EU Ban on RT, Sputnik Breaches Swedish, Danish Constitutions – Danish Journalists
Samizdat – 07.10.2022
The EU ban on Russian news outlets is in breach of Swedish and Danish constitutions, which explicitly prohibit all forms of censorship, Danish journalists and media educators said Friday.
The EU Council of Ministers banned the dissemination of RT and Sputnik content in March and added three other Russian outlets to the blacklist in June. The European Court of Justice defended the controversial measure, saying the rights of journalists were protected as long as they acted “in good faith.”
This is despite that legal safeguards in the Swedish Constitution’s freedom of the press act protect “the right of everyone to publish without prior interference by a public authority,” whereas the Danish constitution states that “Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.”
Media experts argued in an article in the EUobserver that the EU intervention effectively overrode the basic laws of Sweden and Denmark, raising doubts about the EU leadership’s commitment to democratic values and the rule of law.
The journalists said the EU executive set aside constitutional defenses of freedom of expression with the silent approval of media and the public. The only exception was Norway, which is not a member state but is closely associated with the union.
They said the EU’s court in Luxembourg had granted itself the right to decide what journalism was acceptable while denying European citizens the ability to deal themselves with “unfiltered statements from questionable sources.”
“There is no confidence in our ability to deal with contradictory views of events. The EU institutions decide what we can cope with. Freedom of expression is not absolute, and never was,” they said.
Food, energy, housing: True German inflation is 56 percent
Free West Media | October 7, 2022
Prices are skyrocketing and we are all getting poorer – everyone feels the price shock, but in statistics it shows up much smaller. Official inflation figures are around 10 percent. But many citizens notice in their everyday life: Prices are rising – in the supermarket, at the gas station – much faster.
The true inflation is much higher: That’s why there is now the inflation radar from pleiticker.de – one can find it updated daily on their homepage. They have calculated price developments in the areas that really matter: housing, energy and basic foodstuffs. With the latest figures, inflation there was a whopping 56,3 percent over the past year – and 11,6 percent over the past week alone. For the average net income of a German household (€3 600), this means a loss in value of €1 296. This is mainly driven by the rise in energy costs. The price of electricity has risen by an unbelievable 344 percent in the past year.
The official figures, on the other hand, are hardly meaningful: The figures from the Federal Statistical Office are significantly lower and not very plausible for the reality of people’s lives for two reasons: On the one hand, it includes hundreds of products in its unrealistic “shopping basket”. On the other hand, the price shock for electricity and gas only becomes visible in the Federal Statistical Office’s inflation calculator with a long delay. Instead of the market price, the current consumer price is used, which reflects even more favorable market prices from the past. The real market price only reaches the end consumer after many weeks.
Germany economy is grinding to a halt
The German economy is slipping as a consequence of the exploding electricity and gas prices and the galloping inflation, which has now solidified in the double-digit range. The former Bild editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt has been documenting the German economic bankruptcy with a new project, called pleiticker.de.
The project is described as follows on the website pleiticker.de: “Every day, companies collapse under the exploding energy costs and file for bankruptcy. More and more people can no longer afford to live. Pleitticker.de documents the crisis that Economics Minister Robert Habeck doesn’t want to see […] The truth is: the wave of bankruptcies has long been here.”
At the beginning of September, the Economics Minister said: “I can imagine that certain sectors will simply stop producing for the time being. Don’t become insolvent.”
This is illustrated on the website not only by the sheer numbers, but also by numerous reports on the effects of the failed policy – for example on already known company bankruptcies, impending waves of insolvencies in clinics and other sectors or the mass terminations of gas customers by the public utility company.
The website also examines actual inflation, because according to Reichelt, the so-called “shopping basket” of the Federal Statistical Office does not reflect the price increases for many everyday products, but, for example, prices for home cinema systems, surfboards, services from domestic staff or visits to the opera. Essentially these are items and services that few avail themselves of.
Reichelt’s new portal therefore calculates the authentic inflation rate in the areas of housing, energy and staple foods.
