..
Europe faces full-blown energy crisis
Amid a shortage of natural gas, lowered wind power output, outages at nuclear energy facilities and cold weather with winter just starting, power prices in Europe soared this week – and the worst may yet to come.
European prices for natural gas exceeded $2,150 per 1,000 cubic meters on Tuesday for the first time in history, according to Intercontinental Exchange’s London clearing house. The price at the Dutch TTF hub in the Netherlands, the benchmark gas price for Europe, soared some 27% in one day to nearly $210 per megawatt-hour in household terms.
The surge slightly subsided when markets opened on Wednesday, with January futures trading at around $1,970 per 1,000 cubic meters as of 08:00 GMT.
Tuesday’s jump in prices came about after gas deliveries to Germany via the Yamal-Europe gas pipeline from Russia were halted. Flows were diverted eastward to Poland, and Russia’s Gazprom hasn’t booked additional pumping volumes for Wednesday, data from the Russian gas transmission operator Gascade shows.
Some critics say Gazprom has been reducing gas flows to Europe amid the delay in the certification of its new European pipeline, Nord Stream 2. However, it has repeatedly stressed that it supplies gas to Europe according to consumer demand and in accordance with existing contracts.
Meanwhile, no new gas flows to Europe mean utilities are forced to drain their gas storages, which are already at seasonal lows. Some of them, including
France’s EDF, have had to restart fossil-fuel-burning generators to avoid grid disruption. France is usually considered an exporter of power on the European continent, but it has been short on energy since its major power utility, Electricité de France SA, halted four nuclear reactors, constituting 10% of the country’s nuclear capacity, straining power grids. According to ZeroHedge, 30% of its nuclear capacity will go offline in the coming weeks, while Germany is also set to lose nearly half of its own capacity next year.
France’s EDF, have had to restart fossil-fuel-burning generators to avoid grid disruption. France is usually considered an exporter of power on the European continent, but it has been short on energy since its major power utility, Electricité de France SA, halted four nuclear reactors, constituting 10% of the country’s nuclear capacity, straining power grids. According to ZeroHedge, 30% of its nuclear capacity will go offline in the coming weeks, while Germany is also set to lose nearly half of its own capacity next year.
To add fuel to the proverbial fire, Germany’s power output from wind turbines has dropped to five-week lows amid the cold weather. This put the power grid under strain, hiking power prices by 30% to a record $487 per megawatt-hour.
It appears the energy crisis in Europe is only gaining speed, with experts warning that the worst is yet to come in late January-early February, when the temperature tends to be at its lowest. Meanwhile, renewable sources such as solar and wind power will be at a standstill due to meteorological conditions, with windless days and the sun unable to push through the clouds.
Germany’s new foreign minister questions chancellor’s
past decisions on weapons trade
Shortly after assuming the post, Germany’s foreign minister has called into question
Berlin’s arms sales outside the EU and NATO, calling for a rethink of military contracts.
80 kilometers southwest of Stuttgart, Germany. © REUTERS / Ralph Orlowski
Annalena Baerbock told Germany’s dpa news agency that the traffic light coalition, which is currently at the helm, has “made it clear that it will reexamine the arms export policies of recent years.” She added that the new government was “working on an arms export law that would clarify the criteria according to which arms exports are approved.” Germany’s top diplomat stressed that the sale of weapons was not merely a question of economy and profit, but rather one of “foreign policy, human rights and international relations.”
Obviously, Deep State hasn't gotten around to this girl yet. It won't be long!
Foreign Minister Baerbock also told the German media that she would like to see a joint arms export control mechanism on a European level, admitting, though, that such an initiative was bound to be met with opposition from the likes of France.
France being a major weapons exporter!
It has transpired that during the last nine days of its rule, Angela Merkel’s outgoing government approved arms sales to the tune of nearly five billion dollars, bringing the total amount of arms export licenses to a record nine billion euros.
