Connect with us

Energy

Passions over gas

Published

on

Representatives of Russia, Ukraine and the European Commission are due to gather for gas negotiations in Brussels on September 19th. Experts say the talks may play a crucial role in addressing the pressing issue of Russian gas supplies to Europeans. Maroš Šefčovič, who is responsible for energy issues in the European Union leadership, said on Twitter that progress in this direction will provide the market a powerful positive impetus ahead of the winter season. During the upcoming negotiations, Moscow and Kiev will try to secure a deal, through the mediation of the European Commission, on a new agreement on the transit of Russian gas to Europe through Ukraine (the current one expires on December 31, 2019).

At present, the two parties are at odds over how to approach the gas issue. Ukraine, with the support of the European Commission, proposes to conclude a long-term contract for the next 10 years, and if the existing agreement is extended for one year, the Kiev authorities expect to receive compensation payments from PJSC Gazprom in accordance with the decisions of the Stockholm Arbitration Court.

The fact that Ukraine will demand compensation from Gazprom if the Russian company insists on signing a contract on the previous terms was reported a few days ago by Executive Director of Naftogaz Ukraine Yury Vitrenko. “If they stick to their current position, which will lead to the absence of gas transit through Ukraine from January 1, 2020, we will force them to pay, compensate for our losses,” – he said, adding that in case of continued gas transit through the territory Ukraine, Naftogaz will not review tariffs and will not require Gazprom to pay compensation in the amount of 11-14 billion dollars.

At the same time, Kiev is fully aware of the fact that in 2021 the Stockholm arbitration will go into sessioin to consider the conflict between the companies involved on the gas transit contract, under which the amount of Naftogaz’s claims against Gazprom amounts to $ 11.58 billion.

Moscow, for its part, is ready to conclude a short-term contract or extend the existing one (without any additional compensation) for a period necessary to build and put into operation the Nord Stream 2 and Turkish Stream bypass pipelines.

Speaking at a meeting with President Putin on September 9th Gazprom Board Chairman Alexei Miller reiterated the importance of addressing the issue of Russian gas transit through Ukraine and the prospects for Kiev to purchase Russian gas. He reminded the participants that by the end of this year, the company expects to pump at least 11.4 billion cubic meters of gas into underground storage facilities in Europe, which is more than double the level of 2018. According to Miller, “one of the factors to account for the high volumes of gas injected into underground storage facilities is that the contract for gas transit through the territory of Ukraine expires on December 31st this year.”“Even though the transit agreement is extremely important, still more important is whether Ukraine will buy Russian gas under a direct contract,” – Alexei Miller said. According to him, “in the event of concluding a direct gas supply agreement with Gazprom, the price of gas for the end consumer in Ukraine may be 25 percent lower than the current level. But, undoubtedly, the main issue is the supply of gas for the Ukrainian market. This is a matter of bilateral negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. ”

“We are trying to reach a new transit agreement, despite the fact that at the moment, we are putting the finishing touches to the Nord Stream-2 pipeline,” – said Andrei Suzdaltsev, an independent post-Soviet space expert, in an interview with Economics Today. According to Suzdaltsev, whatever the case, Gazprom needs a transit agreement with Kiev in order to ensure the implementation of its gas supply agreements with the EU countries. It must also be taken into account that if Ukraine does not have transit gas, there will be no gas in the country, “since there will not be a reverse, which is the resale of Russian gas by Europeans,” – said Andrey Suzdaltsev.

