In recent years, Europe has experienced significant fluctuations in energy supply.
Despite the destruction of the "Nord Stream" gas pipeline and severe sanctions on Russian gas, Gazprom has once again become Europe's main energy supplier in less than two years.
This phenomenon has drawn widespread attention and has had a significant impact on the sanction policies of Europe and the United States.
So, how did Gazprom re-enter the European market without the "Nord Stream" pipeline?
Today, let's explore why Europe finds it difficult to break away from its dependence on Russian gas.
According to recent data from the European Union, in the past May, Russian natural gas, with a 15% market share, once again became Europe's largest supplier.
Meanwhile, the market share of American natural gas in Europe dropped to 14%, the lowest since August 2022.
This data indicates that after Europe imposed sanctions on Russian natural gas, Russian gas exports to Europe exceeded those of the United States for the first time.
This phenomenon not only reveals the complexity of the European energy market but also reflects the market's sensitivity to prices.
The reason for Europe repurchasing Russian natural gas is actually not complicated; it is mainly due to the high cost of American natural gas.
Separated by the Atlantic Ocean, the United States lacks direct gas pipeline transport to Europe and must rely on sea transport of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
In contrast, the transportation cost of pipeline natural gas is low and the scale is large; Russia only needs to open the valve for gas to be continuously delivered to Europe.
The transport process of liquefied natural gas, however, is much more complex. It requires compressing the gas into a liquid state, shipping it to Europe, and then regasifying it and injecting it into pipelines, all of which are very costly.
For this reason, during the Russia-Ukraine war, the United States profited greatly by selling high-priced natural gas, but such high-priced gas is unsustainable for Europe.
Especially in the summer of 2024, Europe experienced unprecedented high temperatures, leading to a surge in air conditioning use and a sharp increase in electricity demand.
Natural gas in Europe is not only used for heating but also extensively for power generation.
In this situation, the price of American LNG once broke through $1,000 per thousand cubic meters, forcing Europe to reconsider the cheaper Russian natural gas.
After the "Nord Stream" pipeline was bombed, Russia still had two main channels to transport natural gas to Europe.
One is through exporting liquefied natural gas via the Black Sea, no longer relying on the "Nord Stream" pipeline.
The other is via gas pipelines through Ukraine and Turkey to reach Europe.
Russia and Turkey have built two gas pipelines under the Black Sea, namely the "TurkStream" and the "Blue Stream," with a combined annual capacity of 31.5 billion cubic meters. These pipelines enter Europe through Bulgaria and Romania, becoming core channels for Gazprom's exports to Europe.
It is perplexing why Ukraine allows Gazprom to transport gas through its territory.
One must note that the fighting between Russia and Ukraine on the eastern front is intense, with Ukraine even bombing the "Tolyatti-Odessa" ammonia pipeline but not cutting off the gas supply.
There are two reasons for this: First, Ukraine does not dare to cut off the gas supply without authorization, as this gas is destined for Europe, and Ukraine heavily relies on European military aid.
Without Europe's support, the Ukrainian army cannot sustain its fight.
At the end of 2023, Ukraine announced it would cut off Gazprom's supply but faced strong opposition from Europe.
Without Europe's consent, Ukraine dares not risk cutting off this critical energy supply.
Second, Ukraine also benefits greatly from this arrangement. By facilitating Gazprom's entry into Europe, Ukraine can collect transit fees, which are a crucial supplement to its strained military budget.
Ukraine's gas pipelines were built during the Soviet era, and rather than letting them idle, it is better to use them to earn transit fees for purchasing weapons to fight Russia.
Thus, Gazprom exports gas to Europe, Ukraine earns transit fees to buy weapons, and Russia, through gas sales, obtains funds to buy more weapons. The two countries confront each other in the war but both rely on European economic support.
This cycle extends beyond natural gas to include oil.
Russia exports large quantities of crude oil to Hungary, which then refines it into gasoline and diesel for Ukraine.
The Ukrainian military uses this fuel to drive German-supplied Leopard 2 tanks to attack Russian positions.
Meanwhile, Russia, through oil sales, raises funds to purchase T-90 tanks to fight the Ukrainian army.
Hungary, in this process, gains without deploying a single soldier, making significant profits.
Gazprom's return as Europe's largest natural gas supplier indicates that the strategy of blocking Russian natural gas by Europe and the US has completely failed.
Although Europe politically supports Ukraine against Russia, in terms of energy imports, it must consider economic realities.
In a market economy, price and supply stability are the most important factors.
For the US or other energy suppliers to replace Russia in the European market, they must offer more competitive prices and more reliable supply chains.
The mutual dependency between Europe and Russia in energy cannot be easily altered in the short term.
Europe must find a balance between supporting Ukraine and ensuring its own energy security, while Russia utilizes this dependency to maintain its influence on the international stage through energy exports.
In the future, with changes in geopolitical situations and dynamic developments in the energy market, Europe may seek more diversified energy supplies, but the position of Russian natural gas in the European market is unlikely to be easily shaken in the short term.
Kommentare