Russian gas deliveries via Ukraine finally came to a halt on 1 January, some 1,042 days after Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion. The end of gas deliveries through the Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhhorod pipeline came after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky refused to countenance any possible extension, including a much-hyped gas swap between Russia and Azerbaijan.
What is most notable about the move is just how little it has impacted European gas prices. It was, of course, less than two years ago that Europe suffered an energy crisis triggered by collapsing Russian gas deliveries, the key driver of subsequent inflation. At the time, Putin wielded the energy weapon against the European Union by toggling off gas supplies via Nord Stream — before its destruction — and forcing a halt to deliveries through Ukraine’s other major pipeline. But the impact on gas prices from the latest cancellation has been comparatively muted.
The halt marks a major loss for Russia, with its gas giant Gazprom set to lose around $5 billion annually, nearly 5% of its 2024 federal revenues from oil and gas sales. Yet there are significant losers elsewhere in Europe, too. Hungary and Slovakia, in particular, risk losing substantial supplies from the 15 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas that flowed through Ukraine annually in the last two years. That the governments of these countries are those which have most vocally supported the Kremlin’s position on the energy dispute — and called for Kyiv to accept Russian terms to start peace talks — is therefore no surprise.
Hungary has already adjusted by shifting the majority of its Russian gas imports via the sole remaining pipeline route delivering Russian gas into Europe: the sub-sea BlueStream and TurkStream pipelines to Turkey and from there via the BalkanStream pipeline through Bulgaria and Serbia. But the capacity for additional deliveries is strictly limited, and BalkanStream’s capacity is just half that of the Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhhorod pipeline.
The other big loser is Austria, although the political establishment is quite happy for the gas to stop. It has tried to freeze out the Russian-friendly Freedom Party (FPÖ) and the country’s location as the centre of numerous European gas networks has given it the confidence to handle the loss.
In addition to the Turkey-Balkan route, however, Russian gas supplies to Europe continue via another route: liquefied natural gas (LNG) deliveries. In contrast to the collapse of Russia’s piped gas exports, these supplies have increased notably since the Ukraine war. Already in 2023, they accounted for 6% of European gas imports, one-and-a-half times the amount supplied via the Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhhorod pipeline.
While European leaders outside Bratislava and Budapest have celebrated the end of Russian gas deliveries via Ukraine, they have thus far been unwilling to take serious action to limit Russian LNG deliveries. In fact, it is the global nature of the LNG market that has enabled Europe to so rapidly shift away from Russian piped gas deliveries. Since 2022, Europe has added 58.5 bcm of LNG import capacity and is soon set to reach 70 bcm in added capacity, just over the 65 bcm that flowed through Ukraine in 2020. The United States and Qatar have been the key beneficiaries of these growing exports. And while they still are cumulatively below total supplies from Norway and the combined imports from other pipeline gas suppliers — Algeria and Azerbaijan in particular — there are no serious plans in place to increase those supplies.
As a result, Europe can celebrate being largely free of Russian threats to its gas market today. But it is at the whim of the global LNG market, in which price fluctuations in the Gulf, Asia or the Americas can reverberate across the Atlantic and the Pacific. Qatar has its own demands of Europe, and in late December made its strongest threat to date to curtail gas supplies if the EU does not roll back decarbonisation and workers’ rights regulations.
The incoming Donald Trump administration is also in a strong position to push for Europe to double down on LNG imports, boosting a key policy plank for the deliveries former energy secretary Rick Perry labelled “freedom gas” in 2019. The idea provoked much mockery at the time, but no one is laughing now.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI can’t understand what the author is trying to say. Why has the blob won? It isn’t clear from the article (not, at least, to a thicko like me).
You’re not the only one
He starts by saying that this is what fashionable progressives think:
But he never clarifies whether their opinion is valid. In fact he says that while the progressive types are constantly threatening to quit the platform, they never really do. That would suggest they are not correct in their view that Twitter has lost users.
I can’t comment on revenue or the financial health of the company but I would certainly disagree that Musk’s reputation is damaged. He seems to be wildly popular and influential if we judge this by the column inches devoted to him (including these).
Matt, I’m sorry I couldn’t provide the moral clarity you wanted in 600 words. But that might because the real picture is much more complex than the Anti Musk activists would like us to think, and sometimes you have to examine the evidence. I think Twitter has got much more interesting, but less reliable, and some of the decisions were objectively stupid. (No one says “X”).
