How Russia’s Power of Siberia 2 could undermine US energy agenda Opinion by Bloomberg

A recent Bloomberg opinion piece warns that Russia’s proposed Power of Siberia 2 natural gas pipeline could shake global energy markets and complicate US President Donald Trump’s much-touted “energy dominance” strategy. 

The revived project, discussed during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, highlights the shifting geopolitics of energy supply and demand — with significant consequences for the United States, Russia, and China, the article notes. 

The Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, if built, would transport Russian gas through Mongolia into northern China, with an annual capacity of 58 billion cubic meters. According to Bloomberg, that volume is nearly half of China’s projected gas demand growth over the next decade and a quarter of the increase in global demand overall.

For the US, which has become the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and is investing heavily in new export capacity, such an infusion of Russian supply represents a major competitive threat.

The International Energy Agency already projects that global LNG supply will expand by almost twice the expected rise in demand by 2030. This looming glut could depress prices and reduce the viability of new export terminals.

Bloomberg argues that the addition of Russian pipeline gas to China would deepen the oversupply, potentially forcing US LNG developers to shelve projects. With two-thirds of recent growth in American gas production being absorbed by exports, such a scenario would ripple back into the domestic market, pushing prices lower.

Moscow, isolated from European markets after its invasion of Ukraine, has strong incentives to secure Chinese buyers. Sanctions have stalled Russia’s Arctic LNG projects, while Europe’s shift away from Siberian gas looks increasingly permanent. The Power of Siberia 2 could allow Russia to effectively replace its former European demand with Chinese purchases, even if Beijing extracts tough terms.

From a strictly economic perspective, China does not need the pipeline, given its access to LNG. Yet, as Bloomberg notes, energy strategy increasingly transcends cost-efficiency.

Securing a direct overland supply would diversify China’s import mix, reduce reliance on seaborne cargoes vulnerable to US naval power, and strengthen its partnership with Russia. Beijing’s willingness to boost imports of sanctioned Russian LNG and open its bond markets to Russian energy companies underscores this strategic orientation.

Bloomberg emphasises that Trump’s reliance on LNG exports as a tool of foreign policy may be undermined by market realities. Europe, Japan, and South Korea — all key US partners — have limited capacity to absorb more US LNG due to sluggish demand growth and decarbonisation commitments. Meanwhile, China, the world’s fastest-growing market, may tilt toward Russian supply for political as much as economic reasons.

Ironically, a prolonged global gas glut could deliver cheaper energy for US data centers and AI developers, who are hungry for power. Yet, this would come at the expense of Trump’s other constituencies: LNG exporters, gas drillers, and coal producers, all of whom would face greater pressure from sustained low gas prices.

The Bloomberg op-ed highlights a paradox: Trump’s “energy dominance” strategy, meant to project US strength abroad, may instead incentivise rivals to create alternative supply routes that weaken US leverage.

If China commits to Power of Siberia 2, the result could be not just a blow to American LNG exports but also a reshaping of the global gas market in ways that bind Moscow and Beijing closer together.

By Sabina Mammadli