Saeed Azimi, Staff writer - IRAN DAILY
“I’m struggling to put food on the table nowadays,” Olga, a 30-year-old Ukrainian war victim tells me. “We are in Kyiv, the capital, yet we are incapable of doing anything to keep ourselves warm.”
Like many other Ukrainians and Russians, Olga is struggling with the aftermath of a war which, according to Peter Kuznick, professor of history at American University in Washington D.C., was neither necessary nor urgent, “yet not unprovoked,” as he told Iran Daily.
Olga can hardly understand the dynamics of the conflict, which, from her vantage point, is the result of “a tension between politicians.” Politics has again proven to be too cruel to care for the people.
A bitter reality inflicted upon people, war is ugly. Even uglier is the fact that some seek – and manage – to profit from it. Most notably, weapons manufacturers.
In the aftermath of the war, or even before it broke out, the West pledged its full support for the Ukrainians in their military conflict with Russia, a support which had more to do with geopolitics rather than humanitarian causes. After all, it was the U.S. which engineered the 2014 “coup” to make pro-West forces take over the Ukrainian government.
The term “West”, however, is misleading as an umbrella term for not everyone has equal stakes in the matter – a fact which has led to yawning trans-Atlantic gaps especially as we get closer to the winter. The difference of opinion is now public knowledge as the European officials have claimed that from their vantage point, the Americans are “making a fortune from the war, while EU countries suffer,” according to an extensive – and rather explosive – article published by Politico on November 24.
“The fact is, if you look at it soberly, the country that is most profiting from this war is the U.S. because they are selling more gas and at higher prices, and because they are selling more weapons,” a senior European official told Politico.
That kind of sobriety, at least in analyzing who gets what from the conflict, is now widespread in the EU.
“We are witnessing the first concrete signs of fatigue emerging among the Europeans regarding the economic consequences of the war in Ukraine. This was expected, but I do not see the Europeans’ frustration resulting in an EU disengagement from supporting Kyiv,” Jacopo Scita, an Italian expert and a Bourse Bazaar policy fellow told me.
Jacopo is on the belief that the current frictions tell much about the inherent limits of NATO, an organization originally conceived as a military defense alliance which came to discharge primarily political functions because, you know, war is politics by other means.
“Although the U.S. and the EU maintain a comparable understanding of the importance of supporting Ukraine and limiting Russia’s access to energy and gas revenues, the lack of political and economic coordination tools that NATO members can use to mitigate the costs of the organization’s external support to Ukraine is apparent,” he told me, adding, “Therefore, the U.S. and the EU must seek deeper economic cooperation and coordination, especially in the likely scenario in which the Russia-Ukraine war will turn into a prolonged war of attrition. Otherwise, the Europeans’ fatigue might get to the point of significantly eroding the commitment of some EU members to Kyiv.”
The friction can be hardly overlooked as it has come to manifest itself in the daily lives of Europeans. Case in point: Strikes throughout the Europe due to the consequences of the war, including, most notoriously, “heat or eat?” dilemma.
Partly driven by the war itself, the dilemma was exacerbated by the Europeans’ decision to replace Russian energy with other sources as a punitive measure, which, according to Heinz Gaertner, Austrian academic and political science lecturer at the University of Vienna, has an untold story.
“They brag that their gas reserves are ninety percent full and that Europeans will come through the winter without freezing too much,” he told me.
“What governments don’t tell [you] is that they are buying much more expensive gas from other countries. Governments now buy the expansive LNG gas from the U.S. and small amounts from Norway, the Netherlands and Azerbaijan. This is one major reason for the mounting inflation rate.”
Both as a cause and an effect of the EU’s hostile energy policies, Russia itself has also weaponized energy, cutting back its gas supply, which has led to soaring costs of living for a long time to come, according to Gaertner.
“Governments blame Russia’s war in Ukraine for the high prices only in general terms. The high inflation rate will have an impact not only on individual households but also on companies and employment. On top of it, the contracts are temporary. At least thirty percent will have to be saved for the coming summer, and contracts will have to be renegotiated.”
European governments, especially in Germany and Austria, Gaertner believes, are trying to reassure their constituencies that fossil energy imports will soon be replaced by renewable energy.
“That is not what is happening, however. Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine the investments into fossil energy (especially coals) increased by twenty percent. Other more technical suggestions are to introduce a price cap for Russian gas imports or to separate gas from electricity prices. These are not sustainable solutions, however, and there is no unity in the European Union,” the Austrian professor concluded.
The gloomy mood could’ve also been felt in the words of a prominent European diplomat who, under the condition of anonymity, substantiated what Politico had reported.
“Maybe it is less visible at political level but when it comes to people who struggle every day with the economy/energy situation the article describes a shared feeling in the continent,” the diplomat told me.
The problem for Europe is that it is deeply divided and EU member states have different priorities, thus making them unable to speak to the U.S. with one single voice, the diplomat opined, adding that the trend which has put the EU in a weak position can be “seen in [EU’s] foreign policy as well of course.”
Should EU have a more robust, independent foreign policy, it could have saved its people much pain by taking advantage of many opportunities it has, including coming to terms with the second top holder of gas reserves in the world – i.e., Iran.
“If the nuclear agreement with Iran (JCPOA) had been concluded earlier, Iran’s energy resources would have been a good alternative for European governments. Iran itself would have benefited from the sanction relief before the current domestic difficulties,” Gaertner said.
The pain felt by the Europeans now, therefore, is neither necessary nor urgent; almost self-inflicted, it’s a price to pay for lack of independence as a political unity.
A price which is, in a bitter irony of times, levied on Ukrainian refugees as well.
Far from the battlefront, Olga’s cousin, playing the hang drums in the streets of London, feels she cannot escape the war as she, along with many Britons, is dealing with shortage of groceries and skyrocketing energy prices.
“We are inevitably doomed to be in this together, no matter where we go,” she had told Olga.
No comments:
Post a Comment