‘Are We Really Such Idiots?’ US Increases Stranglehold on EU Energy Supply with Growing Role in Caucasus

The US is on track to become the EU’s largest gas supplier of any kind this year, overtaking Norway, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

It’s not enough. It never is. Developments in the works over the next few years could see the US further increase its dominance in the EU energy department—and therefore its control over Europe.

The EU decreed last year that all bloc countries must complete the de-Russification of its energy markets by 2028 at the latest. That means countries like Slovakia, which has a long-term contract with Russia are increasingly looking to the Southeast to Turkey, the Caucasus, and Caspian region for replacement sources. 

Yet here too the US is, or is becoming, the gatekeeper as it controls a corridor through southern Armenia and takes on a larger role in Azerbaijan. So where is the gas going to come from?

Before it enters the EU, it will have to pass through Türkiye, whose gas primarily comes from Russia and Azerbaijan via pipeline with other smaller percentages coming from Iran and LNG shipments. That means that barring any unforeseen developments in Iran that see that coveted trillion open up to American vultures, it will be evermore reliance on Azerbaijan, which has signed deals to increase supply to countries like Slovakia, Hungary, and others.

At the same time, the US is becoming more heavily involved in Azeri production and delivery. From Euronews:

Speaking at the first Azerbaijan–US Economic Dialogue in Baku, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs Caleb Orr said the US sees opportunities stretching well beyond traditional hydrocarbons.

“The United States wants a greater role in the pipeline infrastructure and the other energy infrastructure that Azerbaijan is building,” he said.

Orr also flagged Washington’s backing for Azerbaijan’s growing role as a transit hub, singling out the Middle Corridor, the trade and transport route connecting Asia and Europe through the Caspian region. “We expect to help Azerbaijan grow its role as the central node of the Middle Corridor for energy transit, going to Europe and to the rest of the world,” he said.

The US is already embedded in Azerbaijan’s energy sector through ExxonMobil and Chevron.

Orr noted that ExxonMobil signed a memorandum of understanding for new exploration activities during last year’s Baku Energy Week, while US oil major Chevron signed a new study agreement at this year’s event.

“We think that Azerbaijan is a critical producer of energy for the world right now,” Orr continued. “And the United States really benefits from this relationship, and it’s one that we expect to grow significantly over the next few years.”

Turkey is also proposing a “military” pipeline to Europe to fuel NATO’s eastern flank with Azerbaijan presumably providing the supply, and a headline grabbing announcement on this front wouldn’t be surprising at the NATO summit this summer in Ankara.

It’s possible—if not likely—that such a supply route will pass through the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), a 43-kilometer corridor across southern Armenia that would connect Azerbaijan to its autonomous Nakhchivan exclave bordered by Türkiye. TRIPP looks set to proceed now after the ruling party in Armenia had a strong showing in yesterday’s election with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan declaring victory and announcing he will form a one-party government.

Ankara and Baku are already working on building an electricity corridor to Europe that will run through TRIPP. It wouldn’t be surprising to see pipelines follow the electricity corridor path, as both Turkey and Azerbaijan have long favored such plans. Work has yet to begin in Armenia, however. All development work there in the corridor is to be conducted by a US-Armenian joint venture company—with Washington’s 74-percent controlling stake— which was just established by the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation Board of Directors on Thursday.

It should be noted that much of the impetus to import more Azeri gas, and therefore the interest in TRIPP, is being driven by the EU’s phasing out of Turkstream. Last year’s decree put an expiration date on the funny business of labeling Russian gas as Turkish. The document states:

“The Regulation should therefore presume that natural gas imported into the Union (…) arriving via TurkStream (…) originates in or is exported, directly or indirectly, from the Russian Federation, thus replacing the requirement to submit proof of the country of production. In case it is claimed that natural gas arriving at these borders, interconnectors, or interconnection points is under a ‘transit’ procedure through the Russian Federation, strict controls should apply.”

TurkStream has a capacity of 31.5 bcm of natural gas a year, roughly half of which stays in Türkiye, and the rest continues on to the Balkans and Central Europe. Serbia and Hungary are the primary European customers. And Turkstream exports into Europe have recently been at all-time highs.

