The worsening situation on the fronts of the energy wars is forcing those directly involved and all other interested parties to revise their previous approaches. Signs that Bulgaria intends to resume construction of the South Stream gas pipeline project are a good example. In a New Year interview, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borissov admitted that the South Stream gas pipeline project was in the interests of his country, but had been halted as a result of interference by the US and the European Union, even though both the US and Europe knew that the project would be beneficial to Bulgaria, according to Borissov.

A few days later, sources close to the Bulgarian prime minister indicated that Russia and Bulgaria were planning to resume work on the South Stream project within the next few weeks. As reported by the Standart newspaper, the gas pipeline construction project will probably be one of the items on the agenda at the upcoming meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade-Economic and Scientific-Technical Cooperation to take place in Sofia at the end of January, the first such meeting in five years.

«There are two main reasons why Moscow will resume the project put on hold by the Oresharski cabinet in the summer of 2014 (Plamen Oresharski, the former prime minister of Bulgaria who announced that the project was to be halted in 2014 following a meeting with a group of US senators – P.I.). One of these is the sharp deterioration in relations between Russia and Turkey. The second reason is the recession in the Chinese economy, which has stalled the Power of Siberia gas pipeline intended to deliver natural gas to China», writes the Standart. According to the newspaper, «the revival of the South Stream project will meet the requirements of Brussels and fit in with the idea of building a Balkan gas distribution centre supported by the EU, which cannot be implemented without Russian gas».

Moscow is not in a hurry to commit to any promises in this regard, however, which is perfectly understandable given the role played by the Bulgarian authorities in disrupting the project. The fact that the whole business regarding the suspension of construction work on the South Stream project showed Sofia to be incapable of making responsible economic decisions autonomously and independently and therefore incapable of being a reliable partner is still fresh in everyone’s minds. There is no convincing evidence that anything has changed since then.

Dmitry Peskov, the Russian president’s press spokesman, has denied information that talks have resumed with Sofia on the South Stream project, stating that: «At present, such a project does not exist. It has been terminated. Consequently, there is no subject for negotiations». Information regarding plans to resume the project has also been denied by the Russian Energy Ministry, which emphasised that the status of the South Stream project remains unchanged and the project has been suspended. A spokesperson for the Bulgarian Council of Ministers was then forced to admit that the government had no information regarding the resumption of talks on the South Stream project.

Yet the signals being given by Sofia are very telling and are linked to the general crisis developing in the world’s energy markets, as well as the deteriorating economic situation in countries previously regarded as possible alternative energy suppliers to replace Russia. First and foremost, I am referring to the US.

Nearly a third of US oil companies could be facing bankruptcy by mid-2017 if oil prices remain low, while a few companies will be able to survive if the price of oil rebounds to at least $50 per barrel. According to experts, in 2016 a number of US oil and gas companies can expect the biggest budget cuts since the 1980s.

According to the Nigerian Oil Minister and the current President of the OPEC Conference, Emmanuel Ibe Kachikwu, OPEC may hold an emergency meeting in early March. Kachikwu says that several OPEC member countries have called on the leaders of the oil cartel to hold such a meeting. One of the subjects under discussion may be a change in the organisation’s strategy in response to the sharp fall in world oil prices. And most importantly, during informal talks as part of the upcoming emergency meeting, OPEC members are planning to discuss the situation on the market with other oil-producing countries that are not members of the oil cartel (including Russia) in order to reach an agreement on reducing oil production, which will stop prices falling further. 

The situation is complicated. Experts have different views regarding which way and by how much oil prices will bounce in the near future, with estimates ranging from $10 to $100 and even $250 per barrel. This uncertainty in the predictions alone suggests that a jump in oil prices will not be determined by the market or by the dynamics of supply and demand, but by non-economic factors. Professor Katasonov refers to the first of these factors as price manipulation, which is carried out by major US banks along with some others. 

«We must be prepared for any developments on the commodity and stock markets», Russian President Vladimir Putin said during a meeting with government members on 13 November. «We must keep a very close eye on them and have development scenarios for the Russian economy to cover every eventuality».

After the negotiations in Ankara between Gazprom’s chairman of the board, Alexei Miller, and Turkey’s minister of energy and natural resources, Taner Yildiz, the head of Gazprom stated, «We have agreed to schedule the work so that we get to the signing stage of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the pipeline during the second quarter of this year, and the first gas shipment will be pumped into Turkey in December 2016… The first leg of the pipeline will have a capacity of 15.75 billion cubic meters, which we will direct entirely at the Turkish market. Given the readiness of the Russkaya compressor station and of the majority of the offshore pipeline route – this is a totally realistic deadline». 

According to Mr. Miller, «the joint creation of gas-transportation facilities within the framework of this important project makes Gazprom and Botas strategic infrastructure partners… Everyone is focused on results. Our top priorities are to analyze the existing route options within Turkey and to determine the point of emergence from the sea, the point where the gas will be delivered to the consumers in Turkey, and the point where the gas will cross the Turkish-Greek border».

The total capacity of the planned gas pipeline, which has been unofficially dubbed the «Turkish Stream,» will be 63 billion cubic meters of gas per year, supplied via four legs. The pipeline will travel for 660 kilometers along the route planned for South Stream, and for another 250 kilometers along a new corridor toward the European part of Turkey.

Azerbaijan was interested in the news of the Russian-Turkish agreement. Azerbaijani observers immediately commented that the agreement between Moscow and Ankara dealt a blow to the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP), for which the EU and the US are lobbying. The website Haqqin.az notes, «In any event, barring anything unforeseen, today Russia has outplayed all the parties involved in the Azerbaijani gas project, including the European Union. While Azerbaijani gas is being shipped to Turkey, the Turkish market will also receive about 35 billion cubic meters of Russian gas from under the Black Sea. And at that point, Turkey is unlikely to need the several billion cubic meters of Azerbaijani gas that must be sent to the Turks in keeping with existing commitments. And if Gazprom manages to build a hub on the Turkish-Greek border just as quickly, then Russian gas will enter Europe ahead of the Azerbaijani gas. And the first supplier always has the best chance».

Western capitals also reacted sharply to the unfolding Russian-Turkish gas agreement. After the West derailed the rollout of Russia’s South Stream pipeline, the US Department of Energy began to insist that Russian gas projects be seen as primarily political schemes rather than economic. With baffling logic, European Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič called Russia’s decision to «supply the full amount of gas through Turkey instead of Ukraine» a blow to Gazprom’s image as a reliable supplier. Quickly, it seems, the Europeans forgot any problems they had had with Russian gas supplies that stemmed from Ukraine’s unreliability as a transit country.

The West is primarily concerned that redirecting Russian gas to skirt Ukraine will devalue their «Ukrainian card,» which the Western capitals so eagerly play against Russia. In this respect, the West considers both the former South Stream as well as the current «Turkish Stream» equally undesirable. Either of those pipelines would eliminate Ukraine from the geopolitical games being played in accordance with Western scripts. 

Experts, however, see the problem from a different angle. The US business news agency Bloomberg, citing a report from researchers at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, noted specifically that «the cancellation of South Stream is part of a broader change of strategy for Gazprom that plays to the company’s strengths».

And the inexplicable entanglements of the Opal pipeline, an extension of Nord Stream, can help explain exactly who in the gas field is being driven primarily by political rather than economic motives. «For three years, this gas pipeline, which has helped make gas transit less risky for Germany, the Czech Republic, and to a certain extent Austria and Slovakia, should operate at 50% capacity, just because there is Russian gas, but there’s essentially nothing else…» claims the chairman of the board of directors of Gazprom, Viktor Zubkov . 

The European Union does not want to incur additional financial expenses by buying gas from Turkey, but those could have been avoided if Europe had not shot down the South Stream project. At that time the Russians were prepared to finance the construction, but the EU will have to use its own funds to put in the pipelines running from the Turkish border. 

The year 2019, when Russian gas will bypass Ukraine and go through Turkey, will be here soon. Somewhere that is well understood. In particular, in Hungary. The prime minister of that country, Viktor Orban, stated that anti-Russian sanctions «were in conflict with Hungary’s interests,» and that he intends, in his words, «to come to terms with Russia on a gas agreement» during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Budapest. Putin arrives in the Hungarian capital on February 17th. 

This new deal may also represent a serious culmination of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian efforts to realign the entire bandwidth between the Adriatic Sea and India.  This has ramifications not only for the EU, Bulgaria, and Turkey, but also Syria, Egypt, Israel, Iran, China and most of Latin America.  Its effects reach far beyond the scope of this report, and includes currency wars, and military alliances.

Thus, this turn of events may be massive, and the culmination of the success which Iraq, Iran, and Syria have had, with their allies, in rolling back ISIS.  Additionally, this comes on the heels of the big changes in Egypt, which saw Turkey’s main ally in the war on Syria removed.  It also represents a major revival of the Russian effort to build an alternative route to the line going through Ukraine.  That line has been the subject of numerous problems as the Ukrainians had been difficult partners.  The recent outbreak of hostilities within Ukraine has made them an even less reliable partner, pushing the need to speed up the process of an alternative Russian gas route into high gear.

Let us begin with the reality as it has been presented.  On December 1st, Russia declared to the world that it had dumped the South Stream project because the European Union had decided that it did not want it.

The EU can be said to have decided this simply because it placed too many barriers on the project, mostly surrounding two factors.

The first factor was a constraint placed on the project by the Third Energy Package (TEP), which was passed in the EU in 2009.  This was done much after the South Stream project had already been proposed in 2007, and the tentative agreement already inked.  This change of conditions after the fact means that Russia has not abrogated any of its commitments, either morally or legally.  This is important in terms of Russia’s other numerous important trading and strategic partners, both in the region, and in the world.  No one will see that Russia pulls the plug on deals it makes.

