“the German People must learn how the intrinsic signalling that came along with the continued failure by Merkel’s government to terminate #NordStream2 was perversely interpreted by putin as a green light to attack Ukraine.” Writes M. Gonchar for @EURACTIV
“With the pipelines of death, the Kremlin had two objectives: to squeeze Ukraine out of the gas transit and cement Gazprom’s hold over European gas markets – controlling transit routes and the commodity. This was never about commerce.”
“As long as Russia depended on Ukraine for gas transit, Putin’s hands were tied, and he couldn’t wage his war. When Nord Stream 1 was launched in 2011, transit via Ukraine was cut. Turk Stream started flowing gas to Europe in 2020. The same story repeated itself.”
“Ukraine completely reformed its energy market in the first five years of the post-Yanukovych period (2014-2019), meeting the EU’s every demand. Germany continued to back Putin’s pet project even though the existing transit network exceeded Germany’s needs for gas imports.”
“In 2020-2021 it was apparent to every objective observer that NS2 (55 bcma) was not needed because 🇺🇦’s transit network, through which gas to 🇩🇪 was supplied for decades, had a spare capacity of roughly 100 bcma. 🇺🇦’s pleas to terminate the bypassing routes were dismissed.”
The Kremlin knew that Germany knew his ultimate goal: to squeeze Ukraine out of gas transit. Yet, Germany’s political leaders were willing to partake in the naked hypocrisy – calling it a “commercial deal.”
No matter what I do, the voice in Putin’s head whispered, Germany has my back, their support for the pipeline of war, the pipeline of Ukraine’s isolation, tells me so.
In May of 2021, when Joe Biden waved the sanctions as a gesture of goodwill towards Germany, Putin concluded, we have a tacit understanding. No one minds that I take Ukraine.
speaking to the @Bundestag, 🇺🇦President put it plainly: “When we told you that #NordStream was a weapon and a preparation for a great war,” you refused to hear us. Please don’t bury your head in the sand again. To find salvation, we have to reckon with the truth first."
Who needs Nord Stream when the existing transit network is operating 2/3 empty? Same gas from the same source to reach the same customers. Who ever needed #NordStream?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We said continuity of transit was Ukraine's biggest non-military barrier to Russian aggression. Now we see it 2/5
We offered as much transit capacity as Europe needed, but Gazprom chose not to use it and blackmail Europe instead. If you ever claimed this was Ukraine's fault, now your public apology would be welcomed 3/5
Indiscriminate shelling of nonmilitary targets, civilian population, and strategic infrastructure by the russian invaders has resulted in a major accident on the Kramatorsk-Donetsk-Mariupol gas pipeline. tsoua.com/news/stan-robo…
2/8 Our system engineers recorded a sharp pressure change in the transmission system and had to shut off the gas flows.
As a result of russian attack, 24 gas distribution stations in the region have no gas supply.
3/8 About 1m consumers in Donetsk & Zaporizhzhia provinces have no gas. Our local teams and the engineering department in our Kyiv HQ are looking for technical solutions to minimize the losses and restore the gas supplies.
NS2 was never going to bring new gas to 🇪🇺
It's a question of simple arithmetic.
🟨 total gas exports from 🇷🇺 to 🇪🇺 in 2021 = 140 bcm
🟨 maximum gas exports from 🇷🇺 to 🇪🇺 estimated at ~200 bcm by Gazprom itself
🟨 total existing transit capacity to bring 🇷🇺 gas to 🇪🇺 = 266 bcm
The gas crunch in Europe is a consequence of discretionary and deliberate efforts by Gazprom.
Don't take our word for it, just ask @fbirol of @IEA - the most respected international body, staunchly neutral, always objective and data-driven
[THREAD]: The #EnergyCrisis and #gasprice 📈is a consequence of deliberate choices by a dominant gas supplier to Europe not to use the existing gas transmission infrastructure
Russia talks of increased gas "supplies" to Europe but not “exports”
The difference seems subtle🤔 the consequences are not 🚨
To boost “supplies,” Gazprom is emptying its EU storage facilities (stoking fears ➠ pushing up prices 📈) and hides behind "delivering on obligations"
Gazprom increased production by 18% this year, which allowed Russia to triple its exports to China and Turkey, but not Europe 🤔 #gascrisis#energycrunch
The 5-year contract which was signed in 2019 foresees the transit volumes of 40 bcm in 2021, which amounts to 109 mcm/day.
It is deeply alarming 🚨 and quite informative to note that Gazprom is now paying for capacity and not using it!
Since the beginning of the month, Gazprom is shipping 86 mcm/day which is ~25% less than what it's paying for. There is a great disconnect between the words and the actions when it comes to the role of the Russian Federation in the European gas crunch. #EnergyCrisis#GasPrice
Ukraine stands ready to transport as much gas as Europe needs and our spare capacity, available at this very time, is nearly twice that of #NordStream2
🤔 it is possible for Russia to "increase supplies" of #natgas to Europe and create market fear 😱 that contributed to the quadrupling of prices since June?
💡 A few hints below 👇👇👇
Hint 1: gas "supplies" is a loaded word. Many automatically equate "increased supplies" with more gas exports from 🇷🇺 to 🇪🇺.
That's not the case. Gazprom is emptying its EU storage (stoking fears ➠ pushing up prices 📈) and hides behind "delivering on obligations"
Hint 2: the post-pandemic gas demand in Europe is on par with 2019, so that's the reference year to look at for meaningful analysis.
Any comparison to 2020, used by those who prefer not to notice Gazprom’s role in the #gascrisis, is unhelpful and misleading. #energycrisis