Connect with us

Energy

Price war on oil and gas market from geopolitical perspective

Published

on

The collapse of the OPEC+ deal, coupled with a drop in demand amid the raging coronavirus pandemic, has sent tectonic shocks across the global oil and gas markets. Simultaneously, attacks on the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline project have intensified again.

The global demand for oil had started to decline well before negotiations on the possibility of OPEC+ extension got under way in Vienna at the beginning of  March. The decline was due to the pandemic and warm winter. In the course of  Vienna talks Riyadh issued an ”ultimatum-like demand” for a dramatic reduction in oil production, which was unacceptable for a whole number of supplier countries because of the risk of losing their share of the market. Meanwhile, accusations on the part of Saudi and western politicians and mass media who blame Moscow for initiating the OPEC+ failure are groundless. Cartel agreements naturally lose their attractiveness over time, since «every participant tends to cheat on others». Another substantial flaw of the OPEC+ is that there are no oil companies from the United States among its signatories. As a result, the reduction in oil production on the part of OPEC+ countries has increased the market share of American producers.

In response to the OPEC+ fiasco, Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced its intention to “inundate the market” by boosting the output by 25%. Riyadh launched a price war in the hope  of “regaining the lost share of the market”. KSA cut the oil prices it offered for April by 5-8 dollars per barrel in an attempt to exert pressure on Russia and “on other producers, which are not members of  OPEC, including the United States». A number of Gulf countries have also announced an increase in production. As a result, by the end of March, oil prices had reached an 18-year low, the Russian Urals hitting less than 15 dollars per barrel. Should the price war escalate, the Urals price may drop to 5-8 dollars.

Observers present different comments as to Riyadh’s reasons for doing so. From purely tactical considerations – «to force Moscow to return to the negotiating table», to long-term ones, oriented at re-carving the entire oil and gas market, including destabilization of the oil industry of competitor countries, first of all, Russia and the United States. It could even be an attempt to undermine the social and political stability in economies which are dependent on oil and gas exports.

The Saudis’ major advantages comprise, first of all, the lowest production cost, huge oil reserves, substantial, over 0.5 trillion dollar state reserves, and unlimited opportunities for foreign loans. At the same time, experts say, «the Saudi economy is bogged down in debt». If it wants to maintain deficit-free budget, Riyadh ought to keep prices at no less than 80 dollars per barrel. According to IMF experts, even a return to «the rate of 50-55 dollars per barrel» will not be enough for KSA.

By 2024, Saudi Arabia may face a balance of payments crisis and could choose not to tie the rial to the dollar . Meanwhile, on March 27, The Wall-Street Journal reported mass consumer refusals in Europe and North America to accept new shipments of Saudi oil, as “there is nowhere to store more of it.”

The dramatic decline in oil prices has seriously hit the US oil business, as fears of mass bankruptcies in the American shale oil production sector build up. Regular suppliers are preparing to significantly reduce investments and supplies.

The “shale boom” made it possible for America to surpass Saudi Arabia and Russia in 2018 and become the world’s largest oil producer. Unlike earlier, when cheap oil always played into the hands of the American economy, now the situation has changed radically. In the conditions of the coronavirus pandemic, the money saved by gasoline consumers is unlikely to whip up demand in other sectors of the economy. What will sustain damage as well is the shale oil sector on which a number of US states depend. The breakeven threshold for shale oil companies, according to The Economist, varies from $ 23 to $ 75 per barrel, depending on the oil basin. The price collapse is fraught with mass layoffs – right in the year of the presidential election.

Meanwhile, shale oil producers have experienced mounting difficulties even before the start of the current price war. Many companies have been reporting only losses in balance sheets of late. Investors have turned away from the shale sector, most companies found it almost impossible to draw new loans or refinance the old ones. Now, given the dramatically developing situation in the oil market, many shale producers may see being taken over by larger players as the “best” option.