In fact, Russia showed both good faith and due diligence in all spheres of the South Stream negotiations and construction process.  The initial terms of South Stream were made under conditions prior to the latest round of restrictions placed upon Russia, on top of the Third Energy Package.  In other considerations, as the project evolved, some elements of the TEP were interpreted in a way which still made the South Stream a viable project.  This means that the signatories to the South Stream tentative agreement cannot be held retroactively accountable for newer restrictions to the execution or workability of said agreement, which were unforeseeable at the time of the deal.  As the deal evolved over time, the manner by which the restrictions imposed by TEP were interpreted, also figured into the entire project.

The second factor is that Bulgaria had been under extraordinary pressure to conform to EU dictates in this arena.  The Bulgarian reluctance to buck EU dictates was understood by Putin, which is reflected in the exact words that were used to describe the failure on the Bulgarian end.  By and large, blame was placed on the EU for pressuring Bulgaria.  At the level of diplomacy, this gives the Bulgarians an important out, which will figure into this analysis, shortly.  Simultaneously, given how power is popularly understood, the Bulgarian government is being held by Bulgarians – who mostly wanted this project for a range of obvious reasons – as being primarily responsible.  The Bulgarians were also thinking they had an option, which was snapped away from them with this Russian-Turkish deal.  This will also figure into the scope of things to come, that we will describe.

Various news agencies around the world ran with the simple headline that Putin had cancelled South-Stream.  Some agencies and analysis groups viewed this as a show of Russian weakness, and others of Russian strength.  On the balance, just looking at the headlines as wholly descriptive, we can determine that Russia has acted out of strength.  They are actually leaving room for flexibility, and has hinted at conditions for workability.

We are justified in saying this for three main reasons.

The first is that Putin made the statement, it was not made by Europe or for him by others.  This means that he was not responding to a question or unforeseen circumstance, but rather this was a calculated pronouncement and made at a time of his choosing.  The words were chosen quite carefully.  His exact words must be examined.

“Bearing in mind the fact that we have not yet received Bulgaria’s permission, we think Russia in such conditions cannot continue this project,”

He continued on, “If Europe doesn’t want to realize this, then it means it won’t be realized. We will redirect the flow of our energy resources to other regions of the world.”

The first clause of the first quote, uses the word ‘yet’.  Alternate words that would eliminate any room for consideration would have been ‘Bearing in mind the fact that we will never receive Bulgaria’s permission.’

In order to clarify the open nature that is communicated here, he says ‘in such conditions’.  That is, under these conditions, but not other conditions.  In other conditions, logically if follows, perhaps something is possible.  But, also, perhaps not.

In the second quote, he uses the word ‘If’.  Not ‘Since’, or ‘Because’, but ‘If’.  In short, “if” they don’t want to realize this, it won’t be realized.  If they do want this realized, then perhaps it can be realized. Or not.

Also in this second quote is a statement which runs counter to the actual concept behind the Russian-Turkish gas deal.  Indeed it does aim to direct the flow to Europe, and not other regions of the world as such.  Recall that the Turkish hub is on the European side, near the Greek border.  Russia’s Ambassador to the European Union Vladimir Chizhov was clear when he said, “The gas pipeline thread may go in any direction from the Turkish hub,”. [1]

These statements furthermore seem to align not only with developments in Ukraine, but also in Syria, which we will elaborate on here as well.  This also means that the statement ought to be viewed in light of how Russia makes its official statements, which are almost always multi-layered messages.

Secondly, most news stories and news analysis also somewhat correctly mentioned that Putin simultaneously had been in Ankara where he ironed out a deal with Erdogan.  Putin announced that he and Erdogan had come to terms on increasing the volume of the Blue-Stream pipeline to Turkey, and creating a new pipeline to Turkey.    It is chiefly important here to mention that such a high level meeting means that there is much more to this than an energy deal.

After all, if this was the sole subject of the meeting, such a deal could have been made between Gazprom’s Alexei Miller, or even one of his subordinates, and their Turkish counterparts.  However, importantly is the fact that Turkish energy minister Taner Yildiz has gone on record saying that final terms have not been made.  A number of outstanding issues remain, apparently, such as the price of gas.  Russia has offered a 6% discount, but Turkey may end up with two or three times greater than that figure (18%).  Still, Turkey has enabled Russia to make an important announcement at a critical time.   Turkey is no doubt aware that this relates to the two aforementioned conflicts.  Still relevant are the more banal and well publicized economic concerns concerning solvency in the EU as well, including decreased demand.

Additionally, Russia has publically announced a $40-bn+ gas deal with India, as well as commitment to build nuclear power facilities.  Interestingly, India and Russia planned as far back as August, and perhaps April of 2014, to make this announcement in December.  This lends credence to the ‘strategic nature’ hypothesis of Putin’s well timed announcement on Turkey. ” An announcement on this initiative is expected to be made in December when the two leaders meet at the India-Russia annual summit to be held in New Delhi.” [2].

It is possible that an outstanding issue may relate to how Turkey’s previous plans can be combined with a new Russian-Turkish pipeline, which we will also explore in this report.

Third, as we will explain here in greater detail, this plan removes some of the alternate projects which Bulgaria and the EU thought they could rely on resurrecting, or further developing, in the final event of a Russian pull-out from the South Stream project.  Perhaps they had even intended for the Russians to further build in the Black Sea, only to pull the plug at a later phase, and ultimately have their efforts be for nothing, at great expense for Russia.

In truth, it is both too soon and too hard to tell what will happen exactly.

What Putin stressed was that the decision on whether or not this project can work was Europe’s to make.  This is an open door.

This seems to really contradict Putin’s statement about not having gas go to Europe.  Indeed, what we have actually been presented is, for the European project, a rebranded South Stream which now may also simply be combined with Nabucco.  This is because the new proposed line to Turkey goes to the European region of Turkish Thrace.

What we are to make of this depends on how we understand larger questions about the world we live in.

The reality of the ‘cancellation of South Stream’ is an example of a creation of a simulated hyper-reality to dissemble the actual reality of the situation.  This meme has now bounced off of all media walls, including alternative media and new media.  It has created an echo-chamber truth of its own.  We can understand that there are numerous targets of this weaponized bit of information, within the context of the information war at hand.

It should be no surprise that things are not what they seem.  We live in an increasingly complex world which witnesses an increasing sophistication in the multiple layers of meaning, which are embedded in official statements as they are reported.  We can say that the increasing bellicosity in general parallels the increased complexity of these messages.

The details of the proposed deal with Turkey are of some significance.   But we can only say with certainty, that what is important at this stage is that the plans seem credible insofar as they are workable.

Russia has officially gone on a media campaign to sell the workability of the Russian-Turkish Stream plan.  In a map provided to the public by RT, Russia’s English language state news agency, we can see clearly what the intended message is. 

Given that the main Russkaya CS plant which was built to handle the capacity of the South Stream line will still be used, and together with this, and the portions of pipe which have already been laid outside of Bulgaria that can still be used, the 5-bn Euros already spent on the project can be easily switched for similar use in a Russian-Turkish Stream scenario.  That alone foils one part of a possible US backed EU ploy to lure Russia into an ultimately dead-end project, which would have had the real potential of destabilizing the political structure inside of Russia itself.

If an actual Russian-Turkish stream is built, this will be the case, that Russian efforts have not gone to waste.  But what is most critical at this stage is that it adds credence to the Russian announcement. Looking at the map we can see that this is not simply a pipeline to Turkey.  It is not simply a different deal, now aimed at Turkey.

No, clearly this is a repackaged South Stream pipeline which now simply routes 150km south of the Bulgarian South Stream proposal, and through Turkey instead.  It also combines, now, elements of the Turkish Nabucco plan, as it now involves Greece and Macedonia, before it would turn north through Serbia, as well as having the potential to reconsider the Southern Corridor, as we will explore later in this report.

Perhaps under Russian consultation of this possibility, we can understand why Serbia began construction not in the south-east where it would have connected to the Bulgarian line, but rather in Novi Sad in the north.  This pipe laid in Novi Sad would be the route of either a South Stream or a slightly revised Nabucco in its new incarnation as the Russian-Turkish line.  Taken together, this new plan is the Russian-Turkish deal.

Indeed, we can see that with some modification, Russia and Turkey has proposed to combine the Nabucco and South Stream projects.  This was actually proposed by  Chief Executive Officer of Italian energy company Eni, Paolo Scaronione, the Italian project company involved in South Stream, at an early stage of negotiations.  While mainstream reporting gave a number of reasons why this proposal was initially rejected, what we know for certain is that the logistics and workability of such a plan to combine these two projects have been known about for several years [3].

It is interesting to consider then, that in retrospect, after all of the intrigue and blood spilt over this contest, that the Scaronione plan based on cooperation, collaboration, and peace, would be the one that actually worked out.  Moreover, the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) which was sometimes a variation of the Nabucco plan, was also a variation of South Stream.

The more one looks at this, given the considerable weight which is given to the opinions of Scaronione, the more one must entertain the possibility that this Turkish reversal was in the works from the start.  Turkey always seemed to play its role with NATO against Syria, but in retrospect we can see that they did not ‘retaliate’ as expected when Syrian air defenses shot down the Turkish fighter jet, among other things [4].  They did not move against Syria as robustly as they could have, and they never entirely shut the door on Iran.  From the start, they did not freely allow just any mercenary or jihadi passage from Turkey into Syria, and even arrested (and captured caches) those connected to Libya (Belhaj) and Europe, funded by the Saudis and Qataris [5].

