Behind the sound of boots, the smell of gas. To dissuade Russia from any military action in Ukraine, the West unveiled, on Tuesday, January 25, a series of unprecedented sanctions, including the targeting of Russian natural gas deliveries to Europe. Russia “needs oil and gas revenues at least as much as Europe needs its energy supplies”argued a senior White House official.
Since the resurgence of tensions on the border between Ukraine and Russia, gas is frequently brandished by Westerners as an argument to bend the Kremlin. Washington is indeed seeking to reverse the balance of power established by Vladimir Putin, accused of having deployed more than 100,000 soldiers on the Ukrainian border to shake up American influence in Europe, particularly in the East.
>> Crisis between Ukraine and Russia: where are the military forces deployed in Eastern Europe?
Lhe Kremlin spokesman dismissed these threats and retorted that such sanctions would not be “not painful politically” for the Russian head of state.
When it comes to energy, Vladimir Putin has a sizeable advantage. It directs the territory which holds the largest gas reserves in the world and is the second producing country behind the United States. About 40% of the gas imported by the States of the European Union comes from Russia. And several EU countries ensure all of their gas supplies with Moscow, such as Latvia (100%) or Finland (98%), while others are largely dependent on it such as Germany (66%) and Poland (55%), according to Eurostat figures in 2020.
Europe imports this hydrocarbon via three main gas pipelines, the Yamal-Europe, which passes through Belarus to reach Germany; the Brotherhood, which joins Germany via Ukraine; and the Nord Stream, which connects Russia to Germany through the Baltic Sea.
/2022/01/27/phpETUyGf.png)
“These gas pipelines are essential in Vladimir Putin’s strategy of influence in the West. In the conflict with Ukraine, the Russian president is accused of delivering the minimum of gas through the gas pipeline that passes through Kiev – which earns revenue by allowing the transit of gas through its territory – and therefore European countries”, analyzes Anna Creti, professor at the Center for Energy Geopolitics at Paris Dauphine University. In its gas contracts with European companies, Russia undertakes to deliver a volume of gas on a defined date, but it is more or less free to modulate the distribution.
“It’s a constant. Depending on the economic and political context, and according to his interests, Vladimir Putin comes out with the weapon of gas.”
Anna Creti, professor at Paris Dauphine Universityat franceinfo
Thus, in December 2021, when the first Russian soldiers are seen at the Ukrainian border, energy prices soar in Europe. This increase is attributed to the Kremlin, which would try by this maneuver to defend its geopolitical interests. “Just before winter, the situation was ideal for Russia. Europe needed to secure its gas supply”, continues Anna Creti. And “If Russian gas does not arrive in Europe, in the middle of winter, countries must buy it on international markets, re-route cargoes of liquefied gas. It is more expensive”adds Thierry Bros, researcher at Sciences Po Paris and energy consultant.
These accusations are refuted by Vladimir Putin, who retorts that Europe has not signed enough contracts with Moscow. He assures that Gazprom, the Russian gas giant, can easily increase its supplies to Europe. “Gazprom does not produce at 100% of its capacity all the time. Flooding the European market with gas to bring prices down is of no interest to them. And it allows it to produce more at a key moment, and to make a political response”, continues Thierry Bros.
After the pro-European revolution in Maidan Square in 2014 in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin had already decided to isolate Kiev by launching the Nord Stream 2 project. The project again aims to reduce Russia’s dependence on Ukraine, which then held a virtual monopoly on the transit of Russian gas to Europe. With a length of 1,230 kilometers, this new gas pipeline connects Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea, thus bypassing Ukraine. “From the start, the project divided Westerners. The United States, Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic countries see it as a new means of influence for Russia, and a strengthening of European energy dependence”, continues Vera Ageevaassociate professor at the University of Economic Studies (HSE) in Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Opposite, Germany and France defend dialogue with Moscow. Germany is particularly interested because since phasing out nuclear power, the country has increased its dependence on Russian gas. German companies (Wintershall Dea) and French (Engie) are involved in the project, supposed to deliver 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year to Europe. Despite internal opposition in the EU, Angela Merkel repeats that it is a project “economic” and not political.
