Previous Year Questions

Question :

Directions : Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

During the early 1980s, the intersection of geopolitics and energy needs forged a remarkable chapter in European history. The Soviet Union, flush with natural gas reserves, became the center of a contentious yet vital energy partnership with Western Europe - despite severe Cold War tensions and considerable political resistance, especially from the United States. At the heart of this dynamic was the Urengoy - Pomary - Uzhhorod pipeline, also known as the Siberian gas pipeline. Stretching across the Soviet Union into Western Europe, it was a monumental infrastructure project designed to transport vast quantities of Siberian natural gas to European markets. For the Soviet Union, this pipeline promised not only revenue but also deeper geopolitical influence through energy dependency. For Western Europe, particularly countries like West Germany, France, and Italy, it offered a solution to the energy crises of the 1970s and the growing demand for cleaner fuel alternatives to coal and oil. Despite the strategic potential of the Siberian pipeline, the European Economic Community (EEC) was riddled with internal contradictions. Member states pursued divergent energy strategies - France leaned on nuclear power, the UK on North Sea oil, and West Germany on Soviet gas. This lack of coordination exposed Europe's vulnerability: while the community sought energy independence and cohesion, individual nations prioritized their own economic and political interests. As a result, Europe's energy policy was more a patchwork of national agendas than a unified strategy.

The Reagan administration saw the pipeline not as a commercial venture but as a geopolitical threat. The U.S. feared that Europe's increasing reliance on Soviet gas would make it politically pliable, undermining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) unity and giving Moscow a powerful lever over the continent. To this end, the U.S. imposed sanctions, targeting companies involved in the pipeline's construction and supply chain - particularly those providing high-tech equipment. These sanctions sparked outrage in Europe. European leaders, especially in West Germany and France, argued that economic cooperation with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) could be a stabilizing force and should not be sacrificed for American Cold War ____X____. The conflict revealed not only transatlantic tensions but also differing visions for managing energy security: confrontation versus engagement. Europe's response to U.S. pressure was unexpectedly assertive. West Germany, in particular, doubled down on its cooperation with the Soviet Union, emphasizing long-term contracts and deepening interdependence. The broader European community, though fragmented, effectively resisted U.S. sanctions, asserting its sovereignty in energy matters. Over time, the U.S. scaled back its sanctions, and the pipeline was completed in 1984.

The Siberian gas pipeline episode is more than a Cold War relic - it offers enduring lessons for contemporary European energy policy. It showed the strategic value of diversification and interdependence, the risks of overreliance on a single supplier, and the challenges of maintaining unity in a complex geopolitical environment. While the EEC lacked coherence, the crisis prompted deeper reflection on the need for a common European energy strategy - something that continues to evolve today amid climate goals and new security concerns, especially after recent conflicts like the Russia- Ukraine war. Moreover, the episode highlighted a paradox that remains relevant: economic cooperation does not necessarily breed political alignment. Europe's energy entanglement with the USSR provided stability, but it also left it vulnerable to leverage, a dynamic still playing out with modern Russia and other energy powers. In sum, the history of Europe's engagement with the Soviet Union over energy was shaped by conflicting priorities - security, sovereignty, and economic need. It remains a powerful case study in how energy policy can both divide and bind, challenge and empower, in the face of global political currents.

Which of the following statements is TRUE based on details from the passage?