One
of the savviest journalists of Dutch financial newspaper ‘Het Financieele
Dagblad’ – and
a very nice person on top of that – is macro-economist Marcel de Boer. More
than once, I printed some of Marcel’s insights on this
weblog.
Next
to his articles in this newspaper, Marcel maintains a daily blog at fdmarceldeboer.wordpress.com. This
blog is always a good read for everybody, who either masters Dutch or uses
Google Translate and ignores the crippled translations.
At
this moment, Marcel and I have an occasional, ongoing discussion with respect
to the situation in The Ukraine and Russia. This situation has been on our
retinas continuously, since the crisis went ablaze in March, after the Winter
Olympics had passed.
As Marcel does not have a personal involvement in Russia,
unlike me, it is much easier for him to view at things from a distance and with
his financial/economic glasses on.
Today,
he wrote again an article well worth reading, about the consequences of Russian
sanctions for the European Union. It is to this particular article that I want
to react.
The Russian president
Vladimir Putin stated this week that he is hatching a plan, concerning economic
counter-measures against Europe and the United States. Will we step in our own
trap, when this conflict escalates into a genuine economic war? Probably not!
‘ When Europe announces a
new leg of sanctions, we will have to find out which people and companies are
working in the Russian Federation and how they do this’, according to Putin
during his April 29th visit to Minsk, the capital of Belarus. He seemed to
emphasize that he could make life very difficult for companies working in the
key industries of the Russian economy, like the energy industry. However, Putin
also stated: ’Of course, we prefer not having to establish these counter
measures’.
Gary Hufbauer, a
specialist at the subject of international sanctions from thinktank Peterson
Institute, stated against Bloomberg that Putin does have the power to make
companies like Shell, ExxonMobil and BP bleed. Still, Putin will probably be
reluctant to use these powers. He knows that when he hurts his trade partners
and foreign investors, this will eventually blow up in his face. Hufbauer:
‘Although Putin shows that he knows how to play the game, he is not looking for
further escalation’.
Michael Corgan, a
professor at the University of Boston, emphasizes that the Russian economy is
too small. Economic retaliation by Putin – irrespective whether it concerns
hitting foreign investors in Russia or shutting down the gas tap for Europe –
will hurt the $2,000 billion Russian economy simply much harder than the $16,800
bln American or the $17,400 bln European economy.
Economist David Mackie of JPMorgan
Chase stated:’ There will only be a meaningful impact when gas exports from
Russia to Europe stall, or when the global confidence and risk appetite
suddenly implode’.
When the Russian gas
supply will be shut down, the question is whether this is a temporary glitch or
a longer-lasting one. For a few months, the Euro-zone could endure without the
Russian gas. The supplies are – especially due to the warm winter – sufficient
for almost the remainder of the year. Only when the shut down of the gas delivery
would last until the winter, things could get rough. In that case, the growth
in the Euro-zone could drop to or even under zero percent, according to Mackie.
The dependency of Russia
through other channels (exports, bank deposits and direct investments) is too
limited to have a considerable effect.
There
is more information and a number of interesting tables in this column, which
makes it a particular good read. Further, I agree with Marcel and the involved
economists that the whole EU exposure to Russia is fairly limited on a macro
level.
Nevertheless,
something is bothering me in this article. This is the gas component.
Every
other Russian economic sanction can be overcome by the European economies, without
blinking an eye. These sanctions can be extremely painful for individual banks,
luxury car manufacturers, some large energy companies and especially small, exporting
enterprises in the manufacturing and agricultural business. These companies could
all lose a large share of their possessions or their sales revenues. But, that
is about it!
The
gas, however, is a whole different ball game… This gas is something that Russia
owns in virtually unlimited amounts and that we need to maintain our daily lives
in Europe, as it is fairly impossible to replace by a substitute fuel these
days. Besides that, the Russian gas is delivered all over Europe through a vast
infrastructure of pipelines.
The
current Russia vs ‘Ukraine and the West’ crisis could develop itself in the
wrong direction and turn into a long-term ‘battle of economic starvation’ from
both sides. In this case, I am fairly sure that Vladimir Putin will not hesitate
to shut down the gas supply to the West and Ukraine for a longer period, if he thinks
that he must do so.
Putin
has proven in the past, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is capable of actually
doing such things. Especially, as the Chinese would probably be more than
willing to purchase the excess amounts of gas from Russia. The language ‘Mandarin’
has without a doubt an adequate translation for the German expression ‘Realpolitik’
and one man’s meat is another man’s poison, isn’t it?!
Of
course, countries like Saudi Arabia or the United States would be more than willing
to replace parts of the Russian gas supply to the EU, to not let Vladimir Putin
win this economic, cold war. Still, this Arab or American gas would have to be shipped
in by gargantuous tankers through the European seaports and afterwards it would
have to be transported to its final destination; probably by inland vessels, trains
and trucks.
This
whole route is fairly dangerous, as mass transportation of gas outside
pipelines always offers a substantial amount of risk to the surrounding
environment, that a
potentially devastating accident occurs.
And
then the one million euro question remains, whether sea transport alone could
offer sufficient gas to cover the needs of the whole European Union. I have
serious doubts about that. And although the Dutch gas reserves in the province
of Groningen still could last us for a few decades, this would probably only be
enough to cover the needs of The Netherlands and perhaps Belgium and Luxemburg.
As
the
rising number of earthquakes in Groningen shows, the exploration of natural
gas in The Netherlands is only suitable in fairly limited amounts and it is far
from risk free. Besides that, the societal acceptance of gas exploration is
waning for the inhabitants of Groningen, who are sick and tired of the
increasing number of smaller and bigger earthquakes and the damage that has
been caused to their houses during the last few years.
These
circumstances cause that shutting down the European gas supply is much more
than just a blunt weapon for Vladimir Putin. Consequently, while the financial
/ economic effects of Russian sanctions would be limited, the psychological
effect of having insufficient gas in Europe could be very serious.
When
the Russian gas supply would be shut down and when there is not enough gas available
from other sources, people would litterally feel being ‘left in the cold’ by
their government. Consequently, they would start to protest against this. These
protests and the reaction of the governments against them, could cause considerable
societal unrest.
This
is something to think about, when we are contemplating the Russian sanctions.
No comments:
Post a Comment