How does an Indian analyst see Imran Khan ouster?

“Imran Khan’s shortened tenure and the crisis his ousting offers a sharp reminder of the tenuousness of its democratic institutions in face of the mightily powerful political force wielded by the military,” Mahima Duggal tells the Tehran Times.

Following is the text of the interview

Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan has been ousted from power after losing a no-confidence vote in his leadership. What are the main reasons for such a decision?

The main reason behind Prime Minister Imran Khan’s ousting from the leadership of Pakistan is the escalating tensions between Khan and the top-level military leaders. Reports of frictions between the political and military establishments of Pakistan caused intense turmoil and fuelled further panic and tension in the country in the weeks prior to Khan’s no-confidence vote. In fact, recent reports suggest that alongside deploying his allies to filibuster the no-confidence vote and call the opposition traitors for going against the Prime Minister, Khan also sought to dismiss Pakistan’s army chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, a highly influential and powerful figure in Pakistani politics. Although, his efforts to sack Gen. Bajwa were blocked by a pre-emptive petition to the high court, this botched attempt only went to show the extent to which ties between Khan and the military had soured, especially considering the fact that in 2018, when Imran Khan assumed leadership, it was with the help of the army and intelligence establishments of the country. Ultimately, following a highly tense situation – even by the measure of Pakistan’s turbulent political history – wherein he fiercely fought to retain leadership, Khan lost a no-confidence vote in his leadership.

Imran Khan claims that Washington was behind a conspiracy to remove him from power. To what extent this allegation is true?

As of now, there is little evidence to suggest that the effort to remove him from power is anyway a result of a US-led conspiracy, despite strong allegations by Prime Minister Khan alleging this. The assertions first emerged at a rally in Islamabad on March 27, when Khan stated that he held a letter containing a threat by the US directed toward his government. Thereafter, he specifically pointed to Donald Lu, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, as being a part of this alleged conspiracy. The various (and vague) factors mentioned as reasons for US supposed action range from refusal to allow a US base on Pakistani soil to maintaining neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict – but no confirmation or verification has been provided, with Khan relying on rumors to spur support for his leadership. In other words, his intention was to tap into the simmering anti-American sentiments prevalent in the nation, whose people frequently view the US as unfairly scapegoating Pakistan in its post 9/11 war on terror. Members of his political party, Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), have supported Khan’s stance – with PTI member and Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri even attempting to block the initial motion for a no-confidence vote earlier in April by claiming that the alleged letter showed interference by foreign forces. 

Khan could very well succeed in pushing for an earlier ballot that allows him to capitalize on the public support he has gathered and reattain office. Yet, the US has bluntly and categorically and repeatedly rejected such assertions of a conspiracy to overthrow Khan’s government, saying there was “absolutely no truth” to them. While it is certainly possible that Khan’s foreign policy of pursuing a closer partnership with China and recent actions like his visit to the Kremlin on February 24 – just as the Ukraine invasion began – upset Washington, there is little real evidence to credibly suggest that the US instigated the no-trust vote in Khan’s leadership. By all accounts, Imran Khan’s ousting is more a result of cracks between his administration and the country’s military establishment, and one reason for these gaps could be Khan’s pivot away from the U.S.

Apparently the Pakistani army supports close ties with America rather than Russia. Given the army’s long role in Pakistani politics, do you see any attempt by the army to remove Imran Khan?

Interestingly enough, Pakistani Army Chief, Gen. Bajwa, has given several statements in support of expanded relations with the US – in addition to those with China – by building on their “long and excellent” history of strategic ties and America’s status as Pakistan’s largest export market. In the same vein, a day before the no-confidence vote, Gen. Bajwa also asserted that the Ukraine invasion was a “huge tragedy” that must be “stopped immediately”. This came in stark contrast to statements by Khan which depicted neutrality and his efforts to carefully avoid siding with either camp. Khan’s policy came as part of the tone his government had adopted over the past four years that saw Pakistan move closer toward China and further away from the US For many, Pakistan’s guarded stance was unexpected considering it shared considerably strong trade ties with Ukraine and has only looked towards a new improved era of bilateral ties with Russia since 2014. However, in view of regional security and a focus on Afghanistan, building better relations with Russia as well as China, both key players in Afghanistan, has become not only prudent but also critical for Islamabad. Although this clash of positions may have been a spark prompting the Pakistani military establishment to move to remove Khan from office, it was only a symptom of a steadily heightening rift between the political and military institutions.