It is worth mentioning that the Social Democrats, who are part of the current ruling coalition, were also in the previous government that gave the controversial defense deals the green light. Olaf Scholz, Germany’s incumbent chancellor, was none other than vice-chancellor at the time. Baerbock, in turn, is the leader of Germany’s green party and is known for promises to deliver a “moral” foreign policy.
The number one recipient nation was Egypt, whose government has been criticized by some over alleged human rights violations and involvement in conflicts in Yemen and Libya. That notwithstanding, Berlin went ahead with the sale of three navy vessels and 16 air defense systems.
The Greens and the Left party have long been demanding a thorough review of Germany’s defense contracts, while the conservatives dismissed those criticisms as “crocodile tears” and insisted that all the existing contracts were in line with German law. Roderich Kiesewetter from the CDU party told the German media earlier that it was “in Germany’s best interest when countries in the Middle East continue to buy EU-made weapons.” He also warned the new government that if “these nations go on to procure weapons in China or Russia,” then Germany “will no longer have any political influence in the region.”
Does Germany have any real political influence if middle-eastern countries can easily switch to buying from Russia or China?
Finland & Sweden in NATO would trigger response – Russia
The possible inclusion of Sweden and Finland in NATO will have “serious”
military and political consequences that won’t be left unanswered by Moscow,
Russia’s Foreign Ministry has warned.
© Reuters / Claudio Bresciani
The persistent attempts by NATO to “draw those countries into the orbit of its interests and opportunistic policies” haven’t gone unnoticed by Russia, Maria Zakharova, the ministry’s spokeswoman, said.
“It’s quite obvious that Finland and Sweden joining NATO … would have serious military and political consequences that would require an adequate response from the Russian side,” she pointed out.
The policy of not being part of any alliances, traditionally pursued by Stockholm and Helsinki, is viewed by Moscow as “an important factor in ensuring stability in northern Europe,” Zakharova added.
NATO has been expressing its satisfaction over what it called deepening cooperation with Finland and Sweden, which “share” the block’s values and contribute to its operations.
At a summit in June, the US-led military alliance vowed to further bolster those ties “in support of our common security, including by crisis management preparation, exercises, and exchanging information and analysis.”
The same statements were repeated during the visit of NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg to Stockholm and Helsinki in late October.
Earlier this month, Moscow issued two documents – one addressed to NATO and the other to Washington – demanding guarantees that would assure security for all sides. The proposals included limiting NATO’s buildup near the Russian borders and ruling out the enlargement of the bloc.
Speaking about Moscow’s proposals, Zakharova reiterated that “ruling out the expansion of NATO and the deployment of weapon systems that threaten our security near the Russian borders are going to be the main, key issues at the upcoming talks with the US and NATO.”
Everyone who hasn’t yet grasped the essence of the Russian stance must clearly understand this.
Swedish authorities previously decried the Kremlin’s initiative, saying that “rejecting any future expansion of NATO will reduce the opportunities to make independent political choices.” The Finnish government also insisted that it needed to have “national room to maneuver,” including applying for NATO membership.
This sounds like Deep State influence at work.
Gorbachev hits out at American 'arrogance'
The fall of the USSR inspired the US to turn NATO into its own empire,
former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has said.
After the Americans declared victory in the Cold War, they became overly self-confident and have now decided to build a brand new empire through the guise of NATO, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev said on Friday.
Speaking to RIA Novosti, Gorbachev accused Washington of becoming too big-headed after the fall of the USSR in 1991, suggesting that Washington got carried away with the “triumphalist sentiment in the West.”
“[The US] became too arrogant, self-confident, and big-headed,” he said. “They declared victory in the Cold War. We were pulling the world together out of a confrontation, out of a nuclear race. But, instead, the ‘winners’ decided to build a new empire.”
According to Gorbachev, America’s imperial ambitions are the reason Washington has supported the idea of expanding NATO eastward since 1991. As well as taking aim at the White House, Gorbachev also condemned the Russian leadership for abandoning other attempts to create collective security in Europe.
