Evelyn Reynolds

The move by President Biden came as administration officials warned that a Russian military assault on Ukraine could be imminent.WASHINGTON — President Biden said on Wednesday that he would issue economic sanctions on the company behind a new natural gas pipeline between Russia and Germany, the latest in a series of penalties that the White House has promised will continue as Russia escalates hostilities against Ukraine.The move by Mr. Biden came hours before President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia began a military operation in Ukraine that administration officials had warned could be a full-scale assault. But it was also a reversal for the president after he waived sanctions against the pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2, last year despite calls from both Democrats and Republicans to halt the energy project.“These steps are another piece of our initial tranche of sanctions in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine,” Mr. Biden said in a statement on Wednesday before the Russian military operation. “As I have made clear, we will not hesitate to take further steps if Russia continues to escalate.”Administration officials said Mr. Biden decided it was necessary to move forward with the penalties after Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany announced on Tuesday that he would suspend the certification of the pipeline in response to Moscow ordering Russian troops to cross the border into separatist regions in eastern Ukraine that the Kremlin has recognized as independent states.The new sanctions are against a subsidiary of Gazprom, a Russian company that is controlled by the Kremlin, and they are part of a unified effort by NATO allies meant to stop what Mr. Biden has described as “the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.”On Wednesday, the European Union also announced new sanctions on Russia’s defense minister, Mr. Putin’s chief of staff and high-profile Russians from the media world. On Tuesday, the Biden administration imposed sanctions on two Russian banks and a handful of the country’s elites and cut off the ability of Russia to raise financing in Western markets. The administration said it was preserving the possibility of even greater sanctions if Mr. Putin escalates the conflict by trying to seize more territory in Ukraine — or even the entire country.The White House did not issue the sanctions against the company behind the gas pipeline earlier because it was unclear whether those measures would halt the project, which was already 90 percent completed when Mr. Biden took office, according to Ned Price, a spokesman for the State Department.President Biden meeting with Mr. Scholz in the Oval Office this month. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline has caused years of tension between the United States and Germany.Al Drago for The New York TimesBut on Tuesday, Mr. Scholz gave Mr. Biden an opening when he halted the certification of the project.“So by acting together with the Germans,” Mr. Price said, “we have ensured that this is an $11 billion prize investment that is now a hunk of steel sitting at the bottom of the sea.”Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, had described the action against the pipeline as part of an attempt to stop an armed conflict.“What we’re trying to do is prevent a war, prevent devastation on the Ukrainian people,” Ms. Psaki said. Referring to Mr. Putin, she said, “We’re going to continue to make clear that if he continues to escalate, we will as well.”But the sanctions apparently did not discourage Mr. Putin from advancing in Ukraine, as he announced a mission to “demilitarize” the country early Thursday local time, and explosions were reported from Kyiv, the capital, and other cities.The Nord Stream 2 pipeline has caused years of tension between Germany and the United States. Germany has long been hesitant to endanger its energy trade with Russia; Mr. Scholz last month dodged questions of whether he agreed with Mr. Biden’s assertion that the project would be stopped if Russia invaded Ukraine.Still, Mr. Biden’s move was welcomed by Democrats and Republicans who had for a year called for him to quickly punish Russia and halt the pipeline.Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, on Wednesday lifted his objections to 17 of Mr. Biden’s nominees, many of them for State Department positions, now that the president has announced sanctions on the company behind the pipeline.Mr. Cruz had used Senate procedure to slow down the pace at which the chamber could approve Mr. Biden’s nominations, demanding that the administration impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2.“Allowing Putin’s Nord Stream 2 to come online would have created multiple cascading and acute security crises for the United States and our European allies for generations to come,” Mr. Cruz said.Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, said that the initial sanctions announced by the administration this week were “an important first step,” but that they did not “go far enough.”