What will be the future of government in Pakistan after Imran Khan? 

Shehbaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the rainbow coalition of opposition parties, was elected prime minister two days after Imran Khan’s ouster, via a parliamentary vote that was widely boycotted by over 100 lawmakers of PTI. Notably, Sharif was the only contender for the post after PTI, and its candidate Shah Mahmood Qureshi, the former foreign minister of Pakistan, staged a protest and walked away from the vote altogether. Sharif was a three-time chief minister of the Pakistan Punjab province and is renowned for his positive administration style. As chief minister, he worked closely with Beijing to attract and implement developmental projects funded by China. He also enjoys good relations with the Pakistani military, which is likely to continue at least in the immediate future, as he looks to appease the traditionally powerful army chief and top military leaders so as to cement his political position. Accordingly, we will likely see the Pakistani military be a strong driver of the country’s foreign and security policies. Notably, after the walkout by PTI parliamentarians, Sharif is faced with a considerably smaller 174-seat assembly which comprises primarily of his supporters; this number exceeds the simple majority required to pass laws, which will make it considerably easier for Sharif to speedily implement any regulations, unchecked by an opposition that is critical to the democratic process.

At the same time, it is worth noting that through his show of strength in the days before the no-confidence motion, Imran Khan has managed to garner incredible support from the nation’s public, especially youth voters who resonated with Khan’s conspiracy theory narrative and blamed the US for his removal from office. On April 10, footage showed hundreds of thousands of citizens gathered in protest of the no-confidence vote, calling any new administration a forcefully “imposed” government. Although the Pakistan general elections are only due at the end of 2023, Khan could very well succeed in pushing for an earlier ballot that allows him to capitalize on the public support he has gathered and reattain office – although any such endeavour would be highly complicated without the support of the country’s military.

How do you think about the fate of Pakistani prime ministers in Pakistan’s history? 

Pakistan’s politics has long been dominated by a handful of powerful, influential, wealthy, and well-established political dynasties, especially the Sharif and Bhutto factions – a trend that Imran Khan vowed to break when he was elected in 2018. At the time, he had everything in his corner; not only was he a populist leader, enjoying fame as a cricket star that had hailed him a national hero, but had also proven to be a charismatic political leader with promises to bring change to forge a new Pakistan. Most importantly perhaps, he also enjoyed the favor of the support of the all-influential Pakistani military. No prime minister in the history of Pakistan has ever been able to complete their full term of five years in office; but it seemed that with his rapport with the army and public, Khan could be the first to do so, thereby ushering in a new era. Yet, post the pandemic, which left the Pakistani economy in tatters with slow growth and double-digit inflations, Khan was ousted with still another year to go.

Imran Khan’s shortened tenure and the crisis of his ousting offers a sharp reminder of the tenuousness of its democratic institutions in face of the mightily powerful political force wielded by the military. It is an indication, and a confirmation, of how deeply compromised the country’s politics is while powerful military leaders, like the army chief, are ultimately in control. It was the military that eased the way for Imran Khan in 2018, reportedly by tactics of gross coercion and intimidation of PTI’s opposition; now, after Khan moved away from the priorities set forth by the military to pursue closer ties with China and challenged the military leadership over certain top-level appointments, it is the military that holds the reins and has helped choreograph his ouster. The Pakistani military’s role in the fall of the country’s political administration is not unprecedented but has frequently occurred in history whenever a sitting prime minister lost the favor of the military. What is unique with Khan’s case is perhaps the use of constitutional mechanisms to enable a change of guard rather than outright coups. It remains to be seen whether the chaos caused by the military’s interference and Khan’s blatant and malicious violation of constitutional procedures for personal political gains will result in lasting chaos and deep damage to the country’s democracy.

