[ad_1]
The Russian invasion of Ukraine today has a global impact on many parts of the world, affecting the balance of power between states and creating a struggle between democratic and authoritarian alliances. It also has a major impact on global energy supply. European states have struggled to reorient their consumption away from Russian natural gas, while Russia has used its energy assets as political leverage while finding new economic partners.
In short, there’s also an energy battle surrounding the invasion, as a panel of experts analyzed at an MIT public event on Friday. The online discussion, “Energy as a Weapon of War,” was the latest Star Forum, MIT’s featured event series on foreign policy and international relations.
Two speakers at the forum discussed energy issues as well as the wider course of the war. Margarita Balmaceda, a professor of diplomacy and international relations at Seton Hall University and a fellow at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, outlined three key aspects of the energy issue involved in the invasion.
In the first place, she noted, Europe’s reliance on Russian natural gas is a long-term issue that existed with the Russian occupation of Crimea in 2014, but is now being managed differently.
“If we look at the case of Germany … you can see that the ordeal of this reliance on Russian natural gas in particular was not simply something you could attribute to one or two corrupt politicians,” said Balmaceda, author of “Russian Energy Chains: Transforming Technopolitics from Siberia to Ukraine to the European Union.” Instead, she said, “it’s something that has gone to all levels of economic life,” including industrial consumers of natural gas, regional governments and other stakeholders.
Second, Balmaceda noted, many basic manufacturing industries, especially in Germany, are particularly dependent on Russian energy, making the need for alternatives something that has direct effects in key manufacturing sectors.
“In my opinion, the real story, and the story we need to pay much more attention to, has to do with … industrial users of natural gas,” Balmaceda said. In fact, she noted, gas consumption is a major part of the production cycle in Europe’s chemical, cement, steel and paper industries, supporting around 8 million jobs.
Finally, Balmaceda noted, European boycotts of Russian energy may have temporarily halted Russia, but the regime later found new markets in China, India and elsewhere.
“It is very important to understand that this story does not end in the European Union and North America, and if we do not address the real energy problems of the countries of the Global South, we will not get very far in trying to reduce Russia’s energy power.” moving forward,” she said.
Constance Steinmüller, director and Fritz Stern Chair of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution, offered some political context as well as her own perspective on the progress of the war.
While policymakers in Europe often praise the Biden administration’s response in the U.S. in support of Ukraine, “It’s also remarkable how steadfast the European response has been,” Steinmueller said. She added: “It’s something I was very concerned about.” She also praised the German government for “separating Germany’s dependence on Russian gas and oil imports in ways I honestly wouldn’t have thought possible.”
While the alliance supporting Ukraine has been valuable, Steinmüller said, she believes the US and Europe should provide Ukraine with even more arms support. “At this point, it is still unclear whether Ukraine will have the means to maintain full control over its territory.”
Meanwhile, Russia’s relations with China, she added, have profound consequences for the long-term trajectory of the war. So far, China has nominally pledged broad support to Russia while publicly de-escalating the nuclear rhetoric stemming from the war. However, Steinmüller added that if China decided to “actively support” Russia militarily, “that would be, in my view, the worst game changer of all, and one that would … be the single biggest challenge that I can think of to our ability to help Ukraine to win and to maintain our own security in Europe.
Star Forum is organized by MIT’s Center for International Studies (CIS). Friday’s event was co-sponsored by MIT’s Security Studies Program and the MIT-Eurasia Program, in addition to CIS.
Moderators for the event were Elizabeth Wood, professor of history at MIT, author of the 2016 book “Roots of the Russian War in Ukraine” and co-director of the MISTI MIT-Eurasia Program; and Carol Sayvetz, senior adviser in MIT’s Security Studies Program and an expert on Soviet and Russian foreign policy. Wood and Sayvec have helped host a series of Starr Forum events over the past year that have looked in depth at several aspects of the Russian invasion and defense of Ukraine.
Understanding the role of energy in war “is clearly of critical importance today,” Wood said in her opening remarks. These include, she noted, “how Russia uses energy as a tool of aggression, how Ukraine suffers from attacks on its critical infrastructure, and how the alliance of European countries [states] and the US is responding.”
In response to questions from the audience, the scientists laid out multiple scenarios in which the war could end, either on terms more favorable to Ukraine or in ways that strengthen Russia. One audience member also wondered to what extent the current war could also be considered a “carbon war or climate war,” in which the shift toward clean energy also reduces global dependence on major gas and oil suppliers, such as Russia.
In response, Balmaceda noted that Ukraine’s current infrastructure development could, in theory, leave it with no choice but to modernize its energy infrastructure (even though its own fossil fuel orientation represents only a small fraction of global demand). Steinmüller added that “Ukraine will need much more than just to reorient its energies [demand]. … It will have to change its role in the global economy,” given its industrial dependence on coal and other fossil fuels.
Overall, Balmaceda added, “Whether Russia wins this conflict or loses, the rot inside Russia is deep enough to be bad news for us all for a long time.” For her part, Steinmüller reiterated how vital increased support from the alliance would be.
“We should show that we are willing and able to defend not only a country attacked by a great power, but willing to defend ourselves,” Steinmüller said. Otherwise, she added, “If we hadn’t done that, we would have set a precedent for the whole world to see that it surrenders to blackmail, including nuclear blackmail, and let that happen without us being willing to see Ukraine’s defense to the end.”
[ad_2]
Source link
