OPINION: The European Commission threatens to hit Russia through new sanctions while EUs energy policies are stymieing  Europe’s own economic growth and undermine its ability to defend itself and its values

This article reflects the personal views of the author and is not necessarily an expression of ICIS’s position

LONDON (ICIS)–In his latest article about Europe’s position in our world of escalating military tensions and warfare director of Eurointelligence Wolfgang Munchau cited US chess player Bobby Fischer as saying:

“Tactics flow from a superior position.”

Munchau is positing that Europe is increasingly using ‘tactics’ as opposed to ‘strategy’.

His argument rings very true when it comes to Europe’s energy policy and its stance towards Russia – the aggressor in the brutal Ukraine war that has now lasted for three years.

The European Commission has recently announced the 18th sanctions package against Russia aimed at hitting its president Vladimir Putin where it hurts – energy exports – one of his main sources of income.

“Russia’s goal is not peace, it is to impose the rule of might. Therefore, we are ramping up pressure on Russia. Because strength is the only language that Russia will understand,” President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission (HR/VP) Kaja Kallas said in a joint statement on 10 June.

To back up its strong words with actions the Commission is proposing a transaction ban for the sabotaged Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines that have been inactive since September 2022.

“This means that no EU operator will be able to engage directly or indirectly in any transactions regarding the Nord Stream pipelines. There is no return to the past,” the Commission’s high officials said.

The proposal to sanction Nord Stream 1&2 has puzzled many energy experts.

“So, why is now Europe rushing to sanction these pipelines, which have not transported gas in almost three years?” asked postdoctoral fellow and energy observer Francesco Sassi.

The measure is linked to EU’s Roadmap to phase out all imports of Russian energy by 2027, which it believes will help to end the war in Ukraine.

“Every sanction weakens Russia’s ability to fight. So, Russia wants us to believe that they can continue this war forever. This is simply not true,” Kallas said.

The Commission may achieve its goal of inflicting financial pain on Putin’s war economy. But its rejection of Russian energy should be viewed in the wider context of Europe’s obsession with phasing out fossil fuels as such and its headlong pursuit of Net Zero goals and policies.

Net Zero recently came under fire from the most unlikely critic – former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

“Despite the past 15 years seeing an explosion in renewable energy and despite electric vehicles becoming the fastest-growing sector of the vehicle market, with China leading the way in both, production of fossil fuels and demand for them has risen, not fallen, and is set to rise further up to 2030,” Blair said.

“Leaving aside oil and gas, in 2024 China initiated construction on 95 gigawatts of new coal-fired energy, which is almost as much as the total current energy output from coal of all of Europe put together. Meanwhile, India recently announced they had reached the milestone of 1 billion tonnes of coal production in a single year,” he added.

Blair concluded that any strategy based on “either “phasing out” fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail”.

In the past few years, it has become abundantly clear that European industries have been severely hurt by high energy prices to the point when they are closing down production and relocating to more industry-friendly parts of the world.

When it comes to natural gas, Ukraine itself is struggling to secure adequate supplies for this winter, which is putting further upwards pressure on European hub prices and increasing Europe’s appetite for LNG, drawing cargoes away from other continents.

So whose interests is the European Commission defending? And whom is it hurting the most?

“We Westerners are, by our inclination, more tactical than strategic. We like to close in. That is not necessarily a bad thing, for as long as you have an underlying strategy in place,” Munchau concluded his analysis.

Coming back to Bobby Fisher, what position of ‘superiority’ can Europe boast these days? If it is not an economic one, the rest is an empty moral posturing.