Time to resolve economic crises facing Pakistan

Dawn newspaper in its Editorial has termed Pakistan’s current economic situation dire. The new coalition government has inherited an economy encumbered with rising price, widening fiscal and current account deficits and diminishing foreign currency reserves. 

The country also faces a volatile political environment.

Former Finance Minister, Shaukat Tarin’s contention that the PTI has left the economy in a better shape than it had inherited in 2018 may not be rejected, but the challenge of turning it around, or at least providing some relief to inflation-stricken citizens anytime soon, is a formidable task for the new set-up.

It has rightly highlighted that exaggerating the facts will not help either. The estimates of fiscal and current account deficits given by Miftah Ismail at his Tuesday presser are on the higher side. But Pakistanis have seen this pattern before: every new government needlessly amplifies the economic crisis to discredit its predecessors.

Dawn has rejected Miftah’s the claim and said, the current account deficit is growing but is unlikely to reach US$20 billion mark.

The fiscal deficit is burgeoning, and may cross the previous government’s estimates of slightly over 6% of GDP. Yet it is an exaggeration to say it would increase to 10% by the close of the current fiscal year.

Foreign exchange reserves are down, yet State Bank of Pakistan says, country’s external financing needs for the present fiscal year are fully met from identified sources.

There is no denying to the facts that the economy is in deep trouble, and indeed in a worse state than what the PTI had inherited.

The situation has been worsened by the IMF decision to delay the US$ one billion tranche due to the third tax amnesty given by the previous government to the wealthy, as well as political uncertainty in the country.

China is taking its time to roll over its debt of nearly US$2.5 billion as it waits for the political dust to settle.

Once the IMF is back as expected, since Miftah promises to honour Islamabad’s commitments to the lender, and China rolls over its loan, the reserves are likely to start rising.

The question is do the new rulers have the acumen to fix the two major structural problems for reviving the economy.

That requires massive growth in tax collection, by expanding taxpayers’ base and eliminating exemptions to the powerful, as well as the privatization of state enterprises to reduce the gap between income and expenditure.

Further, governance and policy reforms are needed to substantially raise productivity for boosting exports and paying import bills.

The coalition may not have much time to undertake all these fiscal and productivity reforms, but it can initiate changes to restructure the economy for a sustainable turnaround in the longer term.

It is hoped that the incumbent government will neither resort to populist moves ahead of the elections nor put additional burden on the masses.

 

Brewing crisis in Pakistan

According to Pakistan's leading English Newspaper, Dawn, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) leader, Farrukh Habib on Thursday said the resignations of 123 legislators of his party had been accepted by acting speaker of the National Assembly, Qasim Suri.

A notification has also been issued in this regard, the ex-minister said in a tweet.

Habib said general elections had now become inevitable in the country after the acceptance of resignations submitted by the PTI lawmakers.

It may be recalled that Pakistan Peo­ples Party and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz on Wednesday accused National Assembly’s former deputy speaker Qasim Suri of pressuring the NA Secretariat into sending resignations of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf MNAs to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) without meeting constitutional obligations.

The two parties — now in government — claimed that Suri had committed violation of the Constitution by approving the resignations without listening to them in person.

Meanwhile, sources told Dawn that some of the PTI lawmakers had approached NA Secretariat with a request not to accept their resignations.

Sherry Rehman, PPP’s parliamentary leader in the Senate, said at a press conference, along with PML-N leader Ayaz Sadiq that Qasim Suri had once again violated the law.

“Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri claims that he has verified the signatures; however, that is not the case,” she said.

PPP senator said, according to Rule 43 of National Assembly Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, every member must individually appear before the speaker for signature verification and confirming the resignation.

“This procedure has not been followed as the PTI MNAs presented resignations jointly. Numerous PTI MNAs have come forth saying that the current procedure followed by the PTI was not only illegal but also unjust as they do not wish to resign, yet are being forced to do so,” she added.