“To create an effective deterrent, tougher sanctions must be expanded to other financial institutions and export controls must be implemented,” Mr. Portman said.Mr. Biden had previously said the pipeline was too advanced to stop. “Nord Stream is 99 percent finished,” he said last year. “The idea that anything was going to be said or done that was going to stop it is not possible.” The construction of the pipeline was completed last year but the project’s approval process had been stalled.Daleep Singh, a deputy national security adviser, said on Tuesday that shutting down the project would sacrifice “what would have been a cash cow for Russia’s coffers.”“It’s not just about the money,” Mr. Singh said. “This decision will relieve Russia’s geostrategic chokehold over Europe through its supply of gas, and it’s a major turning point in the world’s energy independence from Russia.”On Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Wendy R. Sherman, the deputy secretary of state, spoke with top European diplomats to coordinate economic sanctions against Russia, the State Department said.Catie Edmondson More

The National Labor Relations Board dealt a blow to Starbucks’s legal strategy in response to a growing union campaign on Wednesday, rejecting the company’s argument that workers seeking to unionize in a geographic area must vote in a single union election.In a ruling involving an election in Mesa, Ariz., the board noted the longstanding presumption that a single store is an appropriate unit for a vote — as union supporters have insisted.Starbucks workers at more than 100 stores nationwide have filed for union elections and workers at two stores in Buffalo have already unionized.Unions typically prefer smaller elections, which tend to increase their chances of winning, albeit on a smaller scale. Workers United, the union seeking to represent Starbucks employees, has complained that Starbucks has repeatedly resisted store-by-store elections despite gaining little traction on the issue as a way to delay votes and stop the union’s momentum.Starbucks has argued that the elections should be marketwide because employees can work at multiple locations and because the stores in a market are managed as a relatively cohesive unit. It has made this case in its requests to appeal labor board decisions ordering elections on a store-by-store basis in Buffalo and Mesa, and in other filings related to union elections around the country.Before Wednesday’s ruling, the board had been unmoved by the company’s argument in Buffalo as well. But unlike the request for an appeal in Buffalo, which the board rejected on an ad hoc basis, the action in the Arizona case sets a binding precedent and will most likely make it more difficult for Starbucks to successfully raise such objections in the future.Nonetheless, the company indicated it would still press the issue. “Our position since the beginning has been that all partners in a market or district deserve the right to vote on a decision that will impact them,” Reggie Borges, a Starbucks spokesman, said in a statement, using the company’s term for its employees. “We will continue to respect the N.L.R.B.’s process and advocate for our partners’ ability to make their voices heard.”Workers in Mesa and at three Buffalo-area locations have voted in store-by-store elections, but the board postponed those vote counts while resolving Starbucks’s appeals. In the short term, the board decision means that a vote count at a Starbucks store in Mesa can go forward after being postponed last week.In a statement Wednesday, the union criticized both Starbucks and the labor board for the delays in counting ballots. “Partners are confident in our ability to stand strong, but justice delayed is justice denied, and we will continue to push for our right to organize without delay,” the statement said. More

Biden administration officials have warned Russia that it could face further restrictions on technology that is critical to its economy and military.The Biden administration warned on Wednesday that it had prepared additional measures aimed at cutting off Russia from advanced technology critical to its economy and military in the event of further aggression by President Vladimir V. Putin toward Ukraine.The United States on Tuesday announced sanctions on two Russian banks and curbs on Russia’s sovereign debt, effectively isolating the country from Western financing. President Biden also announced further sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline and its corporate officers.Export controls could ratchet up the pressure on Russia by preventing the country from obtaining semiconductors and other advanced technology used to power Russia’s aerospace, military and tech industries.