China, Russia Gain from Loss of U.S. Energy Independence

There are substantial and legitimate questions about inappropriate influences affecting decision-making concerning climate change policy. Both Russia and China have been credibly implicated.

Energy is clearly the basic foundation of Russia’s power, particularly in Europe. The Kremlin clearly benefits from limiting production of energy in other nations. An American Military News analysis notes that “[There is an] indisputable fact that energy is the foundation of Russia’s power and influence. And that a hesitancy has existed by some of our allies in Europe and elsewhere to take truly bold actions against Vladimir Putin because they depend on Russian oil and gas.”

Moscow’s need to dominate the world’s energy supply has led to its extraordinary measures to limit production in other nations. The Gatestone Institute believes that Russia has been financing western environmentalism. It reports thatFogh Rasmussen, former NATO Secretary General, stresses that Russia, “as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations – environmental organisations working against shale gas – to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”

Influence over American environmental groups exists as well. “On March 11, 2022,” notes Gatestone, “US Representatives Jim Banks and Bill Johnson sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, asking for an investigation into the reported Russian manipulation of American “green groups” that are seemingly funded with “dark money” (anonymous donations). “Russia spent millions promoting anti-energy policies and politicians in the U.S. … Unlike the Russia hoax, Putin’s malign influence on our energy sector is real and deserves further investigation,” Banks said to Fox News Digital. “Hence the interest, for the Russian government, in mounting a vast disinformation campaign against shale gas and nuclear power in the West, by massively financing the groups most likely “naturally” to oppose it: environmentalist organizations.”

In 2017, Representatives Lamar Smith and Randy Weber asked then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to act against Russia’s funding of anti-fracking campaigns in the U.S.

Influencing western movements is a tried and true tactic for the Kremlin. A Warontherocks study found that “…the Soviets used front organizations to influence the anti-nuclear movement, the initiative that most visibly put Western leadership on the defensive. West German Interior Ministry and FBI reports concluded that Soviet-linked organizations were successfully swaying local peace movement initiatives to conform to Moscow’s positions. In 1982, the U.S. affiliate of the World Peace Council, a Soviet front, showed Moscow’s ability to secretly influence a United Nations special session on disarmament by persuading the committee coordinating the massive protests to focus the movement on U.S. and NATO rather than all (read: Soviet) missiles as the real threat.”

Russia’s interest is matched by China. China is the major builder and exporter of wind turbines. An EVWIND analysis notes that “In Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) 2020 ranking of global wind turbine manufacturers, 7 of the top 10 wind turbine manufacturers are Chinese companies…In addition, China commissioned 98% of the newly installed capacity from wind turbine manufacturers.”

It’s not just wind turbines. A Foreign Policy article states that “In 2019, China made 80 percent of the world’s supply of solar panels.”

A CSIS study notes that “the international community should be assured that China is … leading the world in one particular sector: deployment and investment in renewable energy. China is already leading in renewable energy production figures. It is currently the world’s largest producer of wind and solar energy,⁹and the largest domestic and outbound investor in renewable energy.Four of the world’s five biggest renewable energy deals were made by Chinese companies in 2016. As of early 2017, China owns five of the world’s six largest solar-module manufacturing companies and the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer.^”

It’s not just wind turbines. Foreign Policy notes that “In 2019, China made 80 percent of the world’s supply of solar panels.”

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Part 3: AMERICA’S STRATEGIC POSTURE

We conclude our summary of the urgent recommendation of the Congressional Committee on the nation’s Strategic Posture NON-NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES The Commission recommends: The United States urgently deploy a more resilient space architecture and adopt a strategy that includes both offensive and defensive elements to ensure U.S. access to and operations in space. The United States and its Allies take steps to ensure they are at the cutting edge of emerging technologies – such as big data analytics, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence (AI) – to avoid strategic surprise and potentially enhance the U.S. strategic posture. The United States prioritize funding and accelerate long-range non-nuclear precision strike programs to meet the operational need and in greater quantities than currently planned. x America’s Strategic Posture The United States develop and field homeland IAMD that can deter and defeat coercive attacks by Russia and China, and determine the capabilities needed to stay ahead of the North Korean threat.4 The Secretary of Defense direct research, development, test and evaluation into advanced IAMD capabilities leveraging all domains, including land, sea, air, and space. These activities should focus on sensor architectures, integrated command and control, interceptors, cruise and hypersonic missile defenses, and area or point defenses. The DOD should urgently pursue deployment of any capabilities that prove feasible. The Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments transfer operations and sustainment responsibility for missile defense to the appropriate Military Departments by 1 October 2024. This will allow the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to focus on research, development, prototyping and testing. ALLIES AND PARTNERS The Commission believes it is in the U.S. national interest to maintain, strengthen, and when appropriate, expand its network of alliances and partnerships. These relationships strengthen American security by deterring aggression regionally, before it can reach the U.S. homeland, while also enabling U.S. economic prosperity through access to international markets. Withdrawing from U.S. alliances and partnerships would directly benefit adversaries, invite aggression that the United States might later have to reverse, and ultimately decrease American, allied, and partner security and economic prosperity. Further, the Commission believes that our defense and the defense of the current international order is strengthened when Allies can directly contribute to the broader strategic posture, and the United States should seek to incorporate those contributions as much as possible. The Executive branch should recognize that any major change to U.S. strategic posture, policies, or capabilities will have great effect on Allies’ perceptions and their deterrence and assurance requirements. As a result, any changes should be predicated on meaningful consultations. RISK REDUCTION The Commission believes it is of paramount importance for the United States to work to reduce strategic risks. This involves activities and programs across the U.S. government, including in nonproliferation and arms control, as well as maintaining strong, viable, and resilient military forces. The Commission recommends that a strategy to address the two-nuclear-peer threat environment be a prerequisite for developing U.S. nuclear arms control limits for the 2027-2035 timeframe. The Commission recommends that once a strategy and its related force requirements are established, the U.S. government determine whether and how nuclear arms control limits continue to enhance U.S. security. The Commission recommends that the United States continue to explore nuclear arms control opportunities and conduct research into potential verification technologies in order to support or enable future negotiations in the U.S. national interest that seek to limit all nuclear weapon types, should the geopolitical environment change. Where formal nuclear arms control agreements are not possible, the Commission recommends pursuing nuclear risk reduction measures to increase predictability and reduce uncertainty and the chances for misperception and miscalculation. The 2009 Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States reported that the United States was at “a moment of opportunity, . . .but also a moment of urgency” – because the security environment had improved and the threat of nuclear proliferation was the principal concern. Since 2009, the security environment has dramatically worsened and new existential threats have emerged. This Commission concludes that the United States now faces a highstakes challenge that requires urgent action. Nevertheless, the Commission has not seen the U.S. government demonstrate the urgency and creativity required to meet the challenge. Nothing other than synchronized steps taken by the Executive and Legislative Branches will craft the strategy and build the posture the nation requires. The challenges are unmistakable; the problems are urgent; the steps are needed now. Photo: An Air Force Global Strike Command unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launches during a test at Vandenberg Space Force Base (DoD)