Across the Atlantic, Donald Trump opposes the project, wanting Europe to turn instead to American liquefied gas. In 2019, he enacted a law imposing sanctions on companies associated with the construction of the gas pipeline. But when he arrived at the White House in 2020, Joe Biden lifted sanctions in exchange for Germany’s support for Ukraine and assurances that gas will continue to flow through Ukrainian territory after 2024. “Should Russia attempt to use the energy as a weapon or commit other aggressive acts towards Ukraine, Germany will take action domestically.” assures Berlin in a press release, quoted by The world.
“Europe does not have a strong consensus on the energy issue. This works in favor of Vladimir Putin, who can exert pressure State by State.”
Anna Creti, professor at Paris Dauphine Universityat franceinfo
To date, the work of Nord Stream 2 has been completed, but the gas pipeline is not yet in service and is awaiting approval from the German authorities. In the Ukrainian crisis, the hypothesis of a non-activation of the gas pipeline is cited as a possibility of sanctions against Russia, but the new German government is suspected of wanting to spare its Russian partner, even if it has hinted that the project could be stopped in case of aggression against Ukraine.
Nord Stream 2 is not the first gas project used by Vladimir Putin for political purposes. Gas is part of a strategy carried out since its arrival in the Kremlin in 2000 through the takeover of Gazprom, the company resulting from the Soviet Gas Ministry, largely privatized at the fall of the USSR. After his election, bolstered by the rise in world energy prices, Vladimir Putin made the operator a major strategic tool for the recovery of the economy internally, and Russian foreign policy, says Cost-effective alternatives (paid item).
“At that time, we see the appearance of ‘gas wars’. Conflicts between Russia and its neighboring countries which may have led to gas supply interruptions. Each time, these cuts were justified by commercial reasons, but they were rarely disconnected from the geopolitical context”, analyzes David Teurtrie, associate researcher at the Europes-Eurasia Research Center of Inalco, in Paris.
“In the 2000s, the Kremlin positioned itself mainly as an energy power to affirm its return to the international scene. In the 2010s, it is the military tool that is increasingly put forward.”
David Teurtrie, associate researcher at Inalcoat franceinfo
In 2005, Ukraine, which benefits from favorable gas prices due to its former membership of the USSR, was ordered by Moscow to pay for its energy at European market prices, recall The echoes. This requirement falls shortly after the Orange Revolution in 2004 against the rigged presidential victory of pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych.
Two years later, Estonia and Russia clash around the removal of a statue erected in tribute to Soviet troops in Tallinn. “The Russian government then calls for economic sanctions against the country, which is very dependent on Russian gas”, recalls Vera Ageeva. Following the Maidan revolution in Ukraine in 2014, Russia once again caused the price of gas to soar in its neighbor.
“The Kremlin uses energy blackmail towards post-Soviet countries that are not pro-Russian as it would like. Moscow can write off some debts if political cooperation works.”
Vera Ageeva, associate professor at the HSE in St. Petersburgat franceinfo
Whatever the evolution of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, can Europeans really do without Russian gas? “We believe we are ready to find alternative supplies covering a significant majority of potential cuts.” in the delivery of Russian gas, and this until the spring, assured a senior official of the White House. Washington and the Europeans are seeking in particular “to identify additional volumes of natural gas (…) coming from various parts of the world, North Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the United States”.
In a longer-term vision, and to meet its objectives of carbon neutrality by 2050, the European Commission has also adopted a series of proposals intended to facilitate the use of “renewable and low-carbon gases, including hydrogen”and to guarantee energy security for Europe, implying to be less dependent on Russia. “But as it stands, the Europeans cannot do without Russian gas. If the tap is cut, Europe will be able to spend the winter but the stocks will always have to be filled afterwards and the question will arise again”, says Thierry Bros.
For Anna Creti, the real challenge for the European Union is less the search for diversification of its gas sources than the overall drop in demand. “The real weapon that Europe has at the moment, with the conflict in Ukraine and the manipulation of the price of gas, is decarbonisation. Without demand, Vladimir Putin will be really stuck”, she points.