However, the former leader welcomed upcoming security talks between Moscow and Washington, and expressed confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin and his American counterpart Joe Biden can come to an agreement.
“I support it. I hope there will be a result. One that will make all European countries feel safe,” he said.
Last week, Moscow published two draft documents with a list of security guarantees it wants to obtain from the US and NATO. The proposed treaties include restrictions on NATO expansion, as well as the stationing of troops, military equipment, and weapons in the vicinity of the Russian border.
The first round of negotiations on the documents is expected to begin in January.
Gorbachev led the USSR from 1985 until its collapse in 1991 and is seen as one of the most important figures of 20th century history. However, while he enjoys a positive reputation outside of the country, he is viewed differently inside Russia. Many people blame him for the post-Soviet economic crisis that led to a dramatic decline in living standards, as well as a diminution of Moscow’s status on the world stage.
Earlier this month, a study conducted by the state-owned Russian Public Opinion Research Center (WCIOM) revealed that Gorbachev is Russia’s most-hated man from the Soviet era.
Even more than Joe Stalin? My, what short memories Russians have.
Declassified documents show how US lied to Russia about NATO in 1990s
Promises that the bloc wouldn’t expand appear to have been ignored in
Washington’s quest for influence in Europe.
FILE PHOTO: Russian President Boris Yeltsin (L) and US President Bill Clinton shake hands before leaving a final news conference in the Kremlin in this September 2, 1998. © REUTERS
In April 2014, President Vladimir Putin addressed Russia's Federal Assembly in the wake of Moscow’s reabsorption of Crimea. Over the course of his speech, he laid the blame for an increase in tensions on the West, which he insisted had “lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact.” At the heart of this apparent duplicity was NATO’s expansion to the East, “as well as deployment of military infrastructure at our borders,” contrary, he said, to its promises.
Ever since, disproving the idea that Western leaders had assured Moscow the bloc wouldn’t encroach on its borders has become an obsession for think tanks and lobby groups. For example, UK policy institute Chatham House brands the suggestion that any pledge was made not to enlarge the controversial military bloc one of the key “myths and misconceptions in the debate on Russia,” while NATO’s own website likewise claims it is wholly manufactured.
Significant evidence to the contrary has long-been easily accessible, but now the National Security Archive has published a tranche of never-before-seen, highly revealing documents detailing how then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin was consistently manipulated by his US counterpart Bill Clinton on the question during the mid-1990s, while bold, false promises of a “strategic partnership” of the countries faded into nothingness.
Take for instance the transcript of a cordial July 5 1994 telephone conversation between the pair, at which time the US president was preparing to depart for Poland – which had been pushing for rapid absorption by NATO – and the Baltic states, before meeting with Yeltsin at the G7 summit in Italy.
Yeltsin urged Clinton to raise the plight of Russophones in Estonia and Latvia, because “a public statement from you that the US will not support any infringement on the rights of the Russian-speaking people” would mean these countries “will act differently.” He noted Lithuania’s quick granting of citizenship to its Russian minority had prompted Moscow to withdraw its troops from Vilnius, and the same could happen by August in Tallinn and Riga if assurances were made. Yeltsin also wished to discuss NATO expansion.
In response, Clinton swore he’d “raise the issue of the Russian minorities,” and reassured Yeltsin that while NATO might “eventually expand,” he’d set out “no timetable and no requirements.” Instead, he indicated that he’d “like us to concentrate” on Partnership for Peace, a US-led initiative seeking to “achieve a united Europe where people respect each other's borders and work together.” Yeltsin could be entirely forgiven for thinking the Partnership was Washington’s primary focus, and the military alliance an afterthought, by the conclusion of the chat.
