don’t you think that this is immoral and your support for such a behavior makes you immoral, too? Do you have conscious, or your hatred for Russians made you blind? Yes many terrible things came from Moscow in the last century, but the Russian people suffered the most from it. Have some compassion. They just want to live like everybody else.

by: Pohlatohlakas from: Estonia
January 20, 2009 14:40
Nord Stream will not diversify energy provisions of Europe. It only means, that the magnitude of dependancy on russian energy will grow further. Nord Stream may have disasterous consequenses to Baltic Sea ecology. Please say no to Nord Stream! http://www.balticsea.lt/ee
Comments page of 2
    Next 

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

Officials: Tymoshenko Rejects Health Check

Latest Comment (1 total)

rick: Stealing Popcorn Part 1

http://youtu.be/GHLrf652yRk

Stealing Popcorn Part 2

http://youtu.be/mNZGrq06PnI

Stealing Popcorn Part 3

http://youtu.be/TqaObLs7baA

Stealing Popcorn ... More

Reports: Assault On Homs Continues

Latest Comment (3 total)

eli: As opposed to Russia and China, who could do something about it and ... More

Three Police Killed In Caucasus Clash

Latest Comment (1 total)

Marko: The use of the word Russian is clearly inaccurate in more than one ... More