"No permanent friends or enemies" (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)

Warmer-than-average temperatures may have spared Europe from the worst effects of the energy crisis, but that is about to change: with temperatures predicted to plummet in the coming weeks, heightened demand for dwindling (and very expensive) supplies of natural gas will seriously test Europe’s fragile energy networks — potentially to breaking point.
In Germany, the Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance recently issued a near-apocalyptic advisory telling people what to expect in the event of a blackout: “The telephone is dead, the heating doesn’t come on, there is no warm water, the computer goes on strike, the coffee machine stays off, there is no light.” The agency urged households to stock up on battery-powered flashlights and candles, and even suggested camp stoves to prepare small meals. Elsewhere in Europe, governments are preparing food distribution networks that can function through a blackout.
A colder-than-normal winter is expected in the UK as well. Ofgem has said there is “a significant risk” of gas shortages, which could affect electricity supplies. And with more than 3 million low-income UK households unable to afford to heat their homes, the cold weather, combined with potential energy shortages and higher prices, could have lethal consequences, and not just in Britain. According to one disturbing study published in The Economist, based on the historical relationship between mortality, weather and energy costs, the death toll from the energy crisis across Europe could exceed the number of soldiers who have died in the Ukraine war so far. Depending on temperatures, prices and government support measures, between 30,000 and 300,000 deaths above the historical average may be recorded across the continent this winter. Sanctions kill — we’ve known that for a long time (just ask the Iraqis); these, however, are probably the first sanctions in history that could kill the sanctioners.
Meanwhile, EU countries have reduced their gas demand by a quarter, according to the Financial Times as industry cuts back or stops production altogether following the rising costs. In the coming months, this will mean higher prices and possible shortages in energy-intensive industries such as metals, chemicals (including fertiliser), plastic and food. Moreover, analysts warn that without increased supplies, gas shortages could persist for years in Europe, regardless of the lower demand. This would effectively mean the long-term deindustrialisation of the continent — with the chaos, political instability and unrest that would go along with that.
It’s no surprise, then, that European leaders are looking for a way out of the hole they dug themselves by joining the US in its proxy war against their main gas provider — even as the EU itself continues to sabotage any possible diplomatic solution to the conflict. Only last week, French president Emmanuel Macron marked his profound difference with the US (and EU) stance on Ukraine during an interview for the French channel TF1, in which he said that Nato member states may have to offer “security guarantees” to Russia when Moscow and Kyiv resume negotiations. “This means that one of the essential points we must address — as Putin has always said — is the fear that Nato comes right up to its doors and the deployment of weapons that could threaten Russia,” Macron said. “That topic will be part of the topics for peace, so we need to prepare what we are ready to do, how we protect our allies and member states, and how to give guarantees to Russia the day it returns to the negotiating table.”
Macron has always had a more “realist” approach to the issue than his colleagues, yet this was the first time a European leader suggested that Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine may have been motivated by legitimate security concerns. Before the invasion, Putin said at a joint press conference with Macron in Moscow that Russia would aim to obtain replies from the West to its main three security demands. These included stopping any future Nato enlargement, presenting missile deployments near its borders, and a scaling back of Nato’s military infrastructure in Europe to 1997 levels.
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.
Subscribe