Yesterday, it was reported that the two Nordstream pipelines running from Russia into Germany, beneath the Baltic Sea, had been sabotaged, by three explosions. Of course, western media, immediately pointed the finger at Russia, claiming that it was done to signal a threat from Putin that he could cut off gas supplies to the EU. Is that possible? Of course, it is. You can put nothing past the vile, right-wing capitalist regime of Putin. Is it likely, however? No.
The biggest sabotage of Nordstream has come, of course, from the fact that Nordstream2, which would have brought billions more Roubles of revenue into Russia, was prevented from being opened by Germany, under tremendous pressure from US imperialism, via NATO, as the US sought to cut off oil and gas revenues going to Russia. So, as currently no gas is going from Russia to Europe via this route, there is nothing to be gained by Russia from blowing up its own pipeline, leading to it losing millions of Roubles worth of its own gas, and which will cost Russia money to repair the pipeline!
That argument is rather like the argument that was being put a few weeks or so ago, in relation to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. When Russian troops first occupied the plant, as part of overrunning the surrounding areas, it was said that they intended to use it to deny Ukraine of power from the plant, and to tie it in to Russian energy supplies. Quite likely. Russian troops occupied the plant to that effect. Then the plant began to be shelled. Ukraine claimed, and western media dutifully reported that the shelling, which threatened a nuclear incident at the plant, which could have affected large parts of Europe, was being undertaken by Russia!
Why would you do that? Why would you a) shell your own troops, and b) why would you shell a nuclear plant already under your control, and which you sought to tie into your own energy supplies? There may be some bizarre reason for doing that, but none has been suggested, and Occam's Razor suggests its far more likely that the shelling came from Ukrainian forces that had lost the plant and surrounding area, and who were shelling the enemy Russian troops in the plant, as well as trying to prevent Russia securing energy from the plant, and even to actually cause a nuclear accident that could then be blamed on Russia. Since, IAEA officials have been permanently stationed in the plant, its notable that the shelling seems to have stopped.
But, as well as not opening Nordstream2, and so denying Europe of much needed energy supplies, it is again the EU, and its member states, again under severe pressure from US imperialism, that has voluntary cut off its gas supplies from Russia, via Nordstream1, as it has implemented a series of boycotts and sanctions on Russian oil and gas. So, again, why would Russia sabotage its own pipeline, when its already the EU that is sabotaging its own energy supplies by those sanctions? The argument is that Russia is sending a message to Europe that it could cut off those supplies. Does that make sense? Absolutely not!
Firstly, if the EU is already cutting off its own energy supplies, and, thereby, pushing up global energy prices - gas prices into Europe have risen by 1,000% - there is no need for Russia to threaten to do what the EU is already doing to itself! If Russia cuts off those supplies, by sabotage, it denies itself of the revenues that would come from those supplies. Given the nature of the Russian economy as dependent upon the sale of energy and primary products - the reason that NATO has targeted those things for its sanctions - why on Earth would it do that? On the contrary, the NATO sanctions have not only been ineffective in respect of energy, they have been counterproductive.
The effect has been to massively increase global energy prices. The main beneficiaries of that has been Russia, the US, and OPEC. Russia was able to sell its oil and gas to China, India, Phillipines, Indonesia and others at these much higher prices, even able to offer discounts, in order to undercut US and OPEC prices, which brought in huge amounts of additional revenues. So much was that the case that these additional revenues boosted the value of the Rouble against the Dollar to a level higher than it was before NATO began implementing the sanctions on it in 2021.
The effect of that was that Russian GDP, which had been forecast to drop by 12%, is now forecast to drop by only around 2%, with a 1% drop next year, which will be a much better performance than is likely in the EU and Britain, which are crucifying their economies, and their people on the cross of US imperialism's war against Russia and China.
In fact, with all of these revenues from much higher energy prices, Russia has been able to strengthen its ties to China, the workshop of the world, also under threat from US imperialism, which has been trying to undermine Chinese commodities in, particularly, high value areas, such as technology. Chine can supply all of Russia's needs for manufactured products in exchange for oil and gas, and China has been buying more Russian oil, refining it, and then selling it into the EU at these much higher prices.
In addition, as western capital has left Russia, as part of the sanctions, the largess flowing into Russia from higher energy prices has meant that Russian capitals have been able to simply take over the physical assets of those companies in Russia. For example, when McDonalds left, all of their restaurants and equipment have simply been taken over by a Russian company, meaning that the profits from that now again flow into Russian rather than US coffers.
Once again, this illustrates that economic sanctions never work to hit the people they are supposed to be directed at. The capitalists always utilise them to their own ends, whilst those adversely affected are workers, who lose their jobs, and see prices rise and so on. The NATO sanctions against Russia have been particularly idiotic, because they have not only been ineffective in preventing Russia selling energy supplies that are in demand across the globe, but have actually massively increased the price of that energy to the great benefit of Russia. US imperialism does not mind, because it has also benefited massively from higher energy prices, because it is itself not only self sufficient in oil and gas, but also exports huge amounts of both. It is the EU that has been damaged by it, and that is also to the US benefit, because it is the EU which is the largest single market in the world, and the main competitor of US imperialism.