Journalists who touted ‘climate’ price hikes demand pay rise
Hacks from the German regional public broadcaster WDR, have been demanding inflation compensation for themselves – in order to cope with the price increases that they themselves have demanded
Lorenz Beckhardt, WDR journalist and Quarks editor, called for a “warning strike in WDR” on Twitter: “With a few exceptions”, public service broadcasting is not done by people who “earn top salaries”. He does not offer any details on his own remuneration and whether he counts himself among his “struggling colleagues”.
The journalists want to push through a 5 percent salary hike and inflation compensation – mainly to be able to cope with the massively rising food and energy prices. For this reason they stopped work on Wednesday, October 5.
The irony is particularly biting: Not long ago, Lorenz Beckhardt had personally demanded price increases – for the sake of the “environment”. In July 2019 he appealed to politicians in a comment on: “Make meat, driving cars and flying so damn expensive that we can put an end to it. Please! Quickly!”.
Now that he has got what he wanted, he is whining about money. For the likes of Beckhardt this is obviously not a contradiction.
Totally clueless or complicit politicians?
The next hurdle facing the Scholtz federal government’s energy policy is that nobody in Berlin can say how much gas will actually be available to supply the country in winter. Despite – allegedly – well-filled storage tanks, gas in unknown quantities are not intended for Germany at all, but flows abroad.
Officially, Germany’s gas storage facilities are more than 90 percent full. But that is no reason for relief, because the gas is not reserved for German consumers and companies. The news magazine Focus recently reported on a letter from the Ministry of Economic Affairs to the deputy chairman of the Union parliamentary group, Jens Spahn, which stated: “The Federal Government does not have any knowledge of where the individual stored gas is going.”
The Federal Network Agency told the German weekly Bild am Sonntag: “The stored gas is largely owned by gas traders and suppliers who often operate across Europe.”
Particularly riling is that this also applies to the gas that Trading Hub Europe buys with state aid and has stored under trusteeship of the Federal Network Agency in the former Gazprom storage facility in Rehden. So, although this gas was financed with tax money, it is not reserved for Germany.
It can be purchased by all national and international companies registered on the German gas market to the highest bidder. For German gas customers, whether private or corporate, this is tantamount to a resounding slap in the face: their own government obviously shows no interest in ensuring energy security and giving preference to German customers.
CDU politician Jens Spahn, also criticized this outrage: “The very expensive gas bought in our storage facilities must reach German consumers in winter,” he demanded. In view of the crisis, that should actually go without saying, but in Germany, of course, politicians are pursuing Anglo-Saxon priorities.
Incidentally, neighboring Austria has a similar problem: according to the head of Austria’s largest energy storage company, RAG, a gas storage capacity of 85 percent should be reached by the end of the month. But even there, the country owns just under half of the gas.
OPEC+ decision to cut oil counteracts Europe’s idea of price cap on Russian energy
US and Europe can no longer make condescending and hegemonic demands on energy producers
By Ahmed Adel | October 7, 2022
The European Commission is hoping to impose a cap on gas prices as the current energy crisis will inevitably deepen over the winter. However, European Union member states are divided over the proposed measures, which are designed to lower soaring inflation amid Moscow’s response to sanctions imposed for its military operation in Ukraine.
Although France, Italy, Poland and 12 other EU countries urged the Commission to propose a broader price cap targeting all wholesale gas trade, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany – Europe’s biggest gas buyer – are among those opposed against the measure as they believe capping prices could endanger the security of supply as it undermines the EU’s ability to attract gas deliveries.
It is recalled that in early September, Russian President Vladimir Putin described the idea of a price cap as “stupid”, highlighting that the EU was “in no position to dictate”. After warning that the EU would “freeze” if such a cap was imposed, Putin said: “We will not supply gas, oil, coal, heating oil – we will not supply anything.”
While EU leaders are doggedly and obsessively calling for a price cap, industry experts show their scepticism, and in some cases concern on the repercussions of such an action. It is already noted that EU sanctions imposed against Russia are already affecting European economies far worse than the Russian economy.
In this light, chairman and CEO of French energy major TotalEnergies, Patrick Pouyanné, said on October 5: “Honestly, I am not sure that a price cap on Russian oil is a good idea.”
“What I am sure is that if we do that (cap), then Putin will say that ‘we don’t sell my oil’ – and the price will not be at $95, it will be at $150,” Pouyanné said.