We’ll see how strictly it is enforced, but if it is, the EU with its de-Russification-by-end-of-2028 rule is effectively doing to itself what Washington has long tried to do.

TurkStream came about after the US worked to torpedo the Russia-Bulgaria South Stream pipeline back in 2014. The project would have transported Russian gas under the Black Sea, making landfall in Bulgaria and then passing through Serbia and Hungary into Austria.

Instead Russia pivoted to Türkiye where Erdogan was less susceptible to US pressure and opened TurkStream at the beginning of 2020 despite US sanctions on companies involved in the construction of the pipeline.

More recently, Washington tried to use Bulgaria to block the flow of Russian gas from Turkiye onto Europe, but Hungary nixed that plan by threatening to veto Bulgaria’s entry into the Schengen area.

Every piece of the puzzle is sliding into place…except, well, there are a lot of issues.

Short on Supply, In Need of Infrastructure

Azerbaijan was originally  supposed to be exporting 20 bcm to the EU by 2027, but Baku has already pushed that date back. There will be problems getting there at all.

The first is that the pipelines carrying Azeri gas to Europe are already at capacity.

Even with expansions and more compressor stations and potentially altogether new pipelines like the ones Turkey is proposing there are upstream doubts in Azerbaijan.

The problem there is that production is already struggling to keep up with growing domestic use and the EU’s demands. Information on confirmed reserves and future production are impossible to come by, but one detail that is clear: Azerbaijani exports to the EU actually declined slightly in 2025, totaling 12.8 bcm, a 1 percent drop over the previous year’s volume. That was likely due to Russia no longer laundering as much gas through Azerbaijan to the EU due to Western-supported friction between Baku and Moscow.

So maybe Azerbaijan is sitting on some highly productive Caspian fields that are finally about to come online, and maybe announcements are coming soon on big expedited pipeline projects, but one would have to believe that if it was going to happen it’d would’ve by now after four-plus years of Project Ukraine.

So that leaves Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs Caleb Orr, Turkey, and European officials looking further east across the Caspian to Turkmenistan to fill the gap. There are even more issues there, however.

Türkiye had a small gas swap deal with Turkmenistan and Iran in which Iranian gas was pipelined to Türkiye in exchange for Turkmenistan sending gas to Iran. Expanding on such arrangements would be the most logical route to get more gas to Europe, but if we’re doing logical we might as well turn Nord Stream back on or stick with TurkStream.

There is, of course, no way that the US-Israel and Zionists in Europe are going to allow any Iranian involvement. And notably, Türkiye and Turkmenistan halted gas exports via Iran following the reverberations from the decision by Washington to block Iraq from importing gas from Turkmenistan via a similar swap deal with Iran.

In light of Iran being excluded, there is again talk about the Trans-Caspian Pipeline, which would send gas from Turkmenistan across the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan and onto Türkiye and Europe. Orr and other supporters of the project try to frame it as part of the China-supported Middle Corridor.

That’s unlikely to be much of a selling point in Moscow and Tehran—or even in Beijing.

As talk of the Trans-Caspian ramps up, it’s worth remembering the reasons why the pipeline hasn’t been built, chief among them that the 2018 Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea signed between Azerbaijan, Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan didn’t solve disputes over submarine cables and pipelines.

Those are governed by the 2003 Tehran Convention, which stipulates environmental standards. Moscow and Tehran repeatedly invoke the Convention to effectively block the construction of pipelines between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.

Can anyone see a good reason Russia and Iran would change that position now? So any Trans-Caspian illusions involve violation of that Tehran Convention and dealing with the response from the parties whose votes were ignored.

Washington might like nothing more with a heads, it increases divisions in the Caucasus-Caspian and the chances of conflict (which would further derail any Eurasian integration efforts, and increase Europe’s reliance on US LNG), and tails, Washington gets to play gatekeeper to the transit of more resources through the Caucasus to Europe. Not a bad deal.

