Nord Stream AG

Latest story

100 Shares149 Views

EU Leaders Say Putin’s Gas Power Is Weakening

by

In Germany and elsewhere, leaders are growing more confident that months of work to stockpile and line up alternate energy sources may help them blunt Russia’s weaponization of exports.BERLIN — Not long after Russian forces invaded Ukraine, another mobilization began. European energy ministers and diplomats started jetting across the world and inking energy deals — racing to prepare for a rough winter should Russia choose to cut off its cheap gas in retaliation for Western sanctions.Since then, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has fiddled with the gas tap to Europe repeatedly. Through Gazprom, the Kremlin-controlled gas monopoly, Russia has vastly reduced supplies or suspended them for days at a time — until last week, when it announced that it would indefinitely halt flows through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline that supplies Germany, and through it, much of Europe.Yet when the blow finally came, it provoked more ridicule than outrage among European leaders, who say that by now they would expect nothing less from Mr. Putin and that they have accepted that the era of cheap Russian gas is over, unimaginable as that might have seemed just months ago.In some corners, even as Europe’s leaders scramble to blunt the blow from lower gas supplies and higher prices, there is a growing sense that perhaps Russia’s weaponizing of gas exports is a strategy of diminishing returns — and that Mr. Putin may have overplayed his hand.“It would have been surprising the other way around,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister, said this week of Russia’s announcement that Nord Stream 1 would remain shut. “The only thing from Russia that is reliable is the lies.”Even the markets seemed to take the latest disruption in stride. After rising 5 percent on the heels of Gazprom’s announcement, prices are now lower than they were at the start of last week.That does not mean that European nations are not feeling the pain, or have skirted the risk that the energy crunch could sow social unrest, fracturing their unity against the Kremlin this winter. But a lot of the damage has already been done, with gas prices several times above anything that would be considered normal and pressure mounting on consumers and businesses.The question remains, then, of just how successful the hard pivot from Russian energy actually is — whether Europe has lined up enough new sources, whether its stockpiles can get it through the winter, whether conservation efforts can make a difference and whether governments can help shield consumers from rising prices.“The only thing from Russia that is reliable is the lies,” said Robert Habeck, right, Germany’s economy minister, with Chancellor Olaf Schulz, center, and Christian Lindner, the finance minister.Tobias Schwarz/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesRussian officials are watching and waiting for what they believe is the inevitable collapse of European resolve as the economic pain bites.“I think that the coming winter will show how real their belief is in the possibility of refusing Russian gas,” the Russian energy minister, Nikolai Shulginov, said in an interview with the Russian state-run news agency Tass. “This will be a completely new life for the Europeans. I think that, most likely, they will not be able to refuse.”Russian state news outlets are full of reports of protests in Europe. Italians, Russian state media reported, are being told to boil their pasta for just two minutes before turning off the heat, while Germans are forgoing showers.The message: Sooner or later, the Europeans’ unity against Russia will crumble under the weight of high gas prices, while Russia’s standing has been elevated.“We have not lost anything and will not lose anything,” Mr. Putin said on Wednesday.But increasingly, Europe’s leaders are signaling that, having spent months preparing for this moment, they are ready for the showdown.“Now our work is paying off!” the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, said on Wednesday in Brussels. “At the beginning of the war, Russia’s pipeline gas was 40 percent of all imported gas. Today it is now down to only 9 percent of our gas imports.”That is because European leaders — especially those from Italy and Germany, which rely most on Russian energy — have crisscrossed the globe. From Algeria to Qatar, Senegal, Congo and Canada, they have been negotiating deals to replace Russian supplies.Gazprom’s Orenburg gas processing plant in Russia. Steep energy prices netted the company $41.75 billion profit in the first half of the year — $10 billion of which went to the Kremlin.Alexander Manzyuk/ReutersGermany has also leaned heavily on Norway and the Netherlands, which agreed to extend the life of its biggest gas field to combat the energy crisis.As a result, Germany’s dependency on cheap Russian gas — once more than half its overall gas imports — decreased to less than 10 percent in August.In Italy, consumption from Moscow has dropped to 23 percent from 40 percent.Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany and other European leaders are defiantly claiming the end of an era.For decades, dating to the days of the Soviet Union, Moscow had insisted to Germany and others that it was a reliable energy partner, no matter the political context. But now, European leaders say, Mr. Putin has shattered that understanding.“Something that held true throughout the Cold War no longer applies,” Mr. Scholz said last weekend. “Russia is no longer a reliable energy supplier. That is part of the new reality.”That new reality, perhaps, should not have come as such a shock. Mr. Putin’s gas brinkmanship dates to 2004, when Gazprom cut deliveries to Belarus, in a battle for control of a transit pipeline into Western Europe.In 2009, as Ukraine sought NATO membership under a pro-Western president, Mr. Putin ordered a sharp reduction in gas flows through the country; after Ukraine elected a pro-Russian president a year later, the Kremlin rewarded him with a 30 percent cut in natural gas prices.And even before Russia invaded Ukraine, it reduced exports in the summer of 2021, and did not refill Gazprom-owned storage sites in Europe.A compressor station near the German-Polish border for Russian gas through the Yamal-Europe pipeline.Filip Singer/EPA, via ShutterstockSergey Vakulenko, an analyst in Bonn, Germany, who worked for years in Russia’s energy industry, said that over the last two decades Russian officials had seen the geopolitical power that the United States derived from its influence over the global financial system, and sought to harness Russia’s status as a major energy exporter in a similar way.“There was a great desire, as a superpower, to have something similar,” he said. “There was the feeling that oil and gas was the answer.”Yet Russia’s cuts in gas exports to Europe since its invasion of Ukraine are of a different order of magnitude. “This is now just blackmail,” said Mikhail Krutikhin, a Russian energy analyst. “We haven’t seen it on this scale before.”In going so far, Mr. Putin has also invited greater risks. An internal Russian government economic forecast described this week by Bloomberg News estimated that a full cutoff of gas to Europe would cost as much as $6.6 billion in lost tax revenues.But with Gazprom netting a record profit of $41.75 billion in the first half of the year — $10 billion of which it passed on to the Kremlin — that is a cost Mr. Putin has calculated to be acceptable.For Russia, oil is the biggest revenue source, and Mr. Putin may be keen to use gas as a political weapon while he can, said Thomas O’Donnell, an energy expert at the Hertie School, a public policy school in Berlin.“This is where he’s got his biggest leverage to cause the most trouble in the European Union,” Mr. O’Donnell said. He added, “It’s a lever that he knows he’s going to lose in a year — or even maybe after this winter.”And a lot may depend on the severity of the winter. Even if liquid natural gas imports to Europe from other sources continue at their record high rate, a study released this week by the research institute Bruegel estimated that a complete stop to Russian supplies would require all of Europe to cut its consumption by 15 percent.European nations that used to rely on Russian gas imports for big chunks of their domestic energy production have been racing to fill gas storage facilities. Germany’s are now at 86 percent capacity, Italy’s at almost 84 percent.In Germany, large industry players have so far managed to drop their consumption by around 20 percent. A similar amount would have to be shaved off household usage, according to German energy and economy ministry models, should Russian gas remain shut off. If households don’t cut back, Germany’s gas regulator has repeatedly warned, the option could be rationing.Lights switched off in apartments in Frankfurt. German energy officials have repeatedly warned that households must conserve energy or face rationing.Michael Probst/Associated PressEurope is aiming to have enough liquid natural gas solutions in place by next year. Germany recently signed a deal for a fifth floating L.N.G. terminal, while terminals in Belgium, France and the Netherlands are fully booked.The key to surviving this winter in the face of a Nord Stream shutdown will be how well European states work together.So far, only Hungary has signed a deal for additional supplies with Gazprom.France and Germany, in contrast, agreed this week that Paris would send any excess gas to Germany, where it is badly needed, and in return Berlin promised to send its extra electricity.The tricky issue will be what happens should more critical German industry have to cut back, and voters begin to insist supplies not be diverted to neighbors — like the Czech Republic, where 70,000 people already came out in protest of soaring prices. It is a challenge many European leaders may face this winter, warned Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s foreign minister.“That will be the central question that will really put us to the test in the coming months,” Ms. Baerbock said, at a meeting of German ambassadors in Berlin this week. “Will we be able to secure our energy supply for all people in Europe together in solidarity, or not?”Gaia Pianigiani More