The collapse of oil prices has dealt an equally devastating blow to the geopolitical plans of the US leadership. As dependence on oil imports decreased,  Washington became ever more confident that the United States would now be able, through sanctions, to completely halt oil exports from Venezuela and Iran, without fearing uncontrolled global destabilization. A number of experts in Russia express concerns that the growth of production and export capacities in LNG and shale oil sectors, according to the standard scheme now, could prompt Washington to “tighten sanctions” against the Russian oil and gas industry.

In the summer of 2017, President Trump announced plans to secure a US dominant position in the global gas market. An energy strategy that saw light at that time as well “describes Russia as a competitor,” claiming that “Russian projects to diversify supply routes to Europe run counter to the  US policy.” Resulting from such political approaches is “concerted effort … against Nord Stream-2 (NS-2)” and other Russian projects on the construction of new gas pipelines to Europe.

At the end of 2017, the United States, for the first time in 60 years, began to export more gas than it imported. The growth of shale production enabled the United States to produce 733 billion cubic meters by the end of 2017 – more than anywhere in the world, including Russia. However, until recently, one of the major obstacles to expanding US gas exports was the US dependence on oil imports. Oil in the US domestic market is several times more expensive than gas in energy equivalent. If the US is to increase the supply of its “cheap” gas – to compensate for the shortage of oil and gas in the domestic market – it would have to increase the import of “expensive” oil.

Another deterrent is competition from Russia. American LNG is more expensive than Russian pipeline gas. As a result, in 2017, gas supplies from the USA to Europe amounted to no more than 3 billion cubic meters of gas. Meanwhile, gas consumption in Europe last year reached 500 billion cubic meters. In an attempt to reverse the trend, in the same 2017, the US Congress voted in favor of a package of sanctions that put under “threat the construction of any new gas pipeline” in Europe with the participation of Russia. In general, it was supposed to launch sanctioned weapons against Moscow by the time the LNG production in the USA reaches full capacity – by 2020-2022. On December 21, 2019, when the United States imposed sanctions against companies engaged in laying NS-2, foreign project contractors suspended all operations.

It cannot be ruled out that if and when the EU sees American LNG as a good alternative to Russian gas, Brussels may choose to swap restrictions on gas supplies from Russia to Europe. The political will to “pay extra for energy security” is also present in a number of European countries. Another scenario could feature a US attempt to force a price war on Moscow, to guarantee dumping in the European direction. In this case, Nord Stream-2 will fall not only under political, but also under direct financial pressure. But it’s hard to imagine how the US authorities are going to convince their power engineers to supply Europe at a loss?

Meanwhile, the long-term strategy of the United States, according to a number of Russian analysts, may not boil down to the struggle for the gas market, but for its transformation by analogy with the oil market. If it were possible to block the maximum number of existing and under construction pipelines, the lion’s share of gas in the world would go by sea in the form of LNG. This would help “untie” gas prices from oil and transform the international gas market into a single, global and spot one where transactions are quick and are made in US dollars to minimize costs and risks. Thus, the main goal of the hype around the “shale revolution” and the “seizure of the global gas market” is to keep the global oil and gas market tied to the US dollar.

The price war declared by Saudi Arabia may put an end to such plans. That the situation in the United States has reached a critical point becomes clear on the basis of recent statements from Washington. According to US media reports, on March 26, the US Secretary of State called on Saudi Arabia to “stop the price war with Russia”. Texas shale producers have urged state officials to “consider reducing oil production … due to falling demand”. On March 30, at the initiative of the White House, there was a telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. The two parties agreed to hold “Russian-American consultations” “on the current state of the world oil market” “on the level of ministers of energy”. Markets took the news with some hope of  concluding a comprehensive agreement on the regulation of oil production between Moscow, Washington and Riyadh.

Europe, in the event of further blockage of the Nord Stream 2 project, risk falling hostage to Washington’s geopolitical ambitions, what with its statements about the intention to fill the market with its LNG. But this may undermine the economic leadership of Germany, and, accordingly, the policy of strengthening EU unity. Finally, if, after all the current cataclysms, the European Union is still adamant to fight for energy independence, it will have to think how to reduce the share of international commodity trade in dollars. Back in September 2018, the then head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, said it was “absurd” for the EU to pay for 80% of its energy imports in dollars, considering that these imports are estimated at 300 billion euros per year. And this is despite the fact that only 2% of Europe’s energy imports come from the United States.

