Rat u Ukrajini

European power prices extended last week’s drop, tracking natural gas futures lower as Russian supplies of the fuel are increasing. 
German and French electricity for March slid about 7% each on Monday on the European Energy Exchange AG, adding weight to the notion that the market has moved beyond the worst of the energy crisis.

Traders are keeping a close tab on gas flows to Europe from Russia, which rose again via a route through Ukraine after declining late last week. Sliding gas prices mean lower production costs for power stations using the fuel. 
While next-month power prices have more than halved since reaching record levels in December, they are still much higher than normal and are denting profits at companies across the region. Aurubis AG, Europe’s top copper smelter, warned on Monday that energy costs are mounting.
German power for March fell 6.7% to 172 euros per megawatt-hour at  12:56 p.m. in Berlin, while the year-ahead price fell as much as 3.1%.

Fabian Ronningen, a power analyst at Rystad Energy AS, attributed most of the bearish moves to the rise in gas flows from Russia. Forecasts for milder weather and increasing wind power output may also weigh on prices. 
Output from turbines are poised to exceed 50,000 megawatts by the middle of next week next week, according to a Bloomberg model. There’s still a high level of uncertainty in forecasts that far in advance. Wind, as well as solar, takes priority on the grid over dirtier and more expensive energy sources such as gas and coal.

France says Vladimir Putin is moving towards de-escalating Ukraine crisis

Russia’s president agrees not to undertake new military initiatives in region, according to Paris


French officials said Vladimir Putin had moved towards de-escalating the Ukraine crisis by promising not to undertake any new “military initiatives” and agreeing to withdraw thousands of Russian troops from Belarus after the completion of planned exercises.

If the agreement — brokered during talks with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron on Monday — is confirmed by Putin, it could ease tensions in the region after Russia amassed more than 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s borders.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told the Financial Times that Putin and Macron were “prepared to continue dialogue” on the French proposals but that the discussions had yet to fully assuage Moscow’s concerns.

“All these subjects require agreement from France’s EU and Nato allies, first and foremost the US,” Peskov said. “It’s too early to speak about anything else.”

Neither Putin nor Macron referred directly to such a deal at a news conference after five hours of talks, although France’s president said his Russian counterpart had assured him of his willingness to talk about de-escalation.

Putin was instead combative and critical of Nato, blaming the west and Ukraine for the crisis, but said Russia would do “everything possible to reach compromises acceptable to everyone” on European security.

“I think it’s entirely likely that some of his ideas and suggestions, even if it’s probably too early to talk about them, could become part of the basis for our next joint steps,” Putin said of Macron’s proposals.

Russia is demanding Nato pledges never to admit Ukraine and roll back its eastward expansion, essentially rewriting the entire post-cold war security order in Europe. Western officials have said those requests were unacceptable but have attempted to find common ground with Moscow on other issues, such as arms control.

Macron, who is set to meet Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, in Kyiv on Tuesday acknowledged the deep differences between Russia and the west over the Ukraine conflict and said the sides were looking for “new solutions” to ensure security and stability.

“We are conscious of the gravity of the situation and the imperative need in the interest of all to find the path of preserving peace and stability in Europe,” Macron said after the talks. “There is still time.” 

According to French officials, there was an agreement not to undertake new military initiatives and to have a broad dialogue on Russian troop deployments.

The officials said the agreement would also include the withdrawal of Russian troops from Belarus this month after the conclusion of huge joint exercises involving a contingent of as many as 30,000. It will also result in further meetings and an agreement on a “structured dialogue on collective security”.

Macron said the aim was to build “concrete security guarantees” for all the states in the region, including Russia, Ukraine and the members of the EU, which would allow the building of a “new security and stability order in Europe”.

The leaders began their negotiations sitting alone at opposite ends of an enormous oval table, which the Kremlin said was a social-distancing precaution, before moving on to a lavish dinner that included langoustines, Russian fish soup and a choice of sturgeon or venison.

The wine on offer was from a vineyard on the Black Sea that jailed opposition activist Alexei Navalny, Putin’s most prominent opponent, has claimed is part of a lavish palace complex allegedly built for the president’s use. Putin has denied owning the palace.