More stories

  • 150 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Germany Hopes to Outrace a Russian Gas Cutoff and Bone Cold Winter

    by

    Russian natural gas has fired the furnaces that create molten stainless steel at Clemens Schmees’s family foundry since 1961, when his father set up shop in a garage in the western part of Germany.It never crossed Clemens’s mind that this energy flow could one day become unaffordable or cease altogether. Now Mr. Schmees, like thousands of other chieftains at companies across Germany, is scrambling to prepare for the possibility that his operations could face stringent rationing this winter if Russia turns off the gas.“We’ve had many crises,” he said, sitting in the company’s branch office in the eastern city of Pirna, overlooking the Elbe River valley. “But we have never before had such instability and uncertainty, all at once.”Such sentiments are reverberating this week in executive suites, at kitchen tables and in government offices as Nord Stream 1, the direct gas pipeline between Russia and Europe, was shut down for 10 days of scheduled maintenance.Germany, the pipeline’s terminus and a gas transit hub for the rest of Europe, is the largest and most important economy on the continent. And anxiety that President Vladimir V. Putin may not switch the gas back on — as a display of brinkmanship with countries that oppose Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — is particularly sharp.“We have never before had such instability and uncertainty, all at once,” said Clemens Schmees, whose family has owned a foundry since 1961.Lena Mucha for The New York TimesIn Berlin, officials have declared a “gas crisis” and triggered an emergency energy plan. Already landlords, schools and municipalities have begun to lower thermostats, ration hot water, close swimming pools, turn off air-conditioners, dim streetlights and exhort the benefits of cold showers. Analysts predict that a recession in Germany is “imminent.” Government officials are racing to bail out the largest importer of Russian gas, a company called Uniper. And political leaders warn that Germany’s “social peace” could unravel.The crisis has not only set off a frantic clamber to manage a potentially painful crunch this winter. It has also prompted a reassessment of the economic model that turned Germany into a global powerhouse and produced enormous wealth for decades.Nearly every country on the continent is facing potentially profound energy shortages, soaring prices and slower growth. On Thursday, the European Commission cut its growth forecast for this year to 2.7 percent. In another sign of recession anxiety, the value of the euro dipped below the dollar this week.Still, “Germany is worse off than the eurozone as a whole,” said Jacob Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Brussels.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 7A far-reaching conflict. More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Will War Make Europe’s Switch to Clean Energy Even Harder?