Rumors circulating in the oil market are about the possibility of behind-the-scenes agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia, which will be directed  against Moscow. At the same time, The Financial Times writes, “Russia’s major oil companies have every chance of surviving a drop in oil prices over the next two years, taking into account the advantages that they have over foreign competitors.” For example, Russian oil companies will remain profitable even at a barrel price of $ 15.

Significantly, the ability of the Russian fuel and energy complex to effectively resist price fluctuations is largely the result of Western sanctions. For example, “a large part of the costs and debts” of Russian oil companies is denominated in rubles. At the same time, the ruble exchange rate is free, “floating,” while the currencies of the KSA and the UAE are tightly tied to the dollar. The decline in the ruble leads to an increase in export revenues. The Russian tax system flexibly responds to falling oil prices. Finally, “the country’s oil companies have built up large foreign exchange reserves in recent years”.

Russia’s positions in the European gas market remain strong as well. Despite the year-on-year increase in political and sanction pressure, as well as the decline in contract prices, Russia accounts for a third of the European market. The Russian leadership, as well as Gazprom, have repeatedly emphasized their commitment to completing the Nord Stream 2. The energy strategy of Russia until 2035 provides for the progressive development of new projects in the LNG sector, where world trade is expected to increase to 70% by 2040.

Thus, the current state of the global oil and gas market is determined by three key factors: the price war, the coronavirus pandemic and, as a result, an excess of oil supply. In addition, the situation in the world economy may break the sad “records” of the 2008-2009 crisis. According to the estimates of the Xinhua News Agency, the whole world is “in survival mode.” In such circumstances, each of the supplier countries faces a dilemma: to fight for a greater market share in the hope of beating the competitors, or try to coordinate efforts to stabilize prices. It seems that the struggle for exhaustion is the last thing the world community needs now. For this reason, Moscow calls for dialogue and a return to constructive cooperation, which hinges on a thorough analysis of the long-term consequences of decisions made.

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading
Comments

Energy

China’s Unorthodox Intervention in the Global Oil Market

Published

on

Apparently, China has been the talk of the town for quite some time. While the entire yesteryear passed in a flurry of blame game over the pandemic, this year has been nothing short of a blessing for Xi’s regime. However, while China rapidly compensated for the drastic slump last year, the bustling economy has now cooled down – though a bit prematurely. Due to the expansive outbreak of the delta variant, China – like most countries around the world – now faces surging inflation and a crippling shortage of raw materials. However, while one might get a bolder vibe from China’s recent crackdown on industrial giants, the supposed Second Cultural Revolution’ seems on a divergent path from the government’s latest aspirations for the domestic industry.

China seems to be on a path to harness growth that appears to be slowing down as the global economy battles uncertainty. However, while many expected China to take orthodox measures to prolong growth, hardly anyone expected a drastic change of strategy: intervening in a close-knitted global market like never before.

China recently posted its most robust trade surplus in history, with a record rise in exports jumping 25.6% from last year to stand at $294.3; $10 billion more than any previous month. However, while the glowing figures imply sturdiness, the underlying fragility of the Chinese economy is not disguised. In the past few months, China’s production engine has taken a toll as surging energy costs have inhibited production capacity. The factory-gate inflation stands at a 13-year-high which has forced factories to cut output. Amid declining domestic demand due to covid restrictions, manufacturing surveys show that China’s export orders are eroding as supply bottlenecks coupled with energy costs have weighed heavily on the production function. To counter the problem, China recently supplied its reserves into the domestic market; undercutting the surging global price tag dictated by the petroleum giants.

