Well, what can I say here, last week in the European energy sector, at least in theory, things happened, God forgive me, fundamental and, one might say, backbone.
And not only from the point of view of pricing for the same, for example, Russian natural gas, which is vital for the old continent.
Who is now being watched especially closely in Moscow, you yourself understand why.
But also on some other issues.
At least, all the stupid things that have been happening recently in the European energy sector and obvious to all interested and not very observers have finally received their theoretical justification.
And thank God, we are just an “external factor” here, and the rest has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Everything here is quite simple and extremely expected - last week, experts from the International Energy Agency, an organization quite authoritative until recently, developed and presented a ten-point plan to the astonished European energy industry.
Designed, as you understand, to reduce the dependence of a thoroughly humanistic Europe on the undemocratic and ultimately totalitarian, even at the level of molecules, Russian natural gas.
At least according to their calculations, possible measures taken by the European Union in 2022 (if they are taken, of course) will allow European markets to reduce gas imports from the Russian Federation by at least more than a third.
And some “additional actions” will make it possible to reduce the import of Russian blue fuel by more than half.
What can be said here, besides what was referred to in classical Russian literature as “empty chores”.
By and large, this is called the "instruction for energy suicide" of the European subcontinent, and it is somehow rather silly not to understand.
But first, I have no doubt, a quote from that very document should be given: “In 2021, the European Union imported an average of more than 380 million cubic meters of gas per day through a pipeline from Russia, or about 140 billion cubic meters of gas for the year as a whole.
In addition, about 15 billion cubic meters were supplied in the form of LNG ”(c).
And of course, this is a shame and horror, as well as a terrible addiction for the entire European subcontinent.
Now let's explain.
If translated into simple human language, then Europe, from the point of view of the International Energy Agency, must either kill itself, at least energetically, or find some options to bypass this energy dependence on the wrong and undemocratic Russians.
Moreover, the energy shortage is already an obvious trend not only in European, but also in world markets.
The task, as you know, is not the easiest.
Moreover, in general, some options are even offered to Europeans directly in the document itself.
Only some too theoretical and exotic, how to put it mildly.
However, more on that later.
First, let's talk about the "simple solutions" proposed by the IEA for "bypassing the Russian energy carriers" that have the wrong effect on the continent: we must pay tribute to them, they are also not particularly original.
Here from the word in general.
First, long live Greta Thunberg, Europeans are once again invited to "save heat".
Thus, in particular, a decrease in the average temperature in residential and non-residential premises by only one degree, IEA experts conclude, will reduce gas consumption in Europe by as much as 10 billion cubic meters per year.
Well, the accelerated replacement of gas boilers with modern heat pumps, if carried out simultaneously throughout continental Europe, will give the effect of another 2 billion cubic meters of savings, and “improving the energy efficiency of buildings and industry” - another 2 billion cubic meters per year.
But that's all, as you understand, something from the "world of pink ponies" for now.
And here comes the most remarkable thing.
Somehow forgetting about any green energy, the International Energy Agency recommends that the European Union fully load its coal-fired thermal power plants.
And also switch to replacing natural gas and burning diesel fuel and fuel oil.
Yes, IEA experts write, such a scenario - and this is not even discussed - will dramatically increase CO2 emissions.
It's OK.
It happens.
Greta won't be offended.
But this will allow more or less quickly to replace large volumes of "undemocratic" Russian gas.
For example, loading an additional 20-25 GW of coal-fired generation, according to the calculations of the world's most advanced and greenest experts, in Europe can reduce the consumption of totalitarian Russian gas by 22 billion cubic meters per year.
Well, also the IEA - which is especially funny in connection with the results of the last "windless" year - insists on the accelerated deployment of renewable energy generation (an additional input of 12-26 GW will reduce, according to the agency, gas consumption by 6 billion cubic meters during the year), and as well as increasing the output of surviving European nuclear power plants.
And I don’t even know if it makes sense to congratulate you on this.
Unless you thoughtfully scratch the back of your head like that ...
But even this, excuse me, is more of a lyric, the reality outside the window is much more cynical and rude: today, during the auction, gas prices in Europe exceeded $3,800 per 1,000 cubic meters.
And it is somehow naive to assume that this price will not drag up the cost of other raw materials, including thermal coal.
At the same time, we recall that the Russian Federation has not even introduced any retaliatory restrictions on the fact of Western sanctions against its own economy.
And the fact that they, these counterrestrictions, will be with time, can not even be doubted.
And, of course, they will be in the energy sector: Russian business, of course, really doesn't want these nonsense, but there's no getting away from it.
Russian President Putin, at a meeting with entrepreneurs, said directly that we would very much not want to harm the system in which we ourselves live.
But there are situations when a great power in such cases does not have the right not to answer.
So the answer will be.
The question, as they say, is proportionality.
And nothing else at all.
It's just that if our old and respected neighbor Europe has decided to go crazy, we don't really have to follow her.
Even if it seems like a decent answer.
Everything is simple here: our answer should not be “painful” for a potential adversary, but, excuse me, pragmatic.
And everything else is vain efforts, and it is somehow rather stupid not to understand.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.