Ms Rehman claimed some members were complaining that their resignations had forged signatures and the NA Secretariat was being pressured into accepting these. She said the ECP must take notice of these violations and the NA Secretariat be directed to ensure that the constitutional procedure for resignations was followed.

“We are confident about our growing majority and will continue to take forward our agenda of ridding parliament of all those subverting the Constitution and its rules.”

Ms Rehman said PPP and joint opposition had, after a long-drawn-out battle, ousted the “destructive, divisive and self-obsessed PTI government” through a democratic and constitutional path of a vote of no confidence.

“The whole country has been witness to the PTI leaders’ shameful subversions of the law and their one goal to remain in power at any cost to the nation,” she added.

PTI on Monday had decided to resign from the National Assembly, minutes before the election for the new prime minister was scheduled.

The decision was taken in a party's parliamentary meeting, which was chaired by PTI Chairman Imran Khan, at the Parliament House on Monday.

"The parliamentary party has decided to resign from the assemblies against the imported government," PTI Central Information Secretary Farrukh Habib said in a tweet.

Immediately after the announcement, Murad Saeed tendered his resignation as member of the NA — the first from the party.

Speaking to Dawn television channel shortly afterwards, he confirmed that he made the decision in line with the party's narrative. He reiterated the former prime minister's claims of a foreign conspiracy, stating that sitting in the NA after these revelations would be akin to be being a part of this plot.

"Should foreign powers have the right to make or break governments in Pakistan?" he asked.

Saeed also highlighted the charges against the opposition's candidate for Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif. "They were and are corrupt," he added.

Former Maritime Affairs minister Ali Haider Zaidi also followed suit, announcing his resignation on Twitter. He said he had submitted his resignation to the party chairman.

"No way should we legitimize this foreign-funded regime change in Pakistan. The battle for the sovereignty of Pakistan will now be decided on the streets by the people, not the looters," he said.

Former Minister for Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan Ali Amin Gandapur also shared a photo of his resignation on the party's letterhead.

"I am proud to be a follower of Imran Khan and will fight till my death for the freedom of Pakistan and parliament," he said.

PTI leaders Shireen Mazari, Hammad Azhar, and Shafaqt Mahmood shared their resignations on Twitter too.

Earlier, PTI leader Fawad Chaudhry had said that the decision to resign was tied to the acceptance of PML-N President Shehbaz Sharif's nomination papers for Prime Minister's elections, to which the PTI had raised objections.

He said it was a great injustice that Shehbaz would be contesting the election for the prime minister on the same day he is to be indicted in a money laundering case.

"What can be more insulting for Pakistan that a foreign selected and foreign imported government is imposed on it and a person like Shehbaz is made its head," he rued.

It is pertinent to mention that a special court (Central-I) of the Federal Investigation Agency was to indict Shehbaz and his son, Hamza, in a Rs14 billion money laundering case on the same but the court deferred the indictment.

Shehbaz Sarif and PTI's Shah Mahmood Qureshi were in the race to become the country's new prime minister.

 

 

 

 

United States supplying more arms to Ukraine rather than negotiating truce

According to a Reuters report, US President, Joe Biden has approved an additional US$800 million in military assistance to Ukraine on Wednesday, expanding the scope of the systems provided to include heavy artillery ahead of a wider Russian assault expected in eastern Ukraine.

The package brings the total military aid since Russian forces invaded in February to more than US$2.5 billion. This includes artillery systems, artillery rounds, armored personnel carriers and unmanned coastal defense boats, Biden said in a statement after a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

Biden said he had also approved the transfer of additional helicopters, saying equipment provided to Ukraine has been critical as it confronts the invasion.

"We cannot rest now. As I assure President Zelenskyy, the American people will continue to stand with the brave Ukrainian people in their fight for freedom," Biden said in a written statement.

The new package includes 11 Mi-17 helicopters that had been earmarked for Afghanistan before the US-backed government collapsed last year. It also includes 18 155mm howitzers, along with 40,000 artillery rounds, counter-artillery radars, 200 armored personnel carriers and 300 additional "Switchblade" drones. This was the first time howitzers have been provided to Ukraine by the United States.