For her part, Elisabetta Cornago, a senior energy researcher at the Centre for European Reform, explained that “It’s hard to picture such a level of market intervention. This is uncharted territory.” Another expert, Bram Claeys, a senior advisor at the Regulatory Assistance Project, said that the energy price cap would “quickly start costing billions” because it would force governments to continually subsidise the difference between the real market price and the artificially capped price.
Despite the scepticism from energy experts, the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, maintains the need to introduce a ceiling on the price of Russian gas. At the end of August, she announced that the European Commission was taking quick and long-term measures to improve the situation amid rising electricity prices in the EU.
However, it appears that Russia is already pre-emptively responding to price cap suggestions by convincing its partners in OPEC+ (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) to reduce oil production by 2 million barrels per day from November. This will cause a severe crisis, which will reverberate in Europe and the United States, especially as the OPEC+ decision was made just weeks before the US midterm elections.
For this reason, the White House angrily said in a statement that Biden was “disappointed by the shortsighted decision by OPEC+ to cut production quotas while the global economy is dealing with the continued negative impact of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.”
OPEC+ comprises of 24 members, many of them close partners with Russia, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran and Venezuela, and not a single member is Western. In addition, the most influential members have significant differences with Washington, and unlike in decades past, are not afraid to push back to defend their own interests.
Washington is trying to impose the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels, or NOPEC bill, which is designed to protect US consumers and businesses from oil spikes. However, OPEC’s most influential members have warned that this legislation would cause chaos in the energy market.
Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said on October 5: “We will continuously prove that OPEC+ is here not only to stay but here to stay as a moderating force to bring about stability.”
It is recalled that when Biden arrived in Saudi Arabia earlier this year on a mission to urge one of the world’s largest oil exporters to ramp up production in a bid to help bring down gasoline prices, OPEC+ raised oil output by a minuscule 100,000 barrels per day in what was widely seen as an insult to Biden.
In this way, it is demonstrated that Western influence over energy is waning and that OPEC+ members are behaving more confidently in protecting their own interests. Putin has delivered on every warning he has made whenever a red-line was crossed, and there is little doubt that if Europe imposes a cap, he will counteract Europe’s economic aggression by significantly cutting energy flows, which will make prices soar. There is effectively very little Europe and the US can do to stop this and they must accept the fact that they are at the mercy of OPEC+ and can no longer impose their condescending and hegemonic demands over the organisation and its member states.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Serbia furious over latest anti-Russia sanctions
Samizdat | October 6, 2022
The Serbian government has slammed the latest package of EU sanctions targeting Russia’s oil exports, describing it as the “first EU sanctions package” against Serbia.
Restrictions on the maritime transportation of Russian oil would make it too expensive for Serbia and severely hit the nation’s economy, government officials said on Thursday. In a scathing statement, Serbian Interior Minister Aleksandar Vulin called the EU “the place of our future humiliation and suffering.”
Belgrade will now be “forced to buy more expensive Iraqi oil and thus lose hundreds of millions of euro,” he argued, accusing neighboring Croatia, which is an EU member state, of lobbying for the new measures.
Vulin said the only “consistent” feature of EU policy is “revenge on free nations,” and decried the fact that Western Balkan nations had not been exempted from the latest batch of anti-Russia measures.
The EU “introduced not the eighth package of sanctions against Russia but the first sanctions package against Serbia,” the minister said. He argued that this was why it is “better to be a militarily and politically neutral country” rather than a member of a club of nations that allows the “[psychological] complexes” of its members to run the show.
Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabic was equally critical of the new sanctions, saying they were introduced “at the expense of the lives and living standards” of all Serbian people. “It will cost us hundreds of millions of euro,” Brnabic told Serbia’s Happy TV broadcaster.
“What they thought they would do to Russia they did to us on Wednesday, because we depend on the oil pipeline in Croatia,” the prime minister added, accusing Brussels of “using energy for political blackmail and retribution.”
On Thursday, the EU announced the eighth package of restrictions on Russia which include a price cap and “further restrictions” on the maritime transportation of Russian crude oil and petroleum products to third countries. Serbia imports Russian oil by sea through a Croatian port terminal on the island of Krk, from which it is then transported through a pipeline to Serbian territory.
