Book Offer
This will close in 10 seconds
We are not a well governed people:
The European Commission suggested measures governments could take to curb gas use, including compensating industries that use less and limiting heating and cooling temperatures in public buildings.
Governments should also decide the order in which they would force industries to shut down in the event of a supply emergency.
Households are classed as “protected consumers” under EU rules and would be shielded from such curbs.
EU member states will vote on the Council’s rationing plan at a meeting of energy ministers on 26 July.
The first thing to say about this is that President Von Der Leyen is entirely correct when she notes that the Russian Government is using gas as a weapon:
Russia is using gas as a weapon.
We have to address our energy security at EU level.
We learnt from the pandemic that if we act in unity, we can address any crisis.
So let's act together to reduce gas use and provide a safety net for all EU countries. https://t.co/Or53o1Acer
— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) July 20, 2022
The second thing to say is that this is – and should have been from day one – entirely foreseeable. The European Union, broadly, has had the correct analysis about Vladimir Putin for some time now: he is a thug, and he is willing to starve the continent to get his way. But that being true, one must really question the wisdom of a generation of European Union leaders who chose to give him that power.
And frankly, though it kills me to write it, it makes me question, at least momentarily, the wisdom of continuing to fight a war against an enemy to whom we have willingly handed a devastating economic weapon.
The problem is that it is no longer so simple, as some people would have it, as lifting the sanctions on Russia, forcing Ukraine to make peace, and going back to normal. That option is off the table entirely, and it is not coming back onto the table. The costs, at this stage, would be too high.
For one thing, if a person like Putin senses weakness in Europe, he will not respond to that weakness with magnanimity. The fundamental difference between the two sides in the economic war that has broken out between Russia and Europe is this: EU leaders, to some extent, will feel the consequences if their people are suffering. It is as naught to Putin if some village in Siberia is starving, since those people will not be permitted to elect the opposition in any case. Meanwhile, European leaders face the real threat of revolt. This has always been what Putin spotted as the core weakness to his west: That he could use the voters of Europe as a weapon against its leaders, if push came to shove.
Push is now coming to shove.
We do not know, at this stage, what the costs of backing down would be. Once you validate the Putin plan of starving Europe into submission, you basically give him carte blanche to do it again. And again. And again.
The villain in this piece is not even, truly, Vladimir Putin. It is Angela Merkel, who authored this situation, without so much as an eye to the possibility that the Russians might one day seek to take advantage of it. She is gone now, but we are living with her toxic legacy. Writing about Angela Merkel last September, long before the war, I wrote:
Under Angela Merkel, Germany, and Europe, have ended up at the mercy of President Putin, who has the power to turn off the gas taps in Winter, should the mood ever take him.
On the right of European politics, or what passes for it these days, there has never been much love for helping the defenders in the Ukrainian war. Some of that is due to an entirely misguided impression that Vladimir Putin, on the big questions of globalism and the culture war, is “one of us”. Here’s some news for you, folks: He is happy for you to believe that, so long as that perception encourages your opposition to your own government. I might gently suggest that a fifty something year old man who recruits, as he did, a teenage girlfriend, is not the traditional idea of a deeply committed socially conservative christian.
In any case, those voices will now move to arguing that in the face of this crisis, the EU is to blame, Putin has won, and a sensible settlement must now be sought. As cuts bite, that sentiment will surely grow.
So, it’s important to ask this question: What then? Even in the event of such a settlement, which would be a historic disaster not only for Ukraine, but for Europe, this policy catastrophe can never be repeated. If there’s a lesson to learn from Putin, it is in the value of governing in your national self interest.
The first thing we in Ireland should do is to reverse the Government’s insane policy in relation to the Shannon LNG terminal. Having access to a reliable supply of American fracked gas would, at a stroke, eliminate Russian influence over Irish policy.
At EU level, domestic energy production must be the number one long term policy. That means nuclear, it means more drilling for gas, and it means a pushback against the lunatic greens who have led Europe to this precipice. This is a green crisis as much as it is a Russian one.
But in the short term, there is not much that can be done. If the price of gas is Russian expansion, and a reward for Putin’s bullying, it should not, under any circumstances, be paid. Economic crises are temporary. The cost of encouraging Russian military adventurism might be much, much, greater.
The people responsible for this mess, however, should all be voted out of office at the first opportunity.
This will close in 10 seconds