Iran was always looking for rapprochement with Turkey.  Iran wanted to be part of Nabucco, and made the offer as early as 2009 before the outbreak of hostilities, and now it looks like they will have that opportunity.  Indeed Erdogan told a gathering of Nabucco partner countries and regional countries in that same year, which included Iraq and Georgia: “We desire Iranian gas to be included in Nabucco when conditions allow,” [6]

But the US’s own special energy envoy Richard Morningstar was clear that Washington would not allow the Iranians to take part.  The strangeness of the US opposition may have escaped the average American reader, here.  Nabucco in no way involved the US directly, it is not a trans-Atlantic project.  This is, at the very most, a question which only ought to be of concern to those countries that will be involved in the production, transport, and consumption of the goods and services provided.

What the US offered instead to Turkey was that it should throw its international reputation into the wind, and facilitate an ultimately failed attempt to make ‘regime change’ in Syria.

It was always known that the Nabucco plan and the South Stream plan, while pitched as competing plans, really seem to be the same project, pitched differently, involving different power blocs, but interestingly, some of the same project companies.

In theory, then, nothing will be different for Serbia or the other countries along the pipeline.  In fact, this might even work better for Russia in that it now involves Turkey, Greece, and Macedonia as it re-routes to get back on its path which travels north through Serbia, into Hungary, Austria, etc.  For the consumer states, price wise, we should not expect a tremendous difference.  The discount that Turkey receives from Russia will allow for Turkish profitability with a savings that can be passed onto the consumer states.

This is not just about energy markets, but changing political and military partners.

Serbia, Austria, and Hungary are not only still on board with South Stream, or any other name this rose is called, but Hungary and Serbia have sworn off sanctions on Russia.  Hungary has even threatened to leave the EU over South Stream, and has also refused to become entangled again in a problematic IMF loan, now after having paid off its debt.  Russia is presently building the facility and military intelligence infrastructure, in what could soon become an actual military installation, in the south of Serbia near Nish. This is also an area where the South Stream, or by any other name, will travel through Serbia.

Serbia has not made significant progress in moving towards the EU.  It has still not recognized Kosovo, which is an unofficial condition for EU entry.  Other matters such as the above mentioned Russian military intelligence hub, Putin’s presence and receiving the highest award at a distinctly Slavic style military parade, have emerged since, which have infuriated EU bureaucrats and NATO chiefs alike.

Thus, Hungary and Serbia, and because of details ironed out with OMV, Austria as well, are still on board with the project.  With very minor adjustments, this Russian-Turkish stream will be the same for them as the South Stream.  So, Russia’s December 1 announcement was not targeted at them.  In fact, taken together with the Russian-Turkish Stream, it is a big sigh of relief.

Rather, certain sections of the Bulgarian establishment are the immediate target of this announcement.  It is very important to create the all-round sense that Bulgaria can be left out of the equation, if it doesn’t do something decisive, and quickly.  If these matters were as simple to understand as the official statements made, then most people following the headlines would understand matters as they stand.  The truth, however, is more complicated.

In bargaining, to say that a deal is off the table is actually part of the bargaining process.  For those already familiar with this point, please forgive that we must belabor it for a moment. This is true all over the world, but is a particularly known bargaining tactic in Eurasia and the Middle-east.  It is accurate to include that this tactic is used in the far west, even where business culture tends to be based more on the proclivities and sensitivities of those in the Anglosphere.  Nevertheless, Slavs, Arabs,Turks, and Iranians do business differently.  Saying that a deal is off the table is neither rude, nor is it a deal breaker.  It is also not limited to business, but also informs other spheres of life such as romance and friendships.  It is an often critical part of the deal making process.  In a way which may seem counter-intuitive to westerners, this actually builds trust.

Concepts and legal norms against things like regressive bargaining still exist, but this is not a case of that.  In the face of interesting, new, and creative interpretations of the Third Energy Package that was forced upon Europe under the influence of a semi-suicidal hypnotic trance, induced by the Trans-Atlantic power structure, Bulgaria reneged on its obligation to go forward with the plan.

And yet, to say that Bulgaria does not want to be included in a pipe-line project is not at all true.  Bulgaria still wants the plan, and on their end they insist there can still be one.  It was Europe that placed Bulgaria into this situation.  It was the EU that has interfered with Bulgaria’s electoral process, resulting in the present government.

Putin’s announcement was also aimed at the EU, and by extension, the US.

This is about calling Europe’s bluff.  Europe assumed that it could then change the legal framework of doing energy business with Europe by interpreting the Third Energy Package in new and creative ways, even after its own member states had bent over backwards to meet the already onerous and cumbersome restrictions, derived from the last round of sabotage.

Europe then assumed that it could act with increased hostility to Russia, involving themselves in the training, arming, and equipping of neo-nazis in Ukraine, and staging a coup to frustrate Ukraine’s integration into the Eurasian Customs Union.  Then Europe assumed that it could then proceed to impose on itself some serious self-inflicted wounds under the title “sanctions on Russia”, which have also not been a walk in the park for the Russians.  Europe assumed that it could do all of this, and more, and that Russia would be so desperate that in light of all of this, in light of the TEP, Ukraine, sanctions, and more, that Russia would pay forward the costs of developing the project, but let Europe control the physical infrastructures , revenues, and other critical aspects.

Still, it is possible that the deal is off the table for Bulgaria.  But no one can say definitively whether it is right now.  Sections from the Bulgarian elite are saying there is still a deal.  This means that they are doing one of two things.  One, they are accurately interpreting this December 1st statement as being serious bargaining language, and are trying to figure out how to reorganize themselves politically, making a ‘civilizational’ decision regarding Russia vs. the EU in its Atlanticist incarnation, and looking to make a counter-offer.   Or, they are unable to meet these demands.

Thus they would be buying time by trying to give false assurances to the tremendous and powerful interests inside of Bulgaria involved in the South Stream project.  As well, they would trying to placate the general populace who supported this, in order to stave off a rapid descent into political chaos.

Alexei Miller blames Bulgaria entirely, plays the role of bad cop, and says that the closing of the project had nothing to do with TEP.  This is an important warning to Bulgaria that it needs to move quickly. Putin plays the role of good cop, and allows PR cover for the Bulgarian government, blaming the EU, and giving the Bulgarian government some face-saving wiggle room.

A Russian-Turkish line does not have to exclude Bulgaria.  Russia has Bulgaria very concerned, for not only have they been told that the new line will exclude them, but that after it is complete, they will also be cut out of the line that runs from Ukraine.  That is a major cause for concern for Bulgaria, one which can force them to make a ‘civilizational’ decision, one which will determine their alignment for the next number of decades to come, and beyond.  Bulgaria may have been misled into thinking that they could play games.  They may have believed that in the event of a South Stream collapse, the Nabucco project could be brought back to life, despite problems with the Shah Deniz  energy consortium, and the failure for the Nabucco project to make headway in the Levant, in the wake of serious Turkish, US and Israeli defeats vis-à-vis Syria and Egypt.

People are wondering why Europe is making such a huge mistake with the way they are interpreting and enforcing the TEP.  Yes, it can be said that Europe made a mistake here. Or, it can be said that Europe intentionally sabotaged this, and in so doing, sabotaged its own economy.  This latter case is almost understandable with an understanding of the considerable pressure which the US exerts on Europe.  The latter case makes more sense.

There are several critical factors facing Europe.  We can look at a few of them.

One critical factor which is often ignored by analysts looking at the ‘Triangle’ of Atlanticist Europe, Eurasia, and the ‘Near East’ (the Balkans, Turkey, and Arab World) is that this is actually a ‘Square’.  Europe is being threatened by the US that it will lose access to Latin America.

One point worth mentioning here is that the US has said that the age of the “Monroe Doctrine” is over.  Of course, this statement was aimed at Russia regarding Georgia, but in a different way also at Europe.  Today European investment in Latin America – considered in the 19th century to be within the US’s realm of influence by the Monroe Doctrine – is not insignificant.  Formal institutions, aimed at coordination, like the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the Latin American Investment Facility (LAIF) represent but a tip of the iceberg in this regard.  There is also increasing investment from Latin American countries and firms into Europe.  All countries in Western Europe are tied to investments in Latin America.  The US tries to project to Europe that it has the capacity to effect coups or transitions of power in Latin America.  It shows it can do this through its traditional means of the military coup, or new methods such as the Color Revolution and Arab Spring tactic.

Both of these methods have failed to effect change in the so-called ‘Pink Tide’ countries in Latin America.  But a statistically improbably number of Pink Tide leaders either have cancer, or in the case of Chavez, have already died of it.  Of course the US still does business with Pink Tide countries.  But those terms are not as lucrative as they would be if those governments were mere puppets.  A portion of US trade with Latin America is done through proxies in Europe, or through MNC’s and TNC’s whose governing boards are comprised of both US and European nationals.

The European elite are divided.  Those who follow US dictates are tied to US interests in numerous ways.

Others in this lot are heavily invested in Latin America, and have not been convinced that the Russians or Chinese can protect these European investments from the US, in the event of a US initiated change of government in most Latin American countries, as in,  signifying a return to the Monroe Doctrine.  On the other hand are those in Europe who are more connected to Eurasia.  Right now they are both upset, and weakened.  Perhaps the window of opportunity for them to effect a concerted effort to change the present course has passed.  Perhaps it has not.

There is also another critical factor which revolves around other gas deals that had been in the works.

Indeed there is still yet another rational explanation, however, to Europe’s otherwise blundering arrogance.  Europe, like Bulgaria, was also thinking that it had options, which the Russian-Turkish deal actually makes an end-run around.