Last Thursday, China’s National Food and Strategic Reserves Administrator made a press release, confirming that the world’s second-largest economy tapped into its crude reserves – estimated at 220 million barrels – to “ease the pressure of rising raw material prices.” While China is known to intervene in commodity markets by using its strategic reserves, for example, Copper, Aluminium, or even grains.

Recently, China tapped into its national reserves to intervene in the global commodity market of industrial metals for the first time since 2010. The intervention was situated as a release to normalize surging metal prices and retain domestic manufacturers’ margins. However,  it is a novelty that a national agency confirmed an active supply of petroleum buffer via an official press conference. And while no additional details were offered, it is presumed by global strategists that the press release referred to the 20-30 million barrels allegedly poured into the domestic industry around mid-July: when Xi’s government offered to supply crude to the OPEC.

Furthermore, China’s Stockpile Agency claimed that through open auctions, China’s reserve crude was intended to “better stabilize the domestic demand and supply.” It was apparent that as China ventured through a supply crunch when Brent Crude – Global Crude Index/Benchmark – breached the $76 bpd mark, the country instead resorted to utilizing its own stockpile instead of relying on expensive imported petroleum. Thus, it shapes a clear picture of how China managed to clock a phenomenal trade surplus despite not importing its usual crude quota.

While it is common knowledge that economies like the US and Europe maintain strategic petroleum reserves, the buffers held by China were utilized to actively manipulate the price in a ‘normalized’ oil market instead of their designated usage in supply crunches or wars. The situation today is anything but critical for the oil market to warrant such an intervention. As OPEC+ has boosted its output by 400,000 bpd starting August, output has bloomed beyond its peak since the price war back in April 2020. While the oil market is still well below the output capacity, mutually curbed by the OPEC+ alliance, the demand is still shaky and an equilibrium seems set. Yet, when we observe China – the world’s largest oil importer – we extricate reason that despite a growing economy, China continues to experience massive shortages: primarily in terms of oil, gas, coal, and electricity.

Furthermore, with the ensue of Hurricane Ida, massive US crude reserves have been wiped which has majorly impacted China as well. The US and China rarely stand on the same page on any front. However, even the White House recently asked OPEC to pump more crude into the market due to the rising gasoline prices in America. The same scenario is panning in China as energy shortages have led to surging costs while domestic demand is diminishing. The brunt is thus falling on the national exchequer: something China is not willing to haggle. While it is highly unorthodox of China to explicitly announce its intervention, many economists believe that it was a deliberate move on part of China’s communist brass to amplify the impact on the market. The plan seemingly worked as Brent fell by $1.36 to stand at $71.24 on Thursday.

If China’s commitment to normalize domestic energy prices is this significant, it is highly likely that another intervention could be pegged later in the fourth quarter. Primarily to counteract the contraction in export orders by cutting imports further to maintain a healthy trade surplus. In my opinion, it is clear that both the US and China are not willing to let Brent (and WTI) breach the $70-$75 bracket as key industries are at stake. However, while one takes a passive approach, the other is touted to go as far as pouring another 10-15 million barrels of crude by the end of 2021. Yet revered global commodity strategists believe that the downturn in prices is “short-lived” just like any other Chinese intervention in a variety of other commodity markets globally. And thus, experts believe that the pump is simply “not enough physical supply” to quite strike a permanent dent in an inherently flawed market mechanism.

Continue Reading

Energy

Energy Forum Seeks To Analyze Africa’s Energy Potentials And Utilization

Published

on

African Energy Week (AEW) 2021 in Cape Town, fully endorsed by the Government of South Africa, is committed to accelerating Africa’s energy growth with the aim of establishing a secure and sustainable energy future for every individual on the continent. Accordingly, AEW 2021 firmly believes in the role that oil and gas will continue to play in Africa and will emphasise the continent’s upstream market through a collaborative, International Oil Company (IOC) forum. Led by IOC executives, as well as government representatives from notable energy markets in Africa, the IOC forum aims to address the upstream challenges faced in Africa, providing solutions and strategies to drive exploration and make Africa more competitive for investment.