Ahead of negotiations with Russia, Ukraine is trying to strengthen its positions, using the support of other states, first of all Poland and the United States. The three countries have signed a memorandum of cooperation in the gas sector, which, in the words of the Ukrainian edition Apostrof, “should become an additional factor in securing the energy independence of our country. The document stipulates that from 2021 Ukraine will receive 6 billion cubic meters of gas from Poland. ” It is assumed that US traders will supply liquefied natural gas to the Świnoujście LNG terminal, whose capacity is projected to increase from the current 5 billion cubic meters to 7.5 billion cubic meters per year by 2021. After regasification, part of this gas can be supplied to Ukraine. At present, Poland’s gas transportation capacities make it possible to supply Ukraine with only about 1.5 billion cubic meters of gas. In  2018, Polish gas supplies amounted to only 0.7 billion cubic meters, the Ukrainian edition says and adds: “At the same time, a significant part of gas which Ukraine buys in Europe, comes from Russian. Given that in 2020, when the current Ukrainian-Russian gas transportation contract to Europe terminates, the Russian Federation may completely block gas transit through our country, which will jeopardize gas imports to Ukraine from Europe, since a significant part of these supplies is carried out by reverse, including by the “virtual” one.

“It needs to be understood that a memorandum is just a declaration of intent, not a full-fledged contract, which stipulates all terms of delivery, including their volume and fuel price,” – Apostrof  points out citing Vladimir Omelchenko, Director of Energy Programs at Razumkov Center in Kiev: “We have a lot of memorandums which have been signed, but many of them are not being implemented. Everything will depend on the effectiveness of the new government, on the management of Naftogaz Ukraine – prospects for the project depend on how they work. ”

Project Director of the Ukrainian Sientific Development Center “Psyche” Gennady Ryabtsev is more skeptical. He says implementation of the memorandum is possible if three conditions are met. The first is the construction of an interconnector between Ukraine and Poland. Even though this project has been under discussion for several years, construction has not yet begun. The second condition is an increase in the capacity of the Polish terminal Swinoujscie. The third condition is the availability of the resource itself: “Gas goes where the best prices are, so it is unclear whether the required volumes will be available, and therefore, a long-term agreement must be signed on the guaranteed provision of certain quantities of gas”. According to Gennady Ryabtsev, if one of these conditions is not satisfied, the agreement will not be implemented in full. “Our country shouldn’t expect Poland to supply such volumes of fuel, at least in the coming years,”, even if the capacity of the LNG terminal increases to 7.5 billion cubic meters, ” –  says Gennady Ryabtsev .

Another important factor in the run-up to the upcoming three-party negotiations may be the recent ruling of the EU Supreme Court on the lawsuit of the Polish company PGNiG, which restricts Gazprom’s access to the OPAL pipeline, which is a branch of the Nord Stream gas pipeline. This pipeline connects Nord Stream with the gas transportation system of Western and Central Europe and carries gas to Germany up to the border with the Czech Republic in the volume of up to 36 billion cubic meters per year.

Initially, in accordance with the European anti-monopoly legislation, Gazprom was allowed use only 50% of this leg’s capacity. However, in October 2016, the European Commission agreed to remove the OPAL gas pipeline from the Third Energy Package for the period up to 2033 and allowed Gazprom to use the pipe by 90%. This decision has now been overruled by the EU Supreme Court. And this is hardly a coincidence. On September 10 the EU Supreme Court satisfied the Polish company PGNiG’s lawsuit against the European Commission and restricted Gazprom’s access to the capacities of the cross-border European gas pipeline. According to PGNiG Deputy Director General Maciej Wozniak, due to this unexpected ruling, Gazprom will not be able to completely stop gas transit through Ukraine, at least in the coming months. “We are looking into the legal and commercial consequences of this decision,”- Gazprom Export said in turn.

Gazprom’s access to OPAL’s facilities has been a subject of controversy since the construction of this pipeline went under way. This is one of two, along with NEL, branches of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which was launched at the end of 2011. There are no other sources of gas for OPAL and NEL except for the Russian gas. The NEL gas branch does not come under the above restrictions, since it does not go beyond Germany.

The decision of the EU court on the OPAL gas pipeline will affect gas negotiations with Ukraine and the European Commission, – Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak confirmed in an interview on Rossiya 24 Channel. He said the current situation affects gas supplies to Europe as a whole: “In my opinion, this decision affects the supply of gas to European countries, the gas flows.”