    by

    At the Siemens Gamesa factory in Aalborg, Denmark, where the next generation of offshore wind turbines is being built, workers are on their hands and knees inside a shallow, canoe-shaped pod that stretches the length of a football field. It is a mold used to produce one half of a single propeller blade. Guided by laser markings, the crew is lining the sides with panels of balsa wood.The gargantuan blades offer a glimpse of the energy future that Europe is racing toward with sudden urgency. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia — the European Union’s largest supplier of natural gas and oil — has spurred governments to accelerate plans to reduce their dependence on climate-changing fossil fuels. Armed conflict has prompted policymaking pledges that the more distant threat of an uninhabitable planet has not.Smoothly managing Europe’s energy switch was always going to be difficult. Now, as economies stagger back from the second year of the pandemic, Russia’s attack on Ukraine grinds on and energy prices soar, the painful trade-offs have crystallized like never before.Moving investments away from oil, gas and coal to sustainable sources like wind and solar, limiting and taxing carbon emissions, and building a new energy infrastructure to transmit electricity are crucial to weaning Europe off fossil fuels. But they are all likely to raise costs during the transition, an extremely difficult pill for the public and politicians to swallow.The crisis that has inspired Europe to more quickly reach toward clean energy sources like wind and solar also risks pitching it backward by unwinding efforts to shut coal mines and stop drilling new oil and gas wells to replace Russian fuel and bring prices down.Workers at Siemens Gamesa preparing a mold used to produce one half of a single propeller blade.Carsten Snejbjerg for The New York TimesIn Germany, Europe’s largest economy, leaders are planning to have several coal-fired power plants that were recently taken off the grid placed in reserve, so that they could be quickly fired up if needed. After years of dithering about investing so much in the natural gas infrastructure, Germany is also accelerating plans to build its own terminals for receiving liquefied natural gas, another fossil fuel.“Security of our energy supply stands above everything else at the moment,” said Robert Habeck, the country’s economy minister and a Green party leader in the coalition government.Local officials are taking similar steps. Last week, the Munich government decided to extend the life of one of the city’s coal-fired power plants, scrapping plans to convert it to burn natural gas in spring 2023.And that’s in a country that has helped spearhead Europe’s efforts to shift to renewable energy.In Poland, which gets 70 percent of its energy from coal and has been at loggerheads with the European Union over the climate agenda, the sudden energy shortage is being used by critics as evidence that the push to shut mines was a mistake.A power plant in Poland run by CEZ Group, a Czech conglomerate of companies in the energy sector.Maciek Nabrdalik for The New York TimesDominik Kolorz, head of the Silesian region of Solidarity Trade Union, said through a translator that “the so-called E.U. climate policy” was leading to a “huge economic crisis” and “total energy dependence on the Russian Federation.”In many ways, Europe has been a leading laboratory for the decades-long transition. It started establishing taxes on carbon emissions more than 20 years ago. The European Union pioneered an emissions trading system, which capped the amount of greenhouse gases companies produced and created a marketplace where licenses for those emissions could be bought and sold. Polluting industries like steel were gradually pushed to clean up. Last year, members proposed a carbon tax on imports from carbon-producing sectors like steel and cement.And it has led the way in generating wind power, especially from ocean-based turbines. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, for example, has been instrumental in planting rows of colossal whirligigs at sea that can generate enough green energy to light up cities.Europe, too, is on the verge of investing billions in hydrogen, potentially the multipurpose clean fuel of the future, which might be generated by wind turbines.At Siemens Gamesa in Brande, a prototype for an even larger wind turbine.Carsten Snejbjerg for The New York TimesWind turbines can potentially generate enough green energy to light up cities.Carsten Snejbjerg for The New York TimesSuch exhilarating innovation, though, sits next to despair-inducing obstacles.Even before the invasion of Ukraine, a tight natural gas market, exacerbated by Russia’s restraining of supplies, had pushed gas and electricity prices to record levels, leading to shutdowns of fertilizer plants and other factories because of high costs. Household energy bills are set to rise by about 50 percent in Britain and drivers across Europe faced shock at the pump.European countries, most notably Germany, had mapped out strategies that relied on increasing dependence on Russian gas and oil in the medium term. That is no longer an option.After the invasion, Olaf Scholz, the chancellor of Germany, halted approval of Nord Stream 2, an $11 billion gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea that directly links Russia to northeastern Germany.As Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, said when she announced a plan on March 8 to make Europe independent of Russian fossil fuels: “We simply cannot rely on a supplier who explicitly threatens us.” The proposal calls for member nations to reduce Russian natural gas imports by two-thirds by next winter and to end them altogether by 2027 — a very tall order.This week, European Union leaders are again meeting to discuss the next phase of proposals, but deep divisions remain over how to manage the current price increases amid anxieties that Europe could face a double whammy of inflation and recession.On Monday, United Nations Secretary General António Guterres warned that intense focus on quickly replacing Russian oil could mean that major economies “neglect or kneecap policies to cut fossil fuel use.”A hydrogen test station near the Siemens Gamesa design center. Hydrogen produced with wind power could be a multipurpose clean fuel of the future.Carsten Snejbjerg for The New York TimesThere are other technological, financial, regulatory and political hurdles. The ability to cheaply generate, transport and store a clean replacement fuel like hydrogen to power trucks, cars and airplanes remains years away.And there is the need to find a better business model.Siemens Gamesa is the world’s leading maker of offshore wind turbines, a key vehicle for achieving climate targets. The company is also working on a giant turbine that would be dedicated solely to producing green hydrogen.Yet, at the company’s offshore design center in Brande, a two-hour drive from Aalborg, the conversations focus on worries as much as bright prospects. The company just replaced its chief executive because of poor financial performance.Industry executives say that despite the huge climate ambitions of many countries, Siemens Gamesa and its competitors are struggling to make a profit and keep the orders coming in fast enough to finance their factories. It doesn’t help that building plants is often a condition for breaking into new markets like the United States, where Siemens Gamesa agreed to erect a facility in Virginia.Morten Pilgaard Rasmussen of Siemens Gamesa says companies like his struggle to get projects approved swiftly.Carsten Snejbjerg for The New York TimesMorten Pilgaard Rasmussen, chief technology officer of the offshore wind unit at Siemens Gamesa, said that companies like his “are now forced to do investments based on the prosperous future that we are all waiting for.”The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Economic Ties Among Nations Spur Peace. Or Do They?