“If he chooses to invade, what we’re telling him very directly is that we’re going to cut that off, we’re going to cut him off from Western technology that’s critical to advancing his military, cut him off from Western financial resources that will be critical to feeding his economy and also to enriching himself,” Wally Adeyemo, the deputy Treasury secretary, said on CNBC on Wednesday.The Biden administration has not clarified what specific restrictions it would impose on the products Russia imports. But the actions and statements of administration officials suggest they could repurpose a novel measure that the Trump administration turned to to cripple the business of Huawei, a Chinese telecom company, in 2020, export control specialists said.The tool, called the foreign direct product rule, allows U.S. officials to block more than just exports from the United States to Russia, which totaled just $4.9 billion in 2020. It also allows American officials to restrict exports to Russia from any country in the world if they use American technology, including software or machinery.Companies can seek licenses to sidestep the restrictions but they are likely to be denied.Daleep Singh, the deputy national security adviser, said on Friday that the administration was “converging on the final package” of sanctions and export controls, and suggested that those controls would target tech products.“We produce the most sophisticated technological inputs across a range of foundational technologies — A.I., quantum, biotech, hypersonic flight, robotics,” Mr. Singh said. “As we and our partners move in lock step to deny these critical technology inputs to Russia’s economy, Putin’s desire to diversify outside of oil and gas — which is two-thirds of his export revenue, half of his budget revenues — that will be denied.”“He’s spoken many times about a desire for an aerospace sector, a defense sector, an I.T. sector,” Mr. Singh said of Mr. Putin. “Without these critical technology inputs, there is no path to realizing those ambitions.”Kevin Wolf, a partner in international trade at Akin Gump who worked in export controls under the Obama administration, said the White House could tailor its use of export controls to target certain strategic sectors, for example companies in the aerospace or maritime industry, while bypassing products used by the Russian populace, like washing machines.“They’re making it clear they’re not trying to take action that harms ordinary Russians,” Mr. Wolf said.Andy Shoyer, co-lead of global arbitration, trade and advocacy for Sidley Austin, said the restrictions appeared likely to focus on semiconductors and semiconductor equipment. The novel export controls that the United States wielded against Huawei have a powerful reach when it comes to semiconductors, since even chips made abroad are mostly manufactured and tested using machinery based on American designs, he said.“It’s not just what’s physically exported from the U.S.,” Mr. Shoyer said. “It could encompass a substantial amount of production, because so much of the semiconductor industry relies on U.S. technology.”The global semiconductor industry, which has been roiled by shortages and supply chain disruptions throughout the pandemic, could face more disruptions given Ukraine’s role in the semiconductor supply chain.The Ukraine Crisis’s Effect on the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6A rising concern. More

Russia’s threatened invasion of Ukraine could have economic repercussions globally and in the United States, ramping up uncertainty, roiling commodity markets and potentially pushing up inflation as gas and food prices rise around the world.Russia is a major producer of oil and natural gas, and the brewing geopolitical conflict has sent prices of both sharply higher in recent weeks. It is also the world’s largest wheat exporter, and is a major food supplier to Europe.The United States imports relatively little directly from Russia, but a commodities crunch caused by a conflict could have knock-on effects that at least temporarily drive up prices for raw materials and finished goods when much of the world, including the United States, is experiencing rapid inflation.Global unrest could also spook American consumers, prompting them to cut back on spending and other economic activity. If the slowdown were to become severe, it could make it harder for the Federal Reserve, which is planning to raise interest rates in March, to decide how quickly and how aggressively to increase borrowing costs. Central bankers noted in minutes from their most recent meeting that geopolitical risks “could cause increases in global energy prices or exacerbate global supply shortages,” but also that they were a risk to the outlook for growth.The magnitude of the potential economic fallout is unclear, because the scope and scale of the conflict remain anything but certain. But a foreign conflict could further delay a return to normalcy after two years in which the coronavirus pandemic has buffeted both the global and U.S. economies. Tension between Russia and Ukraine is escalating when American consumers are already contending with quickly rising prices, businesses are trying to navigate roiled supply chains and people report feeling pessimistic about their financial outlooks despite strong economic growth.