Polish political analyst Mateusz Piskorski says that the decision of the EU Supreme Court on the lawsuit of a company from his country was not caused by economic considerations. “In fact, everything has long become clear, everything has been clear from the moment negotiations with the USA began on the delivery of liquefied natural gas, when a fairly large-scale project led by Poland was launched, so that countries of Central and Eastern Europe would gradually switch to American liquefied natural gas. So any attempts to block Gazprom’s access to European markets play into the hands of American partners of the Polish government. So, I think that’s the point. Plus, of course, the political point of view of Poland that it is necessary to support the interests of Ukraine as a transit country. Thus, there are two main reasons, and they have nothing to do with economic considerations. ”

“I don’t think the alternative for Europe is to buy Trump’s natural gas. We must rely on the resources of our own continent, which were discovered and developed, including through Franco-Russian cooperation,” – said Loic Le Flock-Prizhan, former president of Gaz de France, who advocates the idea of a large-scale international project on the construction of a modern gas pipeline through Ukraine in order to supply Russian gas to Europe. “We will focus on Russian gas fields that produce inexpensive gas. The world economy is shifting towards Russia, China and India, and if all the cheap Russian gas goes to other continents, I have no idea how Europe will survive. In other words, this pipeline is very important – we must have a chance to count on cheap gas and strong ties with Russia regardless of circumstances or personalities. We need to pursue this structural project,” – he emphasizes.  But this project is so far only an idea, nothing more.

Given the situation, it should be borne in mind that one of the most active players in the upcoming gas talks is the United States, though it is not among the negotiating parties. American LNG producers are set on disrupting an agreement between Moscow and Kiev, which will not only strengthen Europeans’ dependence on more expensive American gas, but will also aggravate tension between the EU and Russia, which is something Washington is interested in. All this yet again supports the fact that the United States and its allies are using political pressure on their counterparties in addressing economic issues. 

From our partner International Affairs

Peter Iskenderov, senior research assistant at RAS Slavic Studies Institute, candidate of historical sciences

Energy

Gazprom and Europe

Published

on

Football in the 21st Century is not only a sport but a global brand in itself. Football allows others to feed and profit off of it as well. Global corporations have used this opportunity to leverage into newer markets and, or, improve their reputation in existing markets.

Gazprom; it is on players’ jerseys in Germany, in Russia, in Serbia, at games in England, and on side-lines in Italy. Gazprom is a Russian natural gas company. Teams make money offering jersey space to sponsors selling things like credit cards, cars, insurance companies and cell phones. But Gazprom is not like most sponsors: private companies with products football fans can buy. Instead, it is a company owned by the Russian government that makes money selling natural gas to foreign countries. It is everywhere in European football. So, if football fans cannot buy what they’re selling, why is Gazprom spending millions to sponsor games?

The answer is part of a larger story that’s changing the sport. Gazprom’s partnership with these clubs is mutually beneficial because they provide a crucial revenue stream to the football club while in turn gaining publicity and a foothold in key target markets in which they are hoping for an increasing profit margins they represent a successful confident company that yields significant power and influence.

It is a corporation that reflects the values and ambitions of the Russian state the company via a series of commercial partnerships and high-profile sponsorship deals is now firmly in the collective conscience of European football fans few are quite sure whatthe company stands for or what this foothold means and in any case they are largely apathetic which oddly mirrors the aims of Vladimir Putin and increased influence in Western culture becoming a major player in events without the stigma of political connections or ulterior motives. Foreign countries use companies they own to burnish their reputations abroad, and to understand why Russia is involved, one needs to closely observe a  map. Russia has the world’s largest natural gas reserves and most of the mare located in Arctic gas fields controlled by Gazprom. The company is led by Alexey Miller, a close ally of Vladimir Putin. Since 2005, the Russian government has owned a majority stake in Gazprom. Meaning company profits are under Putin’s control and gas sales, along with oil,account for around 40% of Russia’s annual budget.