    by

    The Russian invasion of Ukraine strains the long-held idea that shared interests around business and commerce can deflect military conflict.Russia’s war in Ukraine is not only reshaping the strategic and political order in Europe, it is also upending long-held assumptions about the intricate connections that are a signature of the global economy.Millions of times a day, far-flung exchanges of money and goods crisscross land borders and oceans, creating enormous wealth, however unequally distributed. But those connections have also exposed economies to financial upheaval and crippling shortages when the flows are interrupted.The snarled supply lines and shortfalls caused by the pandemic created a wide awareness of these vulnerabilities. Now, the invasion has delivered a bracing new spur to governments in Europe and elsewhere to reassess how to balance the desire for efficiency and growth with the need for self-sufficiency and national security.And it is calling into question a tenet of liberal capitalism — that shared economic interests help prevent military conflicts.It is an idea that stretches back over the centuries and has been endorsed by romantic idealists and steely realists. The philosophers John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant wrote about it in treatises. The British politicians Richard Cobden and John Bright invoked it in the 19th century to repeal the protectionist Corn Laws, the tariffs and restrictions imposed on imported grains that shielded landowners from competition and stifled free trade.Later, Norman Angell was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for writing that world leaders were under “A Great Illusion” that armed conflict and conquest would bring greater wealth. During the Cold War, it was an element of the rationale for détente with the Soviet Union — to, as Henry Kissinger said, “create links that will provide incentive for moderation.”German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Moscow last month. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, policies by Germany and other European countries have been partly shaped by the idea that economic ties with Russia could deflect conflict.Pool photo by Maxim ShemetovSince the disintegration of the Soviet Union three decades ago, the idea that economic ties can help prevent conflict has partly guided the policies toward Russia by Germany, Italy and several other European nations.Today, Russia is the world’s largest exporter of oil and wheat. The European Union was its biggest trading partner, receiving 40 percent of its natural gas, 25 percent of its oil and a hefty portion of its coal from Russia. Russia also supplies other countries with raw materials like palladium, titanium, neon and aluminum that are used in everything from semiconductors to car manufacturing.Just last summer, Russian, British, French and German gas companies completed a decade-long, $11 billion project to build a direct pipeline, Nord Stream 2, that was awaiting approval from a German regulator. But Germany halted certification of the pipeline after Russia recognized two separatist regions in Ukraine.From the start, part of Germany’s argument for the pipeline — the second to connect Russia and Germany — was that it would more closely align Russia’s interests with Europe’s. Germany also built its climate policy around Russian oil and gas, assuming it would provide energy as Germany developed more renewable sources and closed its nuclear power plants.Benefits ran both ways. Globalization rescued Russia from a financial meltdown and staggering inflation in 1998 — and ultimately smoothed the way for the rise to power of Vladimir V. Putin, Russia’s president. Money earned from energy exports accounted for a quarter of Russia’s gross domestic product last year.The Nord Stream 2 plant in Germany. The pipeline had been seen as a way to align Russia’s interests with those of Germany. Now it has been shelved.Michael Sohn/Associated PressCritics of Nord Stream 2, particularly in the United States and Eastern Europe, warned that increasing reliance on Russian energy would give it too much leverage, a point that President Ronald Reagan made 40 years earlier to block a previous pipeline. Europeans were still under an illusion, the argument went, only this time it was that economic ties would prevent baldfaced aggression.Still, more recently, those economic ties contributed to skepticism that Russia would launch an all-out attack on Ukraine in defiance of its major trading partners.In the weeks leading up to the invasion, many European leaders demurred from joining what they viewed as the United States’ overhyped warnings. One by one, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi talked or met with Mr. Putin, hopeful that a diplomatic settlement would prevail.There are good reasons for the European Union to believe that economic ties would bind potential combatants more closely together, said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. The proof was the European Union itself. The organization’s roots go back to the creation after World War II of the European Coal and Steel Community, a pact among six nations meant to avert conflict by pooling control of these two essential commodities.“The idea was that if you knit together the French and German economies, they wouldn’t be able to go to war,” Mr. Haass said. The aim was to prevent World War III.Scholars have attempted to prove that the theory worked in the real world — studying tens of thousands of trade relations and military conflicts over several decades — and have come to different conclusions.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 163 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Why the Toughest Sanctions on Russia Are the Hardest for Europe to Wield

    by

    Moscow relies on the money it makes by selling oil and gas, but that energy fuels Europe’s economy and heats its homes.The punishing sanctions that the United States and European Union have so far announced against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine include shutting the government and banks out of global financial markets, restricting technology exports and freezing assets of influential Russians. Noticeably missing from that list is a reprisal that might cause Russia the most pain: choking off the export of Russian fuel.The omission is not surprising. In recent years, the European Union has received nearly 40 percent of its gas and more than a quarter of its oil from Russia. That energy heats Europe’s homes, powers its factories and fuels its vehicles, while pumping enormous sums of money into the Russian economy.How each country’s dependence on Russian gas has changedShare of total natural gas imports from Russia More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    New U.S. Sanctions Target Russian Company Behind Nord Stream 2

    by

    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

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Russian Conflict in Ukraine is Reshaping the Climate Debate

    by

    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

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Will Biden’s Sanctions Halt a Russian Invasion of Ukraine?