“The level of economic uncertainty is going to rise, which is going to be negative for households and firms,” said Maurice Obstfeld, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He noted that the effect would be felt most acutely in Europe and to a lesser degree in the United States.A major and immediate economic implication of a showdown in Eastern Europe ties back to oil and gas. Russia produces 10 million barrels of oil a day, roughly 10 percent of global demand, and is Europe’s largest supplier of natural gas, which is used to fuel power plants and provide heat to homes and businesses.The United States imports comparatively little Russian oil, but energy commodity markets are global, meaning a change in prices in one part of the world influences how much people pay for energy elsewhere.It is unclear how much a conflict would push up prices, but energy markets have already been jittery — and fuel prices have risen sharply — on the prospect of an invasion.If oil increases to $120 per barrel by the end of February, past the $95 mark it hovered around last week, inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index could climb close to 9 percent in the next couple months, instead of a currently projected peak of a little below 8 percent, said Alan Detmeister, an economist at UBS who formerly led the prices and wages section at the Fed.“It becomes a question of: How long do oil prices, natural gas wholesale prices stay elevated?” he said. “That’s anybody’s guess.”The $120-a-barrel mark for oil is a reasonable estimate of how high prices could go, said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy. That would translate to roughly $4 per gallon at the pump on average, he said. It might be difficult to determine how much of the change in energy prices is attributable to the budding conflict. Omair Sharif at Inflation Insights noted that oil and gas prices had already been going up this year.“I don’t know when you want to start the clock on Ukraine becoming a major headline,” Mr. Sharif said. Plus, from an American inflation perspective, how much the conflict matters “all depends on how much the United States gets involved.”Oil may be the major story when it comes to the inflationary effects of a Russian conflict, but it is not the only one. Ukraine is also a significant producer of uranium, titanium, iron ore, steel and ammonia, and a major source of Europe’s arable land.Trucks loaded with wheat at the port. Russia and Ukraine together make up nearly 30 percent of global wheat exports.Brendan Hoffman for The New York TimesChristian Bogmans, an economist at the International Monetary Fund, said a conflict in Ukraine could further inflate global food prices, which were set to stabilize after skyrocketing last year.Russia and Ukraine together are responsible for nearly 30 percent of global wheat exports, while Ukraine alone accounts for more than 15 percent of global corn exports, he said. And many of Ukraine’s growing regions for wheat and corn are near the Russian border.The rising price of gas and fertilizer, as well as droughts and adverse weather in some regions, like the Dakotas, had already helped to push up the global price of wheat and other commodities. Ukraine is also a significant producer of barley and vegetable oil, which goes into many packaged foods.“In case of a conflict, production might be interrupted, and shipping may be affected as well,” Mr. Bogmans said. If other countries impose sanctions on Russian food items, that could further limit global supplies and inflate prices, he said.But because food costs make up a small portion of inflation, that may not matter as much to overall price data, Mr. Detmeister at UBS said. It is also hard to guess exactly how import prices would shape up because of the potential for currency movements.The Ukraine Crisis’s Effect on the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6A rising concern. More

Whether you call it a correction or a panic attack, a stock market that was already becoming shaky has been roiled by Russia’s hostilities toward Ukraine.The U.S. stock market has been stumbling since the beginning of the year. Now, Russia’s escalating conflict with Ukraine is adding considerably to the market’s problems.After President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia ordered troops to enter two separatist-controlled enclaves in Ukraine, the S&P 500, which often serves as a proxy for the U.S. stock market, also crossed a notable threshold.On Tuesday, the S&P 500 fell to 4,304.76, down 1.01 percent for the day. That wasn’t much of a loss, but it nonetheless represented a notable milestone. It brought the stock market down 10.3 percent from its most recent peak on Jan. 3.On Wednesday, the index dropped another 1.84 percent, bringing its losses from the record to 11.9 percent.In Wall Street jargon, that meant the S&P 500 is in a “correction,” because its losses since Jan. 3 exceeded 10 percent.That 10 percent definition is entirely arbitrary and the subject of many quibbles, but this much is clear: A correction is not a good thing.“It’s an early warning indicator that tells you the market isn’t heading in the direction you want it to be going in,” said Edward Yardeni, an independent Wall Street economist who has compiled detailed records on modern stock market history. “A 10 percent decline isn’t that bad in itself, necessarily, but if the market keeps heading down, the next thing you know, you’re down 20 percent and then by common agreement you’re in a bear market, and, maybe, worrying about a recession.”

