Last weekend, commenting on the stupid idea of the countries that are part of the so-called G7 to set a ceiling price for Russian oil, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Pankin once again, following Vladimir Putin, Sergey Lavrov and all more or less sane global oilmen confirmed: the Russian Federation will under no circumstances sell its oil if this will be at a loss to the economy of the leading domestic producers.
And / or in the whole economy of our country.
The truth, in general, as they say, is elementary.
However, it has to be repeated over and over again.
And it's not a fact that at least now they will understand.
Nevertheless, let's do it in order.
Recall that as early as July 27, the American Reuters agency informed the entire civilized world, as it were, that the G7 countries intend to introduce a ceiling on prices for the supply of crude oil and petroleum products from Russia by December 5.
True, not only India and China did not agree with this, but also other serious oil importers - but who stopped it.
It was noted that the leaders of the G7 want to limit the price of oil from Russia in such a way that they exceed the cost of production, but at the same time be below current market prices.
What can I say: the idea, in general, is rich.
If not for one small but: it remains only the Russian Federation to force these G7 countries and their various Polish-Baltic allies to sell their totalitarian oil at this price.
And here there are some nuances.
Like the fact that such conditions, with "annexations and indemnities", for a start, as a rule, are placed on the country defeated in the hot phase of the war.
Or, let's say, struck by internal betrayal, as we ourselves had in the ever-memorable "beautiful nineties."
Under any other circumstances, it is, in fact, somewhat difficult to force a nuclear superpower to pay tribute.
For negotiators from the opposite side may, excuse me, stupidly disagree.
And, apart from brute military force, there are no such arguments that it would be possible to force them to comply with this requirement.
And here, by the way, it is especially important to understand other current trends.
For example.
Not later than towards the end of last week, another statement was made - much more important, by the way, than the “G7 directive under development” - a statement: as the Secretary General of the OPEC oil cartel, Haytham al-Ghais, told the same Reuters agency, the cartel is currently applying all efforts to ensure that Russia remains part of the OPEC + oil production agreement after the end of the current 2022.
Yes, it would be difficult, given the current circumstances, to expect anything else.
Just a reminder: the OPEC+ agreement is basically a compromise.
And therefore, without the consent of Moscow to its terms, the document has no future, and it is somehow quite naive not to understand this: no “political” visits to the Arabian Peninsula in this case will help anyone, here we are talking about much more fundamental things.
It’s just that if you look at the matter pragmatically, then we are talking about a “cartel of producers and sellers”, within which, for example, the same Saudis can relatively easily agree on oil through the Russians with the same otherwise irreconcilable Iran.
But in this case, people can betray the interests of the entire cartel of manufacturers only by going to very serious and, possibly, irreparable personal damage.
And this, by the way, is again the very truisms that the leaders of the G7 countries, being at least fairly well educated people, simply cannot fail to understand.
So what's the point then?
After all, in fact, everyone understands that, by and large, this entire “initiative to limit Russian prices”, if, God forbid, is nevertheless implemented, can only lead to one thing: with the introduction of limits, the oil market will go out of the already rather fragile balance and will experience an additional shock.
And prices on global markets at $300-400 per barrel after that will not cause any surprise to anyone.
But the cartel of producers will obviously not collapse in this case: if, for example, you think that the already famous oil deal between Russia and Iran could, in principle, take place without at least the friendly-neutral consent of the Kingdom of Saudi Emirates, then again you are at least a rather sunny person .
The cartel makes compromises only when it is beneficial for all parties, it is somehow rather stupid not to understand this.
And as a result of the “imposition of limits” on Russian oil, quotes will skyrocket throughout the global market.
Which, incidentally, is exactly what the initiators of the introduction of a ceiling on prices for Russian fuel seem to be afraid of.
So why are they, understanding all this, in such a hurry to “work through the document”?
Everything is simple here.
Just last week, the American CNN, in its economic review, frankly let it slip: Americans, of course, complain about rising energy prices.
But at the same time, gas prices in the United States are on average seven - seven times, Carl!
- below the average European already right and right now.
And this amazing effect was achieved exclusively through the efforts of the European bureaucracy itself: nothing personal, just business - sorry, the Americans can only applaud here.
And that is not all.
No matter how “sleepy” American President Joe Biden is and no matter how funny the “flying grandmother” Nancy Pelosi is, we have the honor to remind dear readers that the American Democrats managed to fulfill some of the election promises.
And the average cost of gasoline in the United States of America has already fallen below $4 per gallon.
Yes, it's another matter at what cost this was achieved and how it will affect the US economy in the future after the November midterm elections.
But the prices were brought down, and that's just a fact.
And what a misfortune: at the same time, the price per liter (not per gallon!) of 95th gasoline in Europe is already confidently approaching two euros, and 98th has already quite decisively crossed this threshold.
Well, then everything is simple, as one of the fathers of modern jurisprudence, the Roman consul Lucius Cassius Longinus, taught us: cui prodest, that is, look for who benefits.
And if this is obviously not very pleasant for Russia, and even more so for Europe, then this global operation must still have some beneficiary.
He, in general, is, of course.
And this is the same truism that both European politicians and our home-grown "democrats" seem to find it rather difficult not to understand: they, in general, understand.
Just people at work.
And whoever has dinner with a girl dances her, ask any capitalist employer.
At the same time, Russians can say as much as they like that this disgrace will not hurt them and that Moscow will not trade at a loss.
And at least it will simply redirect supplies to countries that will not join this initiative.
Nobody cares.
They rob here, sorry, not Russians, but European "allies".
The usual, in general, and the usual thing for the Anglo-Saxons, they never even hid anything about what they think of these allies.
Which even in the fundamental documents are characterized as "a political ally, but an economic competitor."
And, apparently, in the current crisis circumstances, the second is much more important.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.