“We are in a state of energy war with Russia, and this is detrimental to the entire EU,” Czech Industry Minister Josef Sikela said.
The fact that this war was, in fact, declared to Russia by the European Union itself and, therefore, we are talking about a typical shot in the foot, the pan minister delicately kept silent.
But he announced that, in agreement with the European Commission and Prime Minister Petr Fiala, he would propose to convene an extraordinary meeting of the EU Energy Council as soon as possible.
According to the schedule, the meeting of energy ministers of the EU countries was scheduled for October, before which there is not much time left.
What happened on the energy front so extraordinary that the Czechs sounded the alarm?
A few days ago in the pages of the influential (and in the financial world, perhaps the most influential) newspaper The Wall Street Journal appeared an article that caused a stir on both sides of the Atlantic.
"Grenholm to Europe: "You're out of luck!"
This is how the text was titled.
It was about the fact that Jennifer Granholm, the US Secretary of Energy, wrote a letter to the leadership of the country's largest oil refineries demanding to increase production capacity and at the same time reduce the export of petroleum products in anticipation of the impending winter.
Diesel inventories on the East Coast are almost 50% below the average for the past five years, Granholm was indignant, and meanwhile exports of petroleum products are at an all-time high!
“Given the historical level of exports of petroleum products to the United States, I again urge you to focus in the near future on building up stocks in the United States, and not on selling off current stocks and further increasing exports,” the letter said, the text of which was leaked to the media.
It is surprising, of course, that Jennifer Granholm, a noteworthy Democrat, progressive and supporter of “clean energy”, addressed the oil industry with a call to increase the production and processing of “dirty energy carriers”, who publicly declared back in April last year: “So, the president has a goal - to achieve zero carbon emissions in this country by 2050.
And that means we have to find ways to rid our industry of fossil fuels.”
But, apparently, the thunder still struck and the roasted rooster still pecked.
This is not the first time the Biden administration has tried to solve the problems facing the US economy by sending out a kind of "directive from the center."
In June, for example, executives from the country's seven largest oil companies received letters from the president in which Biden demanded an explanation as to why the markets weren't getting more fuel.
Sleepy Joe, as Trump aptly dubbed him, accused the oil industry that while ordinary Americans were suffering sky-high energy prices, British Petroleum, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and other giants were making “historic record profit margins,” which meant , their civic duty is to sacrifice this profit and increase the supply of gasoline to the American market in every possible way.
Then there was another appeal of the President to the owners of gas stations with a demand to reduce gasoline prices.
If the oil giants did not politely respond to the first letter, then the PR service of the US Oil and Gas Association responded to Biden's second call: “We are working on it, Mr. President!
In the meantime, Happy Independence Day, and please make sure the White House intern who posted this tweet enrolls in an online economics course for beginners for the fall semester."
But if for the sharks of business, guided by the principles of free competition, the attempts of the White House to indicate what and at what prices to sell them look comical, then in the European Union, which lives according to the rules of an almost socialist planned economy, the directives of the Biden administration are taken much more seriously.
Therefore, Granholm's letter (albeit addressed to American oilmen) caused a real panic in the EU.
Judge for yourself: at first, Washington is making tremendous efforts to force Europe to abandon Russian gas, while not shunning the most base blackmail.
As early as April, some peripheral European media, such as the Croatian Advance, sounded alarming voices warning that the Americans were pursuing a policy of arm-twisting towards the EU.
“Naturally, Europe is aware of what fate awaits it,” wrote Croatian journalist Antun Rus.
“However, she is in a desperate situation.
If she does not give up Russian gas and oppose US demands, she will be told that she provides little support to Ukraine, she does it formally, and she herself is making energy deals with Moscow selfishly.”
At the same time, the US did not deny that forcing Europe into an energy embargo would be painful.
“We have come to a point where we have to make some sacrifices,” admitted Benn Style, director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
But everyone understood that Europe would bring much more victims to the altar of "defending democracy" than the United States.