But, if Russia wanted to cut off gas supplies to Europe, via Nordstream1, why would it do that by blowing up its own pipeline. It has no need. Not only is it the case that the EU is engaged in a masochistic, flagellation of its own economy, by voluntarily boycotting Russian oil and gas, so as to demonstrate its prostration at the feet of US imperialism, but Russia has also shown that it can use the energy weapon far more easily simply by turning off the supply!! It has already done that to several countries whose contracts ran out, and who refused to pay for their gas in Roubles. That payment in Roubles was required, because again NATO exclusion of Russia from the SWIFT international payments system, made payment in Dollars impossible.
Rather than blowing up its own pipelines, and the gas supplies within them, Russia has a far more powerful weapon in simply threatening to turn off or on the taps, whenever it chooses. In fact, given its dependence on revenues, being able to continue supplies is to its obvious benefit. Applying the standard detective motto in finding culprits of "who benefits", or alternatively "follow the money", you would have to say the finger does not point at Moscow.
So, who does benefit? In the last few weeks, EU governments have come under increasing pressure from their workers, as a result of the soaring prices of energy caused by NATO's boycott of Russian oil and gas. Demonstrations have taken place in several countries, linking those high prices directly to those boycotts. In many cases, those demonstrations have been coordinated by fascist and far right groups, some connected to the right-wing regime of Putin in Russia. That again, shows the idiocy of those on the Left that have formed Popular Fronts, not only with their own bourgeoisie, but also with NATO imperialism, and who have been prepared to see the interests of workers pulverised, simply to assuage the interest of that imperialism. It has been a huge recruiting sergeant for the far right, as the elections in Sweden and Italy have demonstrated.
The EU undoubtedly undertook the boycotts of Russian energy, because, much like the Iraq War, they bought into the propaganda put out by NATO that Putin would be forced to quickly capitulate. They must have thought that the need to make their people freeze to death over the Winter, and to see their businesses closed down once more, this time possibly permanently, would never arise, as a defeated Russia would be forced to supply energy to them at historically low prices. They have fallen victim to their own hubris, or more precisely they are the victims of NATO/US hubris, whilst the US itself can sit back in the warm glow of its own oil, gas, and coal supplies over Winter.
So, being able to deflect blame to Russia, by claiming it blew up the pipelines would certainly be in the interests of the EU, and particularly some of its states in Northern Europe, who will be most affected, and who have the easiest access to the Baltic. Rather than being blamed for their own boycotts of Russian energy, for the high prices, and lack of supply, they can try to blame it on Russia, which has been the media narrative all along. You never hear any media pundit talking about the high energy prices resulting from NATO sanctions, it is always framed as high energy prices resulting from the Ukraine War. The same is true of high food prices, resulting from NATO's sanctions, on Russian grain and other exports.
But, in the end, does the EU really want to have to destroy its economy, and face increasing revolts from its workers? It may currently be fascists, red-browners, and other Putin fans organising protests in Prague and elsewhere, but its not fascists organising the mass of strikes against high levels of inflation, and rising energy prices across the globe. Sooner or later, those two things must necessarily converge, and if socialists have any concert of strategy beyond the practical politics of following their nose, and simply putting a plus where there immediate opponents place a minus, they will realise that its necessary for socialists, and the labour movement to get ahead of that, and not simply prostrate itself in the interests of popular frontist alliances with US imperialism, of the kind proposed by Paul Mason, for example.
If things, sharpen as workers continue to mobilise, and to strike against the high cost of living, in conditions of continued tight labour markets, that favour workers, and so, protect themselves against those rising prices, the EU will want to be able to change course itself, to be able to restore its necessary cheap energy supplies from Russia, once it recognises that all the talk about a Russian collapse were just propaganda.
If Putin falls, which is unlikely, the likelihood is he will be replaced by something worse, and more hard line. (A lesson all those opportunists who clamoured for Boris Johnson to go should have learned). That would probably be also someone more subordinated to China. For all the talk of Xi and Modi, and Erdogan applying diplomatic pressure on Putin, it's in their interests that Russia not be defeated by the US, and they have shown they are themselves no slouches when it comes to being prepared to use violent means to achieve their ends, against their own populations as well as others.
So, its possible, but also unlikely, that the EU, or one of its member states, is responsible for the sabotage. The country that gains most is the US. It could be argued that Ukraine might benefit, and its corrupt regime seems capable of all sorts of irrational behaviour. But, its unlikely, given that it is just a puppet of NATO imperialism that it would undertake such an action without getting the approval of the US first. A case could be made for the UK having a motive, particularly with the new Brexitory government in serious trouble, and seeking to undermine the EU, with its own economic war against them, and the UK is also the puppet of US imperialism, when it comes to political and military manoeuvres. But, the UK is also being crucified on that cross of the US economic war against Russia and China.
The Brexitories had made great play about a global Britain being able to find new markets to replace those it had, but threw away, in Europe, by turning its gaze to China, India and so on. Now US imperialism is seeking to prevent its NATO allies from forming large scale trading arrangements with China, at the same time that Brexit Britain has also been given the cold shoulder for any trade deal with the US itself. The Banana Monarchy of Britain, may well need to look to some salvation from high energy prices caused by NATO's sanctions on Russia, and so have no reason to engage in such sabotage.
It is the US that has most to gain. As it sees those demonstrations against EU and UK governments, who are bearing the brunt of NATO imperialism's war against Russia in Ukraine, and sees the possibility of the EU cracking in the face of revolts from its working-class, and the election of far right governments in Sweden and Italy. The US would have a clear motive, opportunity and means of sabotaging the Nordstream pipelines, so as to say to EU governments, if you change course, we can cut off your energy supply anyway!
It doesn't take a Poirot to follow the logic, and the clues.
No comments:
Post a Comment