Various maps showcase how European countries are on Russian gas and Eastern European countries are more dependent than countries further west. At the end of the 20th century, Germany represented the biggest opportunity for Gazprom. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder had announced plans to phase out coal and nuclear power, which meant Germany would need more natural gas to maintain their energy supply. Gazprom wanted to get it to them, but there was a problem. To get to Germany, Russia’s gas needed pass to through pipelines crossing countries charging Gazprom transport fees. And most of them went through Ukraine, a country that has a complicated relationship with Russia. Today, Ukraine still charges Russia $2-3 billion dollars every year to pump gas through to Europe. So, starting back in 2005, Russia began working on a strategy to bypass Ukraineand ship their gas directly to Western Europe.

This led to the birth of the Nord Stream pipeline,  a route through The Baltic Sea straight to Northern Germany.In late 2005, Gazprom was in the final stages of financing the project and Germany’s chancellor was preparing for an election. During his time in office, Gerhard Schroeder had become friendly with Putin and critics in Germany were increasingly concerned about the Russian leader’s growing influence.

Just a few weeks before the election, Schroeder met with Putinto sign an agreement officially approving the pipeline. Two months later, Schroeder lost his re-election but by March he had found a new job: overseeing Gazprom’s pipeline to Germany. It also came out that, before leaving office, Schroeder had approved a secret Gazprom loan that provided over a billion euros to finance the project. Soon, the story of Gazprom’s big project in Germany was becoming a story of scandal, corruption, and the creeping influence of Russia. But then the story changed.

In 2006, Gazprom signed a deal to sponsor the German team FC Schalke 04.At the time, Schalke’s finances were worrying team officials and Gazprom’s sponsorship provided money the team desperately needed. At a press conference announcing the deal, a Gazprom chairman said Schalke’s connections with the German energy sector were why they decided to become their sponsor. Schalke plays in Gelsenkirchen – a town in Germany’s Ruhr Valley, where much of the country’s energy industry is based. It’s also close to the town of Rehden, a hub for pipelines to the rest of Europe and home to Western Europe’s largest natural gas storage facilities.

Interestingly, Schalke was not Gazprom’s first deal. The year before, they had bought a controlling stake in a team on the other end of the Nord Stream route: the Russian team Zenit St. Petersburg. Gazprom’s investment made Zenit a major force in soccer. Two years after taking control, Zenit won their first-ever league championship. They’ve been able to sign expensive foreign stars, like Belgian midfielder Axel Witseland the Brazilian forward Hulk, and Gazrpom uses Zenit for marketing stunts: like having players scrimmage on the side of their offshore gas platform.

In 2006, as Gazprom logos were revealed around Schalke’s stadium, German headlines were hailing the Russian gas giant for pumping millions into the German team. To celebrate the deal, Schalke’s new jersey was unveiled in a ceremony before Schalke and Zenit played a friendly match in Russia. And, over the next few years, the Gazprom logo would become a team symbol displayed at Schalke games and printed on official merchandise. Schalke also won a championship in 2011 and by then, Nord Stream had been completed, and that year, Gerhard Schroeder, Angela Merkel and other European officials gathered to celebrate as it began pumping gas to Germany. There was also another struggling team whose jerseys started featuring Gazprom’s logo: The Serbian team Red Star Belgrade. Red Star was about 25 million dollars in debt when Gazprom signed to become their jersey sponsor.

And, again, there was also another pipeline: The South Stream would have bypassed Ukraine by going directly through Serbia to Southern Europe. That project closed in 2014, but Gazprom has continued increasing their access to Europe by building Nord Stream 2, a second pipeline doubling the amount of gas flowing from Russia to Germany. Gazprom has also expanded their empire to include energy partnerships with Chelsea Football Club[1], Champions League and the sport’s most famous tournament: the FIFA World Cup.

These sponsorships have made Gazprom’s logo familiar not just to fans in Europe, but across the world.“We light up the football. Gazprom. Official partner.”It’s in commercials before games, and on jerseys and sidelines once it starts. FC Schalke fans have also started to see Nord Stream 2 ads at home games. And, while climate activists like Greenpeace have staged protests to point out Gazprom’s threat to Arctic resources, Gazprom had no trouble renewing their sponsorships.