The new measures would make such imports at least 20% more expensive, according to Serbian media. In June, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic warned that Serbia would not be able to import Russian oil after November 1 due to EU sanctions.
Orbán: ‘Sanctions were not decided democratically’
Free West Media | October 5, 2022
Hungarian President Orbán has once again positioned himself as a committed advocate of genuine European interests and persists in his criticism of the EU’s sanctions policy against Russia.
At least in Hungary, citizens will be able to vote on the sanctions that are causing massive damage to Europe, after Orbán confirmed that there would soon be a referendum on this.
“The sanctions were not decided in a democratic way, but decided by Brussels bureaucrats and European elites,” he said in the Budapest parliament. “Although Europe’s citizens are paying the price, they have not been asked,” he added, underlining that “the sanctions imposed are causing enormous damage to Europe.”
Orbán recalled that since the war began, Russia has earned 158 billion euros over the last six months from energy exports at increased prices. That is more than Russia’s total annual export earnings for 2021 in half a year. Half of this, 85 billion euros, was paid for by the EU countries.
Orbán considers this situation to be intolerable: “European companies are unable, or only with difficulty, to pay the sanctioned energy prices. We are waiting for an answer, the whole of Europe is waiting for an answer from Brussels on the question of how much longer we have to go through with this. If this continues, all of Europe will be ruined. It’s time to talk openly about this with our American friends while it’s not too late.”
Perfidious Putin!
BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • OCTOBER 4, 2022
Russian President Vladimir Putin has certainly been a naughty boy! The always unreliable and unofficial government-originating disinformation source The Hill is reporting that Moscow has spent the equivalent of $300,000,000 in an effort to “influence” world politics in its favor. The story relies on and follows a New York Times special report which again seeks to revive the claim that the Kremlin has been interfering effectively in American elections. Is it a coincidence that all the Russian bashing is surfacing right now before US elections at a time when the President Joe Biden Administration is agonizing over what it describes as sometimes “foreign supported” domestic extremists? I don’t think so.
The Hill report establishes the framework, claiming that “Russia has provided at least $300 million to political parties and political leaders since 2014 in a covert attempt to influence foreign politics, the US State Department alleges. Multiple news outlets reported that a cable released by the State Department reveals that Russia has likely spent at least hundreds of millions more on parties and officials who are sympathetic to Russia… According to the Associated Press… Russia used front organizations to send money to preferred causes or politicians. The organizations include think tanks in Europe and state-owned entities in Central America, Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. State Department spokesman Ned Price said in a press briefing on Tuesday that Russia’s election meddling is an ‘assault on sovereignty… It is an effort to chip away at the ability of people around the world to choose the government that they see best fit to represent them, to represent their interests, to represent their values.’”
And why is Russia behaving as it allegedly does? According to another State Department source who spoke to The Hill the Joe Biden Administration’s concern is not regarding any single country but the entire world as “we continue to face challenges against democratic societies.” Oddly enough, that Russia should be disinclined to waste its money and other resources on such a quixotic objective never appears to have occurred to the Department of State or to the editors at The Hill.
Typically, the State Department has shared information with select media but has refused to publicly release any parts of the cable which allegedly provide the intelligence-based evidence supporting the claims of Russian meddling. The Hill, perhaps inadvertently, reveals what the whole story really is about when it concludes its piece with “Intelligence assessments have determined that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election in spreading disinformation online that was designed to help then-candidate Donald Trump over his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Russia also tried to help Trump in his reelection battle against President Biden in 2020.” So yes, it’s all about Moscow helping Trump against the Democratic candidates. Interestingly, however, most non-Democratic Party aligned sources have come to agree that it was the Democrats who were trying to damage Trump in 2016 through use of a fabricated dossier that sought to impugn his character and portray him as a Russian stooge. Far worse, they also used the national security apparatus to “get Trump.”
