President Joe Biden’s announcement of an oil ban on Russia was a small but symbolic action toward Russian President Vladimir Putin for invading Ukraine. However, given that only 8% of U.S. oil imports come from Russia, the embargo will not do much in the way of deterrence. For that to happen, the European Union must impose its own oil embargo against Russia — a difficult task given Europe’s significant reliance on Russian oil. Yet, such an embargo would do much to halt Putin’s despotic tactics. When, or if, that happens, it will be the beginning of the end of Russia’s petrostate, and ultimately the end of Putin.
Russia is an energy-producing behemoth. It is the third-largest producer of petroleum, second-largest producer of dry natural gas, and second-largest crude oil producer in the world. It is the EU’s main supplier of energy, accounting for nearly 30% of all oil and 40% of all natural gas imports. Given this significant dependency, any punitive action on Russian energy would have dire consequences for the energy demands of the people of Europe.
However, taking action against Russia’s energy imports would have a similar, if not greater, devastation against Putin. Russia is heavily reliant on these revenues, which account for over 35% of the country’s federal budget. Whereas Europe could find alternative partners to provide energy — albeit such a move would be an extremely difficult transition — the loss of revenues for Russia would be nearly impossible to replace. Furthermore, such a tactical maneuver would ensure the EU’s energy security and would be the surest way to deter Putin’s aggression.
Energy security has been a complicated equation of the world’s political calculus since at least World War II. In an attempt to halt the Empire of Japan’s conquest in Asia in the 1940s, the U.S. imposed an oil embargo. As such, a precedent of weaponizing energy as a form of deterrence was established. This Gordian knot has beleaguered the world ever since and is one of the core issues at the center of the current crisis between Russia and Ukraine.
Moreover, energy politics is intrinsically tied to military conflict. The U.S. oil embargo against Japan led to Pearl Harbor. In the 1970s, the world experienced the economic earthquake of the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, a product of the Yom Kippur War. Later, the Iranian Revolution led to the 1979 Oil Shock. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the latest example. And, just as in previous years, it has led to oil prices soaring worldwide, resulting in some of the highest gas prices in history, especially in the U.S.
Yet, diverging from Russian energy dependence would enhance global security. Putin would no longer have a monopoly on Europe’s energy sector and would have to think twice before committing his nefarious acts. In many ways, it would be one of the most useful tools in mitigating his aggression.
Additionally, pivoting away from this dependence on Russian energy would help save Ukrainian lives. Given the carnage caused by the invasion, one would posit that Ukraine could destroy Russia’s pipelines in the country as a retaliatory move. While doing so would jeopardize European countries to meet their energy demands, it would be a significant blow to Russia and save many Ukrainians from being killed. Instead, by preserving these pipelines, Ukrainians are essentially sacrificing their lives so that the people of Europe can have their oil and gas demands met.
“Such an action is not a simple calculation,” said Dr. Anna Mikulska, professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy and nonresident scholar in energy studies at the Baker Institute.
“The pipelines are still operating through Ukraine on the basis of a transit contract that is valid until 2024. But from mid-2021 to 2022, it was underutilized by Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled natural gas company,” Mikulska added. “The company was paying for contracted volumes but was sending only a small part of those volumes to Europe. Instead, it was utilizing direct new pipelines to Germany (via Nord Stream 1) and Turkey (via Turkish Stream).”
“Access to energy, especially natural gas during winter, is not only an issue of the economy,” Mikulska said. “It is an issue of survival, the ability for people to heat their homes. There is a lot to consider, including the ability to send natural gas via pipelines to homes in Ukraine, as well as, now and in the future, to and from Europe.”
She noted that Nord Stream 2 was a way for Russia to circumvent Ukrainian transit completely. This was what Ukrainians had feared would make their bargaining position against Russia weaker and make them vulnerable to Russia’s geopolitical game even more.
“It is interesting that Gazprom started sending higher volumes of gas when the current Russian invasion began,” Mikulska observed. This indicated to her that Gazprom wants to appear as a “reliable provider,” differentiating itself from the Russian state.
“It is unlikely that the argument will do much in Europe, but Russia is currently eyeing Asia and China, and this is a message they also want those potential new customers to receive,” Mikulska asserted.
History has shown that sanctions have little to no impact in dissuading Putin. Eliminating Europe’s dependence on Russian energy, however, would. Doing so is the only viable, sustainable route forward other than military conflict. Admittedly, this will be an enormously difficult transition. Yet, by doing so, Europe will no longer be helpless against the authoritarian whims of Putin. Either through transitioning to renewable energy sources (which thus far have proven to be unreliable) or finding other partners to fulfill Europe’s energy demands of oil and natural gas, ultimately, to stop Putin, Russia’s petrostate must come to an end.