The US was also excited about this, and it related to its efforts in the Middle-East.  This was the so-called Southern Corridor plan, a part of Nabucco.

So, this partly explains the extraordinary efforts that the US has engaged in to overthrow the government of Syria.  Syria was the best choice to host a branch for Egyptian and Israeli liquefied natural gas into the Nabucco pipeline network.

The Nabucco line was to be a Turkish project, but on the European side involved a number of the same firms that would later go over to the South Stream project.  The Nabucco line also involved a number of the same countries as well.   Critically; Bulgaria, Hungary and Austria.

The South Stream was different in its starting point, and its trans-Pontic route.  Instead of Romania, it favored Serbia. Other than this, they were very similar projects.  Because they involved many of the same project companies on the European side, and promised to deliver similar volumes, the final decision to go with South Stream was a product of Russian success in the realms of diplomacy and related areas of intrigue.

Additionally, the Nabucco project did not have the assurances on the eastern end, and would also have been a project that involved a number of companies and interests before arriving in Europe.  This also increased the cost. Thus, the ease of doing business, and the superior form of coordination that comes from dealing with a single state-owned company, such as Gazprom, was another important factor.  Keeping various and even conflicting multiple project companies all together, for ten years on a project that had not even broken ground, as was the case with Nabucco, was a lot like herding cats.

However, the Nabucco line was to get a good portion of its gas from the Azeri controlled Caspian offshore, a project under the control of the Shah Deniz energy consortium which works closely with BP.  This was to rely on support from Azerbaijan, passing through it, and as well possibly Georgia, and then into Turkey.

For a number of reasons, which Nabucco was nixed when the Shah Deniz  consortium decided to handle the project differently.  Then it was resurrected with a different route.  The background to this issue involves matters out of the scope of this report, but revolves around the complicated relationships between Russia and the post-Soviet states in the Caucuses, and the manner by which the latter have also made relationships with Turkey, within the context of constant meddling from the US and EU.

To state it clearly, time-frames notwithstanding, there were three projects.  The South Stream, the Nabucco, and the Trans-Anatolian to Trans Adriatic (TANAP/TAP).  But all three of them could not all go forward.  Contradictions or overlaps not only between the project companies, but also the underlying broader geostrategic and geopolitical concerns meant that TANAP/TAP could not go forward without the Nabucco going forward as most plans have these merged, and Nabucco was less viable at any rate with South Stream going forward.

Upon closer inspection, the TANAP/TAP and the Nabucco are really one and the same.  This is so even if  there were differences in project conceptions, involving some different project companies and minor differences in route.  At a point last year, it looked as Nabucco would work with the Shah Deniz  consortium and actually take a Central European route, through the North-South corridor.  This would have meandered up from Nabucco in Hungary, and towards the Baltic Sea cutting through both Slovakia and Czech Republic, and through Poland.

This would have undermined the importance of two Russian lines, through Ukraine and Nord Stream.  But changes in the Hungarian political landscape, towards an overtly pro-Russian position, made this route unlikely. To cut up from Romania through Ukraine would be a burdensome addition by way of kilometers of pipe, given the project always had funding problems and what were perceived as inflated costs.

What this boiled down to was the EU encouraged on by the US, having Turkey and Russia compete endlessly.

This is also why, since last week’s announcement, EU’s optimistic talk of the TANAP/TAP project revival can seem strangely out of touch with reality.  Turkey, of course, is wise to diversify its sources, working with Azeri partners as well as Russian.  The Shah Deniz fields are estimated at no more than 1 trln. cm as opposed to Russia’s 48 trln. cm.  The Azeri estimated reserves are thus only about 2 % of the Russian [7].

Yes, the Azeris may produce, together with what they have and with the Shah Deniz II expansion, as much as 40 bcm per year.  But with a realistic reserve quantity of 1trln. cm, this isn’t going to last very long in the scheme of things, especially if production is to be expanded further.  So we can see that while Azeri contributions meant something, if the entire plan is to be worth the long term aims, always meant a combination with Nabucco.

This  in turn substantively meant the Southern Corridor through the Levant.

The Southern Corridor is a critical piece.  Azeri gas from the Shah Deniz field promised to make a new route viable.  Without Nabucco and Turkey, the Azeri’s really could not fund this.  Construction never began on Nabucco, and experienced all of the confusion between project companies, funding issues, and changed routes as described above.  What it relied on, to work, was incorporating Egyptian, Israeli, and Syrian gas to make a Southern Corridor, into Turkey and connect with the rest of Nabucco.

TANAP/TAP cannot really work as a stand-alone project.  Europeans are at best talking their book, at worst, sorely misinformed.  Given the levels of ineptitude and nepotism which prevail in ‘Old Europe’, this last possibility is actually a great one.

This reality played a factor in the Arab Spring in Egypt and Syria.  Turkey backed the Arab Spring in Egypt, and had their man, Morsi, installed.  Morsi was not simply installed as part of the Arab Spring tactic by the US and Israel as part of a broader regional move against Iran.  Of course, this much is true.  But further, this in Egypt, was supposed to be a major development allowing for Egyptian natural gas to get to Turkey, through Israel and a Syria under a new western backed “FSA” leadership that favored Egypt, Israel, and Turkey over Iran and broadly speaking, Russia.

Still Turkey’s previous plans with the Southern Corridor can be combined with a new Russian-Turkish pipeline.  This possibility may really underscore the significance of the Russian-Turkish deal, and the entire geostrategic and geopolitical realignment which may be underway.

Essentially, the position of Azerbaijan, Turkey and Israel as being firm pro-Western and anti-Russian natural gas interests meant  that Egypt and Syria would have to experience ‘regime change’ for all the pieces to link up.  While Egypt under Mubarak received western military aid and was an important US ally during the last decade of the cold war, and interpreting most generously could be said to have “looked the other way” on Israel-Palestine, he was opposed to regime change in Syria.  Syria could not act in line with a Turkish and Israeli plan given its relations with Iran, and Turkish relations with Iran.

The stage was set, then to make a “regime change” in Egypt and Syria, thus angling out  Iran, and perhaps even forcing Lebanon to act in concert with Israel against Hezbollah.

But Iran and Russia, working with Syria and its SAA effectively pushed back the foreign mercenary and Salafist invasion of Syria.  Yes, the US and Israel still push with its Saudi friends to finance a quasi-mythical ISIS, and even here in recent days we have seen a series of big defeats for ISIS.  In fact, these three latest major events – The Turkish-Russian gas deal announcement, the defeats suffered by ISIS, and the Israeli air-force provocations on Syria, are all intimately connected.

In the course of the Turkish end of the war against Syria, the disorganization, losses, and problematic western led alliance were such that pre-existing tensions between the Sauds and Qataris were exacerbated.  Turkey’s friendly Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt was subject to severe persecution in the pro-Salafist realm of peninsular Arabia.  Turkey’s friendly MB front in Palestine, Hamas, was being actively courted by Iran.

In the last year of this conflict, in the wake of the failed western attempt to blame Syria for a chemical attack it staged itself, Iran-Turkey relations have in fact warmed, seeing a 400% increase in bilateral trade.  Furthermore, Turkey reversed its decision on the convictions of leading Pro-Russian ‘Eurasianist’ leaders, some even in the military, who had been caught up in the so-called Ergenekon conspiracy.  This included the prominent Worker’s Party leader, Dogu Perencek, and other of his ranking Maoist-Kemalist comrades.  This last piece is significant in its symbolism more than anything else, but we live in a world of symbols and signs.

What we were left with, finally then, as a result, was the total fracturing of the US and Israeli led alliance against Syria.  Russia worked with some partners in the region to reverse the Arab Spring in Egypt, seeing the ousting of Morsi and his replacement by Sisi.  At first glance, this is a set-back for Turkey as well, and Russians may have either worked with, or fooled, the Saudis in helping with this.  Analysis on Saudi-Russian bilateral relations are generally a nebulous cloud of disinformation and misinformation, and we will leave these and related questions out of this report.

Now there is a new reality, the situation has reversed.

Iran-Turkey relations have warmed, and so have Russian-Turkish relations.  Egypt has committed itself in the area of foreign policy, to a good relationship with Ba’athist Syria of Assad.  Egypt will maintain Mubaraks’ old arrangement with Israel with regard to Palestine, tunnels, and the like.  But Egyptian natural gas will only make its way, now, through to Turkey’s ‘Russian Turkish Line’, replacing Nabucco, if it goes through the legitimate government of Syria.

If it is also to involve Israel, it may be possible to place some conditions on Israel.

Besides ending its war against Syria, and ending its rhetoric on Iran, it could also include the recognition of Palestine and profit sharing with Palestine, whom the offshore Gazan resource legally belongs to.  We should not be optimistic here, but as well it is possible for a new route for the Egyptian end, as the southern-most part of the ‘new’ Southern-Corridor project, to meander through the Sinai through Jordan, or go by sea to Syria.

This may mean that if Israel wants to expand their market, it may need to work through its Netanyahu disaster period, and elect a Labor government with center-right instead of far-right social and economic policy, and policy on Palestine.  All of this is entirely speculative, and probably unlikely.  But Israel needs this project more than the other parties need Israel.  Israel will need to weigh, however, numerous factors which not only directly relate to energy markets.  In reality, Israel finds itself increasingly isolated in the region.  Experts have already explained for at least a decade, that the Israeli Zionist project may be unsustainable and could be winding down.  Some have even pondered if the Zionist entity would be looking to relocate to the emerging rump-state of Western Ukraine, where, biblical lore aside, many Israelis can materially trace their recent history to.  Nevertheless, Israel has reached a critical place, and has some difficult decisions to make.