The more likely outcome is that the Trans-Caspian Pipeline remains a pipe dream, and the EU continues to limp along, squeezing some modest increases in supply from Azerbaijan while LNG keeps getting ferried across the Atlantic, the high prices and emissions more destructive than coal a constant reminder of that oh-so-special, unbreakable Transatlantic bond.

There is, of course, another potential outcome:

Transatlantic Stockholm Syndrome 

For now, Europe has nowhere else to turn—especially with Hormuz closed.

Libya remains a failed state. Algeria is maxed out. Perhaps the proposed EastMed pipeline, which would deliver natural gas from deposits in the east Mediterranean to European markets, will be resurrected, but Washington has never been a fan. Let’s allow former Undersecretary of State Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland explain why:

“Frankly, we don’t have 10 years, but in 10 years from now, we want to be far, far more green and far more diverse” in energy sources, Nuland said. “So what we’re looking for within the hydrocarbon context are options that can get us more gas, more oil for this short transition period.”

That was more than four years ago now that Nuland made those comments about EastMed and more than 12 since the infamous leaked call that revealed transatlantic dynamics.

Logic would dictate that at some point enough Europeans wake up to the fact that the path taken by the ruling elite leading to evermore dependency on the US and hostility to Russia and China is a rotten deal for just about all Europeans, but the rearview mirror shows the road littered with parties and leaders who run on nationalist platforms —i.e., euroscepticism and anti-NATO and no kneejerk animosity toward Russia and China— are quickly brought to heel (if their positions were ever genuine) once in power.

Still, that doesn’t change the public mood. A quick look at some polling data potentially shows some resentment bubbling up—although it can be difficult to decipher how much of it is dissatisfaction with America Inc. versus disapproval of the current administration, which likes to make a show of embarrassing Europe.

An April Politico European Pulse survey found Europeans increasingly see the US as a threat—moreso than China. And in a country like Italy, Washington is quickly catching up to Moscow. That’s pretty remarkable considering the nonstop barrage of anti-Russian propaganda that has flooded mainstream media for years now.

Politico’s survey backs up  European Council on Foreign Relations polling last year that found steep drops in US favorability ratings.

Again, that could be the Trump effect. Should a sweet-talking Democrat win in 2028 and declare the return of the liberal rules-based order, perhaps these numbers would look markedly different come that time.

That would be too bad because the bust out of Europe is likely to continue when he’s gone.

The longstanding US policy in the Black Sea and Caucasus region, for example, has been to push out Russia and control—or at least have a heavy hand in—energy flows to Europe.

American think tanks and officials have been talking about their designs for the Black Sea region for years. Former Biden Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs James O’Brien explained the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a few years ago that one of the main objectives of using Ukraine in an attempt to weaken Russia is to strengthen NATO and American business interests in the Black Sea region. What exactly does that mean?

The Atlantic Council does well to sum up Washington’s position: “Türkiye can become an energy hub—but not by going all-in on Russian gas.” The thinly-veiled threat concludes with the following:

Exploring phantom opportunities of energy cooperation with Russia at the expense of real risks of getting exposed to US and EU sanctions will not transform Türkiye into an energy hub. Quite the opposite, it would spell the end of this dream.

One of the US’ top objectives (if not the top objective) is to get countries off of Turkstream and replace it with more US-controlled energy.

Mission accomplished, and the Europeans are once again doing it to themselves because Russia bad, America good.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

9 comments

  1. DG Bear

    It is starting to appear to me that the USA plan for continuing hegemony is brilliant and working. We control not only oil but also other countries revenue (Iraq and Venezuela). We are definitely weakening Russia and Iran. Proxy fighters are plentiful.

    People willing to become rich at the expense of others are also plentiful. Haven’t these few sold out their countries, including the USA.

    I do not credit Trump but those who started this plan 30 years ago.

    I was impressed when I first read Michael Hudson. His thesis that we were returning to feudal times made and makes sense to me.

    Reply
  2. JW

    Yes is the answer,resoundingly yes.
    If you couple this to the ‘over capacity’ Chinese legislation being drafted, the EC is busily shafting the EU citizens in no uncertain manner.
    The ‘just in time’ introduction of CBDCs will usher in the control mechanism.
    After watching the citizens of France dutifully lining up outside pharmacies to have their nth covid jab I have no lasting hope that the sheeple will revolt , even though its clear to many what is happening.