Now, Russia controls nearly half the gas consumed by Europe and other countries are learning from their example. Etihad, Emirates, and Qatar Airways all are owned by sovereign states in the Middle Eastwith interests that go beyond selling airline tickets. As the example of Gazprom shows, having a prominent footballing sponsorship offers a way around bad publicity by winning approval on the field. If you’re a fan, that can feel like a big opportunity: their money helps teams win major tournaments, but it’s starting to change the sport itself. Gazprom like so many others, is an opportunist who strives to be linked to sporting successes. Gazprom’s reasons for investing so heavily in sport could be compared to any global organization. It is a fascinating  means of advertising. It has become common to see a Serbian team sponsored by Russia’s gas company facing off against a French team sponsored by Dubai’s state-owned airline, it’s starting to seem like the field is hosting two competitions at once: A match between two teams, and a larger play for foreign influence that continues long after the final whistle.


[1] Owned byRoman Abramovich since 2012 seven years prior to this deal Abramovich sold his shares in Sibneft his oil-producing company to Gazprom for an estimated 10.4 Billion Euros.

Continue Reading

Energy

New oil pipeline in northern Thailand may worsen flooding

Published

on

A pipeline stretching from central to north-east Thailand promises to “promote Thailand as an energy hub in the region” and “increase energy security”, according to the Ministry of Energy. Construction began in mid-2019, despite local communities objecting that the largely Chinese-financed project could worsen flooding and contaminate water.

The 342km pipeline will run two metres underground and link Thailand’s north-eastern province of Khon Kaen to an existing pipeline in the central province of Saraburi. Energy Minister Sonthirat Sonthijirawong attended a ceremony on 5 February to lay the foundation of a 140 million litre oil tank in Khon Kaen’s Ban Phai district at the end of the pipeline.

Altogether, it will pass through 70 towns in five provinces including Lopburi, Nakhon Ratchasima and Chaiyaphum.

The route was agreed in August 2016, when the energy ministry signed a deal with the project investor, Thai Pipeline Network (TPN).

The ministry has promoted the pipeline as a more efficient means of transporting oil to the north-east, claiming it will lower oil prices and cut down on accidents involving road tankers.

TPN director Panu Seetisarn said the pipeline will avoid 88,000 road tanker journeys each year.

The THB9.2 billion (US$300 million) project is largely funded by a loan from the Chinese government, which stipulates that at least 35% of the equipment used must come from China. The precise details of the deal have not been made public. However, Panu revealed that TPN and undisclosed investors are investing about THB1 billion each.

The project has been progressing quickly since January last year when the government approved the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report.

In February, TPN – a subsidiary of Power Solution Technologies (PSTC) – signed a contract with China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering (CPP) to construct the pipeline within a 30-month period. And then works commenced in mid-2019.

Panu also revealed that the company wants to link the pipeline to the capital of Laos, Vientiane, and to southern China.

As well as the controversial north-eastern route, the first phase of another route, from central to north, is also under construction. The northern route is being developed with the ultimate aim of linking Tak province into Myanmar’s Kayin state at Myawaddy.

Flood risk

“This will lead to a big flood, bigger than the recent one,” said Ow, a local resident of Khon Kaen’s Ban Phai district, recalling flash flooding following tropical storm Podul that put homes under more than 1.5 metres of water for over a month last summer.

She fears the construction of an oil tank a few kilometres away will worsen flooding in future.

“Looking at its huge area and how high they have raised the land to level it for construction, [it] will definitely block all waterways,” she said, adding: “What will happen to us if there’s a big storm again?”

“After discussion with my neighbours, we [all] share the same concern and decided to file a complaint to the local authority but nothing happened,” said Ow.

The villagers’ concerns are justified, according to Jaroonpit Moonsarn, an environmental official at the Department of Environmental Quality Promotion (DEQP).

“There are two creeks, the Huay Bandoo and the Huay Khamrian, in the area that are natural waterways helping to drain waters in the district. The construction has blocked these significant waterways,” said Jaroonpit.

