Energy Dispute a Reminder About Classic Geopolitics
Beginning around 20 June and ending 24 June, Europe went through a mini natural gas crisis. Russian natural gas giant Gazprom reduced supplies into Belarus by 60% in response to Belarus’ unpaid bill of $192 million. Belarus at first refused to pay and later even offered payment in the form of tradable goods instead of currency while protesting that it was waiting for the payment of $200 million in transit fees from Gazprom. The crisis has mostly ended. Belarus paid Russia $187 million and Gazprov paid Belarus $228 million of the $260 million demanded.
During the crisis, the only third party that appeared to suffer any serious shortage was Lithuania, which had supply briefly reduced by 40%. The rest of Europe was unaffected. The dispute brought back memories of the 2005-2006 Ukraine/Russia gas crisis. However, because only one fifth of Europe’s gas supplies are transported through Belarus (80% goes through Ukraine) and because the summer requires less energy than winter, Europe was never in serious danger.
While Russia may have had multiple motives for cutting gas to Belarus, Belarus did legitimately owe Russia close to $200 million. It is reasonable that Russia took action. Belarus and Russia have a close relationship and both have authoritative systems of government. Nevertheless, their shared values did not trump economic reality; this was an example of pure, classic geopolitics. One of the overarching issues during the dispute was Belarus’ recent efforts to grow closer to the European Union. Russia views the world in terms of balances of power and believes it needs to keep Belarus in its sphere of influence as a buffer against a potentially hostile Europe.
These events indicate a deeper rift between Belarus and Russia. The two nations have grown farther apart recently after Belarus initially resisted a common customs union and opposed a joint Russian-Belarusian rapid-reaction military force. In light of the gas dispute, Belarus is considering importing natural gas from alternative sources. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko also made it clear that this event would affect the broader strategic relationship between the two countries. In a letter to Pavel Boridin, State Secretary of the Union State of Russia and Belarus, Lukashenko stated, “Belarusians have started being watchful of our closest ally Russia and have begun to expect more unpredictable blows from it.”
Lukashenko’s words are a reminder that the international paradigm has changed since the Cold War. NATO and the Warsaw Pact alliances formed over mutual values. The 21st century could bear a closer resemblance to the 19th century and early 20th century. Nations’ economic and political interests will drive policy. It is important for the U.S. to recognize this reality and formulate policies accordingly.
This event is also a reminder that energy security will be a primary concern for European nations in the 21st century. Even this relatively small event raised concerns throughout Europe. The European Union gets 25% of its gas from Russia. Any disruption of these supplies makes Europe vulnerable. Nations in other regions of the world are also energy conscious: sea lanes used for the transport of oil to East Asia are increasingly a concern for China and Japan.
The U.S. should avoid getting involved in minor disputes such as this. The latest gas dispute is small compared to the Ukraine/Russia standoff of two years ago, which had ramifications across Europe. Rather, the U.S. should maintain close ties with Eastern European nations but limit itself to protecting the economic and political interest of NATO countries. The U.S. must also be ready to push back against Russia if Medevev and Putin use Russia’s energy resources as an economic or political weapon.
The National Security section of the Weekly Political Forecast is written by PAI’s Analyst in National Security Affairs.