    by

    President Vladimir V. Putin has learned from earlier U.S.-led sanctions, and his allies could benefit from a more isolated Russia.WASHINGTON — When the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia for invading Ukraine in 2014, American officials were hopeful they would deter President Vladimir V. Putin from further aggression.Some of the officials argue today that the sanctions prevented Mr. Putin from ordering Russian forces beyond where they had halted on the Crimean Peninsula and in the eastern Donbas region. But Mr. Putin held on to Crimea. And on Monday, he ordered more troops into an insurgent-controlled area of eastern Ukraine where thousands of Russian soldiers have been operating and said the Kremlin was recognizing two enclaves as independent states.Now, President Biden, who as vice president helped oversee Ukraine policy in 2014, has to weigh what sanctions might compel Mr. Putin to halt his new offensive, which the White House has judged to be an “invasion.” The White House is taking a step-by-step approach, trying to calibrate each tranche of measures to Mr. Putin’s actions.“I’m going to begin to impose sanctions in response, far beyond the steps we and our allies and partners implemented in 2014,” Mr. Biden said on Tuesday in announcing a new set of sanctions. “And if Russia goes further with this invasion, we stand prepared to go further.”While American officials have studied the effects of sanctions imposed since 2014 and sharpened techniques, Mr. Putin has had years to make his country’s $1.5 trillion economy more insular so that parts of Russia would be shielded from tough penalties. Speaking to reporters on Friday, he boasted that his country had grown more self-sufficient in the face of “illegitimate” Western sanctions, according to Russia’s Tass news service. He added that in the future, it would be “important for us to raise the level of our economic sovereignty.”And perhaps most notably, Mr. Putin and his closest aides and partners in Moscow might not suffer much themselves from sanctions, analysts say.Mr. Putin’s decision on Monday to press ahead with the troop movement suggests that he has concluded that the costs of new sanctions are tolerable, despite U.S. talk of “massive consequences” for his country. Several of his top aides made that point in choreographed speeches to him in a meeting of his Security Council on Monday in Moscow.If Russian officials are firm in that mind-set, the Biden administration might find it has to impose the absolute harshest sanctions — ones that would inflict suffering on many ordinary citizens — or look for a noneconomic option, such as giving greater military aid to an insurgency in Ukraine. Mr. Biden has said he will not send American troops to defend Ukraine.Some of the hard-line nationalist men around Mr. Putin were already on a Treasury Department sanctions list and accept that they and their families will no longer have substantial ties to the United States or Europe for the rest of their lives, said Alexander Gabuev, the chair of the Russia in the Asia-Pacific Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center.“They are the powerful everybodies in today’s Russia,” he said. “There is a lot of posh richness. They’re totally secluded. They’re the kings, and that can be secured in Russia only.”Furthermore, because of their roles in state-owned enterprises and their business ties, they are “the very guys who are directly benefiting from the economy becoming more insulated, more detached from the outside world,” he added.They have also adopted a siege mentality rooted in an ideological belief about the United States and its sanctions policies that Mr. Putin regularly pushes. “He says, ‘It’s not because of actions I take, but it’s because we’re rising as a power, and the Americans want to punish us for standing up to hegemonism,’” Mr. Gabuev said. “I think that’s genuine. The bulk of my contacts in the government believe that.”The sanctions announced by the United States on Tuesday include penalties against three sons of senior officials close to Mr. Putin and two state-owned banks, as well as further restrictions on Russia’s ability to raise revenue by issuing sovereign debt. The costs are not expected to be felt widely in Russia — the two banks are policy institutions and do not have retail operations — but American officials could eventually announce more painful steps.That announcement followed an executive order issued by Mr. Biden on Monday night that prohibits business dealings between Americans and entities in the Russia-backed eastern enclaves in Ukraine. The Biden administration would also have the authority to impose sanctions on anyone operating in those areas, a U.S. official said.Britain announced Tuesday that it was freezing the assets of five Russian banks and imposing sanctions on three Russian billionaires and certain members of Parliament. And Germany said it was halting certification of the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline that would connect to Russia.A severe economic disruption could test Mr. Putin’s control of his country. But many analysts are