She believes another tropical storm in the area would create a bigger flood than the one last August.

Dust, pollution and public safety

Flooding is tomorrow’s fear, but dust is today’s suffering, said Ow, referring to air pollution caused by the construction of the oil tank that is affecting surrounding communities.

“We filed a complaint to the construction company, but they told us to complain and seek compensation from their subcontractors. It’s still unresolved. We don’t know who to talk to,” she said.

Jaroonpit also noted local concerns about the project once it’s finished, such as explosions, chemical contamination of local groundwater and heavy traffic. Road tankers will still be needed to distribute oil from the pipeline to nearby provinces, and additional tankers are expected to operate if the road to Laos is improved.

“Public safety should be seriously studied and discussed, including how to manage such risks and how to compensate,” she said.

“This involves the daily life of local people and they should have been informed clearly before the project’s construction approval, otherwise it leaves all the burden on them,” said Thawisan Lonanurak, former secretary general of the North-eastern Chamber of Commerce.

Apart from the risks to public safety, there are several basic questions about the project that need answering, according to Thawisan.

“Will oil prices in this area really be cheaper? How cheap? And most important, how transparent is the deal between the state and private investor?” Thawisan said.

“These questions should be answered at least during the EIA and hearing process, but it hasn’t happened,” he added.​

Witoon Kamonnarumet, senior advisor to the Khon Kaen Federation of Industry, said hearings for the EIA were conducted twice among a small group of people selected by the project owner and the company contracted to produce the EIA. They were not open to the general public.

“Even local businessmen in my network said they know very little about this project and are not clear on what it will really look like. We heard it would come two years ago and then there was a long silence and then construction started recently,” Witoon said.

“At the EIA hearing, most of the time was used for a company presentation focusing on what they had done in other areas,” said Paitoon Mahachuenjai, Nakhon Ratchasima’s Dan Khun Thod District head. They said that if there was “any problem during construction they would be ready to help,” he added.

Local activist Suwit Kularbwong, chairman of the Human Rights and Environment Association, said communities affected by the project have limited access to information about it.

“Where will the pipeline pass through exactly? How much area will be expropriated or compensated, and at what rate? They still don’t know. This goes against the [country’s] 2017 Constitution on public information and public participation for such a project,” Suwit said.

“This project has been initiated by the state and developed with a top-down approach, without sufficient consideration of its impacts, and with poor public participation. What will happen if more and more people along the pipeline know about the real impacts after construction and learn that they were not informed beforehand? Local opposition is foreseen. And government should be aware of this as it could affect the ongoing construction of the project,” he said.

Chinese investment and public discussion

Suwit said there is inadequate public awareness and discussion about projects and Chinese investment.

“The influence of Chinese investment in this region as well as the Mekong has been growing rapidly in recent years, without taking human rights violations and environmental impacts into account. And [it’s been] actively supported and facilitated by our Thai government.

“The key question is how ready are we for such massive investment from China? How ready is our government to protect its people’s interests from developments like this one where they are losing their land?” asked Suwit.

To address public concerns, Suwit suggested open public forums so that discussion could take place on the controversial oil pipeline and broader development plans for the north-eastern region.

“That which is missing from the past EIA process should be fixed there. At the forum, all basic project information should be available beforehand. It should be open to participation and discussion from all groups,” Suwit said.

Thawisan shared the same suggestion. “Local universities and academics should also play an important role to help digest technical and academic information for local people to understand the project properly,” he said.

From our partner chinadialogue.net

Continue Reading

Energy

How Turk Stream is forcing Europe on its heels

Sisir Devkota

Published

on

Russia laid down two gas pipelines from its territory, one from the topmost northern hemisphere, famously named as “Nord Stream” and the most advanced, latest with all rights “Turk Stream”; that passes through Turkey, a nation that now finds pride in being able to connect Russia with the rest of Europe. In recent years, European nations have heavily relied on American natural gas supplies and new set of renewables; while sanctions over Russia in the past decade primarily stalled business on both sides, Europe has now changed its language on Russia’s desire to sell oil to the continent. On paper, Europe is openly welcoming a new source of energy supplies in the name of profitable competition, yet changesare only the tip of deep lying geopolitical stakes. Turkstream was launched in the beginning of January; and so, did a brand-new Russian policy take effect that could change foreign relations in the years to come. But, why is Europe changing course suddenly?