With the discovery of sizeable oil and gas reserves across the continent in recent years, regional and international explorers are turning an eye to the world’s final frontier market – Africa. Nigeria’s 200 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas reserves and 37.2 billion barrels of oil (bbl); Mozambique’s 11 tcf of gas; Senegal’s 450 billion cubic meters of gas; Libya’s 48 billion bbl and 53.1 tcf; and Egypt’s 77.2 tcf of gas have all made Africa the ideal destination for hydrocarbon exploration. What’s more, with many African countries making significant steps to enhance their regulatory environments, implementing legislation to create an enabling environment for investment, the continent has become a highly competitive market for exploration and production. Nigeria’s recently implemented Petroleum Industry Bill, Gabon’s new Hydrocarbon Code, and Angola’s inclusive petroleum regulation, to name a few, have all ensured a competitive and highly attractive market.

With the world’s six oil ‘supermajors’ – BP, Chevron, Eni, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and TotalEnergies – all actively present in mature and emerging markets across Africa, the continent has become an upstream hotspot. AEW 2021 aims to accelerate this trend, promoting new upstream opportunities and ensuring both National Oil Companies (NOC) and IOCs drive the continent into a new era of energy and economic success. Accordingly, Africa’s premier energy event will host an upstream-dedicated IOC forum in Cape Town, led by IOC executives and government representatives. The IOC forum aims to address key challenges in Africa’s upstream market, whereby the diverse speaker panel will offer up solutions to expand exploration and production, while ensuring the continent remains competitive for investment in a post-COVID-19, energy transition era.

In addition to the discussion on upstream activities, the forum aims to highlight the role of IOCs in enhancing capacity building, whereby emphasis will be placed on IOC-NOC collaboration. IOCs have a critical role to play in Africa, not only regarding resource development, but human capital and local business development. In order for the continent to become truly sustainable and competitive, NOCs require support from IOCs. Accordingly, the forum aims to identify strategies to enhance cooperation and partnerships, with IOCs taking the lead in Africa’s energy development.

“AEW 2021 in Cape Town will offer a real discussion on Africa. Oil and gas are critical in Africa’s development and the African Energy Chamber (AEC) will not succumb to the misguided narrative that Africa should abandon its potential. The IOCs in Africa have demonstrated the continent’s potential, and by sharing strategies to enhance growth, address challenges, and accelerate upstream activities, they will be key drivers in Africa’s energy future. The IOC forum will not only offer a description of African reserves, but will provide clear, attainable solutions to exploitation, exploration and production with the aim of using energy to enact stronger economic growth. By coming to Cape Town, attending the IOC forum, and interacting with African ministers from across the continent, you will be able to be a part of Africa’s energy transformation,” stated NJ Ayuk, Executive Chairman of the AEC.

Continue Reading

Energy

Nord Stream 2: A Geopolitical Tension between Russia and Ukraine and the European Dependence

Published

on

nord stream

Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline is a 1,230-kilometer direct linkage between the Russian natural gas producers and the consumer market of Europe. The model was made keeping in mind the successful operation of the existing Nord Stream pipeline after a thorough analysis by Nord Stream AG. The main aim of NS2 is said to be the increase in the annual capacity of the existing pipeline up to 110 billion m³. The pipeline starts from the Russian region of Ust-Luga then stretches through the Baltic Sea and ends at the area of Greifswald in Germany. It is due to this route that the project is mainly considered to be controversial. Bypassing directly through the Baltic Sea, the importance of Ukraine for Russia for exporting natural gas to the European market would reduce significantly which will end the $3 billion transit fees gained by the Ukrainian government in the year 2018 alone, causing a sudden and huge strain on the GDP of the country.

This project worth $11 billion would double the market of Russia in Germany which is the largest market in Europe, possessing a key position in international politics. It is said by the Russian officials that the pipeline has almost been completed and it may get operational by the end of August in the year 2021. Some analysts and International Relations experts have considered this as a geopolitical weapon that gives leverage to Russia to influence future events in the region particularly the ones related to the Crimean annexation.