skeptical that the United States and its European allies will follow through with the toughest options that they have considered.Sputnik, via Associated PressOfficials from the White House, State Department and Treasury Department have spent weeks coordinating a response with European leaders and major financial institutions and say they are able to act almost immediately as Russia escalates its actions.Some experts say that if the Biden administration follows through on the most severe options that officials have suggested are possible — most notably severing the country’s top banks, including Sberbank and VTB, from transactions with non-Russian entities — Russia could suffer a financial panic that triggers a stock market crash and rapid inflation. The effects would most likely strike not only billionaire oligarchs but also middle-class and lower-income families. Russian enterprises would also be unable to receive payment for energy exports.Besides isolating Russian state-owned banks, the escalatory sanctions that U.S. officials have prepared would also cut off the ability to purchase critical technologies from American companies.If the United States imposes the harshest penalties, “there will be unexpected and unpredictable consequences for global markets,” said Maria Snegovaya, a visiting scholar at George Washington University who co-wrote an Atlantic Council paper on U.S. sanctions on Russia.Edward Fishman, a top State Department sanctions official in the Obama administration, called Mr. Biden’s action on Tuesday a modest first step intended as “a shot across the bow.”Mr. Fishman said the administration’s move against one of the two targeted banks — VEB, the country’s main development bank — was the first time the United States had fully cut off a state-owned Russian financial institution. “I interpret that as a warning that the Biden administration is prepared to cut off other major Russian banks from the U.S. financial system,” Mr. Fishman said.“Biden is giving Putin an opportunity to step away from the brink,” he added. “But he’s also signaling that, if Putin unleashes a full-scale war, the economic costs will be immense.”Sberbank is a possible target of U.S. sanctions. Some experts say that if the Biden administration imposes particularly harsh measures, Russia could suffer a financial panic.Evgenia Novozhenina/ReutersA severe economic disruption could test Mr. Putin’s control of his country. But many analysts are skeptical that the United States and its European allies will follow through with the toughest options that they have considered, as they may be discouraged by fears over collateral damage to their own economies.And no Western officials have even proposed choking the lifeblood of Russia’s economy by cutting off its lucrative energy exports. Experts say that a move against Russian energy revenues would have the biggest impact, but that it would also lead to a precarious political situation for Mr. Biden and other world leaders as oil and gas prices rise in a period of high global inflation.The Russian government has spent years trying to reconfigure its budget and finances so that it can withstand further sanctions, efforts that have been aided by high market prices for oil and gas. It has relatively low debt and relies less on loans from foreign entities than it did before 2014. Most importantly, the central bank has accumulated foreign currency reserves of $631 billion, the fourth-largest such reserve in the world.Some important Russian state-owned enterprises and private companies have actually benefited from U.S. sanctions. Kremlin policies aimed at replacing Western imports with Russian and non-Western products wind up raising the profits of those businesses. And some of Mr. Putin’s allies and their families have done well under the initiatives. One example is Dmitry Patrushev, the minister of agriculture, whose family has become wealthier from new agriculture industry policies, Mr. Gabuev said.President Xi Jinping of China, who has been strengthening his nation’s ties with Russia, could help Mr. Putin get around some of the sanctions or bolster Russia’s economy with greater energy purchases. When the two leaders met in Beijing at the start of the Winter Olympics, their governments announced a 30-year contract in which China would purchase gas through a new pipeline running across Siberia. Chinese companies might also be able to fill some of the supply chain gaps created by a stoppage in certain U.S. technology exports to Russia, though those companies are unable to replicate more advanced American products.Chinese leaders would probably be careful about having its large state-owned banks continue to do business overtly with any Russian banks that are under U.S. sanctions, but China has ways to keep some transactions hidden.“They’ve developed a lot of e-payment and digital workarounds,” said Daniel Russel, a former assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs and an executive at the Asia Society. “There are all kinds of fairly sophisticated barter systems they’ve been employing. Thirdly, they can hide behind a lot of black market stuff.” More