    Reply
  3. ambrit

    I wonder what the implications of demand destruction in Europe’s energy arena will be? The prices of energy are rising for a host of reasons. These increases tend to hurt the poorest the most. Energy being basically fungible, this will be world wide in effect. So, how does an elite handle a public that is fed up with elite mismanagement of basic services? We may soon see out in plain sight what a true Dystopia looks like. Europe has all the needed tools in place for the implementation of that fell fate.
    Relatedly, I am a bit surprised that Russia has not “returned the favour” and begun backing revolutionary movements in the Caribbean Basin and Latin America. Trunabout is fair play and all that.
    The United States is well on its way to becoming “Festung Amerika.”
    Stay safe. Keep an eye out for those ICE Goon Squads.

    Reply
  4. Safety First

    Information on confirmed reserves and future production are impossible to come by

    Future production, yes, sort of, but we do have easily searchable data (some of it a couple of years old) on proven reserves and more or less current production.

    [EIA production, table can be adjusted through “data options” to show different things and countries]
    https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world/natural-gas/more-natural-gas-data?pd=3002&p=g0q0000g0000100001000000000000000000000000000000000000000008&u=0&f=A&v=column&a=-&i=none&vo=value&t=C&g=none&l=249–14&s=1356998400000&e=1704067200000

    [Reserves estimate]
    https://www.iea.org/reports/azerbaijan-energy-profile/energy-security

    [Azeri government data, in English, but bcm rather than bcf as per the US format]
    https://minenergy.gov.az/en/statistika/qazin-hasilati-ve-ixraci

    Also, much as I dislike Wikipedia, here is a table of proven reserves for context of where Azerbaijan stands

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_proven_reserves

    It’s position 17. Kazakhstan, also Caspian Sea adjacent, is in position 15. And the table shows multiple sources (e.g. the US EIA, which I generally like to go to as my first stop for most energy statistics).

    Incidentally, EIA.gov comparative data for production and exports, for those who do not wish to click on links, for the year 2024.

    Production:

    Azerbaijan = 1338 bcf
    Kazakhstan = 1033 bcf
    Russia = 22673 bcf

    Exports (gross):

    Azerbaijan = 886 bcf
    Kazakhstan = 228 bcf
    Russia = 5241 bcf

    So just from all that, a few things are fairly obvious to me:

    – Unless there is a massive discovery, or an equally massive reclassification of reserves to proven, the Azeris do not possess a huge position.

    – They had already, even before 2022, drastically ramped up production to >50% higher than in late 2010s, and the Azeri energy ministry’s figures suggest they may well be topping out. And you’re going to need massive ongoing investment to maintain just this level of production to offset well/field depletion.

    – Unlike the Russians or the Kazakhs, the Azeris are exporting much of the gas they produce – and import almost none (the Kazakhs imported 157 bcf in 2024), which actually makes them a pretty hefty player in the export market for the time being.

    So yes, Fico is right once again, “we really are such idiots already”. Probably.

    Two cents. Thrown in.

    Reply
  5. DJG, Reality Czar

    And in a country like Italy, Washington is quickly catching up to Moscow. That’s pretty remarkable considering the nonstop barrage of anti-Russian propaganda that has flooded mainstream media for years now.

    Note the top two bars in the upper chart — Italy and Spain. Italy is the center of the Mediterranean world. Italians see the effects on Libya, Lebanon, and Yugoslavia. To put in a provocative Odyssey reference, there is much speculation that the Straits of Messina are Scylla and Charybdis (where Odysseus would have met Lupita Nyong’o, natch). So Greece, Crete, Cyprus, and Syria are next door.

    Spain’s geography also brings a different viewpoint. The Pyrenees mountains are an effective barrier. The Portuguese aren’t likely to invade.