Israel is going to be the most problematic piece, but the Azeris also have an opportunity to re-align their interests with the new plan.  The fusion of Nabucco and South Stream with TANAP/TAP is still a possibility too.  BP will not like this per se, but the Shah Deniz consortium is going to have to make some difficult decisions and work that piece out.  This is doubly true if there is a serious policy change in Azerbaijan.  Like with Israel, the Azeris need to be a part of this project more than the project needs them.

The Azeri’s only other option is the ever elusive White Stream. Yulia Tymoshenko herself proposed this to the EU as far back as 2008.  There are numerous problems here, including that it was to cross from Georgia into the Black Sea and to Crimea.  But Crimea is Russia now, and at present time it is truly up in the air if Ukraine will become a landlocked rump-state, or have regime change, long before such a project can be completed, let alone started.  Romania, which has been removed from the Russian-Turkish proposal in its Nabucco form, may be the only viable partner.  But this would mean extensive construction across the black sea from Georgia to Romania.  These were the same obstacles which precluded the possibility of any kind of TANAP/TAP project that didn’t go through Turkey.  In reality, if a project cannot pay by itself for a relatively limited supply (Azeri) to traverse the Black Sea, it will have  to work with Russia or Turkey, who have now teamed up.

With regard to the entire scope of the Russian-Turkish gas deal in general, we should be cautious in speculating much on the future course of it, or what it all may mean.  We have attempted to sketch out what some of the primary factors are.  We have given some details and the related background, of the natural gas contest and its primacy not only to Russia and Ukraine, and the Balkans.  We have explained also how this collided and yet now coincides with a Turkish supported project.

We should still expect future public talk on this subject which places the new deal into question.  This is all part of the process and the spectacle.  It is even still possible that Israel will provoke such a response in Syria and Lebanon that Iran will be hard pressed not to react, increasing the bellicosity and instability in the region, making a Turkish re-orientation of the Southern Corridor more difficult.

Likewise, the West may still effectively divide Russian from Turkish interests.  It will definitely make every attempt to.  The Russians and Turks, if they are to stay together on this project, will likely entertain the illusion for the West that its disruptive efforts are working at times, because this is how it’s done.

It made little sense for Russia and Turkey to both have lines through roughly the same route, with the success of the Turkish one requiring instability in the Levant, the destruction of Syria, and a coup in Egypt.  Now that Russia and Turkey have announced to the world that they will not have their interests placed at odds with each other through the manipulation of the US, EU, and Israel, we can see a geopolitical shift in the making, of tectonic proportions.

Again, this is not over for Bulgaria either, but as with Bosnia and Serbia, the conflict in Ukraine stands a good chance at spreading, especially as Balkans states could re-align in a decisively pro-Russian direction.  Still, energy markets are huge, but they are not everything.

Russia’s future tasks are clear.  If Bulgaria can come to its senses, Russia must help Bulgaria with its security apparatus, for example, helping to restructure its intelligence and secret police agencies.  It must provide Bulgaria with these and other assurances.  Russia must also, if is to build again with the EU, demonstrate that it can protect assets and investments in Latin America.

Europe must understand that the Balkans can only be a place where either both EU, Russia and Turkey can have an interest, or that it will be without Europe, with only Russia and Turkey having an interest.  This would mirror an historical pattern, as well.

The EU should not be forced to commit suicide by cutting off its access to affordable energy resources from Russia and the Middle-East, at the threat of losing access to Latin American markets under conditions of increased US bellicosity in that region.

Some analysts have looked at the low prices and attractive terms which Russia have offered to its partners, including China, and now Turkey and India, regarding energy markets.  Some have said that Putin is showing Russian weakness with such a low price.  Others, more accurately have said that Putin is broad in thinking, and is focusing more on market share than market price.  This is a fair point, and closer to the truth.

But all of these exciting adventures in capitalism are not going to mean very much on an irradiated earth primarily populated by cockroaches, feeding off of highly adaptive bacteria.   The bigger picture we can draw from all of this is a Russia that is thinking long term, and issues like stability are more important than quarterly fluctuations.   It is committed to building a multi-polar world which will save the world from the US Empire, save Europe from itself, and enable conditions for sovereignty and development in whole regions like the Balkans, Middle-east, Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Joaquin Flores is an American expat living in Belgrade. He is a full-time analyst at the Center for Syncretic Studies, a public geostrategic think-tank. His expertise encompasses Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and he has a strong proficiency in Middle East affairs. Flores is particularly adept at analyzing the psychology of the propaganda wars. He is a political scientist educated at California State University. In the US, he worked for a number of years as a labor union organizer, chief negotiator, and strategist for a major trade union federation.

Notes

Essentially, we are dealing with an energy war unleashed by the United States and the European Union’s pro-American leaders. It is in this vein that the reports which appeared in the pages of Western newspapers at the beginning of December stuffed with spy clichés reminiscent of the cold war should be considered.

The tone was set by the London-based newspaper The Financial Times, which has revealed «the hand of Moscow» at the heart of the European Union. According to the newspaper, the mass demonstrations that swept across Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries in 2012-2013 against the development of shale gas deposits in Europe were paid for by Russia, or, to be more precise, by Gazprom. Similar allegations were also made by The New York Times. The reports’ authors even mention the specific amounts that were allegedly paid by Russia, while at the same time acknowledging that the intelligence agencies of CEE countries have been unable to get any evidence to back up their claims.

Western newspapers focussed particular attention on demonstrations that had forced the American company Chevron to wind down its activities in Bulgaria, Romania and Lithuania. In point of fact, these demonstrations were on a massive scale and forced the Bulgarian and Romanian governments to terminate an agreement with the American oil company on the development of shale gas deposits. In Lithuania, the situation developed somewhat differently. There, Chevron experts refused to comply with Lithuania’s tax demands, as well as finance the development of areas in which it was planning to carry out environmentally hazardous activities.

Prior to that, the American company ExxonMobil also wound down all of its shale gas projects due to their inefficiency. The financial insolvency of these projects plus the environmental threat they created are what actually led to the poor outcome for Americans in these countries. The West, however, has decided to put forward a different version of events for the loss by American companies of a significant section of the market by declaring that the protests against shale gas projects in Bulgaria were the work of Russian agents. The same pro-Russian elements organised the resignation of Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov’s government in 2013, to which end they financed the extreme right-wing ATAKA party. Although the specific reason for the anti-government protests was the then increase in utility bills, it is to be supposed that this was also paid for by Russia. According to Western newspapers, the total amount of payments received by Bulgaria was upwards of $20 million.

Romania also cannot do without «the hand of Moscow». The New York Times reports that Gazprom was involved in «a mysteriously well-financed and well-organized campaign of protest» against shale gas projects in the country. Once again, however, the Romanian intelligence agencies admit that they do not have a single document proving Russia’s involvement in the anti-fracking protests. The Romanian Parliament’s industry committee does not have any evidence either, but claims that Gazprom allegedly spent $100 million to fund a campaign against the shale revolution in Europe. Nobody is able to clarify exactly where these figures have come from.

It is unsurprising that those who apparently received Russia’s millions are categorically denying the accusations. Leaders of Bulgaria’s ATAKA party stress that it is fully financed through state subsidies within the framework of national legislation. And as far as the leaders of the anti-fracking protests themselves are concerned, they view what is happening as an attempt to further the interests of American energy companies at any price.

Tellingly, the protests in Bulgaria, Romania and Lithuania broke out in 2012-2013, but «the hand of Moscow» is only being mentioned now, in the midst of increasingly strained discussions regarding Europe’s energy security issues and America’s shale gas projects, which, amid falling oil prices, are becoming less and less economically viable. 

The position of opponents to the so-called shale revolution is also gaining ground in the US itself. According to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, «one of the most remarkable results» of the US election campaign at the beginning of November was the outcome of the referendum held in the Texas city of Denton on the extraction of shale gas through fracking, hydraulic fracturing using chemicals, that American companies are also imposing on Europe. The majority of voters, 59 per cent, voted to ban the method as it causes considerable harm to the environment. Denton is located just a 45 minute drive away from the offices of America’s largest oil company, ExxonMobil. It is also the location of America’s largest shale gas deposit, Barnett Shale, where the shale revolution began in 1981. The area has 280 active wells [3].

So a very strong anti-fracking precedent has been established. Following the logic of The Financial Times and The New York Times, those against the extraction of shale gas in Texas were also no doubt financed by Russia.

Meanwhile, the intergovernmental agreement signed in Moscow on the supply of Russian oil to Slovakia up until 2029 opened a new chapter in Russia’s cooperation with CEE governments. Despite the seemingly unfavourable conditions in the world oil market, Moscow and Bratislava have taken an important step towards jointly ensuring Europe’s energy security.

The document was signed by Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak and Slovak Economic Minister Pavol Pavlis. «We have no reason not to trust our Russian partner, which has always fulfilled its obligations» and is «a reliable and long-term supplier with whom we work well,» commented Slovakia’s Ministry of Economy upon signing the agreement with Russia. The ministry is convinced that Russian oil supplies are «extremely important» for Slovakia, including from an engineering and manufacturing point of view: «The equipment at our refineries is tailored to the chemical and manufacturing makeup of Russian oil. So if we suddenly decided to export oil somewhere else, we would need to change the operating procedures at our refineries.»