The Times adds more detail and serves inter alia as a puff piece for the Biden Administration’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Russia. It is based clearly on information provided by unnamed government sources and is largely devoid of any actual evidence, though it does cite some names of Russians to provide authenticity. This is a common trick used in the media and government, particularly by intelligence agencies, to make fabricated material look genuine. One giveaway that the reporting should be considered suspect occurs in the very first paragraph where it states that “Russia has covertly given at least $300 million to political parties, officials and politicians in more than two dozen countries since 2014, and plans to transfer hundreds of millions more, with the goal of exerting political influence and swaying elections.” If the New York Times is privy to Russian top-level planning, even via leaked information from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other government sources, it would be surprising to learn that the US has that capability. If the National Security Agency (NSA) has secretly broken Russian secure communications to obtain such information, it would be a major security breach and a violation of the Espionage Act of 1918 for any American news outlet to suggest that, indicating pari passu that the report is bogus.
And then there is the question of context. The United States has been routinely doing what is now being blamed on Russia ever since the conclusion of the Second World War. And it does it on a scale much larger than a paltry $300 million. The effort to bring about regime change in Ukraine alone cost something like $5 billion. Meddling in foreign elections and politics is, in fact, a major function of the CIA. It is called “covert action” or referred to in the trade as “CA.” Covert action is defined in the National Security Act of 1947 as “[a]n activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly. 50 U.S.C. § 3093(e).”
Most CIA Stations and even the larger Bases overseas have covert action capabilities and their activity is frequently governed by the operating directives that are applied to every country where the Agency operates. In practice, covert action most often consists of recruiting, paying and directing journalists and other opinion-shapers to write stories and support narratives favorable to US interests. In some cases, depending on circumstances, the CA officers will either directly or indirectly fund groups and individuals who are opponents of the established government. If there is a major operation, like Ukraine, success comes when there is regime change.
And what is the value for money with CA operations? It is hard to say but the official intelligence budget for the US government is $84.1 billion with additional sums hidden in other government funding, to include the Pentagon and Homeland Security. The CIA gets a large chunk of that, and, as covert operations are costly, much of the money goes in support of those activities. So, we are talking about the US spending multiple billions of dollars in support of “actions” analogous to those that Putin is being accused of carrying out over the course of a decade in more than two dozen countries worldwide with $300 million! Good luck Vlad!
I might reasonably conclude by observing that the United States government effort to hoodwink the American public into believing a lot of nonsense about what is going on in the world might itself be described as a covert action. And it is particularly interesting in that it is self-funded by the US taxpayer. Never before in history has a free or at least somewhat free people funded its own destruction, but there is always a first for everything.
Pakistan’s Energy Crisis Worsens as Gov’t Fails to Finds Bidder to Supply Natural Gas Before 2028
Samizdat – 04.10.2022
Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has said that the European countries are purchasing most of the gas supplies available on the market, leaving Pakistan with no source of energy. Similar concerns about difficulties experienced by the ‘Global South’ in meeting their energy demands have been voiced by Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar.
Islamabad has failed to find even a single bidder in response to a tender floated by Pakistan LNG Limited (PLL) for supplying liquefied natural gas (LNG) between 2023 and 2028, as per an official document.
As per tender documents, the PLL had in August invited bids for the supply of 72 units of LNG cargo starting in January next year. Under the terms of the tender, the government agency said it wanted to import 140,000 cubic meters of LNG every month for six years. The results of the bid were published on Monday.
A tender for procuring 10 cargoes of LNG floated by the Pakistani government in July had also failed to attract even a single bidder.
The latest development comes against the backdrop of an ongoing energy and economic crisis in the South Asian country, which is grappling with power shortages owing to a shortfall in energy supplies spurred by high prices and a surge in demand in the European countries.
Pakistan has also been facing the problem of depleting forex reserves and is awaiting the disbursement of $1.17 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) after reaching a staff level agreement (SLA) in July.
Billions of dollars in aid are also awaited from other countries such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the authorities have said.
S&P Global said last month that power shortages have been exacerbated by unprecedented flooding, as major grid stations have been endangered due to the climate disaster and connectivity options have been disrupted.
Before the floods struck in June-July, Pakistan was already reeling under high energy import bills, which had surged 91 percent to $4.98 billion on a year-on-year basis as of the end of the financial year in June, as per the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics.