.dw-chart-subhed {
line-height: 1;
margin-bottom: 6px;
font-family: nyt-franklin;
color: #121212;
font-size: 15px;
font-weight: 700;
}

Recent S&P 500 Corrections
Note: Bear markets are highlighted in red. The low point of the correction from the peak on Jan. 3, 2022, has yet to be determined. Source: Yardeni ResearchBy The New York TimesWhat makes the market decline disconcerting is that an escalating geopolitical conflict in Eastern Europe is now being added to the stock market’s ample woes.Stocks have been falling for weeks, for a variety of reasons. Concerns about the prospect of rising interest rates and generally tighter monetary policy from the Federal Reserve are at the top of my personal list.The Fed is, perhaps belatedly, planning at its meeting on March 15-16 to start increasing its benchmark funds rate from its current near-zero level, and then to begin reducing its $8.9 trillion balance sheet. All that is intended to mitigate the inflation that is running at an annual rate of 7.5 percent, a 40-year high.In addition, the death, illness and inconvenience caused by the coronavirus pandemic have had myriad pernicious effects. The labor force in the United States is smaller than it would be otherwise, and the economy’s service sector hasn’t fully rebounded. The pandemic has also caused supply chain bottlenecks that have held back sales and production and increased the prices of important products as varied as automobiles and kitchen appliances.Many publicly traded companies are circumventing these problems and passing the associated costs on to consumers, but their ability to keep doing so, while generating the profits that fuel the stock market, is questionable.The Russia-Ukraine crisis threatens to make matters worse for the economy and the markets. Russia produces important commodities, like palladium, which is needed in the catalytic converters of gasoline-powered automobiles, and whose prices have contributed to the high inflation in the United States.The anticipation of interruptions in commodity supplies has increased prices in futures markets, particularly for oil and natural gas, all of which could go much higher if the Ukraine crisis intensifies and if Western sanctions begin to bite.For those who remember the 1970s and early 1980s, an era of soaring inflation and multiple recessions caused in part by a geopolitical shift and two oil shocks, the possibility of a 2020s parallel is deeply disturbing.So is the fact that Russia is a nuclear power engaging in aggressive action against an independent country that is supported by NATO. The possibility that the conflict could be the start of a new Cold War, or something even worse, can’t be totally dismissed.That said, for investors, it’s worth remembering that since the stock market hit bottom in March 2020, the S&P 500 rose 114.4 percent through Jan. 3. Compared with that stupendous increase, the market’s decline since then has been inconsequential.S&P 500Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic

Source: RefinitivBy The New York TimesWhat’s more, although just about everyone who closely follows the stock market agrees that it has had a correction, there is no agreement on when it took place. Laszlo Birinyi, who began analyzing the market with Salomon Brothers back in 1976, says a correction happens whenever the market crosses the 10 percent border, whether it’s at the end of the trading day or in the middle of it.That’s why Mr. Birinyi, who heads his own independent stock market research firm, Birinyi Associates, in Westport, Conn., says a market correction occurred on Jan. 24, not on Tuesday. The market at one point on Jan. 24 dropped as far as 12 percent below its close on Jan. 3 before rebounding smartly. “The psychology of the market, the mood, shifted then,” Mr. Birinyi said. “People were panicky until then — and then they weren’t.”The Ukraine Crisis’s Effect on the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6A rising concern. More

Large companies operating in the European Union could be held responsible for environmental violations or human rights abuses committed by businesses in their supply chains under a law proposed on Wednesday by the European Commission, the bloc’s administrative arm.“We can no longer turn a blind eye on what happens down our value chains,” said Didier Reynders, the European Union’s commissioner for justice.Under the legislation, known as a due diligence law, businesses would need to establish regulations to detect, prevent and mitigate breaches of human rights, such as child labor, as well as environmental hazards in their supply chains. National governments would define the financial penalties for companies violating the rules.Victims could sue for compensation in domestic courts of E.U. member nations, even if the harm occurred outside the bloc.The commission proposed the rules after some member nations, including Germany and France, introduced different versions of due diligence law at the national level.The legislation will now be discussed by the European Parliament and the 27 national governments, with all parties able to modify the language. The final draft will require passage by the E.U. lawmakers and member nations. The whole process could take a year or more.The proposal would initially apply to companies with more than 500 employees and annual revenue over 150 million euros (about $170 million), a group that includes about 10,000 E.U. businesses, about 1 percent of the total. Around 2,000 companies based outside the bloc but doing business in the European Union, amounting to an annual revenue of more than €150 million, would also be covered. After two years, the range would be expanded to include smaller businesses in so-called high-impact sectors, such as textiles, food products and mining.Businesses expressed concern over the proposal.“It is unrealistic to expect that European companies can control their entire value chains across the world,” said Pierre Gattaz, president of BusinessEurope, a trade organization. “Ultimately these proposals will harm our companies’ ability to remain competitive worldwide.”But Richard Gardiner of Global Witness said the legislation had the potential to become “a watershed moment for human rights and the climate crisis,” if the European Union resisted efforts to water down the proposed measures.“We’ve been investigating big corporations for decades, and when we reveal the harm they’re causing to people and planet, the response is invariably the same: ‘We weren’t aware,’” Mr. Gardiner said. “Today’s proposal from the commission may make that response illegal.”But some analysts remained skeptical, pointing out that the commission’s final proposal, which was delayed several times, is much less ambitious than what was initially planned.“This outcome is the result of an unprecedented level of corporate lobbying,” said Alberto Alemanno, a professor of European Union law at the business school HEC Paris. He said the final result “was downgraded into yet another narrow piece of tick-the-boxes compliance law.”Julia Linares Sabater, a senior officer at the WWF European Policy Office, said the businesses affected “represent a drop in the ocean of the E.U.’s total economy.”“The E.U. needs to be far more ambitious to successfully tackle the climate and biodiversity crises,” she added. More

Energy security has gained prominence while the conflict in Ukraine raises concerns over the possible interruption in the supply of oil and natural gas.It was only three months ago that world leaders met at the Glasgow climate summit and made ambitious pledges to reduce fossil fuel use. The perils of a warming planet are no less calamitous now, but the debate about the critically important transition to renewable energy has taken a back seat to energy security as Russia — Europe’s largest energy supplier — threatens to start a major confrontation with the West over Ukraine while oil prices are climbing toward $100 a barrel.For more than a decade, policy discussions in Europe and beyond about cutting back on gas, oil and coal emphasized safety and the environment, at the expense of financial and economic considerations, said Lucia van Geuns, a strategic energy adviser at the Hague Center for Strategic Studies. Now, it’s the reverse.“Gas prices became very high, and all of a sudden security of supply and price became the main subject of public debate,” she said.The renewed emphasis on energy independence and national security may encourage policymakers to backslide on efforts to decrease the use of fossil fuels that pump deadly greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.Already, skyrocketing prices have spurred additional production and consumption of fuels that contribute to global warming. Coal imports to the European Union in January rose more than 56 percent from the previous year.In Britain, the Coal Authority gave a mine in Wales permission last month to increase output by 40 million tons over the next two decades. In Australia, there are plans to open or expand more coking coal mines. And China, which has traditionally made energy security a priority, has further stepped up its coal production and approved three new billion-dollar coal mines this week.“Get your rig count up,” Jennifer Granholm, the U.S. energy secretary, said in December, urging American oil producers to raise their output. Shale companies in Oklahoma, Colorado and other states are looking to resurrect drilling that had ceased because there is suddenly money to be made. And this month, Exxon Mobil announced plans to increase spending on new oil wells and other projects.A coal-fired power station in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, in January.Martin Meissner/Associated PressIan Goldin, a professor of globalization and development at the University of Oxford, warned that high energy prices could lead to more exploration of traditional fossil fuels. “Governments will want to deprioritize renewables and sustainables, which would be exactly the wrong response,” he said.Europe’s transition to sustainable energy has always been an intricate calculus, requiring it to back away from the dirtiest fossil fuel like coal, while still working with gas and oil producers to power homes, cars and factories until better alternatives are available.For Germany, dependency on Russian gas has been an integral part of its environmental blueprint for many years. Plans for the first direct pipeline between the two countries, Nord Stream 1, started in 1997. A leader in the push to reduce carbon emissions, Berlin has moved to shutter coal mines and nuclear power plants, after the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan. The idea was that Russian gas would supply the needed fuel during the yearslong transition to cleaner energy sources. Two-thirds of the gas Germany burned last year came from Russia.Future plans called for even more gas to be delivered through Nord Stream 2, a new 746-mile pipeline under the Baltic Sea that directly links Russia to northeastern Germany.On Tuesday, after President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia recognized two breakaway republics in Ukraine and mobilized forces, Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany halted final regulatory review of the $11 billion pipeline, which was completed last year.The Nord Stream 2 pipeline was set to deliver Russian gas to Lubmin, Germany.Stefan Sauer/picture alliance via Getty Images“I don’t think the threat from Russia is outweighing the threat of climate change, and I don’t see coal mines opening up across Europe,” said James Nixey, director of the Russia-Eurasia program at Chatham House, a research organization in London.Certainly, the path of energy transition has never been clear. Five climate summits have taken place over the past 30 years, and progress has always fallen short. This latest setback may just be the latest in a long series of halfway measures and setbacks.Still, without a more comprehensive strategy to wean itself off gas, Europe won’t be able to accomplish its goal of reducing emissions 55 percent by 2030 compared with 1990 levels, or to reach the Glasgow summit’s target of cutting net greenhouse gases to zero by 2050.As Mr. Nixey acknowledged, “this debate is changing” as leaders are forced to acknowledge the downsides of dependency on Russian energy.Even in Germany, where the progressive Greens have gained a more influential voice in the government, there has been a shift in tone.This month, Robert Habeck, Germany’s new minister for the economy and climate change and a member of the Greens, said events had underscored the need to diversify supplies. “We need to act here and secure ourselves better,” he said. “If we don’t, we will become a pawn in the game.”Energy prices started to climb before Mr. Putin began massing troops on Ukraine’s eastern border, as countries emerged from pandemic closures and demand shot up.But as Mr. Putin moved aggressively against Ukraine and energy prices soared further, the political and strategic vulnerabilities presented by Russia’s control of so much of Europe’s supply took center stage.“Europe is quite dependent on Russian gas and oil, and this is unsustainable,” said Sarah E. Mendelson, the head of Heinz College in Washington. She added that the United States and its European allies had not focused enough on energy independence in recent years.Overall, Europe gets more than a third of its natural gas and 25 percent of its oil from Russia. Deliveries have slowed significantly in recent months, while reserves in Europe have fallen to just 31 percent of capacity.Mateusz Garus, a blacksmith at a coal mine in Poland. “We will destroy the power sector,” he said, “and we will be dependent on others like Russia.”Maciek Nabrdalik for The New York TimesFor critics of the European Union’s climate policies, the sudden focus away from greenhouse gas emissions and on existing fuel reserves is validating.Arkadiusz Siekaniec, vice president of the Trade Union of Miners in Poland, has long argued that the European Union’s push to end coal production on the continent was folly. But now he hopes that others may come around to his point of view.The climate policy “is a suicidal mission” that could leave the entire region overly dependent on Russian fuel, Mr. Siekaniec said last week as American troops landed in his country. “It threatens the economy as well as the citizens of Europe and Poland.”For Mateusz Garus, a blacksmith at Jankowice, a coal mine in Upper Silesia, the heart of coal country, politics and not climate change are driving policy. “We will destroy the power sector,” he said, “and we will be dependent on others like Russia.” More

President Biden warned President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that more sanctions would follow if he did not withdraw his forces and engage in diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis.WASHINGTON — The United States and its allies on Tuesday swiftly imposed economic sanctions on Russia for what President Biden denounced as the beginning of an “invasion of Ukraine,” unveiling a set of coordinated punishments as Western officials confirmed that Russian forces had begun crossing the Ukrainian border.Speaking from the White House, Mr. Biden condemned President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and said the immediate consequences for his aggression against Ukraine included the loss of a key natural gas pipeline and cutting off global financing to two Russian banks and a handful of the country’s elites.“Who in the Lord’s name does Putin think gives him the right to declare new so-called countries on territory that belonged to his neighbors?” Mr. Biden said on Tuesday afternoon, joining a cascade of criticism from global leaders earlier in the day. “This is a flagrant violation of international law and demands a firm response from the international community.”Mr. Biden warned Mr. Putin that more sanctions would follow if the Russian leader did not withdraw his forces and engage in diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis.But that prospect remained dim by the end of the day, as Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken canceled plans to meet with the Russian foreign minister on Thursday, saying that it does not “make sense” to hold talks while Russian forces are on the move.