Threat to Ukraine

Recently in a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the President of Ukraine appeared to be displeased by the Western recognition of the NS2 pipeline. He called it a “dangerous political weapon” in the hands of the authoritative regime of Russia which has already annexed an integral part of their country to fulfill their geopolitical and economic desires. The desperate opposition of this project by the Ukrainian government has several underlying factors which are very important to discuss.

Firstly, the transit fees earned by Ukraine just by giving passage to the gas going from Russia to Europe make up a fine amount of the GDP of the country. If projects like NS2 get operational then the importance of Ukraine will decline, causing an end to the $3 billion transit fee. Although Russia has ensured to still use Ukrainian passage for the export of their gas, this does not seem to be happening in the future. States are after their national interests and Russia would prefer the direct linkage with the European market instead of paying billions to the Ukrainian government. Currently, out of the quarter of natural gas transported to Europe, around 80% has to pass through the Ukrainian territory.

Secondly, after the expiry of the transit deal between Russia and Ukraine in 2024, it would depend upon the negotiations between the two parties to revive the fate of this deal. Although Kremlin’s Spokespersons have ensured the revival of this deal after its expiry in 2024, debates still exist about the prospects. No one can claim with certitude about the future of this deal between the two states.

Thirdly, Ukraine is intimidated by the future of the country if the Russian gas pipeline bypasses its territory. There already exist many gas-related disputes between the two states which resulted in the cut-off of the gas supply in 2014 and later on in 2015. Russia can pressurize Ukraine for accepting their demands to get their gas supplies back. Recently, Ukraine has started to reduce its dependence on Russian natural gas by switching back to European gas. But this would not be beneficial in any sense if the Russian monopoly over the gas market increases through the NS2 pipeline.

And lastly, the dependence of European markets on Russian gas can undermine the Crimean cause. Once a state has to depend on the other state for the necessities, it has to let go of many important causes and decisions. As Angela Merkel has repeatedly called the NS2 pipeline a geo-economic project rather than a geopolitical “weapon” that can be used by the Russian government as a decisive tool at times of disputes and crises, this already shows the drowning picture of the cause. In addition to this, previously the US administration was very aggressive towards the pipeline but the current government despite its opposition, is unable to do much for stopping the project which can get operational very soon.

Role of US and NS2 Pipeline

The United States of America is well aware of the changing dynamics of the region and the intentions of resurgent Russia. The Republican government under Trump proved to be very destructive for the project. The US did not only oppose the gas pipeline openly but also imposed sanctions on entities aiding Russia in the development of this gas pipeline. In January 2021, Trump imposed sanctions on the gas-pipeline laying ship, “Fortuna” and its owner under the Counter American’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Previously, work on the pipeline had to be suspended as the US imposed sanctions on the main company, Allseas. President Biden was one of the many policy-makers who opposed this pipeline and considered it dangerous for the US and its allies. Although it was not clear what Biden’s policies would be, Blinken ensured to use “persuasive tools” against the pipeline, after acquiring the office. President Biden indeed imposed sanctions on the Russian ships and other companies involved in the laying of pipeline, but analysts think this would not cause any impact on the project as it is almost running towards completion. Rather, anti-sanction policy-makers consider it more important to waive off these sanctions and get into formal negotiation talks with the Russian government.

In May 2021, the President of the US and the Chancellor of Germany gave a joint statement for the agreement signed between the two countries related to the NS2 project. Some of the main features incorporated in the agreement are the announcement of sanctions on Russia in case it violates the peaceful use of the pipeline and utilizes it as a weapon against Ukraine. Germany would not only oppose such a step but would also press on the EU to take counter-measures. Similarly, it was decided to revolutionize the energy sector of Ukraine by the creation of a Green Fund for Ukraine by Germany worth $1 billion. Initially, it was decided that Germany would contribute an amount of $175 million. Also, it is said that Germany would use all its leverage to ensure an extension of the current transit agreement (which is going to expire in 2024) between Russia and Ukraine for at least up to 10 years. This would continue the role played by Ukraine as a transit state, helping its GDP and putting off the security threat over it. There is a sharp criticism on the Biden administration over this agreement which did not involve Poland and Ukraine while deciding their future. Also, the deal does not put any process of hindering the pipeline which is against the aspirations of all Americans and most of its allies.