Cooperation between Russia and Slovakia in the energy sector actually has a strong foundation, and they previously entered into a similar agreement in 1991. This was also of a long-term term nature and over the entire length of the agreement, neither Russia nor Slovakia were given any reason not to trust each other. The provisions of the new agreement extend the parameters of a bilateral cooperation. They stipulate a pronounced increase in the volumes of Russian oil supplies, both in the volumes of oil intended for Slovakia itself and the volumes of oil passing through Slovakia to other EU member countries. For both supply categories, the annual volume has been set at 6 million tons. As of year-end 2013, 5.8 million tons of Russian oil had been supplied to Slovakia through the Druzhba pipeline. Both parties agreed that if the technological infrastructure is available and contracts are entered into between businesses, then transit volumes could exceed 6 million tons of oil a year.

The signing of such long-term agreements in the energy sphere inevitably raises two questions, the first on the resource base and the second on the possible fluctuations in oil prices. When it comes to long-term supply sources in Slovakia and other EU countries, then they are safeguarded by oil reserves in Russia. And as far as fluctuations in oil prices are concerned, then experience has shown that they are cyclical in nature. If you recalculate the prices according to the current dollar exchange rate, for example, then it turns out that they were $100-110 per barrel not only fairly recently, but also at the beginning of the 1980s and even in the 1860s. Thus the market has successfully regained the falls in prices throughout the whole of the last century and a half.

The soundness of long-term contracts for the supply of Russian oil to Europe is also backed up by independent analysts. Experts from the British company BP have calculated that oil production in Russia will have grown to 548 million tons a year by 2035 (it is currently in the region of 520 million tons). Gas production in Russia will also increase – to 807 billion cubic metres a year (currently around 672 billion cubic metres).

European players in the gas market are looking for ways to expand their energy cooperation with Russia, despite attempts by the European Commission to sabotage their aspirations. The Slovak gas transmission system operator Eustream is planning to build a pipeline from Slovakia to the Bulgarian-Turkish border, so is hurrying to join a new plan for the transportation of Russian gas to Europe through Turkey. It is the first specific consequence of revised plans to build the South Stream pipeline…

(To be concluded…)

In a nutshell, the internal consumption demand is not sufficient while Israel hits snags on the way as it tries to export its gas abroad. The Israeli government decided to grab the opportunity and seize the traditional Russian share of the market as the South Stream ran into difficulties and tensions around Russia were running high. 

The project was a key element of the plan to change the route of gas supplies to Europe redirecting it from the east (latitudinal direction) to the south (meridian direction or Southern Middle East). The Israeli gas supplies were to be followed by deliveries from Qatar and other countries of the Persian Gulf. On December 4-5, Federica Guidi, the Italian Minister of Economic Development, introduced her European colleagues to the project. The recent agreement reached by the Russian leader with Turkish President Erdogan in Ankara is a serious blow against these plans. 

At first Israel tried to achieve an understanding with Turkey on building a pipeline through its territory as the best way to make gas supplies reach Europe at the lowest cost. Western strategists believed that the gas supplies from Qatar could be added after a peaceful settlement (meaning the coming to power of a pro-Western regime) is reached in Syria. The Turkish government was wise enough to reject these dubious proposals in favor of more viable options. Israel has already started to extract its offshore gas and is holding talks on its transportation without having solved a single legal issue with the neighbors. Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and the Turkey-controlled part of Cyprus also make a claim to the offshore gas deposits. The prospects of having all EU members endorse an agreement with Israel are extremely bleak, especially as many EU members recognize the Palestine state rights (Sweden has recognized this right and France is on the way). Approving the Israeli project would be a fragrant violation of international law and entail numerous legal actions. Ankara claims to be the leading supporter of Palestine as it seeks to boost its clout in the region. 

The sea route project offered by Silvan Shalom sounds more like a reckless scheme. Turkey treats the Israeli plan with skepticism (especially after the issue was discussed with Moscow). Israeli experts say the Israel-Cyprus-Greece-Italy pipeline project is hardly feasible and viable. 

The plans envision laying a 1500 km long and 3000 meters deep sea bed pipeline with the estimated cost of $15 billion. As practice shows, normally the final cost happens to exceed 2-3 times the initially planned expenditure. If implemented it would be the longest sea-bottom pipeline in the world with the capacity limited by 10 billion cubic meters a year – no match for the 63 billion cubic meters capacity of the South Stream. The project is doomed to be unprofitable. The ecological, economic and technical problems mentioned by Europeans in regard to the South Stream will not disappear. To the contrary, they will become much more complicated. Finally, Turkey has refused to allow the pipeline from Israel to run across its territory and it hardly has any interest in a route going around its seashore. Ankara can stop the project. The Putin-Erdogan agreement on the construction of 63 billion cubic meters capacity pipeline going to the Greek border makes the Israeli project senseless. 

The Russia – Turkey agreement has also become feasible because there is no chance for the Qatari gas to reach Europe across the territory of Syria. First, no matter all the attempts to overthrow it, including the support of Turkey of anti-government forces in Syria, the regime of Bashar Assad has proven its ability to survive. Second, if removed, there is a slim chance the forces loyal to Ankara will come to power. To the contrary, there is a great probability Turkey will have to deal with Muslim radicals hostile to Ankara. With prospects for gas deliveries from the Persian Gulf vanished, Turkey will inevitably lose interest in changing power in Syria. This is another implication of the Putin-Erdogan agreement. 

The European Union cut off its nose to spite its face when it was creating obstacles on the way of the South Stream making it possible for Moscow to introduce drastic changes into its gas export policy (adding latitudinal and meridian directions). 

There is no serious alternative to Russian gas looming in the East. The Nabucco project was buried in 2013. The prospects for gas coming to Europe from Iran are nothing but empty talk. Nobody wants to substitute the «dependence» on Moscow with the «dependence» on Iran. The only viable European source of gas, except Russia, is the Trans Adriatic Pipeline or TAP – a pipeline route to transport natural gas from the Caspian Sea (natural gas from the second stage of the Shah Deniz-2 gas field development in the Azeri section of Caspian Sea) starting from Greece via Albania and the Adriatic Sea to Italy and further to Western Europe. With its limited capacity of 10 billion cubic meters and rather small deposits, it is no match for the pipelines coming from Russia. The estimates of Shah Deniz-2 gas field reserves have been lowered a number of times. TAP is most likely a competitor to the Israeli project because the both are to be stretched to the very same point in southern part of Italy. At that Italy will be first to receive the gas coming from Azerbaijan. The Russian and Azeri gas flows may converge at some point to optimize the expenditure. 

The much talked about US supplies of expensive shale gas to Europe have gone in smoke due to high costs. There is no alternative to Russian gas in Europe, at least in the near future. 

Does the agreement reached in Ankara make the South Stream dead? True, the project in its previous form is a thing of the past. Russia may get back to it but only on its own terms. The time is right to concentrate on the new project. Many experts believe that the route should be continued from the point at the Greek border. The EU has done its best to hinder the South Stream so now it will have to shoulder the financial burden. If Brussels wants to optimize the expenditure according to the wishes of interested member-states, then it will have to make gas flows follow the previously planned route across Greece and Macedonia to Serbia, Hungary and Austria. Some efforts have already been applied to start the construction. It may make the route longer but will not require additional expenditure unavoidable in case of sea bed pipeline construction. 

The only country to be left out will be Bulgaria as it failed to make an independent decision and couldn’t resist the pressure to reject the South Stream. 

With its economy in doldrums, Bulgaria will suffer many more losses: €3 billion of investments and profits from transit pays (€450 million a year) going to the Bulgarian neighbors to boost their positions as regional rivals. This is not the first time the leadership of this Russia-friendly country takes such steps. 

Among the EU members Bulgaria has become the most vulnerable to another «spring», especially as this season comes to this country early. 

Everything has its limits, including the Brussels’ consistent efforts to stop the project aimed at providing stable energy supplies to Europe. «…taking into account the European Commis-sion’s position, which is not conducive to implementing this project, taking into account the fact that we have only recently received permission from relevant authorities in the Netherlands – granted, it was a positive decision, and taking into account that we still have not received per-mission from Bulgaria, we feel Russia cannot continue implementing this project under the exist-ing circumstances. I mean that we now need to start the construction of this pipeline in the Black Sea, but we cannot do that until we have Bulgaria’s permission. I think it’s clear to everyone that it would be ridiculous to start the construction in the sea, reach the Bulgarian shore and stop», President Vladimir Putin said at his press-conference in Ankara on December 1, 2014. 

The EU has failed to come up with an alternative project of its own to provide Europe with gas supplies from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. Nabucco was doomed from the start while the estimated capacity of TAP (Greece-Albania-Italy) is only 10 billion cubic meters a year – six and a half times less in comparison to the South Stream. The population of Europe has become a hostage of this policy. In addition to that, Europeans fall prey to the EU’s policy on Ukraine. Ki-ev let know that it intends to continue using the Russian transit gas to satisfy its needs. There are financial losses incurred as the South Stream is scrapped. According to preliminary estimates, the foreign companies involved in the South Stream project may suffer losses equal to $2, 8 billion to be allegedly compensated by the European Commission and the EU anti-crisis funds. 

The second recipient of the message is the government of Bulgaria which is absolutely vulnerable to outside pressure while tackling the issues of national importance. This affir-mation is confirmed by its decision to block the construction of South Stream on Bulgarian terri-tory. Neither Austria, an EU member-state, nor Hungary, the country the US has imposed sanc-tions on, nor Serbia, which is under pressure from the United States and the European Union, have taken such a step which is tantamount to committing a suicide as Europe is deprived of sta-ble energy supplies. 

