During his first term in the Oval Office, Donald Trump criticized Europe for purchasing Russian gas and emphasized that it would create a dangerous dependence on the Kremlin. There are known clips showing German ministers laughing at these words from the American president. Now, this laughter looks like a clear sign of short-sightedness and lack of strategic thinking. After all, Berlin was warned that the completion of the “Nord Streams” might lead not to engaging Putin in big business with Europe, but to a big war in Europe.
But the one who insisted on the dangers of energy dependence now, under new circumstances, negotiates with Putin about supplying Russian diesel fuel to world markets. Moreover, the media claim that resuming the supply of Russian gas to Europe and using the Ukrainian gas transmission system for such supply should become an important condition for ending the war.
It seems as if these decisions are already being made by another Donald Trump—not the person who told Europeans about the dangers of relying on Russia. But why has the American president’s perspective on Russian energy resources changed so much? Maybe because he saw the prospect of combining efforts and the American presence in Russian business? Maybe when you depend not only on Russian energy resources but also on American profits from their sale, it doesn’t seem like such a dependency?
But whatever Donald Trump’s motives, they are unlikely to reflect the end of the war and affect Russia’s revenues.
Firstly, because Europeans seem to agree with Trump’s opinion—the Trump who persuaded them to abandon energy dependence, not the Trump who might propose to restore it. The rejection of Russian gas—at least pipeline—happened at a pace that even Europeans themselves did not expect. And even if one imagines that the war ends and sanctions against Russia are eased, who said that Europe would abandon diversifying gas supplies? After all, Trump was right: all these pipelines turned out to be a real trap, with which Putin intended—and possibly still intends—to dictate conditions to Europe.
Secondly: Russia itself has already experienced all this. There was a monopoly position in the European market, built over decades of efforts by Soviet and Russian leaders and energy specialists. And there was the Ukrainian gas transmission system, which had the capacity to pump a larger volume of Russian gas supplied to European countries.
What did Putin do when he came to power? First of all, he replaced the leadership of “Gazprom” led by its influential founder, Rem Vyakhirev. Then he ordered the new head of “Gazprom,” Alexei Miller, who has led the corporation for almost as many years as Putin has governed Russia, to develop a plan to build so-called bypass pipelines—an underwater network that would allow abandoning the services of the Ukrainian gas transmission system. And approximately at that same time, Russian propaganda began creating a mythological image of the Ukrainian stealing Russian gas and being threatened with supply cuts. Thus, Putin and Miller started preparing to abandon Ukrainian services.
Thus, everything that Trump is ready to offer Putin in exchange for ending the hostilities in Ukraine and joint energy projects, Putin already had. And he sacrificed all this for control over Ukraine. Because Putin’s political priorities differ significantly from Trump’s political priorities. Trump continues to believe in the power of profit. And Putin is convinced that profit is earned by force—this is what he has been proving throughout his rule in Russia.
Therefore, nothing will come of the American proposals for Russians, Europeans, and Ukrainians. Putin needs Ukraine, and he is confident that this way he will gain control over Europe even without the help of “Gazprom” and Trump—by force. And the Ukrainians were ready to ensure the operation of the gas transmission system even during the war, but that did not save us from the war.
Europeans simply believed in the logic of Donald Trump, who almost ten years ago persuaded them to abandon energy dependence on Russia. The logic of that “first” Donald Trump was more appealing to all of us.
Collage: Glavcom