“To put it simply, Russia just announced that it is carving out a big chunk of Ukraine,” Mr. Biden said, adding, “He’s setting up a rationale to take more territory by force.”President Biden called Russia’s actions a “flagrant violation of international law” and unveiled tough sanctions aimed at punishing the country.Al Drago for The New York TimesThe global response began early on Tuesday, just hours after Mr. Putin recognized the self-declared separatist states in eastern Ukraine and Russian forces started rolling into their territory, according to NATO, European Union and White House officials. It was the first major deployment of Russian troops across the internationally recognized border since the current crisis began.At a news conference in Moscow, Mr. Putin said that he had not decided to send in troops “right at this moment.” But officials said the invasion started overnight, just hours before Mr. Putin’s Parliament formally granted him the authority to deploy the military abroad. Ukrainians near the territory controlled by Kremlin-backed separatists have already endured days of shelling, and as Ukrainian troops hunkered down in their trenches and civilians took shelter in basements, the country’s military said that one soldier had been killed so far and six wounded.Financial markets around the world wobbled on Tuesday in the wake of the Russian actions and the response from Western governments. In the United States, the news pushed stocks lower, leaving the S&P 500 in correction territory, more than 10 percent below its January peak. Oil prices, which had risen to nearly $100 a barrel in anticipation of a global disruption, settled at $96.84 a barrel, up 1.5 percent.Mr. Biden and his counterparts in Germany, England and other European nations described the package of global sanctions as severe. They include financial directives by the United States to deny Russia the ability to borrow money in Western markets and to block financial transactions by two banks and the families of three wealthy Russian elites.Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany put the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline on hold. The $11 billion conduit from Russia to Germany — completed but not yet operational — is crucial to Moscow’s plans to increase energy sales to Europe. European Union foreign ministers and the British government approved sanctions against legislators in Moscow who voted to authorize the use of force, as well as Russian elites, companies and organizations.“It will hurt a lot,” said the E.U. foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell Fontelles.The governments of Japan, Taiwan and Singapore also issued a joint statement saying they would limit technology exports to Russia in an effort to pressure Mr. Putin with damaging restrictions on his ambitions to compete in high-tech industries.But the moves in Washington and other capitals around the world were limited in scope and fell short of the more sweeping economic warfare that some — including members of Congress and other supporters of Ukraine — have repeatedly demanded in recent weeks.Mr. Biden and his counterparts have said they must balance the need to take swift and severe action with preserving the possibility of even greater sanctions on Russia if Mr. Putin escalates the conflict by trying to seize more territory claimed by the separatists, or even the entire country — a war that could kill tens of thousands of people.“This is the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine,” he said, adding that “we’ll continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates.”European leaders also vowed to get tougher if Mr. Putin’s forces continued to advance. Prime Minister Boris Johnson described British sanctions as just “the first tranche.”Mr. Biden’s use of the word “invasion” was significant. In the past, he had angered the Ukrainian leadership when he suggested that there might be lesser penalties for a “minor incursion.” Now that Mr. Putin has ordered forces into eastern Ukraine, Mr. Biden, in his choice of words, is making clear that there is nothing minor about the operation.Russian self-propelled howitzers being loaded onto a train car on Tuesday near Taganrog, Russia.The New York TimesBut that still leaves open the question of how to calibrate the sanctions — because so far there have been no mass casualties. Jonathan Finer, the president’s deputy national security adviser, said early Tuesday that the administration could hold back some of its promised punishments in the hopes of deterring further, far more violent aggression by Mr. Putin aimed at taking the rest of the country.“We’ve always envisioned waves of sanctions that would unfold over time in response to steps Russia actually takes, not just statements that they make,” Mr. Finer said on CNN. “We’ve always said we’re going to watch the situation on the ground and have a swift and severe response.”Crucially, it remains unclear how far Mr. Putin — who has argued that Ukraine itself is a phony country, wrongly carved away from Russia — is prepared to go. On Tuesday, he said ominously that he recognized the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk republics’ sovereignty over not only the land they control, but also the much larger portion of Ukraine that they lay claim to, home to 2.5 million people.Maps: Russia and Ukraine Edge Closer to WarRussia has built an enormous military force along Ukraine’s border that appears prepared to attack from the north, east and south.At a hastily called news conference on Tuesday, Mr. Putin demanded that Ukraine vow never to join NATO, give up the advanced weapons the West has delivered to it, recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea and negotiate directly with the Luhansk and Donetsk separatists, who are seen in Kyiv and Western capitals as illegitimate Kremlin proxies.“The most important point is a known degree of demilitarization of Ukraine today,” Mr. Putin said. “This is the only objectively controllable factor that can be observed and reacted to.”Understand How the Ukraine Crisis DevelopedCard 1 of 7How it all began. More