A report by Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has said that energy import bills could increase to more than $32 billion by 2030.
The global surge in energy prices has largely been blamed on Western sanctions against Russia in the wake of the eruption of Ukraine crisis, with many European countries looking for alternatives to Russian energy.
As the EU seeks to draw down its reliance on Russia, which has been EU’s primary supplier of gas, many EU countries have ramped up their imports from other countries such as Qatar, another major producer of natural gas.
In many cases, the richer EU nations have been offering better rates for sourcing energy than the developing countries.
US lawmakers call for sanctions against Algeria
Ties between Moscow and Algiers have been stronger lately, with Algeria gearing up to join the BRICS group in the near future
The Cradle | October 1, 2022
Twenty-seven members of Congress sent a letter addressed to US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on 30 September calling for sanctions to be imposed against Algeria over its arms deals with Russia.
In the letter, the 27 US lawmakers, led by Republican Congresswoman Lisa McClain, showed concern over what they referred to as a growing relationship between Moscow and Algiers.
The arms agreements in question, which were signed last year, were reportedly worth around $7 billion and included the sale of Russia’s Su-57 warplanes to Algeria, which Moscow has not provided to any other state.
According to the concerns highlighted in the letter, the deal makes Algeria the third largest recipient of Russian weapons in the world.
The lawmakers have called for the sanctions to be imposed under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), passed by Congress in 2017.
Under this act, sanctions are imposed on any country to engage in transactions with either the intelligence or defense departments of the Russian government.
“This recent Algeria-Russia arms purchase would clearly be categorized as “a significant transaction” under CAATSA. Yet, no sanctions available to you have been crafted by the State Department,” the letter to Blinken states.
“Therefore, we ask that you immediately begin implementing sanctions against those in the Algerian government who are involved in the purchase of Russian weapons,” it concludes.
Some have speculated that Israel may be behind this targeting of Algeria from within the US Congress, for the reason that Tel Aviv would not want a bolstered Algerian military south of the Mediterranean, especially given the North African country’s stance against the occupation and support for the Palestinians.
Algeria and Russia have historically enjoyed a smooth relationship. The Soviet Union was the first country to establish diplomatic relations with Algeria following its independence from French colonial occupation in 1962.
Relations have been stronger between the two countries recently, with both working for Algeria to eventually become a member of the Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) group of emerging economies.
The BRICS group of emerging economies represents a beneficial alternative to the dominant US and western-led economic system, especially for countries negatively affected by western sanctions.
Nord Stream explosions are a ‘tremendous opportunity’ – US

Samizdat | October 1, 2022
The US views the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines as a “tremendous opportunity” to wean the continent off of Russian energy, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters on Friday. With winter approaching, Blinken said that the US wants Europe to decrease its fuel use.
Speaking to reporters in Washington, Blinken boasted that the US is now “the leading supplier of [liquefied natural gas] to Europe.” In addition to shipping its own fuel to Europe, Blinken said that the US is working with European leaders to find ways to “decrease demand” and “speed up the transition to renewables.”
“It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from [Russian President] Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs,” Blinken declared.
The US likely stands to gain the most from the destruction of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines, which were damaged by a series of explosions off the Danish island of Bornholm earlier this week. Washington has for years been trying to convince European leaders to swap Russian gas for its LNG, and the severity of the damage to the undersea conduits now means that Europe is “indefinitely deprived” of Russian gas via this route, Russian energy operator Gazprom stated on Friday.
In a speech on Friday, President Vladimir Putin blamed the explosions on “the Anglo-Saxons,” a Russian colloquialism for the US-UK transatlantic alliance.
“It’s obvious to everyone who benefits from it,” Putin explained. “Those who benefit are the ones who have done it.”
While the way is now open for the US to sell its more expensive LNG to Europe, the shortfall cannot be covered overnight. US exporters warned throughout the summer that they will not be able to ship enough gas to meet demand on the continent, and many of Europe’s import terminals are still under construction or in planning.
Meanwhile, energy bills are skyrocketing across Europe. In Germany, which faces the prospect of rapid “deindustrialization,” protesters took to the streets to demand the re-opening of Nord Stream 2, just days before the explosions. Food shortages have been predicted in Germany and firewood is in hot demand across the continent as citizens struggle to heat their homes.