In addition to limiting the role and influence of Russia in the European continent, the US is also looking forward to the opportunities of fulfilling its national interest. If the US becomes successful in hindering the operation of NS2, it can expand its gas buyers in the European countries. This way, like the post-war era the US can get a strategic and decisive role in this part of the world which can ultimately help it to counter the threats related to the rise of China and the Sino-Russian nexus. We can say that the US cannot only use this as an economic incentive but also utilize its importance in the future of great power rivalry.

Why states are against this Pipeline Project?

Along with the direct impacts of this project on Ukraine and Poland (to some extent). The major concerns of the states which oppose the NS2 pipeline include the additional leverage which Russia will gain when its national gas firm would directly export gas supplies between Russia and the European continent. This may result in a sudden disruption of the supplies, influenced by the changing dynamics of the region. The Russian authorities had cut off the gas supplies of Europe in the winters of 2006 and 2009, leaving millions without gas for days. Similarly, the increased dependence of Europe on Russian gas can be counter-productive and may hinder the interests of the states and the US soon. This situation can be utilized by both Russia and China to exploit the bonding between the US and its allies.

From the security perspective, the presence of Russia and its naval forces can cause a security threat to the states surrounding the Baltic Sea. The unsettled conditions may lead to chaos and problems in the region.

If Russia was to get a high stake in the energy market of Europe, this would also allow it to exploit the situation and create a monopoly over the market. This may not also lead to political outcomes and consequences but can also end the game of local and international gas market players in the continent. This is the biggest threat that is encouraging the US to make NS2 a security threat for itself and its allies.

Way Forward

Keeping in view the nature of international politics and changing economic dimensions to the project, the only possible way forward is an agreement between Russia and the US related to the pipeline and the future of Ukraine. If developments can be made over the existing US-Germany agreement then concerns of the states can be mitigated to a huge degree. The options of imposing sanctions on the pipeline are no more practical and can be counter-productive for the US concerning its allies especially Germany.

Conclusion

The Nord Stream 2 Pipeline despite its economic benefits cannot be separated from its geopolitical aspects and consequences. In international politics, the hardest thing to do is to trust the intentions of the other state, especially when it was a superpower previously and has several examples of violating the sovereignty and rights of neighboring states. But presently, all those who oppose the pipeline have no other option than to allow its proper functioning under certain terms and conditions.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Economy21 mins ago

Russia, China and EU are pushing towards de-dollarization: Will India follow?

Authors: Divyanshu Jindal and Mahek Bhanu Marwaha* The USD (United States Dollar) has been the world’s dominant currency since the...

Economy2 hours ago

Today’s World Demands Sustainability

In the Brundtland Report, the United Nations defined sustainable development as development that satisfies current demands without jeopardising future generations’...

Defense4 hours ago

Developments on Korean Peninsula risk accelerating regional arms race

A week full of missile tests; this is the current environment on the Korean Peninsula. On Wednesday, North Korea fired...

South Asia9 hours ago

Panjshir – the last stronghold of democracy in Afghanistan

The Taliban’s rapid advance in Afghanistan has briefly stalled only in the face of strong resistance mounted by the people...

Americas15 hours ago

Biden’s worrisome construct of security and self-defense in the first year of his term

US President Joe Biden’s foreign policy is failing so far. He can’t get the Iran nuclear diplomacy on track. The Afghanistan withdrawal...

Finance18 hours ago

Picking the perfect social media channel

No product or service can be purchased if nobody knows that it exists. This is the function of marketing, which...

Finance18 hours ago

Your brand needs to be on Twitter, here is why

Most of us are familiar with doing business physically through stores, but with the introduction of the internet, there are...

Trending