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said some of the systems, like the howitzers and radars, will require additional training for Ukrainian forces not accustomed to using American military equipment.

"We're aware of the clock and we know time is not our friend," Kirby said when asked about the speed of deliveries.

The new aid - first reported by Reuters on Tuesday - will be funded using Presidential Drawdown Authority, or PDA, in which the president can authorize the transfer of articles and services from US stocks without congressional approval in response to an emergency.

John Spencer, a retired US Army major and expert on urban warfare at the Madison Policy Forum, said he was excited to see that the United States was sending artillery and artillery rounds.

"You need these bigger, more powerful weapons ... to match what Russia is bringing to try to take eastern Ukraine," Spencer said.

As news of the latest security assistance came out, executives from the top US weapons makers met with Pentagon officials to discuss the industrial challenges in the event of a protracted Ukraine conflict. These included executives from BAE Systems, General Dynamics Corp, Lockheed Martin Corp, Huntington Ingalls Industries, L3Harris Technologies, Boeing Co., Raytheon Technologies Corp and Northrop Grumman Corp.

In a statement, Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon said, “The discussion focused primarily on accelerating production and building more capacity across the industrial base for weapons and equipment that can be exported rapidly, deployed with minimal training, and prove effective in the battlefield."

Zelenskiy has been pleading with United States and European leaders to provide heavier arms and equipment.

Russia has been unable to achieve most of its military goals as Ukrainians have put up a fiercer-than-expected resistance.

Russia calls its actions in Ukraine a special operation to destroy Ukraine's military capabilities and capture what it views as dangerous nationalists, but Ukraine and the West say Russia began an unprovoked war of aggression.

On Wednesday, Russia said it had taken control of the southeastern Ukrainian port of Mariupol and that more than 1,000 Ukrainian marines had surrendered.

 

Pak-US relations not likely to improve in near future

Washington may be happy on the installation of Shehbaz Sharif government in Pakistan. However, it looks highly unlikely that relationships between Islamabad and Washington can be normalized.

According to some analysts the United States was not happy with Imran Khan's outright shift to Chinese camp. His support for Putin in the Ukraine crisis has not gone down well with the US.

Some of the critics say United States many have not led the process to oust Khan from the power. However, it goes without saying that some powerful forces within Pakistan have managed to use the growing rift between Khan and Washington to their use. Some critics say Khan’s ouster came as a result of the alignment of major opposition parties with the Army.

Let us explore the apparent and hidden reasons:

According to the analysts, Khan's downfall has several reasons, internal as well as external. He had promised a lot before the election but failed to deliver. The lack of experience in administration and poor handling of Covid-19 crisis contributed to worsening the country's economic crisis.

After the failure to improve the economy and governance of the country, he redirected his focus to targeting political rivals, which brought together the opposition. His pro-China tilt and wish to make some unilateral decisions on military appointments resulted in losing key support from the Army.

Khan accused Washington of being involved in a conspiracy against his government, but the White House rejects such a claim. One has all the reasons to believe that the US was not happy with Khan's outright shift to Chinese camp. His support for Putin in the Ukraine crisis also didn’t bode well with the United States.

It may be true that the United States has not led the process to oust Imran Khan from the power, but some powerful forces within Pakistan have managed to use the growing rift between Khan and Washington to their benefit.

It may also be said that Khan’s ouster became possible with the alignment of major opposition parties and the Army. Judiciary also played a role. However, there is a clear warning, the US may be happy over the development; but it looks less likely that Pakistan will go back to the US camp.

In case Kahn and his party members resign from the National Assembly en masse, it will become a big question mark on the legitimacy of the new government.

Khan may lead the street protests against the incoming government in the coming months to keep his constituents enthused before next year's election.

This may to lead to his arrest, or he will be confined to his home. His popularity has grown among Pakistan's youth and the educated mass, and his cult-like status among the Pakistani diaspora is likely to remain intact.