The Russian president’s optimism about “a mutually beneficial partnership with the US on the basis of equality” is writ large in a letter he sent to Clinton in November that year. He speaks of this prospective coalition as “the central factor in world politics,” pledges to cooperate constructively with the US on issues related to Bosnia, Iraq, North Korea, and Ukraine, and eagerly awaits their meeting at the December 5 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Budapest, where “we have much to talk about … first of all, transforming European stability.”
As it was, the Hungary summit was a disaster, with Clinton’s speech at the event focusing on NATO as “the bedrock of security in Europe,” and declaring “no country outside will be allowed to veto expansion” – a clear reference to Russia. In response, Yeltsin fulminated, “it is a dangerous delusion to suppose the destinies of continents and the world … can somehow be managed from one single capital,” and adding that “[moving] the responsibilities of NATO up to Russia's borders” would be a grave error.
An internal US diplomatic cable from the next day shows lessons were quickly learned from this episode. Namely, the urgent need to keep quiet publicly about US plans for extending the military alliance, while offering bogus private assurances to Moscow any enlargement would only occur after consultation between the two countries, and that Russia was still in the running for bloc membership.
Fast-forward to May 1995, Clinton visits Moscow to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Allied victory in World War II, and these lies are enthusiastically maintained in a one-on-one meeting with Yeltsin. The pair’s rapport is clearly chummy, referring to each other as friends, although serious matters are very much on the table too.
“How do you think it looks to us if one bloc continues to exist while the Warsaw Pact has been abolished? It's a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands,” the Russian president pleaded. “Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? We need a new structure for Pan-European security, not old ones! Perhaps the solution is to postpone NATO expansion until the year 2000 so that later we can come up with some new ideas.”
Ever suave and calculating, Clinton sought to allay his fears, somewhat amazingly suggesting Moscow should view his approach to NATO “in the context of greater integration of Russia into other international institutions,” dangling the prospect of various sweeteners, including membership of the G7, if Yeltsin quietened his anti-NATO rhetoric, and kept his opinions on the bloc’s expansion to himself. Clinton knew well that such compliance was easily bought – as his Russian “friend” himself acknowledged, his position heading into the 1996 presidential runoff was “not exactly brilliant.”
Indeed, his polling stood in the single digits, and Communist candidate Gennady Zyuganov was widely forecast to win via landslide. Yeltsin spoke of needing “positive reports” in the press, and to “head off even the smallest wrong moves,” proposing any discussion of NATO enlargement be kept theoretical until the year 2000, and urging the White House resident not to do anything to “rile the situation up before the elections.”
“I’ve made it clear I’ll do nothing to accelerate NATO [expansion]. I’m trying to give you now, in this conversation, the reassurance you need. But we need to be careful that neither of us appears to capitulate,” Clinton slickly pledged. “For you, that means you’re not going to embrace expansion. For me, it means no talk about slowing the process down or putting it on hold or anything like that.”
So it was that Yeltsin agreed to maintain an omerta on the military bloc, and enlist in the Partnership for Peace. Despite plans for NATO expansion already being well-laid by that point, and very much in motion, the Kremlin remained silent about developments – the president’s acquiescence was further ensured by extensive covert and overt US assistance in his election campaign, which was fundamental to transforming an initial 6% standing in the polls to an extremely comfortable victory.
Less than three years later, NATO’s engulfing of the former Soviet sphere finally began, with the incorporation of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. This push was opposed stateside by, among others, George Kennan – formerly a committed ‘cold warrior’, and key figure in the creation of the alliance.
“I think it is the beginning of a new Cold War … The Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else,” he said in May 1998, after the US Senate ratified enlargement. “Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are – but this is just wrong.”
With tensions between Kiev and Moscow at an all-time high, with the question of Ukraine’s NATO membership at the heart of the dangerous dispute, Kennan’s words give every appearance today of a prophet’s warning coming terrifyingly true.
By Kit Klarenberg, an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions. Follow him on Twitter @KitKlarenberg
========================================================================================
