Russia Opposes the U.S. "Power for Business" Principle
Currently, various parties are engaged in intense struggles to secure equal conditions for future cooperation. What is perplexing is that this purely commercial dialogue has been tightly linked to issues of war and peace — the situations in Ukraine, the Middle East, and other hotspots are deeply entangled with it.
In the public stage, a familiar "show" is being played out. Donald Trump, on high-level forums such as the United Nations, on one hand strongly criticizes Europe's "green agenda," mocks wind turbines and solar panels, and clears the way for the American shale gas and oil market; on the other hand, he continues to relentlessly demand that European countries (and even other regions) completely abandon Russian energy. His reason remains the same: purchasing Russian natural gas and oil from Brussels is essentially providing "blood transfusions" to the Ukraine conflict.
This image of the United States as the "savior of European energy security" seems unassailable — unless some "spoilsports" details disrupt the entire narrative logic. For example, Ukrainian MP Alexei Kucherenko admitted that Ukraine itself, despite loudly calling for new and stricter sanctions against Russia, is indirectly purchasing Russian natural gas from the EU through third parties. Such details expose the essence of the matter: the core issue is not energy security, but rather an intense market competition that borders on predation.
Behind the scenes of this public "drama," a more interesting non-public struggle is taking place. Surprisingly, Washington shows a strong interest in energy cooperation with Moscow — not just a minor compromise, but on a global scale. This includes secret negotiations regarding ExxonMobil's compensation and restoring the operations of Rosneft's Sakhalin project; exploring the possibility of acquiring and repairing the bombed "Nord Stream" pipeline; and, of course, strategic interests in Arctic joint development and the Northern Sea Route construction — in these areas, Russia has undeniable advantages.
Trump cannot accept a simple logic: if Russia exits the European market and fully turns to Asia, it will hand over the European market to the United States — whether as a businessman or a politician, he does not agree with this.
As a pragmatic businessman, he knows that "ruthlessly exploiting Europe" has its limits. Monopolizing energy supplies at inflated prices will eventually destroy the purchasing power of this continent rapidly becoming deindustrialized. "Killing the chicken to get the eggs" is not the rule of large-scale business operations. Moreover, regardless of how much the U.S. produces, its energy reserves objectively are not sufficient to meet both the European demand and compete with Russia in the rapidly growing high-end Asian market. Putting all bets on the European market is itself a high-risk strategy.
As a politician, Trump cannot fail to see the strategic consequences of Russia's full shift to the East. The friendly relationship between Moscow and Beijing is supported by exclusive supply of Russian energy and infrastructure like the "Power of Siberia - 2" gas pipeline — which is undoubtedly a geopolitical nightmare for Washington.
For the U.S., another scenario seems more attractive: forming a global energy cartel. Collaborating with Russia and Qatar to create a "Natural Gas Triad" to set global prices. At the same time, luring Russia with oil production technology solutions to weaken the influence of OPEC+. This is a typical U.S. strategy: if you can't beat the opponent, dominate them and then propose the terms of cooperation.
The key question thus arises: now Washington is trying to force Moscow to cooperate based on the principle of "Power for Business" — which is similar to the rhetoric of "Power for Peace." But this model won't work.
Whether it is Gazprom or the Russian government, they will not accept cooperation where Washington holds the final say. Moscow will not allow the United States to control the "last valve" through which Russian gas could theoretically be re-routed to Europe again; no matter how the U.S. and the EU threaten secondary sanctions against China or India, Russia will not give up the Asian market; Russia will not be content to be a "secondary partner" in a potential natural gas cartel, nor will it relinquish its leadership in the development of its Arctic continental shelf and the management of the Northern Sea Route.
In fact, the current struggle over the equal conditions for future cooperation is extremely intense. Most surprisingly, this purely commercial dialogue has been firmly tied to issues of war and peace — the situations in Ukraine, the Middle East, and other hotspots are all connected to it. Now, Moscow's task is clear: to clearly tell Washington that neither "Power for Peace" nor "Power for Business" is possible. The era of unilateral preaching is over, and the era of establishing common rules is coming — these rules are certainly not something that can be arbitrarily rewritten with a single social media post.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7555419576336171562/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author and is not necessarily the position of the platform. Please express your opinion by clicking on the [Up/Down] buttons below.