There is no doubt that he is popular among the youngsters in the country and he is an excellent divider like other populists. That can make him a mighty force in the 2023 election.

One may wonder, will Khan opt to confront with political rivals and foes? There is a likelihood of a street fight between Khan's supporters and the security forces before the next election. The judiciary is not likely to come towhis rescue. Imran Khan is projecting himself as a victim of foreign conspiracy and alleging that his opposition is working against Pakistan. It will be a dirty political street fight in Pakistan for some time, at least until the next election.

A question being asked is can he count on his social base while the Pakistani Army is reluctant to support him? Khan's support base consists of youths, conservative poorer sections of the society, and the middle class. He is seen as a clean politician by his supporters, and his opponents are seen as a corrupt political dynasty.

Many Pakistani celebrities and the majority of the Pakistani diaspora also support Imran Khan. After his removal as the prime minister, his popularity has grown, and he is seen as a fighter who sacrificed his position to fight for the country and its people.

The Army is less likely to be openly aligned with Khan's opposition due to fear of losing its support of the masses. It seems to be a matter of time only before Khan is back in power.

Buying more Russian oil not in Indian interest, United States tells India

US President Joe Biden has told Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi that buying more oil from Russia was not in India's interest and could hamper the US response to the war in Ukraine.

Talking about an hour-long video call, the US officials described it as "warm" and "candid", Biden and Modi both publicly expressed growing alarm at the destruction inside Ukraine, especially in Bucha, where many civilians have been killed.

Biden stopped short of making a "concrete ask" of Modi on Monday, an official said, noting India has concerns about deepening ties between Russia and China.

But Joe told Modi, India's position in the world would not be enhanced by relying on Russian energy sources, US officials said.

"The president conveyed very clearly that it is not in their interest to increase that," said White House spokesperson Jen Psaki.

India's External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, at a news conference later on Monday, pushed back against a question on India's energy purchases from Russia, saying the focus should be on Europe, not India. "Probably our total purchases for the month would be less than what Europe does in an afternoon."

Broad talks between the world's two largest democracies took place as the United States seeks more help from India in condemning, and applying economic pressure on, Russia for an invasion Moscow calls a "special military operation."

"Recently, the news of the killings of innocent civilians in the city of Bucha was very worrying," Modi said during a brief portion of the meeting open to reporters. "We immediately condemned it and have asked for an independent probe."

Modi also said he had suggested in recent conversations with Russia that President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy hold direct talks.

The South Asian nation has tried to balance its ties with Russia and the West but unlike other members of the Quad countries - the United States, Japan and Australia - it has not imposed sanctions on Russia.

Biden recently said that only India among the Quad group of countries was "somewhat shaky" in acting against Russia.

Lured by steep discounts following Western sanctions on Russian entities, India has bought at least 13 million barrels of Russian crude oil since the invasion in late February. That compared with some 16 million barrels for the whole of last year, data compiled by Reuters shows.

Psaki did not disclose whether India had made any commitments on energy imports but said Washington stands ready to help the country diversify its sources of energy.

Noting Modi's statements about the war on Monday, Psaki said, "Part of our objective now is to build on that and to encourage them to do more. And that's why it's important to have leader to leader conversations."

A US official added, "We haven't asked India to do anything in particular." The official said "India is gonna make its own judgments" following "a very candid conversation."

Talks in Washington on Monday took place between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and their Indian counterparts Jaishankar and Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh.

Blinken said India's ties with Russia developed over decades at a time when the United States was not able to be a partner to India, but that times had since changed.

"Today we are able and willing to be a partner of choice with India across virtually every realm," Blinken said at a joint presser following the talks.

India's modernization needs on defense were a key topic the two sides have discussed at length, the ministers said.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the two countries had signed a bilateral agreement to support sharing information and cooperation in space.

Biden told Modi he looked forward to seeing him in Japan for a Quad meeting "on about the 24th of May" and the two leaders also discussed a range of other issues, officials said.

Can Israel meet European demand for gas?