  • 163 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Threat to Squeeze Russia’s Economy Is a Tactic With a Mixed Record

    by

    Sanctions, like aiming to cut oil exports, could also hurt European allies. “It’s a limited toolbox,” one expert said.LONDON — When Russian soldiers crossed into Ukraine and seized Crimea in 2014, the Obama administration responded with a slate of economic penalties that ultimately imposed sanctions on hundreds of Russian officials and businesses and restricted investments and trade in the nation’s crucial finance, oil and military sectors.Now, with Russian troops massing on Ukraine’s border, the White House national security adviser has declared that President Biden looked Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, in the eye this week “and told him things we didn’t do in 2014 we are prepared to do now.”Whether harsher measures would persuade Russia to stay out of Ukraine, however, is far from clear. Historically, economic sanctions have a decidedly mixed track record, with more failures than successes. And actions that would take the biggest bite out of the Russian economy — like trying to severely curb oil exports — would also be hard on America’s allies in Europe.“We’ve seen that over and over again, that sanctions have a hard time really coercing changes in major policies” said Jeffrey Schott, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics who has spent decades researching the topic. “It’s a limited toolbox.”President Biden is looking at the options available to ratchet up economic penalties against Russia.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesThe best chances of success are when one country has significant economic leverage over the other and the policy goal is limited, Mr. Schott said — yet neither of those conditions really applies in this case. Mr. Putin has made clear that he considers Russia’s actions in Ukraine a matter of national security. And outside of the oil industry, Russia’s international trade and investments are limited, especially in the United States.With direct military intervention essentially off the table, Biden administration officials have listed a series of options that include financially punishing Mr. Putin’s closest friends and supporters, blocking the conversion of rubles into dollars, and pressuring Germany to block a new gas pipeline between Russia and Northern Europe from opening.Work on that pipeline — called Nord Stream 2 — has been completed, but it is waiting for approval from Germany’s energy regulator before it can begin operating.Any request from Washington would coincide with a leadership change in Berlin. The new chancellor, Olaf Scholz, and his cabinet were sworn into office on Wednesday. He has not yet made any definitive statements on the pipeline. Gas reserves are unusually low in Europe now, however, and there are worries about shortages and soaring prices as winter approaches.Russia supplies more than a third of Europe’s gas through the existing Nord Stream pipeline and has already been accused of withholding supplies as a way of pressuring Germany to approve Nord Stream 2.Washington could impose much more sweeping sanctions on particular companies and banks in Russia that would more severely curtail investment and production in the energy sector. The risk of tough sanctions on a company like Gazprom, which supplies natural gas, is that Russia could retaliate by cutting its deliveries to Europe.“That would hurt Russia a lot but also hurt Europe,” Mr. Schott said.In terms of ratcheting up the pressure, James Nixey, the director of the Russia-Eurasia program at the Chatham House think tank, suggested that financially squeezing the oligarchs who help Mr. Putin maintain power could be one way of bringing more targeted pressure.“I would place a great premium on going after the inner and outer circle around Putin, which have connections back to the regime,” he said.At the moment, the swirl of ambiguity about possible United States actions is useful, he added: “It’s quite good if the Russians are kept guessing.”Russia, the United States and the European Union — which on Wednesday proposed expanding its power to use economic sanctions — are all playing something of a guessing game in order to pursue their policy goals. Russia is deploying troops on the border and at the same time is insisting on a guarantee that Ukraine won’t join NATO, while the West is warning there will be painful economic consequences if an invasion occurs.Ukrainian soldiers patrolling along the Kalmius River, which divides Ukrainian government-controlled territory from non-government-controlled areas, in November.Brendan Hoffman for The New York TimesOne of the most extreme measures would be to cut off Russia from the system of international payments known as SWIFT that moves money around the world, as was done to Iran.In 2019, the Russian prime minister at the time, Dmitri A. Medvedev, labeled such a threat as tantamount to “a declaration of war.”Maria Shagina argued in a report for the Carnegie Moscow Center that such a move would be devastating to Russia, at least in the short term. “The cutoff would terminate all international transactions, trigger currency volatility, and cause massive capital outflows,” she wrote this year.The SWIFT system, which is based in Belgium, handles international payments among thousands of banks in more than 200 countries.Since 2014, Moscow has taken steps to blunt the threat by developing its own system to process domestic credit card transactions, she noted. But it is another measure that would affect European countries more than the United States because they do so much more business with Russia.Several economic and political analysts have said restricting access to SWIFT would be a last resort.Arie W. Kruglanski, a psychology professor at the University of Maryland, said that in assessing the impact of sanctions, economists too often overlook the crucial psychological aspect.“Sanctions can work when leaders are concerned about economic issues more than anything else,” he said, but he doesn’t think the Russian leader falls into that category. To Mr. Kruglanski, strongman authoritarians like Mr. Putin are motivated by a sense of their own significance, and threats are more likely to stiffen opposition rather than encourage compromise.When it comes to Ukraine-related sanctions so far, the impact has been negligible, Mr. Nixey of Chatham House said.“A lot of these things the Russians have learned to live with, partly because implementation has been slow or poor and effects on the Russian economy are manageable,” he added.Success can be defined in various ways. Mr. Nixey said that the 2014 measures most likely deterred the Kremlin from further military interventions in Ukraine. A report for the Atlantic Council, a think tank that focuses on international relations, released this spring came to the same that conclusion.Sanctions certainly did not compel Russia to reverse its annexation of Crimea, Mr. Nixey said, but they may have persuaded Mr. Putin from taking more aggressive actions — at least until now. More