The third recipient is Turkey. The EU anti-Russia policy makes Ankara the biggest winner. Turkey is to get 3 billion cubic meters more. A promising project is agreed on – a pipeline with the capacity of 63 billion cubic meters, the same as the South Stream, will be built to stretch from Russia to Turkey. «…if it is deemed expedient, we can build an additional gas hub for the South European consumers on Turkish territory, near the border with Greece,» President Putin said at the press-conference. Turkey is the second largest importer of Russian gas after Germany. Gas is transported to Turkey from Russia via the «Western corridor» and the Blue Stream. On his part Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan emphasized at the talks with his Russian counterpart that Turkey gets 50% of its gas supplies from Russia. He said the Russian gas deliveries are important for Turkish economy. Alexey Miller, Chairman of the Gazprom Management Committee and Mehmet Konuk, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Botas Petroleum Pipeline Corporation, signed in Ankara a Memorandum of Understanding on constructing an offshore gas pipeline across the Black Sea towards Turkey. The annual capacity of the pipeline will amount to 63 billion cubic meters with 14 billion cubic meters going to Turkish consumers and nearly 50 billion cubic meters transported to the border between Turkey and Greece where a delivery point is to be built.

New contradictions emerge to affect the relations between the European Union and Turkey. The creation of new important hub at the Greek border with supplies coming from Rus-sia will make the EU face Turkey, a much tougher negotiator than Moscow. The talks will be affected by the fact that Brussels blocks the Turkey’s EU membership. 

Günter Verheugen, former European Commissioner for Enlargement, said that the relation-ship with Turkey was perhaps the most difficult problem for the European Union. According to him, making Turkey a full-fledged member would once and for all make the EU a global actor, something the organization is not ready for. The redirection of the gas flows form the South Stream to Turkey will turn Ankara into a global energy player. Are Europeans ready for that? 

Finally, the Moscow’s message is also addressed to the government of Ukraine. Many a time Kiev said there was no need for the project to be implemented. Ukraine called for shelving the pipeline going around the Ukraine’s territory. Now it’s up to Ukraine to take practical steps to ensure the EU's energy security.

Putin said that continual obstruction to the South Stream project from Brussels had made it unviable. Putin said that Russia would henceforth be applying its energy resources elsewhere and unveiled a new pipeline route to Turkey from the Black Sea. It was reminiscent of how Russia has directed new energy trade with China and Asia over the past year partly as a result of Western unilateral sanctions and obstinacy. And who could fault for Russia for that?

Brussels had repeatedly raised objections to the South Stream project, claiming that Russia’s state-owned Gazprom as the owner and operator of the pipeline did not comply with EU competition laws. This seeming European probity over market regulations is fooling no-one. For a start, the EU ignores the same conditions of Gazprom’s operation of the Nord Stream via the Baltic Sea into Germany and existing pipelines through Ukraine. So why flag up the South Stream apparently with fastidious rules? 

No, the contradictions betray an ulterior agenda. The EU’s «probity» over the South Stream is just a cover for its own petty political reasons and a direct corollary of the Washington-Brussels aggressive agenda toward Russia over Ukraine.

Reactions to the news of the project’s cancellation were also indicative of which party was to blame for the debacle. The governments of Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia and Serbia described the decision as a blow. The tone of chagrin was deafening. Tellingly they did not rebuke Russia over the decision. Indeed, the Hungarian government said it was Russia’s right to cancel the project given the backdrop of wearisome wrangling by Brussels. While Slovenia’s prime minister Miro Cerar said he was «not surprised» by Russia giving up on the $40 billion undertaking, which was to come into operation in 2018 following its commencement last year.

The above countries were to have acted as key transit partners and stood to gain billions of dollars worth of fees over the long-term supply of gas to Europe. The pipeline was being contracted to supply some 63 billion cubic metres of natural gas from Russia to Central and Southern Europe, including Austria and Italy. That represents about 40 per cent of Russia’s total supply of gas to Europe in 2013. The South Stream route would thus have been a critical component of European energy security and would have reduced gas costs for millions of households. 

The reaction of Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia and Serbia to the South Stream collapse of course expressed disappointment over the impact on their economies. But their muted regret was more a reflection of consternation with Brussels for its policy of antagonism with Russia. Brussels’ high-handed slapping on of sanctions against Moscow and its repeated baseless accusations of Russian expansionism in Ukraine have led to the present juncture of badly frayed relations. That has, in turn, put the kibosh on what would have been a critically important improvement in Europe’s energy security, with financial benefits to several countries and millions of EU citizens.

It’s one thing for Brussels to be cavalier towards Russia; it’s quite another for the same elitist power centre to be cavalier towards its own increasingly hard-pressed citizens and their best interests. 

Gerhard Roiss, the chief executive of Austria’s top oil and gas firm OMV, described the South Stream’s abandonment as a «regretful development for Europe». He added that it was «a step in the wrong direction».

Roiss told Austrian media: «It is a regretful development for Europe since it needs Russian gas, it cannot do without Russian gas. But pipeline facilities are needed to ensure secure energy supplies». The OMV boss added: «The problem today is that possibilities of supplying southeastern Europe with gas are reduced and dependence on one supplier and one route via Ukraine is high».

Hugo Kyselka, the marketing director of Czech Republic’s gas company Vemex, was even more categorical about the negative impact on Europe, and who was to blame. He said the loss of the South Stream would be a «disaster» for Bulgaria, Serbia, Austria and Hungary, and he accused the Brussels elite of «deliberating sinking» the project. 

In a succinct remark, Kyselka said: «Brussels is not interested in the needs of ordinary people, but only in its political aims».

The Brussels bureaucracy of commissioners, financiers and other unelected mandarins, as well as certain European political leaders like Britain’s Cameron, France’s Hollande and Germany’s Merkel, have joined with Washington in a reckless zero-sum geopolitical game to destabilise Russia. Instead of working in the interests of the 500 million ordinary EU citizens, Brussels has thrown its lot in with Washington’s oligarchy of Wall Street banks and military-industrial complex to confront Russia in a geopolitical showdown for global hegemony.

The outlines of the battle were manifested a year ago when the Washington-Brussels axis made Ukraine a ripping point. Rather than coming to some accommodation with Russia over Ukraine, the US and EU delivered an ultimatum of «either with us or not» to Kiev, which resulted in an illegal coup and ongoing civil war in that country and which has incited the biggest crisis between Europe and Russia since the end of the Cold War.

This same maximalist aggressive attitude has been played out once again over the South Stream gas project.

Both Brussels and Washington have piled intense pressure on the Eastern European countries that were key to the project. Bulgaria, one of the newest and poorest members of the EU, was singled out for acute pressure from Brussels and Washington.

‘Bulgaria halts work on the South Stream after US talks,’ reported the BBC back in June this year. Among the US Senators to have lobbied the government in Sofia was John McCain, the self-styled champion of the neo-Nazi and anti-Russian Kiev regime in Kiev that Washington and Brussels helped to install in February.

Bulgaria’s reported halt to the South Stream due to American «talks» finally became a matter of full suspension two months later, in August, after Brussels conducted more «talks». The exact nature of this coercion is not sure. But it is not hard to imagine how all sorts of financial leverage could have been exerted by Brussels and Washington on the vulnerable Bulgarian government. 

Laurent Ruseckas, global gas analyst at the economic research firm IHS told the BBC: «Bulgaria has been strongly supportive of South Stream, which will give it greater security of gas supply – but as the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated, it has come under increasing pressure from Brussels to stop co-operating with Gazprom on the project».

The debacle over the South Stream clearly shows that the European political elite have no interest in the welfare of its ordinary citizens or poorer member states. It is reported that cancellation of the project will cost manufacturing firms and other businesses at least $2 billion in the immediate term. These firms include German and Italian pipe manufacturers. Thousands of jobs across recession-hit Europe are thus being put at risk by political games that Brussels is playing against Russia for its own arcane geopolitical reasons in cahoots with Washington. 

The energy security of millions of Europeans, involving higher market prices, is also being jeopardised by the failure to complete a strategically important addition of gas infrastructure for the continent.

Is no wonder therefore that ordinary European citizens increasingly have nothing but contempt for Brussels and a Western European political elite that treat ordinary people with such recklessness. Election after election across Europe, as well as angry anti-austerity protests in every capital, show that the EU is doomed under its present plutocracy. And charlatans like the demagogic prime minister of Britain, David Cameron, will not fob off this popular disgust with his Eurosceptic rhetoric. He is very much part of the hated European plutocracy.

The wanton political sabotage of the South Stream project is just another nail in the coffin for the EU plutocracy. Asking impoverished people to eat proverbial cake while they freeze in their homes and while the ruling European elite stokes an economic war with Russia has got to be the final insult to citizens’ intelligence and forbearance.

It took a long time to prepare the meeting which happened to be really fruitful. First, the both sides agreed to use national currencies in mutual settlements to augment the bilateral trade volume three times. Second, the parties narrowed their differences over Syria. Third, it was announced that from January 1, 2015 Turkey will get a six percent discount in natural gas prices. Russia will build a 63 billion cubic meter capacity natural gas pipeline to Turkey – the same capacity as the South Stream, the project planned before. The beginning point of the new pipeline will be Russkaya Station, same as in the South Stream project. Asked about the fate of South Stream Vladimir Putin said, «If Europe does not want to carry out (South Stream), then it will not be carried out. We are now going to focus our energy resources in other directions. We will focus our energy resource flows on other regions of the world, including through promotion and accelerated implementation of liquefied natural gas projects. We will promote them in other markets, and Europe will not receive those volumes – at least, from Russia». 

Now let’s sum it up and see who lost and who gained as a result of Moscow’s decision to change the gas transit routes. No doubt the agreements reached meet the interests of Russia and Turkey. Now the Russian gas will not flow to the European Union across the territories of Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and Austria. Instead it will be transported through Turkey. Simultaneously all alternative pipeline projects are blocked. Russia squeezed out all competitors from the South European market and did it in a much more effective way than building the South Stream pipeline. Turkey is able to ensure its energy security. The two parties also agreed to build large underground gas storage facilities in Turkey near the Greek border to protect the country against interruptions in gas supplies. As a result, Turkey will turn into a world gas hub for many years to come. It will strengthen the Turkey’s clout in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. 

The Bulgarian politicians could not stand up to the pressure exerted by Washington and opened the doors for growing Turkey’s influence in the region. It will have serious consequences for Bulgaria. 

The Russia-Turkey agreements strengthen the Eurasian global clout. It has special importance as Europe appears to be subject to progressive sclerosis.

No doubt, problems exist in Russia-Turkey relations but they pale in comparison with the black cloud hanging over Europe. The European Union tempts fate as it blindly follows the United States on Ukraine cutting off its nose to spite its face. The European Union sacrificed its interests when it was creating obstacles on the way of South Stream. Brussels did not want the EU member-states to purchase gas straight from producer at lower price. It means they will buy gas from Turkey acting as a go-between paying a higher price. With low prices to pay for gas and relatively low cheap labor Turkey will advance its global competitive edge leaving behind the majority of European Union members. Turkish companies will «squeeze out» Europeans from world markets – it’s a matter of time now. 

Brussels should realize that by opposing the «excessive Russia’s influence in the Balkans» the EU has increased Russia’s and Turkey’s influence in South-East Europe. Without a strategic gas pipeline and stable energy supplies the Balkans will turn into a «blind gut» of the European economy. Actually the European Union left the people of the Balkans without any prospects for progress or hopes for better future. 

What if the United States will try to take revenge for the rapprochement between Russian and Turkey and stage something like an «Istanbul Spring»? Will Europeans join Washington like they did supporting the US policy in Syria and Libya? The voice of reason is hardly heard in Europe today. But it says that it would be tantamount to putting out fire by pouring more fuel on it. This voice is weak enough and it may not be heard. 

If Brussels listened to the voice of reason, the South Stream would have been built a long time ago. It all goes to show that today it is impossible to take the idea of «European choice» seriously.

In and of itself, the internet tax is a weak excuse for the organisation of 100,000-strong demonstrations. And, of course, demands to abolish the tax turned into demands for the resignation of Hungary’s ‘dictatorial’ and ‘corrupt’ government. Attacks were also launched on government buildings: as one, internet users pelted them with stones, notebooks and mobile phones. 

Other signs of a ‘Hungarian Maidan’ were also evident: demonstrators defiantly jumped around chanting «He who does not jump pays the tax» (the Ukrainian version of this standard spectacle is «He who does not jump is a Moskal»). Local human rights defenders declared that introducing a tax on the internet is an assassination attempt on freedom of speech unacceptable for a democracy. 

Among the demonstrators was the U.S. charge d’affaires in Hungary, Andre Goodfriend, who previously reported that the US authorities had banned six Hungarian nationals close to the Hungarian prime minister from entering the country. 

It appears that Washington was protesting against the corrupt practices of these Hungarian nationals and expressed its displeasure to Viktor Orban in Brussels. On her Twitter page, the European Commissioner for Competition, Neelie Kroes, backed the street demonstrations and called for those who still had not done so to join them. 

Western media write that Orban is under the influence of Putin. Orban himself has had to state more than once that he is not a pro-Russian but a pro-Hungarian politician, but he continues to be accused of yielding to pressure from Moscow. And no wonder: he has introduced restrictions on the work of foreign companies in the country, has too much power concentrated in his hands, and has approved Hungary’s neoliberal Constitution. 

Orban is guilty before European democracy in a number of ways. As the father of five children, he resolutely opposes attempts to register the cohabitation of same-sex couples as ‘marriage’. He was also opposed to economic sanctions against Russia, calling them nonsensical, and saying they would do more harm to EU countries than to Russia. In addition, he is calling for compensation from Brussels for the losses incurred by Hungarian manufacturers as a result of curtailed cooperation with their Russian partners.

The head of the Hungarian government is not able to withstand all pressure, however. It was not long before Orban had to declare that Hungary stood with Germany in its assessment of events in Ukraine, and that the introduction of sanctions was a justified move. 

It is easy to conclude that the change in the Hungarian prime minister’s initial position was a consequence of pressure from Berlin. 

Thus, representatives of Deutsche Telekom’s subsidiary Magyar Telekom, Hungary’s largest internet company, have expressed their outrage at Orban’s plans to introduce a tax on the internet. Berlin is also putting pressure on Orban in other ways. Following German Minister of State for Europe Michael Roth’s visit to Budapest during the street demonstrations, the Hungarian prime minister declared that the government had listened to the people and the tax would not be introduced. 

Yet the battle formations of a Maidan-style protest movement in Hungary remain ready to go. The leader of the protests, liberal Balazs Nemes, has reported that the protesters are in touch with each other and are ready to go back out onto the streets the instant that the authorities decide to launch an offensive on their civil rights. Balazs Nemes has referred to Viktor Orban’s leadership style as «the most appalling tyranny». 

The Hungarian prime minister’s independence, including with regard to Russia, has long irritated both Brussels and Washington.

Viktor Orban’s statements regarding his intention of finding allies in Europe capable of opposing the introduction of new sanctions against Russia together have not gone unnoticed. 

.

Western capitals have been particularly outraged by the fact that on 4 November 2014, the Hungarian parliament passed a law allowing the construction of the South Stream pipeline to take place in Hungary, despite the position of the European Commission. Thanks to this law, Hungary now has a legal basis for refusing to comply with the requirements of the EU’s Third Energy Package. 

Protests in Budapest against «the most appalling tyranny» are a warning to Viktor Orban, and a reminder of the fate of another Viktor – Viktor Yanukovych. 

The street protests organised in the Hungarian capital should also be regarded as a warning to eastern European ‘Russophiles’ like Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico or Czech President Miloš Zeman, since their attitude towards anti-Russian sanctions and events in Ukraine is much like that of Orban. 

According to the Slovak Ministry of Economy, the document will be valid until 31 December 2029. It has already been approved by the Slovak cabinet. The terms of the document provide for the supply of up to 6 million tonnes (43 million barrels) of oil to Slovakia a year. They also cover the transit of the same volume of oil to other EU member countries through the territory of the Slovak Republic. As of year-end 2013, 5.8 million tonnes of Russian oil had been supplied to Slovakia through the ‘Druzhba’ pipeline.

And this is only the start. According to the Russian Ministry for Economic Development, both sides established during consultations that if the technological infrastructure is available and contracts are entered into between businesses, then transit volumes could exceed 6 million tonnes of oil a year.

Bratislava’s approval of the Russian-Slovak agreement on the supply of Russian oil to Slovakia coincided with a significant anniversary: the official ceremony to mark the commissioning of the ‘Druzhba’ pipeline took place exactly 50 years ago, in 1964. The pipeline is one of the biggest oil pipeline networks in the world and is used to supply Russian oil to Europe.

Paradoxically, the anti-Russian policy of Washington and Brussels has acted as a catalyst for the development of relations between Russia and a number of EU states in the energy sphere. Ukraine’s refusal to fulfil gas agreements previously entered into with Russia and the country’s unambiguous threats to start siphoning off Russian gas intended for transit to Europe are placing Europeans on the brink of a fuel and energy crisis. Supplies through the gas pipeline system under the Slovak gas transport operator Slovensky Plynarensky Priemysel (SPP) have already dropped by 50 per cent.

Under severe pressure from Brussels, Bratislava has also been forced to agree to use reverse-flow deliveries to send Russian gas to Ukraine. Reverse flows began in September 2014. According to the Slovak gas TSO Eustream, nearly 618 million cubic metres of gas were imported to Ukraine through Slovakia between 1 and 24 September. Meanwhile, the total volume of gas supplies to Ukraine from Europe during that same period was no more than 798 million cubic metres. So it is Slovakia that became Ukraine’s main energy ‘donor’ in September at a time when gas supplies destined for Slovakia itself were cut in half. 

Such are the paradoxes of EU countries’ ‘energy security’: they are dependent on the actions of the European Commission, which one might as well refer to as energy blackmail. Hungary has also refused to play the role of gas ‘cash cow’ for Ukraine, cutting off its reverse gas supplies to Ukrainian customers in September. The corresponding agreement was signed back in March 2013 by the Hungarian company FGSZ. A new statement by the company says that in order to ensure the safety of supplies and maintain the balance of the network, the direction of the Testveriseg pipeline needed to be changed and altered in such a way that it would supply the domestic market. A similar clause is also included in the text of the Russian-Slovak agreement. It states that gas supplies from Slovakia to Ukraine will depend upon current commercial and technical conditions. 

At the present time, Russian gas is supplied to Europe through several main gas pipelines – the Uzhgorod and Balkan corridors, the Yamal-Europe pipeline, and the ‘Blue Stream’ and ‘Nord Stream’ pipelines. The distribution pipes branching off from these pass through Poland, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Austria.

In the foreseeable future, Europe’s energy sector will continue to rely on Russian gas, whose share in the structure of Europe’s fuel mix will remain significant until at least 2030, predicts Tim Boermsa, an expert at the Brookings Institute in Washington. «In sum», said Boermsa, «studies suggest that a transformation of Europe’s fuel mix is not going to take place». 

Knowing that Europe will not be able to manage without Russian gas, it is interesting how long the Brussels bureaucracy will continue with the policy imposed by Washington to the detriment of Moscow and of the Europeans themselves.

[1] AFP 131549 GMT OCT 14