A question is being debated, can Israel meet European demand for gas, if it boycotts Russian gas. It Israel and Egypt are producers of natural gas and the question is whether they or other east Mediterranean potential producers are relevant to the current situation.

A senior German Minister has called for a discussion about boycotting the import of Russian natural gas in reaction to the alleged atrocities of Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

It is easy to imagine the discussion, if it takes place when fellow European politicians will point to their countries’ dependence on the importation of oil and natural gas and even coal, yes, coal to the continent in which the Green Deal is its new flagship.

The European Union imported 155 billion cubic meters (bcm) from Russia in 2021. Half of Germany’s imported gas arrives from Russia, 46% in Italy and a quarter in France, the three leading economies of the EU and all members of the G7. Not surprisingly, the EU has not imposed sanctions on the sector, but the issue has been very high on the agenda.

Following his three summits with the leaders of the EU, NATO and the G7 on March 25, President Biden declared that the United States will inject 15 bcm of natural gas to the world market in 2022 with more to come in the future.

The US also promised to release one million oil barrels a day in the next 6 months from its strategic reserves in an effort to lower supply and price pressures. The president must have had his own country on his mind and its economic indicators showing growing inflation in which rising fuel prices are a key factor.

Israel and Egypt are producers of natural gas and the question is whether they or other east Mediterranean potential producers are relevant to the current situation. Given production capacity, existing supply contracts and conveyance capacity, Israel may have 10 bcm annually to add to Europe’s demand, while Egypt is mostly engaged in its domestic market.

Egypt though becomes a key player if Israel is asked to help mitigate a crisis in Russia’s natural gas supply to Europe, since currently it holds the sole connection for the Israeli gas to Europe. There are two ways to convey natural gas – pump it into pipes or liquefy it, load it on specially built tankers and re-gasify it at the other end, close to the client. The liquefacation of natural gas (LNG), its shipping and regasification require investments of billions of dollars.

Israel has been able to avoid these investments because after deducting sufficient quantities for long term Israel domestic consumption and that by close regional buyers, about 500-600 bcm are left for exports, assuming no new fields are discovered. That quantity does not justify huge investments.

The most feasible financial and technical option is a pipe that would connect east Mediterranean gas fields to Turkey’s web of pipelines, which connect central Asia gas fields to Europe.

The political feasibility of this option is marred by Turkey’s President Erdogan’s unpredictability, let alone conflicts, such as those between Israel Syria and Lebanon, the Exclusive Economic Zones of which the shortest route of this pipe will have to cross, or the conflict between Turkey, Cyprus and Greece.

In the last decade, Israel and Egypt have forged close cooperation with the two Hellenic Mediterranean neighbors, which they would like to preserve while finding the miraculous formula that will enable all these old conflicts to be pushed aside seems unlikely.

What is left in this situation if Israel can relatively quickly move about 10 bcm to Europe but has no immediately available way of doing that, is to use floating liquefying installations, which are movable and can be located close to gas fields. These are costly but less than the fixed ones. This option does not rule out continuing the use of the pipeline from the Israeli gas fields to Egypt or pursuing the study of a pipeline to Turkey.

All these options depend, of course, on the European decision to purchase natural gas from the east Mediterranean. The EU has financed a study of a pipeline from the gas fields of the region to Europe but seems indifferent to this project.

When considering the LNG from the region, the EU and the US should also consider the probability, though not high, that Lebanon, a declared bankrupt state, would come to its senses and agree to settle the maritime border dispute with Israel in an equitable manner. That may unblock its ability to start the production of natural gas in its economic waters.

The foreign companies involved, Chevron on the Israeli side, Total and Eni on the Lebanese side, will then find it easy to reach operational agreements on the joint use of pipes and liquefying equipment.

The pace of Israel depleting its natural gas reserves by local and regional consumption, and preferably with European demand, will also determine how fast it moves towards reliance on renewable energy sources .The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a human, moral and economic disaster. It may be also remembered as a major catalyst in the elimination of dependence on fossil energy resources, not just Russian ones.