The war in Europe revitalized political battles over energy supplies.

The coffee tables of the West groan with the towers of political magazines, each breathlessly defending the glory of globalized trade.

If you piled all those glossy newspapers into a huge economic kineograph and started flipping through, it would say something like this: “Bilateral trade promotes peace between countries that share borders, and growing global markets strengthen peace between distant countries.”

But decades of voices buzzing about the supposed link between extensive trade and unbreakable peace are drowned out by the wail of rockets and the deafening roar of Russian fighter jets.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has now entered its fourth week. While mortar shells crashing into cars and rooftops have emboldened the Ukrainian spirit of resistance, the return of continental European conflict is crushing convention and tearing apart liberal holy cows.

Chief among these sacred cows is the preference for global markets over secure domestic supply chains. This globalist economic mindset has deprived countries of control over strategic commodities like steel and wheat. Its worst effects have been in energy markets.

For decades, Western nations have endured the same cycle whenever geopolitical events drive up fuel prices. Politicians are waging urgent charm offensives with the leaders of Middle Eastern states, urging them to pour more black gold into our shallow cups. As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues, this cycle is well underway. Boris Johnson was in Saudi Arabia last week; Joe Biden struggles to get on the phone. Iran releases Western political prisoners after years-long diplomatic disputes suddenly resolved. Fortuitous moment? Probably not. Iraqi oil revenues are approaching record highs. They can be sure to break those numbers now.

And while these Western leaders are showering the mullahs and tribal kings of the MENA region with reams of cash, they are reassuring relevant parties at home that the time has come for a new energy strategy that weeds us off from foreign oil supplies. . That’s why Boris Johnson reaffirmed Britain’s focus on renewables – with a new offshore wind commitment – as his government plane set out its route to Riyadh.

But then the crisis passes and we return to the cozy energy status quo – relying on foreign imports and wasting our duties to national security and sustenance. We cannot allow this to happen again.

Benefiting from abundant underground resources, the United States is doing better than European economies in the face of gas shocks. But Washington has also failed to lay out an energy security plan that doesn’t tear down the wallets of ordinary Americans every time international events escalate.

Even though it produced more oil than consumers consumed in 2019, the United States is still at the mercy of international markets that set prices for global consumers. Coupled with a nerve-fracking industry reluctant to increase supply, working-class Americans who depend on the pump for a living are being thwarted by a market that isn’t working for them. Rising gasoline prices send shockwaves through the supply chain, hurting businesses large and small. Ultimately, this is the cornerstone of energy security: can you ensure that your population is adequately protected from sudden market changes? Washington cannot.

Fortunately, some Western governments are reacting. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, who prides herself on belonging to the libertarian and globalist camp of the Conservative Party, lamented that “the free world as a whole has been too focused on getting cheap oil, cheap electronics, cheap goods to the detriment of our freedom. and security. This is a significant intervention by a politician who was, until recently, praising Britain’s Uber-loving “#freedomfighters”.

Germany for decades profited from what Truss described as a “freedom-loving, free-market” approach to Moscow, but has now abandoned its pipeline deal with the Kremlin and opted to seek alternative supplies.

The European Commission published a proposal on March 8 to ensure that EU countries obtain secure and affordable energy independent of Russian fossil fuels before 2030. The Commission proposes to quadruple the consumption of hydrogen and to turn to the renewable energy to avoid paying Moscow the $118 million a day it is currently coughing up. They will seek out short-term alternative gas products and accelerate plans for renewable alternatives at home.

But for every reassuring statement made by globalists reeling from a harsh slap in the face of reality, there are still plenty of nasty outlooks thrown around by self-proclaimed luminaries in the wake of Europe’s return to peer-to-peer military conflict. Some people have played a lot of To fall, the post-apocalyptic video game series, and realized they would like to experience it for real, so they call for urgent and widespread NATO strikes against the Russian military. Others, meanwhile, are reacting to the biggest energy supply disaster in living memory by urging policymakers to do nothing.

The main offenders in this area are influential figures in the European Green and Socialist parties, who have spoken out against alternatives like nuclear power and fracking. Caroline Lucas, Britain’s only Green Party MP, said the bombing of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants is a good reason to oppose the development of such plants.

Unfortunately, some of these misguided ideas are successful. In Berlin, where the government has moved away from its close relationship with Russia, lawmakers are still resisting the nuclear power option. The Reichstag has backed Merkel-era plans to shut down their power plants by the end of the year, despite the fact that this crazy stance makes them unable to barter at the geopolitical table.

The revitalization of the nuclear industry will be central to the Western strategy for energy independence. It is the bane of environmentalists around the world who prefer dogma to retail and rage to reality, but their feverish lobbying must be overcome to promote what is by far the most effective source of power. The British Prime Minister is set to hold a summit with nuclear industry leaders after announcing his dedication to the cause at last week’s Spring Conference in northern England. Hopefully, other Western powers will follow.

Russia knows that fracking and nuclear power pose a threat to both its revenue and its geopolitical jostling. Russian government officials have funneled money to environmental activists campaigning against shale mining. Moscow has also infected European nuclear markets, with several EU countries relying on Russian technology for their power plants. Most of the 32 countries that use nuclear energy depend on Russia for some of their supply.

The tired old cycle of the Western energy security debate is once again stuck in the hot air stage. But this time it’s different. The commitments are tougher and the reality darker. Hopefully this time our governments will finally jump to secure supply.

charlie peters written from UK

This article was supported by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the authors.