We must do everything possible to avoid an enormously destructive war in Ukraine

Bernie Sanders

---

Wars have unintended consequences. They rarely turn out the way the experts tell us they will. Just ask the officials who provided rosy scenarios for the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, only to be proven horribly wrong. Just ask the mothers of the soldiers who were killed or wounded in action during those wars. Just ask the millions of civilians who became “collateral damage”.

That is why we must do everything possible to try and find a diplomatic solution to what could be an enormously destructive war in Ukraine.
No one knows exactly what the human costs of such a war would be. But there are estimates that there could be over 50,000 civilian casualties in Ukraine, and millions of refugees flooding neighboring countries as they flee what could be the worst European conflict since the second world war. In addition, of course, there would be many thousands of deaths within the Ukrainian and Russian militaries. There is also the possibility that this “regional” war could escalate to other parts of Europe. What might happen then is even more horrifying.

But that’s not all. The sanctions against Russia and Russia’s threatened response to those sanctions, could result in massive economic upheaval – with impacts on energy, banking, food and the day-to-day needs of ordinary people throughout the entire world. It is likely that Russians will not be the only people suffering from sanctions. And, by the way, any hope of international cooperation to address the existential threat of global climate crisis and future pandemics would suffer a major setback.
We should be clear about who is most responsible for this looming crisis: Vladimir Putin. Having already seized parts of Ukraine in 2014, the Russian president now threatens to take over the entire country and destroy Ukrainian democracy. In my view, we must unequivocally support the sovereignty of Ukraine and make clear that the international community will impose severe consequences on Putin and his associates if he does not change course.

With that said, I am extremely concerned when I hear the familiar drumbeats in Washington, the bellicose rhetoric that gets amplified before every war, demanding that we must “show strength”, “get tough” and not engage in “appeasement”. A simplistic refusal to recognize the complex roots of the tensions in the region undermines the ability of negotiators to reach a peaceful resolution.

One of the precipitating factors of this crisis, at least from Russia’s perspective, is the prospect of an enhanced security relationship between Ukraine and the United States and western Europe, including what Russia sees as the threat of Ukraine joining the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (Nato), a military alliance originally created in 1949 to confront the Soviet Union.

It is good to know some history. When Ukraine became independent after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russian leaders made clear their concerns about the prospect of former Soviet states becoming part of Nato and positioning hostile military forces along Russia’s border. US leaders recognized these concerns as legitimate at the time. They are still legitimate concerns. Invasion by Russia is not an answer; neither is intransigence by Nato. It is also important to recognize that Finland, one of the most developed and democratic countries in the world, borders Russia and has chosen not to be a member of Nato.

Putin may be a liar and a demagogue, but it is hypocritical for the United States to insist that we do not accept the principle of “spheres of influence”. For the last 200 years our country has operated under the Monroe Doctrine, embracing the premise that as the dominant power in the western hemisphere, the United States has the right to intervene against any country that might threaten our alleged interests. Under this doctrine we have undermined and overthrown at least a dozen governments. In 1962 we came to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union in response to the placement of Soviet missiles in Cuba, 90 miles from our shore, which the Kennedy administration saw as an unacceptable threat to our national security.

And the Monroe Doctrine is not ancient history. As recently as 2018, Donald Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, called the Monroe Doctrine “as relevant today as it was the day it was written”. In 2019, Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, declared “the Monroe Doctrine is alive and well”.
To put it simply, even if Russia was not ruled by a corrupt authoritarian leader like Vladimir Putin, Russia, like the United States, would still have an interest in the security policies of its neighbors. Does anyone really believe that the United States would not have something to say if, for example, Mexico was to form a military alliance with a US adversary?

Countries should be free to make their own foreign policy choices, but making those choices wisely requires a serious consideration of the costs and benefits. The fact is that the US and Ukraine entering into a deeper security relationship is likely to have some very serious costs – for both countries.

We must vigorously support diplomatic efforts to deescalate this crisis and reaffirm Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. And we must make clear that Putin and his gang of oligarchs will face major consequences should he continue down the current path. At the same time, we must never forget the horrors that a war in the region would cause and must work hard to achieve a realistic and mutually agreeable resolution – one that is acceptable to Ukraine, Russia, the United States and our European allies – and that prevents what could be the worst European war in over 75 years.