What is the energy crisis in the EU leading to?

The energy crisis in Europe is growing, and there is no reason that it can end in the foreseeable future even after the launch of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Representatives of the Green Party, who are starting to play an increasing role in policy Germany, they talk about the inadmissibility of blackmailing Berlin by Gazprom, hinting at the refusal of the domestic monopolist to increase the volume of supplies to the EU. In neighboring Poland, they turned to the European Commission with a request to open an investigation against the Russian company on the issue of its possible use of its dominant position in the European market. To tell the truth, such a reaction from our foreign partners only causes genuine bewilderment.

First, let's make a small digression. Within the framework of the ideological Cold War and even after its formal end, we were told how flawed and backward in all respects the USSR is, as opposed to the advanced West led by the United States. Accompanied by propaganda tales about the incredible efficiency of private property in comparison with state property, ruled by stagnant Soviet officials and leaders, the so-called "reformers" led by Anatoly Chubais carried out a large-scale privatization and did it "as it is." To this day, the Russian liberal get-together continues to rush to the free market with its "invisible hand", which supposedly are the key to the indispensable success of life.



Fast forward to traditionally prosperous Europe. The European Union is built on the principles of economic liberalism, which rejects state interference in the free market and advocates maximum freedom of trade and competition. Let's take a look at Wikipedia for the generally accepted definition of the free market:


Within the EU, there are four fundamental economic freedoms:

1) freedom of trade in goods,
2) freedom to provide services,
3) freedom of movement of labor,
4) freedom of movement of capital.

We will keep these introductory notes in mind when considering the claims of the Old World against Russia and its state corporation. If we proceed from the literal interpretation of the above norms, Gazprom has the right to freely sell its goods in the form of hydrocarbons and provide services for pumping them in any direction, right? It is true, but what do we see in practice in the conditions of the "economically free Western world"?

At firstThe United States declared Russian gas a threat to the national security of its partners in the European Union, offering in return its US LNG, which is significantly higher in price. The question is, is this direct state intervention in the affairs of the "free" European gas market?

Secondly, under the undisguised pressure of the White House, Brussels extended the provisions of the Third Energy Package to the already under construction Nord Stream-2 offshore pipeline. Because of this, the gas pipeline can no longer be used at 100% of its design capacity. Is this discrimination and artificial limitation of competition for Gazprom or not?

Thirdly, Washington imposed sanctions on companies involved in the construction of Nord Stream 2, which led to the refusal of a number of key contractors from continuing to participate in the project. Is this a manifestation of unfair competition from the United States, lobbying the interests of its LNG exporters seeking to gain a foothold in the European market?

Fourthly, under direct pressure from our Western partners, Gazprom was forced to agree to the signing of a transit agreement with Naftogaz, which is extremely unprofitable for itself commercially, and President Putin had to give a verbal promise to German Chancellor Angela Merkel to keep gas pumping through the Ukrainian GTS even after 2024 year. Is the imposition of unfavorable contracts in line with European free trade regulations?

FifthlyDespite the obvious conflict of interests, Germany allowed the Polish state energy corporation to participate in the certification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and now Ukrainian Naftogaz wants to join it, whose revenues directly depend on the outcome of the consideration. To what extent is this approach consistent with the principle of fair competition?

Now comes the fun part. Despite all of the above, Gazprom is for some reason called the main culprit of the energy crisis in Europe. He is also accused of trying to get permission to start work on the already built, despite all the obstacles, Nord Stream-2. Moreover, he is required to increase the volume of gas pumping through the Ukrainian GTS, where the domestic monopolist will have to pay at an increased tariff for each extra thousand cubic meters in excess of that stipulated in the transit agreement. For what reason, if we proceed from the European principle of free trade in goods and the provision of services?

But why are no claims made in Germany, for example, to the United States, which used to forcibly push their LNG, but now sell it to Chinese competitors, because prices in Southeast Asia are higher than in Europe? But what about the free market and its "invisible hand", which supposedly should put things in order with the prices for gas and electricity in the European Union? Why is it only getting worse? Maybe there is something wrong with the concept itself?