Therefore, many experts, such as the director of the influential political risk consulting company Eurasia Group, Clayton Allen, emphasized that in order to force Brussels to impose tough sanctions against Russia, the United States would have to “provide certain guarantees to European countries that energy markets and supplies can be stabilized.” to avoid serious economic difficulties - an economically weakened EU will not help anyone."
There were some grounds for hope.
Indeed, many believed that the United States had been escalating tensions around Ukraine since 2014, mainly in order to squeeze Russia out of the European energy market in order to fill the vacant place with its expensive LNG.
This theory was believed not only by notorious conspiracy theorists, but also by venerable experts who ate a dog in the analysis of energy markets.
And how could one not believe it if new terminals for tankers carrying LNG were being built at an accelerated pace on the American coasts, and only the lazy did not write about the “shale revolution” that turned the United States from an energy importing country into an exporting country?
But the thing is that the coming to power of the Biden Democratic administration with its manic commitment to the green agenda and the ensuing repression of traditional energy industries - including the extraction of the notorious shale gas - very quickly led to the loss of US energy independence, won with such difficulty Trump.
And by the middle of 2022, it became clear that, of course, America could export its energy resources, but this would only result in an uncontrolled rise in prices in the domestic market and a banal energy shortage in the States themselves.
Brussels understood that the transition from cheap Russian gas to expensive American gas would result in significant damage to the European budget, but in the end they resigned themselves to the inevitable.
But here, in Europe, they were clearly not ready for the fact that overseas partners would suddenly refuse to sell energy carriers to the European Union at all.
In the last weeks of summer, it became clear that the scale of the energy crisis, into which the European Union is inexorably creeping, is much more serious than those predicted in the spring.
All of Europe is facing massive increases in electricity bills due to skyrocketing gas prices.
On Friday, British electricity price regulator Ofgem announced that bills would rise by an average of 80% from October to £3,549 ($4,188) a year.
And this is not the end - another price hike is expected in January, as "Russia's actions to limit supplies to Europe" lead to a steady increase in wholesale gas prices.
As a result, millions of households are at risk of what is politically correct called fuel poverty, and hundreds of businesses across the country could be closed.
"It's a disaster," said leading UK consumer rights activist Martin Lewis, warning that people will die if they can't cook or heat their homes this winter.
“Europe is grappling with the worst energy crisis in decades, gas and electricity price spikes are driving inflation, undermining the euro currency and threatening to drag the economy into recession as Russia cut supplies since its invasion of Ukraine six months ago,” writes Bloomberg.
“Failure to manage the crisis could spark social unrest and political upheaval if supply shortages lead to blackouts and cold homes this winter.
European politicians have already provided some €280bn to ease the damage from rising energy prices to businesses and consumers, but this aid risks becoming minuscule compared to the scale of the crisis.”
It is easy to see that the responsibility for the impending energy apocalypse in the West is laid only on our country - as if it were not Brussels, under pressure from Washington, that imposed “hellish sanctions” against Russia that were supposed to destroy our economy.
But this, of course, is the usual Western hypocrisy: in those offices where decisions are made, everyone understands everything perfectly.
And it is not difficult to imagine what words these offices now commemorate respected American partners who promised to support their allies in the fight against the terrible Russian bear, but at the most crucial moment they simply threw it away.
There is a parade of hypocrites on both sides of the Atlantic.
If in London and Brussels they are diligently turning a blind eye to the true culprit of the current European disasters, then in the United States, an article in The Wall Street Journal was also criticized - a representative of the Ministry of Energy "sharply disputed" the opinion that Granholm is forcing American suppliers to reduce exports of oil and gas to Europe.
However, this did not particularly reassure anyone, because the official said, in fact, the same thing as the newspaper, only in more confused bureaucratic language.
Hurricane season is approaching, he explained, and refiner leaders need to take this into account... look at things more broadly... make sure to make the right decisions to supply American consumers and US allies.
The “right decisions” are precisely the reduction of exports and the increase in national reserves.
Only very naive people who still believe in a “shining city on a hill” and an “empire of goodness” can be amazed that Washington tritely framed its allies, whom it itself dragged into a costly confrontation with Russia.
And for wise and experienced people, everything is very clear: winter is coming, and your shirt is closer to your body.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.