NATO vs cheap energy

Well, here we go. According to this piece, Russia is following its dream scenario trying to persuade Baltic states to leave NATO in exchange for cheaper oil or gas.

 

Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO, so there is no legal reason for Western allies protect it against Russia’s attempts while Baltic states are members of NATO and thus can’t be messed with. As it works out Russia has had a thought about it and here it is – the solution – a deal! Russia is offering cheaper gas! Brilliant, isn’t it? Who will not jump at such opportunity?

As impossible as it seems, the silly little precedent is already there - Hungary on Monday approved a multi-billion-euro loan from Russia for an upgrade of the country’s only nuclear power plant, which will increase Hungary’s dependence on Moscow dramatically.

Sometimes I truly wonder how shortsaigthed ones can be in Brussels? Does EU really wants its members to be tied in deals like this right now with a country which by all means is acting like Devil’s empire again? While unsettled blood is still pouring in Ukraine?

About possibility Baltics accepting the Russian offer... It depends. The current generation of politics in Baltics had been born and lived under Soviet Sun so there is always a possibility of blackmail on top of legal way pro-Russian parties taking over at the next elections which is rather possible. Back into the UdSSR?

SO HERE IT COMES...

Right after I published the previous post, the answer did come immediately on BBC! 

 So Russia has decided to play with the gas tap over Europe. Not a big surprise, huh?  Well, but it’s already known that Europe has decided to pay Ukrainian debt as a bailout. 

So why such a sudden warning? Right now Europe is not so desperate – after considerably mild winter and all the summer ahead, Europe can’t be forced into some desperate actions. 

Yahoo in turns report that Moscow has rejected warnings over oil deal with Iran. It looks like a rather fierce and rather pointless verbal escalation.  

Does Russia has a cunning plan hidden in the sleeve? Or the reason is this? I would like to put my bet on NATO deployment as the only force Russia is able to accept is its own.

HOSTAGES OF RUSSIAN GAS

From The Economist

What is the major problem dealing with Russia? The answer is rather simple  – the gas. 

According to this publication, even by the best scenario, reducing European dependency on Russian gas will take at least a decade. And even then, the serious investments and a lot of political will must be invested.  Until then the situation appears to be rather dim. 

Without gas supply from Russia, Europe will face serious shortfalls which can’t be fully compensated by other suppliers. like US. According to this publication, Europe has no hope for American gas either. 
 

The Economist already admits that “If Russia were to push farther into Ukraine, or to try its chances in Moldova, Georgia or the Baltic states, and Europe to take strong action in response, it could shut down exports completely, thus doing huge damage to the EU.” 

So yes, you do not need to look at Arab countries for the battle over energy. If Russia continues playing with the gas tap in one hand and conducting its armed forces over its current borders by other, Europe might face the serious dilemma – to make a political or an economical decision. 

This citation from The Economist has also another angle to look at, at least for me. Economist mentions Moldova, Georgia and the Baltic states as possible targets for Russia.  

 But! 

While Moldova and Georgia (like Ukraine) are not EU member states, the Baltic countries are so protecting them is not optional as far as I know! Even more – the Baltic States are NATO members while Georgia and Moldova are not. 

So if we take out the possibility that Russia goes totally suicidal by attempting to take over one of the NATO and EU members, considering that Russia might try chances in the Baltic is rather strange. Or... 

Does Economist knows something special on this matter that I do not know?  

CHANGE OF WIND

Last night while monitoring BBC wanting to see how they will put the story about Lugansk together,  suspicions started rolling over me.

This morning they have grown into something much stronger than just suspicions. Now I am sure, for certain, that deal over Russia is done.

  If You looked at BBC front page this morning,  there were no news about Ukraine at all. Nada. Zilch.  No reports about anything! Even I know that 60 hostages with a lot of weapons involved is a TOP story everywhere. But strange enough, not for BBC.

Then I checked Yahoo. The same. Lugansk wasn’t mentioned at all. The only story involving Russia was this:

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-ace-hole-094500669--politics.html

Then a bit later on some news (still not on BBC) appeared the story from European Parliament, stating that EU will not implement new sanctions now as they have “common interests” with Russia over energy supplies. Short story here http://www.straitstimes.com/news/world/europe/story/no-more-russia-sanctions-now-urges-eu-parliament-head-20140409

For Shultzs it means changing official opinion by 180 degree since 20^th March. 

Would be rather interesting to know, why such an evasive media coverage out of the blue? 

Whatever the reasons are, I’m sure that Putin believes now that he has freedom to do whatever he wishes.