“There’s a lot of hard work to do to make sure that countries and partners get through the winter,” Blinken said, suggesting, as EU leaders have also done, that Europe work to “reduce demand” for gas.
Dismantling Nord Stream Means Cutting Putin’s “Arteries of Power”: Agitator Manifesto
eugyppius – September 30, 2022
Back in August, before the Nord Stream attacks, it was possible even for dim Green journalists to see that destroying the pipelines would be to Russia’s disadvantage.
Felix is a 31 year-old reporter for Welt with Green tendencies and very little intelligence or knowledge. He’s responsible for a string of ridiculous articles about how the German “gas panic” is exaggerated and why he should be allowed to donate money to arm Ukraine. Back in August, this ridiculous man wrote a long editorial about why Germany should “Dismantle the pipelines” because “That would be the ultimate sign of strength against Putin.” Reading this today, after the very pipelines Eick deplores have been destroyed, is instructive indeed:
The energy crisis hurts … But we must not lose sight of the big picture. Shifting away from Russian fossil fuels remains the most important thing. … The West should … turn the tables … with an ultimate sign of strength – and start pipeline demolition wherever it can. Every kilometre less pipeline means more freedom. …
Basically, with greater or lesser reduction in prosperity, we will succeed in destroying the greater part of this autocrat’s business model, and in freeing ourselves from the grip of his blackmail. As for Putin, he has fallen into a trap of his own making: Russian soil is full of oil and gas, but the leader of the self-declared energy superpower will be able to do less and less with it. Already, gas pipeline exports to Europe are at a 40-year low.
Above all, however, the gas emperor Putin must no longer be able to use gas as a political weapon. That is why we must take the decisive step. Too often, the sweet smell of the Kremlin has lured Germans in particular back again and again, despite all their political and ideological reservations. We should decide today to protect ourselves more strongly from Russia, also at an economic level. It is not enough to conclude treaties with other states and replace Russian oil and gas. Nor is it enough to rely more on renewable energies, even if energy sovereignty is still the best means against despots and madmen.
Germany and Europe should send a tougher signal to the Kremlin – one that hits Putin’s system at the root. We should decide today to dismantle the pipelines as far as possible, and we should start as soon as possible. Even if it’s only the few kilometres of pipeline on German soil. …
The two Nord Stream pipelines run through areas that cannot be assigned to any territory, but but rather belong to the so-called “exclusive economic zones” of Finland, Sweden and Denmark. These countries would presumably be in favour of dismantling at least Nord Stream 2, if only because the ailing Nord Stream 2 AG is unlikely to be able to pay enough for maintenance. …
The exit from the pipeline system would be worthwhile, because without pipelines, Putin’s system is nothing. In 2021, 45 per cent of Russia’s state budget was financed by revenues from oil and gas, and about 80 per cent of their exports flow through pipelines. About three quarters of natural gas exports go to the EU, as well as about half of oil exports, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Gazprom has also failed to invest in LNG technology and instead has always relied only on pipelines. Without these arteries of power, the system faces extinction. Even a declaration of intent would make Putin shudder, much as his threat of a nuclear strike made us shudder. …
“Away with the pipelines” does not mean “Never again Russia.” Russia, however, would have to accommodate the West as a consumer of its primary economic product. Reduced pipeline capacity simply means more independence. Gazprom would have to invest in liquid natural gas and build appropriate terminals. Sourcing gas and oil from Russia would become one possibility among many – without anyone being able to turn off the tap overnight.
Two months ago, even arrant fools like Felix Eick could see that destroying Nord Stream would hurt Russia. Now that somebody has actually destroyed Nord Stream (or the better part of it), we have to read harebrained theory upon harebrained theory about why Russia is actually responsible and how the end of these pipelines confers an overwrought twelve-dimensional chess advantage to Putin or helps Gazprom escape hypothetical lawsuits or permits Russia to escape sanctions. I wonder what Felix Eick thinks about all these theories. Perhaps he’d like to thank Putin for bringing about the reforms he has long demanded?
Western economic warfare backfired, new depression likely to come
What awaits Europe with Nord Stream pipelines possibly gone forever?