Geographically, between the two pipelines on the north and south is Ukraine sitting ignored by Russia’s willingness, more so; it is also a statement of available options at Putin’s hand. It is well noted that Russian aspirations are serious; investing on two different routes has been costly, but the oil rich nation has caught all eyes. While Turkey is flaunting a newfound friendship on the East, other nations in the region, including Ukraine, are assessing exact Russian interests; a major miss out on economic benefits would not be rational for a set of other rather neutral nations than Ukraine. Consider the politics of language, while Nord Stream is still very vague and could include Baltic and western Scandinavia, “Turk Stream” is a prize won in the eyes of a shared Mediterranean neighborhood. It is like saying that Turkey won the rights to sell Russian reserves to European clients, that also have inhibitions against historical Turkish aspirations in the EU. Still, other reasons are held higher.

Uncharacteristically, China is behind all the insecurities in Europe. There is no secret on whether Sino-Russian ties could yield a similar energy route between two nations, both infrastructural might and President Xi’s willingness to expand the Belt & Road projects could easily accommodate energy linkups. For European leaders have realized that such possibilities could most possibly deteriorate Europe’s energy as well as economic balance. By 2030, Chinese energy needs are going to double from what it is now; Europe does not desire a vociferous Chinese demand taking away Russian reserves to the East. Alarmingly, European nations also realize that soon, a proposition as such is highly likely, given how current competition has taken down prices. After a decade of disturbing sanctions testing Russian sanctions, it will be waiting patiently for an overhaul in the form of ceiling new rate of prices. For Europe, America still might not have been redundant, but the US-Ukraine soft spot, certainly has.

The European dilemma does not end yet, for Russia has played the cards on both sides; it will have to forge a face-saving approach with Turkey, given how it has treated Ankara over issues relating to EU membership. Like an astute capitalist, Moscow is promising to feed Europe, whilst also biting into its wounds, forcing to deal with problems that may allow Russia an affirmation to jump over Chinese demands. On the backdrop of a successful Brexit, Turkey will be teasing at the European sanctity, a group that has continuously reminded it of being unsuitable. For Europe’s dislike, Russian reserves now flow through Turkish territories and might successfully ruin newly established competitors in the energy market. Underestimation has cost Europe again while Russia has lastly taken afoot. It is only the beginning of a grand Russian policy.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Americas2 hours ago

Impeachment & Intervention: Where American Foreign Policy Goes Wrong

To any ordinary American citizen, it’s well known that government spending is spiraling out of control. The U.S. budget deficit...

Eastern Europe4 hours ago

President Zelensky at the MSC 2020: An Epistemological Shift toward Reconciliation

On Saturday February 15, Ukrainian President Zelensky reiterated his pledge to end the conflict in the Donbas during his tenure,...

Americas6 hours ago

Former Senator Moise Jean-Charles to Win the Next Haitian Presidential Election

The former Senator, Moise Jean-Charles is the founder and leader of the powerful political party called Platfòm Pitit Desalin or...

Environment7 hours ago

WWF: US Will Suffer World’s Biggest Economic Impact Due to Nature Loss

A new World Wildlife Fund report reveals for the first time the countries whose economies would be worst affected over...

Newsdesk10 hours ago

Justin Trudeau meets African leaders to advance conflict resolution and economic security

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau convened a meeting for African heads of state, foreign ministers and representatives of the United...

Reports12 hours ago

“Westlessness”: Munich Security Report 2020

Is the world becoming less Western? Is the West itself becoming less Western, too? What does it mean for the...

Newsdesk14 hours ago

UNIDO to provide emergency assistance to China to help contain the outbreak of coronavirus

The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) will provide emergency response assistance to China to help fight the outbreak of...

Trending