Recall that Musk was compelled to complete the acquisition of Twitter by a Delaware court, having concluded he didn’t really want to buy it.
He has since found it much more difficult to operate in an environment dominated by NGOs which I think he underestimated. Posturing as an anti-woke warrior was relatively easy.
Thanks for replying Andrew (I love it when authors engage below-the-line).
I wasn’t looking for moral clarity at all, I just couldn’t fathom your argument.
I am sure you are right about this but I cannot see the evidence of it in the article. You say that bien pensant opinion predicted catastrophe but has it actually arrived? Have revenues tanked? Have users deserted the platform? Has Musk’s reputation taken a hit?
As far as I can see – and I don’t use Twitter or any social media and in fact don’t really read or watch any news expect for UnHerd and the Spectator – Musk seems to be as influential as ever and everyone who claims to have left Twitter never seems to do so in reality. I know Twitter, like GB News and others, struggles to get advertisers due to activist campaigns but is the company really in trouble?
As I said above, I sometimes feel that active Twitterers don’t realise that normal people haven’t even heard some of the things they take to be common knowledge. In this case, I feel I might be missing some vital information to make sense of the story.
We can’t really tell what revenue and usage are today, because Musk took Twitter (oops, X) private and he isn’t obliged to report it publically any more.
You are onto something, though. I wanted to include this detail, but cut it to make room. The active user number is the last reported public data.
I enjoyed the piece but also felt it was a bit short. I’m wondering why you were limited to 600 words given that it’s not a piece for print.
I think we should all refer to it as “X-Twitter” which sounds about right.
I thought the article was fascinating, but it ended rather abruptly. Any chance of a longer piece with a bit more moral clarity?
Fair enough – though ‘posturing’ is one of those loaded BS sneer-words that, in my view, should be read with great suspicion and almost never be used (rather like ‘rhetoric’, ‘rant’ and ‘troubling’). I don’t think Musk is posturing: he’s doing his level best for the First Amendment, though with scant help from anyone in the Corporate/ State/ Global Blob world.
I was agreeing with you.
Summed up in the final paragraph, Matt M. One could go further and argue that democracy itself is part of the great egalitarian delusion. In our less than ideal world the levers of power fall to those who are able to gain the most influence – either openly or covertly.
So is the argument that the advertising boycott instigated by Musk’s progressive enemies has worked and that he has capitulated to them in some way or is about to? If so, how? I am still not clear what is being said. Perhaps there is some news out there that I don’t know – I will go an have a look.
(I often find that people that use Twitter talk as though everyone knows what they are talking about when in reality only Twitter users have the foggiest).
Aren’t we just all spending more and more or our (post-Covid) decreasing lifespans disappearing up our own online fundaments chasing ever more ghostlike presences on the Internet ?
I saw a TV program about Iceland aeons ago and there the government turned off the TV in the Summer months to make sure that the population and kids in particular took advantage of the longer daylight hours.
Maybe we need a compulsory digital detox for every 3rd month of the year ?
Author doesn’t like Musk.
Reader does.
No mention of the Twitter files here?
Extremely important intervention by Musk, but here I only read the ‘failings’
After a while on Twitter you can distinguish the wheat from the chaff. Also to note I appear to be able to block nuisance tweets.
Musk is an enigma. He does enigmatic things. X was an enigma going someplace to happen. Look for more from this maverick genius. It’s just how he rolls…
I am reply deboosted on Twitter to the point that I have given up replying. That happened under Roth, not Musk/Yaccarino, but it is inescapable despite appealing.
Yanis Varoufakis, in his recent book Technofeudalism, has a rather different take to the author on the ‘Everything app’. It is not a youthful fantasy; it is the sole reason for acquisition.
Quoting my own review:
Gibberish
If you want to damn his post as gibberish, then explain why.
The big “I” again Jewell. As I said last week: too self-referential.
This time, your comment has some merit; your comment last week didn’t.
Anyway, my underlying point is that what Musk says about Twitter and what happens in reality are two completely different things.
Yesterday, he commented “Shocking” on a testimony detailing shadowbanning re. Ukraine, under the previous administration. The day before, Thomas Fazi was being ghost-banned and deboosted for a thread supporting his article here a few days ago.
Smoke and mirrors.
Hello
Groan, the Blob to blame again!
At least a bit of originality please. This gets v boring.
Let’s go back to TTFIC , The Taxpayer Funded Industrial Complex.