By Uriel Araujo | September 30, 2022
Now that the Nord Stream pipeline might have been sabotaged by Washington, as promised by US President Joe Biden on January 7, and is possibly gone forever (according to German authorities), it is time to consider the possible impacts.
The energy crisis in the EU has always been pushed by American interests. Moreover, the US has been engaging in economic warfare and even weaponizing the dollar for too long, but it has been clear for months now that its current economic and financial war against Russia has backfired – and once again, mostly upon Europe. Such economic wars in fact may dangerously spiral out of control, and are considered to be one of the causes of the 1929 crisis in the post-Versailles world.
Philip Pilkington, an Irish economist who works in investment finance, famous for his contributions on the empirical estimate of general equilibrium and other fields, has made quite interesting observations about the possible deindustrialization of Europe as a consequence of economic warfare. He remarks on how in the post-pandemic world debts in the West have been accumulating and, on top of that, the current conflict in Ukraine has brought extra energy costs.
After the conflict ends – or becomes a “frozen conflict” – or after good diplomacy is reestablished, Russia could start to once again supply gas to Europe as usual – this is how many analysts reasoned. However, now that the pipelines are gone, the price of energy in the continent is to remain tremendously high for years to come. With permanent high energy prices making manufacturing not economically viable anymore (thus decreasing European purchasing power), one should expect to see the bloc shutting out exports to revive an uncompetitive industry while increasing energy investments. These are Pilkington’s main points and it might be worth delving into them.
Pilkington argues that high energy costs will make the European industry largely uncompetitive because manufacturers will have no choice but to also raise the price of goods, which in turn, will not be able to compete with cheaper foreign goods. The economist goes on to argue that, in this scenario, with many manufacturers out of business, the result will be the loss of key jobs, with less employed people spending money and a new economic depression.
Thus, Pilkington reasons, the United States will not be able to “reshore” European manufacturing for too long because there simply won’t be anyone in the continent to buy the products the US ships to European shores. This crisis will thus affect Americans too, because as exports to Europe fall, US workers also lose their jobs. What could EU states do in such a scenario? The Irish economist writes quite convincingly that a tariff solution would be the most obvious one: by raising tariffs, these countries will be able to “render international products as expensive as the domestic products suffering from energy cost inflation.”
The result of that can only be more economic chaos for the West, while Europe “shuts itself off” and becomes a kind of a “black hole”, in a repetition of the 1920 events which resulted in the Great Depression, writes Philip Pilkington.
However, the global situation today has changed much, with the BRICS+ alliance, apparently aimed at “decoupling from the Western economy.” For a while, the rise in commodity prices has been perceived as a result of Western sanction policies, and this has forced the global south to look for parallel mechanisms and alternatives. Therefore, these emerging powers have the potential to build a “separate economic bloc”, which means the West would suffer the most from the economic chaos, as BRICS+ “has a relatively clean bill of economic health”.
All of this is a quite likely scenario and one should also consider the political implications. The economic crisis will in all likelihood bring back protectionism, and it might come accompanied by a 1930-like political climate. This in turn can only strengthen the populist camp in Europe. Populist and so-called “far-right” tendencies have been growing in the continent for years and the time seems to be just right for speeding up this phenomenon.
One remembers defeated French Presidential candidate Marine Le Pen promised to pull France out of NATO during this years’ elections. Meanwhile, in August, Hungary had once again the lowest energy prices in the EU. Over 8,700 sanctions have been imposed on Moscow, and yet they have hurt Europe more than Russia as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been a strong critic of such sanctions. In fact, whether one likes the man or not, he has oftentimes been the voice of reason in the bloc. Now, the German eurosceptic Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) political party is heavily focusing on attacking European elites and opposing the German government’s sanctions against Russia. This trend is everywhere across the EU.
It is about time Europe assert its sovereignty, however such a political stance is largely marginalized in the continent. Thus, although a European populist wave should increase skepticism about NATO and the EU itself, it will also increase political instability and turmoil. To sum it up, in the worst post-Nord Stream scenario, one can then expect a deindustrialized and isolated Europe going through a serious political and economic crisis.
Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.
