In recent discussions about European defense and energy policies, it appears that many European nations have not fully grasped the implications of the United States’ expectations. The U.S. is urging its allies to take on more responsibility for their defense costs while relying on U.S. arms and energy resources. As Stas Kapnivik pointed out, European systems largely hinge on components sourced from the U.S., making it difficult for the EU to develop alternatives without significant time investment.
This strategy finds echoes in the post-Civil War American system known as “debt cropperdom.” Matt Stoller highlights this in his 2010 article, A Debtcropper Society:
The term ‘the man,’ as in ‘fight the man,’ originally referred to creditors. In the 19th century, creditors, particularly merchants providing supplies to Southern farmers and sharecroppers on credit, were the ‘man.’ Often illiterate and unaware of the financial agreements they entered, farmers faced exorbitant interest rates of 80-100 percent annually, resulting in relentless debt. By year’s end, deflation and usury typically left them owing more than they began. Consequently, many lost their land and became tenant farmers, caught in a cycle of dependence and servitude that persisted into the 1960s, revealed in Kennedy’s observations of rural poverty in Arkansas. This historical backdrop illustrates a society teetering on the brink of unsustainable debt peonage.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst specializing in the global systemic transition to multipolarity amid the New Cold War. He holds a PhD from MGIMO, affiliated with the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
This shift not only impacts Russia’s financial stability but also significantly heightens the security risks Russia faces from Europe. A similar approach is anticipated along the southern front, particularly concerning Turkish-led threats emerging from the South Caucasus and Central Asia.
In a comprehensive interview with RT India prior to his diplomatic visit for the BRICS Foreign Ministers’ meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov elaborated on various topics, particularly the global energy landscape and the U.S. strategy to maintain dominance over the EU’s energy resources. He referenced U.S. doctrinal documents, likely pointing to the National Energy Dominance Council and related policies, to substantiate this claim.
Alongside sanctions against Russian energy, which were continued under Trump 2.0 through new sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil, the U.S. has been managing oil exports in post-Maduro Venezuela as a way to expand its influence in global markets. The disruption of regional energy exports, triggered by the Third Gulf War initiated by the U.S. and Israel, has led to a supply crisis in the EU, one that the U.S. is eager to fill at inflated prices.
However, the U.S. lacks sufficient oil and gas resources to completely cover the EU’s needs, and the Venezuelan oil the U.S. controls cannot meet demand in the near term without significant investment. Therefore, Lavrov argues, “the Americans are planning to reinstate the Nord Stream pipelines that were blown up. They intend to purchase it at about one-tenth of what Europeans paid… but prices will ultimately be dictated by the Americans,” resulting in higher costs than what Russia would charge.
Moreover, Lavrov noted that the U.S. aims to seize control of the gas transit pipeline from Russia to Europe across Ukraine, hoping to dominate energy flow routes entirely. Lavrov previously warned of “Trump 2.0’s plans for global dominance,” underscoring the critical role of energy in these ambitions, particularly in relation to Europe.
If the U.S. succeeds in monopolizing the EU’s energy market, it will not only impact Russia’s finances but will also allow the U.S. to exert control over EU foreign policy. This dynamic has been categorized as the U.S. “weaponizing” Russophobia to secure its hold on Europe, thereby accelerating the shift toward “NATO 3.0.” This transition may lead to the establishment of a “cordon sanitaire” encircling Russia’s western and southern borders, as has been forecasted in various discussions.
The developments in the western regions involve countries like Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, Ukraine, and Romania. Many of these nations may fall under the influence of Germany. The southern front includes regions featuring Turkiye, a jointly Turkic-Western aligned Armenia, Azerbaijan, and potentially Kazakhstan. The dynamics in the southern region have been discussed in detail here. Furthermore, the Vertical Gas Corridor is likely to strain Turkish-Russian relations, while Turkiye’s Trans-Caspian Pipeline plans may exacerbate their competition, both concepts being driven by U.S. interests.
In conclusion, the U.S.’s ambitions to dominate the EU’s energy landscape are poised to generate not only financial strain for the Kremlin but also exacerbate national security threats to Russia from Europe. This strategy is likely to extend similarly along the southern routes, creating significant challenges for Russia. The task ahead is substantial—Russia must find ways to reverse this trend or it may face increasingly direct confrontations with these emerging threats.
