WE are deeply outraged by the irresponsible and cynical statements of John Mangun, who called the Russian head of state and the entire Russian people “Lucifer’s minions” in the article “The foolish get fooled” dated September 1, 2022. Such statements, insulting an entire nation, are hateful, nationalistic and xenophobic in nature, and are unacceptable in any civilized society. At the same time, we see behind such statements the agony of impotent anger against Russia’s consistent position in defending its own national interests, as well as the fear of the “collective West” to face the consequences of its own short-sighted decisions, systemic mistakes in building energy sector and macroeconomic policy.
Once again an attempt was made to distort the words and essence of what the Russian leader said in April 2008 at the Nato summit in Bucharest. According to the author, Vladimir Putin during his speech “has made no secret of his contempt for Kiev’s independence.” However, if desired, one can find a transcript of the speech of the Russian President, who just emphasized the complexity of the state formation of Ukraine and its internal political structure, the heterogeneity of its territories, and called for acting very carefully in a country “where a third of the inhabitants are ethnic Russians (17 million out of 45 million Ukrainians population).” Vladimir Putin repeatedly reminded that modern Ukraine was created in Soviet times. It received territories from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania after the World War II. From Russia, it received vast territories in the east and south of the country. In this regard, as early as 2008, the President of Russia already warned that Nato interference could put Ukrainian statehood itself on the brink of existence. He also drew attention in his speech to the legitimacy of Russia’s interests in Ukraine. Crimea, with its 90 percent Russian population, was transferred to Ukraine by the decision of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union without any state procedures for such a move.
Mangun believes that “Russia was “allowed” to lease some of the naval bases in Sevastopol for the Russian Navy.” However, I would also like to refresh the historical memory of the author—Sevastopol has always been a primordially Russian city. Even after the illegal transfer of Crimea to Ukraine, Sevastopol legally remained part of Russia, since in 1948, in accordance with decrees on post-war restoration, it came under direct republican subordination of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic that was not canceled in 1954, when Crimea was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
The disastrous situation that is currently developing in the countries of Europe in the energy sector is also not a “Putin’s trap,” but it is Nato and the EU trapping themselves with globalist expansion. But so much easier to blame Putin. It is obvious that Western countries are already exhausting their own economy and their citizens with anti-Russian attacks. It is not Russia that is to blame for the fact that Europeans are threatened with winter without heating, and summer heat without air conditioning. The West launched all-out economic war on Russia. However, in reality, sanctions against Russia turn into a boomerang for Western economies. So referring to the title of Mr. Mangun’s article, it’s worth mentioning that only fools could be surprised with such developments. He that mischief hatches, mischief catches.
But still we will do the courtesy to the author and once again explain to the reader more in detail the causes of the energy crisis in Europe.
The energy crisis in Europe came as a result of the short-sighted policy in this area of the European authorities, and above all, the European Commission. Over the past few years, the “green agenda” has been actively promoted in the West. Many political forces both in the United States and in Europe began to speculate on the natural anxiety of the inhabitants of the planet about climate change, and began to promote this green agenda, including in the energy sector. The EU authorities have begun to give unqualified recommendations in this area, overestimating the real potential of alternative energy sources. This led to underinvestment in the global energy sector and, as a result, to higher prices. In addition, the Europeans did not heed Russia’s insistent requests to maintain long-term contracts for the supply of natural gas, which also provoked a rise in prices in the European energy market. It is noteworthy that all this began to happen long before the start of Russia’s special operation to protect the Donbass in Ukraine.
As a result, by the middle of 2021, a gas deficit had formed in the EU. By the end of 2021, European UGS facilities were only filled to the minimum 72 percent (50.44 percent in Austria, 54.43 percent in the Netherlands, and 64.57 percent in Germany). The launch of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline could compensate for the tension in the European gas market, but under pressure from the United States and anti-Russian forces in the EU, the gas pipeline did not start functioning.
After Russia launched a special operation to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, the European Commission created the REPowerEU plan, according to which Europe was going to refuse two-thirds of the gas imported from Russia. The latest packages of unilateral Western sanctions, the freezing of foreign exchange reserves of the Central Bank of Russia, restrictions on foreign assets of PJSC Gazprom and other elements of the sanctions policy have forced the Russian authorities to introduce mechanisms that guarantee domestic suppliers receive payment from foreign counterparties for the supplied gas. Countries that impose illegal restrictive measures against Russia must now pay for the gas they consume in rubles. As of May 18, 2022, about half of the 54 importing companies from non-friendly countries have met the necessary conditions for this. Those who refused (Bulgaria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Finland) had to pay more for supplies from other sources.
The European Commission, however, calling for an early abandonment of Russian energy resources by searching for alternative suppliers, developing renewable energy sources, total energy savings and increasing energy efficiency, does not offer real measures to reduce energy prices. At the same time, it is trying to make it difficult for Russia to find new markets, thus creating the risk of an artificial shortage of energy resources and uncertainty in world markets. The world energy market is now in a state of delicate equilibrium. However, even in spite of this, the G-7 countries continue their suicidal policy, intending to introduce price ceilings for Russian oil. In this case, Russia will redirect oil and oil products to other markets, to those countries that will be ready to pay the market price for energy resources. In turn, the states that support the initiative will have to forget about Russian fuel. The introduction of a price ceiling for oil will inevitably destabilize the market and increase energy prices even more. The European Union will be forced to buy fuel from the United States, which will completely ruin the European taxpayers. And Russia has nothing to do with this.