    In Italian culture, Russia has a much different meaning than Russia has to Usonians. Heck, Gramsci’s wife was Russian, and his Russian sister-in-law here in Italy was his main support during his brutal imprisonment. Also, rather slyly, the local musical season here in Torino the last few years has included plenty of Shostakovich (the stirring Leningrad Symphony), Tchaikovsky (dangerous Putinist), Stravinsky, and Prokofiev.

    Also, the Global Sumud Flotilla originated in Barcelona and mustered in ports in Sicily. The Levant simply isn’t that far away and is part of the Spanish / Italian consciousness.

    The irony is that the zerbini (doormats) of the U S of A are the Fratelli d’Italia and Forza Italia, who seem to be willing to accept any humiliation. The Italian left has been skeptical of U.S. behavior in Italy for many years — back to the elections immediately after WWII.

    This isn’t anti-Americanism, for those of you who are ultra-sensitive. Italians mainly don’t like the endless interference in Italian politics.

    Reply
    1. Viaqwerty

      Interference implies distance, autonomy, independence. What we have all across Europe is infiltration of the “elites”, who are in fact now Comprador Elites whose interest is not only divorced from the popolo, but lies in suppressing their political will and controlling the narrative (Mel Bonillo has a great autopsy of the process). Brussels has become a union of such European oligarchs, and they are driving “profit harvesting” (rent seeking) EU policies with green- grift, privatisation of public utilities & infrastructure, CAP policies that consolidate landholding, and “nitrogen” plans that buyout farmland cheaply to convert them to solar parks or switch land use after cheap buyouts. For governments that try to resist, well as EvdL says “they have ways” of using EU institutions to discipline them.

      They’ve taken the holy-Cow of peaceful European cooperation and repurposed it for control and extraction.

      Reply
  6. PVDSteve

    The EU has talked such a big game for years about how they cared about the climate and were going green, but the harsh reality has been that EU elites are far more addicted to wealth and status by lashing themselves to US petroleum interests than actually securing the continent’s energy future. If they’d chosen to partner with China instead of the US, we could be talking about how Europe is weathering the oil shock so well due to renewables and nuclear power lowering demand. Instead European elites have signed a suicide pact that will mortgage the future of an entire generation, without any input from the little people. And this is the vaunted “Democratic West” we hear so much about.

    Reply
  7. bertl

    Regardless of what passes for Kaya Kallas’s thought processes, the EU is a bureaucratic construct without territory, a construct which damages the diverse peoples of it’s member states in equally diverse ways, ranging from the standardisation of goods and service, election interference, the imposition and attempted imposition of sanctions on both member and non-member states, financing and thereby complicit in making war on Russia in support of a government lacking in any legitimacy other than that imposed by financial corruption, brute force, imprisonment and murder.

    It is a construct which has, like Topsy, has just growed, and growed and growed, by adding institution after institution to increase dominance over member states and to replace some of their most essential functions from economic policy to trade with non-EU approved countries to ensure the control that enables it to interfere in elections in member states and incorporate other polities in its structures, and that aim, along with its attempts to become a military power in its own right with the capacity to go to war, have become it’s primary purpose, all on the grounds of, not law exactly, but “European values”, variously defined at the many competing whims of the EU’s liberal totalitarians as and when convenient. Currently, supporting, arming and financing a genocide in Palestine and the Lebanon on the grounds of opposition to anti-Zionism (or, in EU-speak, anti-semitism).

    There are many reasons why the people living in the 9 member states of 1974 are increasingly turning against an anti-democratic construct which seeks to convert itself into a state in its own right which will have greater powers over member states than the federal government has in the US, not least the desire of the EU to standardise by criminalising and destroying cultures which developed long before the emergence of the modern nation state. The Common Market began as a good idea to prevent conflict and increase prosperity in Western Europe. The EU has become a very bad idea which delights in waging war on the cultures, structures and economies of the people living in its member states.

    Given that the peoples of Western Europe have no effective mechanisms to control the EU Commission and it’s ridiculous “parliament”, it will be up to national parties of Left and Right to combine on the single issue of freeing themselves from the EU, whatever else they may disagree about, or civil war will erupt in country after country as individual nations seek to rid themselves of failed leaderships which ceased to represent them long ago.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *