As noted by the Turkish media, the vote on Turkish Stream in the national parliament has shown that this project enjoys unprecedented support from the country’s MPs as well as forces within society. The newspaper Milliyet claims that 210 of the 223 parliamentary deputies who voted cast their ballots in favor of building the gas pipeline. 

Decisions made by the highest organs of state power in Turkey have removed the final obstacles to the project. Alexey Miller, the chairman of the board of directors at Gazprom, has confirmed that the construction of the offshore section of the pipeline will begin in less than a year, in the latter part of 2017. «Both branches of the pipeline will be operational before the end of 2019», Miller said.

Ankara’s support for Turkish Stream is greatly motivated by its own calculations, and although those are contingent upon circumstances, in this case those calculations objectively favor the interests of both Russia as well as the countries of Southeastern Europe. During the August meeting in St. Petersburg between Recep Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin, the Turkish president stated that Turkey was interested in the construction of the pipeline, since that nation intends to ship gas to Europe, thus providing financial and political benefits for the Turks. In addition, this will furnish Ankara with additional leverage over the European Union. 

This is an example of Brussels being forced to reap the fruits of its own short-sighted policy. By blocking the completion of the South Stream project over fears of strengthening Russia’s hand, the heads of the European Commission made a choice to become dependent on Turkey. And suddenly Ankara is in possession of two different tools for exerting pressure on the EU – it is the gateway to Europe for hundreds of thousands of new refugees and can now also act as a “gas shutoff valve.”

Europe’s growing demand for Russian gas is also playing into Turkey’s hands. Specifically, gas exports from Russia to Italy (a country that could in the future tap into the export branch of the Turkish Stream pipeline) rose 36.5% between Nov. 1 and 30 of this year, compared to the same period in 2015, according to Gazprom.

The successful promotion of Turkish Stream is taking on key significance not only in the gas sector, but also as part of the wider picture to ensure the energy security of the Balkans and Southeastern Europe. This represents new prospects for cooperation between the states of that region and Russia, including on matters of nuclear energy. Moscow and Ankara plan to place a high strategic priority on the construction of the nuclear power plant in Akkuyu, the first unit of which could be operational by 2023. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev discussed the relevant issues with his Turkish counterpart Binali Yıldırım on Dec. 6. 

«Now we can pick up speed and make sure that at least the first unit of the nuclear power plant is ready for operation by 2023, the 100^th anniversary of the Republic of Turkey», emphasized the head of the Russian government. The Turkish newspaper Akşam had this to say about the current state of the Russian-Turkish relationship, «Prime Minister Yıldırım’s briefcase is jam-packed and there are masses of topics to be discussed». That daily suggests that, at present, these relations are expanding within a tightly-knit array of economic and political issues that includes the context of a settlement of the crisis in Syria, as well as Moscow’s more active involvement – applauded by Turkey – in resolving the conflict in Cyprus. «Just imagine, Russia and Turkey, acting together, establishing a cease-fire in Syria. And then, thanks to the efforts of those two countries, the negotiations over Cyprus reach a certain point. Could the US really still be called a ‘superpower’ after all that?» the Turkish newspaper asks, posing a rhetorical question.

Russian and Turkish cooperation in the sector of gas and nuclear energy sends a clear signal to Bulgaria, which finds itself with nowhere to turn on this issue and thus facing serious financial losses. As we know, under pressure from the European Union, in 2012 the Bulgarians violated a Russian-Bulgarian agreement by unilaterally abandoning the construction of the Belene Nuclear Power Plant, although by that time the initial set of equipment for the plant had already been manufactured in Russia. The Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Geneva reviewed the matter, and in the end Bulgaria was forced to reimburse Russia’s Atomstroyexport 620 million euros in damages. 

Mindlessly trailing after Brussels is not the best way to ensure one’s own energy and financial security.

On 7 September, the following statement appeared on Gazprom’s website: «Gazprom has received, through diplomatic channels, the first permits for the TurkStream project from the authorities of the Turkish Republic after the decision to resume the project this year. At last week’s negotiations between Alexey Miller, Chairman of the Gazprom Management Committee, and Berat Albayrak, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources of the Turkish Republic, the parties reached the agreement to shortly complete all the required preparatory procedures for launching the TurkStream project. ‘The issuance of first permits is good news for Gazprom. This move of the Turkish side reflects the interest of Turkey’s government in the TurkStream project and marks the transition to its practical implementation,’ said Alexey Miller».

The Turkish Stream pipeline project involves the construction of a gas pipeline from Russia to Turkey along the bottom of the Black Sea. 660 kilometres of pipeline will be laid in the old South Stream corridor, which was cancelled in December 2014, and 250 kilometres will be laid in a new corridor towards the European part of Turkey.

A year ago, Turkey was not particularly interested in connecting to the pipeline to Southeast Europe, but today the situation has changed. This change was reflected in Turkey’s desire to strengthen relations not just with Russia, but also Greece (a traditional antagonist of Turkey) and other Balkan countries.

It is interesting that Turkey is even prepared to make substantial financial concessions to Russia, including paying for half of the pipeline’s construction, a pipeline that the country had previously rejected. President Erdoğan has suggested sharing the costs for the Turkish part of the project.

According to Alexey Miller, Chairman of the Gazprom Management Committee, Ankara is currently open to the possibility of Russian gas supplies to the Turkish-Greek border and on to Europe. Similar information was reported a few days ago by Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak. He believes that in one to two months, Moscow and Ankara will be ready to sign an intergovernmental agreement so that the first line for the supply of gas to Turkish consumers could be implemented by the end of 2019.

As for the construction of a second pipeline to carry gas to consumers in Southeast Europe, Alexander Novak has stated that Russia is only prepared to construct this after obtaining guarantees from EU leaders that this infrastructure will be in demand. This is a decision for the European Commission (EC). If the EC does not provide cast-iron guarantees, there is no doubt that the same will happen as happened with the South Stream project, which the European Commission simply blocked.

In an interview with the Bloomberg news agency, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated: «We very much expect that we’ll be able to establish a constructive dialogue. We have many big projects, including Turkish Stream in the energy sector. And I think that ultimately we’ll complete it, at least the first part relating to expanding transport capacity and boosting deliveries to the domestic Turkish market. There will be the possibility of transit to European partners, again, if they want it and if the European Commission supports it».

The overall situation in Europe’s energy markets and beyond is also a good argument for implementing the Turkish Stream pipeline project. We are referring to the sustained growth of Russian gas exports, the reduction of domestic gas production in Europe, a reduction in the amount of gas being provided by other suppliers, and the growth of demand in the Asia-Pacific Region (APR).

According to the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet, «Turkish-Russian relations are warming again following the plane crisis that stopped the world’s largest energy investments». The newspaper also warns that the US and the European Union may try to do everything possible to thwart the implementation of Russian energy projects (and not just the Turkish Stream pipeline project, but also the construction of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant in Turkey), including through «the support of terrorist organisations» and «warmongering». «Isn’t the statement ‘We will bring peace and democracy to the Middle East’ simply a guise for ‘oil wars’?» asks the newspaper. The question is undoubtedly rhetorical, since the answer lies in the question itself.

The two presidents should have the final word in this matter. The first meeting between those heads of state, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, since the “thaw” in the Russian-Turkish relationship will take place on Aug. 9 in St. Petersburg.

The parties have already devised some possible mechanisms for financing Turkish Stream, as well as other joint Russian-Turkish projects. Russia’s minister of economic development, Alexey Ulyukaev, affirmed after a Moscow meeting with his Turkish colleague, Nihat Zeybekci, that Russia and Turkey have resumed talks on the establishment of a joint investment fund. That fund should help to get the two countries cooperating again the way they used to before the Turks shot down Russia’s jet. “Naturally we have committed ourselves to restoring the best aspects of the trade, economic, and investment relationship that we held prior to last November and to even take it one step further,” emphasized Mr Ulyukaev.

How realistic are the prospects for getting Turkish Stream built and how would the resumption of that project affect Europe’s energy markets? The most important thing to keep in mind is that the bond between Moscow and Ankara revolves first and foremost around energy issues, and the two countries tacitly agreed to preserve that aspect of their interaction, even during the worst moments of the recent crisis in their relationship. After Germany, Turkey is the second-biggest customer for Russian gas, and those purchases have remained steady for five years, despite all the political convulsions (26 billion cubic meters of gas in 2011 and 27 billion cubic meters in 2015).

And here’s another important fact:given the current state of the gas market, Europe needs Russia and Turkey to truly safeguard its energy security. Russia’s natural gas reserves and Turkey’s transit potential form a solid foundation for bilateral cooperation between two major Eurasian powers – and this is one of the reasons Washington and Brussels are putting pressure on Ankara. The energy alliance between Russia and Turkey is capable of sidelining more than just the transit routes through Ukraine. According to some reports,the fear of a Russian-Turkish energy union was one of the biggest external factors prompting the military coup attempt in Turkey.

Also affecting the dialog between Russia and Turkey over energy is the fact that Poland is creating obstacles to the implementation of the Nord Stream 2 project. Hamstringing its own plans to tap into that gas-pipeline system, Warsaw is refusing to authorize a joint venture to construct the pipeline. Poland’s anti-monopoly watchdog UOKiK has not approved the application for the creation of the joint venture, despite the international resumes of the listed applicants: Gazprom, E.ON, Engie, OMV, Shell, and Wintershall. Judging by EU regulations, Poland might indeed be able to block the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, although its planned route will bypass the Polish economic zone. And although the Polish anti-monopoly regulator’s final decision is expected this fall, by that time we might have some clarity about the Turkish Stream project, should the Nord Stream 2 project be blocked: such are the objective rules of the game on the gas market.

All eyes are riveted on the upcoming Aug. 9 meeting between Putin and Erdoğan for many reasons. The Azerbaijani news website Haqqin.az has commented on the upcoming event, claiming that “the Russian-Turkish summit is significant not only because it will be held after nine months of a very strained relationship and immediately after the failed coup, but also because it will take place amidst the sharply deteriorating relations between Turkey and the West.”

The Turkish newspaper BirGün expressed itself more pointedly on this subject, stating that “Russia was one of the first to condemn the coup, and on top of that, the rumors that the Russians warned Ankara about the impending coup attempt are helping to break the ice between these two countries whose relationship has been in crisis for several months … Even the slightest wave in Turkey, a country that stands sentry in Asia Minor for two international, imperialist organizations – NATO and the EU, could spill over into continental Europe in the blink of an eye.”

In any event, if Moscow and Ankara are able to get past all that has separated them for the past few months and begin to cooperate on energy at a whole new level (in regard to gas and nuclear power), the European Union will have to sit down and seriously rethink a number of its important foreign policy– and foreign economic policy– aspirations.

The cold, hard facts are a key factor in this. Statistics show a downward trend in Europe’s gas consumption in recent years, declining nearly 20% between 2010 and 2014. But at the same time there has been a significant decrease in the amount of gas shipped to Europe, which includes liquefied natural gas. «During this time period only Gazprom and Norwegian producers were able to increase their shipments, although Gazprom’s figures show that it exported five times as much as its Norwegian counterparts,» stated Miller. The head of Gazprom continued, «What’s even more impressive is that Gazprom’s market share in Europe has risen over the last ten years, although demand for gas there has been dropping. That growth totaled nearly 7% just between 2010 and 2014. This is a long-term trend that will work in Gazprom’s favor, regardless of European or global economic developments».

Given the decline in domestic production in Europe, in the coming years the European Union will have to resolve the problem of how to make up for these «missing» quantities. That is why the head of Gazprom stressed that «the quantities of Russian gas shipments, as well as – in absolute terms – its market share in Europe, will only grow».

Speaking of the routes by which Russian gas is shipped to Europe – in 2014 about 35% of the total quantity was transported via the Blue Stream and Nord Stream pipelines. And in the near future these quantities could expand even more, given the agreements Gazprom has already signed with E.On, Shell, and OMV to build the third and fourth branches of a gas pipeline between Russia and Germany, traveling under the Baltic Sea with capacity of 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year. There are also plans for BASF/Wintershall to become involved in this project.

The gas pipeline already known as Nord Stream-2 should be in service before the end of 2019. By that time the Turkish Stream pipeline will be up and running along the «southern flank» of these energy routes. The first branch of that pipeline, which was designed to supply Turkey’s domestic market, will be operating at full capacity by December 2016.

Gazprom is confident that «the increase in the amount that can be transported across the Baltic Sea, plus the construction of Turkish Stream, will diversify the channels by which Russian gas can be exported and will strengthen Europe’s energy security». «This fiscal year has once again convinced us that neither economic crises nor tensions arising from foreign policies can hinder our plans to move forward».

There is no doubt that the Turkish Stream project will go through, regardless of the configuration of the new ruling coalition in Turkey. Erdal Tanas Karagöl, an analyst for the Turkish Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA), has shown that the political landscape that emerged in Turkey after the June 7 elections – as well as the process of creating a coalition government – will not be able to negatively affect «major energy projects» like Turkish Stream.

Hüsnü Özyeğin, the owner of the Turkish company FİBA Holding, agrees with him. He stresses the need for his country to continue «giant» joint projects with Russia, like the updates to the Akkuyu nuclear plant and the construction of Turkish Stream, regardless of the process of forming a coalition government in Turkey. «This project belongs to the entire country, not to just one political party,» Özyeğin notes.

One important factor that should certainly not be overlooked is the constructive relationship being established between the leaders of Russia and Turkey. The meeting between President Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, held in mid-June in Baku «on the sidelines» of the first European Games, gave a strong boost to their bilateral cooperation. Discussing the results of the Baku meeting, President Erdoğan and the minister of energy and natural resources, Taner Yıldız, stressed the need to affix signatures to their joint projects ASAP. As Taner Yıldız stated, «Russia and Turkey are indispensable to each other». And President Erdoğan emphasized the need to bridge this «period of uncertainty» as quickly as possible and to do all that is needed to build the Turkish Stream gas pipeline, in accordance with the relevant intergovernmental agreement.

And finally, one more factor that favors the construction of the Turkish Stream pipeline is, paradoxically, an external one – the Greek-Turkish conflict. For various reasons both countries now have an equally strong interest in cooperating with Russia – and in the meantime are enviously monitoring each other’s successes. Greece’s response to the negotiations between Russia and Turkey in Baku was to sign a Russian-Greek intergovernmental memorandum on Turkish Stream in June in St. Petersburg at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

Even the Turkish mass media – such as the newspaper Radikal, for example – was forced to admit that Greece’s involvement made it possible to take a «a giant step forward» toward realizing the project. Even Bulgaria in recent weeks has signaled its interest to Russia about a new project – specifically by proposing the creation of a gas storage facility on Bulgarian soil to support Turkish Stream’s operations.

So the new architecture of Europe’s energy security, based on stable supplies of inexpensive and growing shipments of Russian gas, in addition to a far-reaching regional infrastructure, is starting to look increasingly realistic. Commenting on this issue, the Turkish newspaper Dünya emphasizes that «despite all the political arguments in favor of energy security, the price of the gas that is sent to Europe remains the major determinant». And from that standpoint Russia has no competitors.

Nevertheless, the Erdogan’s party got almost twice as many votes (41%) as the Republican People's Party led byKemal Kılıçdaroğlu. That is something to reckon with. It’s too early to say that the era of Erdogan is over. He is a master of political internal maneuvering and multi-phased foreign policy combinations. Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has resigned in a procedural move after his party lost its majority in parliamentary elections. Many scenarios are considered and none of them should be written off. Accepting Mr. Davutoglu's resignation, President Erdogan expressed his thanks for the PM's services and asked him to continue to serve until a new government was established.

The Luxemburg-based ISA (International Strategic Analysis) is a world leader in the fields of country intelligence, economic forecasting and international market analysis. It is closely tied to US political establishment. According to it, Turkey is faced by a myriad of threats cross the border. The last thing the country needs today is a weak and split government, ISA says in a report.

Turkey is a key actor for regional security. The policy will hardly be subject to changes, as President Erdogan maintains a strong position in Turkish politics. The multi-dimensional foreign policy encompassing Russia meets the country’s national interests.

The Turkish Stream project will be an issue in spotlight. Gasprom held a – Gas Export and Enhancing Reliability of Gas Supply to Europe press-conference in Moscow on June 9. It was reported that there is no ground for any concern over the energy policy of Turkey after the election. Russian state-owned energy giant, Gazprom, announced that the intergovernmental agreement for the construction of the Turkish Stream Project, which will transfer Russian natural gas to Europe via Turkey, would be signed with Botas Petroleum Pipeline Corporation at the end of this month. Vice Chairman of the Board of Gazprom, Alexander Medvedev, said in a press conference, that the results of Turkish parliamentary election would not influence the implementation of the project

Turkey and Germany are the largest consumers of Russian gas. In 2014 Gasprom transported to Turkey 27, 3 billion of cubic meters of gas via Blue Stream and Trans Balkan pipelines. The same year Germany bought 40, 3 billion cubic meters of Russian gas to be followed by Italy (21, 7), Great Britain (15, 5) and France (7, 6).

Europe can take steps to join the Russian gas pipelines till 2019. «I want to emphasize again that after expiry of the transit contact with Ukraine, there will be no extension or conclusion of a new transit contact under any circumstances», Medvedev said. There will be only three routes by the time. The Nord Stream or the North European Gas Pipeline with only half of its capacity used due to the policy of discrimination adopted by European Commission. The second route is the pipeline going through Belarus and the third is the Turkish Stream project. According to experts’ estimates, Europe will need around 80-100 billion cubic meters of Russian gas in the near future. The Turkish Stream’s full capacity will be 47 billion cubic meters a year. 

By insisting on compliance with the Third Energy Package Brussels made necessary the construction of pipelines to the would-be hub on the Turkey-Greece border. In case of South Stream Gasprom planned to shoulder the bulk of expenses. The European Union cut off its nose to spite its face insisting Gasprom could not transport the supplies. Now Europeans will have to spend money on pipelines construction taking it from national budgets, anti-crisis funds and other sources nearing depletion under the conditions of crisis. This is the time for the states of Central and South Eastern Europe to weigh in and take a stand. 70% of Russian gas supplies are destined for Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, the countries hardest hit by the rules established by Brussels. Bulgaria and Serbia also badly need gas stable gas supplies. Playing their geopolitical games they risk to be left with no gas at all.

This is what we have today. Turkish voters supported reforms inside the country, but there is a slim chance the country’s foreign policy would be drastically changed. European hotheads should not expect any cracks in Russia-Turkey partnership. They’d better mind their own business.

The situation is clear for those who got together in Elmau, Germany, recently. Even like-minded people in Central Europe admit the obvious facts. BRICS (Russia, China, India, South Africa and Brazil) become the political and economic center of the world with 56% of global production, around 70% of world currency reserves and 85% of population, says Czech  Parlamentnilisty.cz.  That’s what supporters of Euro-Atlantism in Serbia and other states of the region should take into account. G7 is turning into an ideological adversary of Russia and its allies in the emerging political East (BRICS). Obviously, no burning international issue could be solved without the participation of Russia and China. 

G7 leaders deliver anti-Russian speeches, Obama calls for toughening sanctions against Russia and deploying missiles in Europe. It all creates a negative image of G7 and makes people hit the streets in protest.

By the end of 2014 Russian Gasprom said it would cut off gas supplies to Ukraine in a few years. With the South Stream pipeline project cancelled, Europe faces an increasing risk of new gas supply crisis. Slovakia is hardest affected as the route through Ukraine goes to its territory. It is accustomed to stable supplies with transit fees included into the budget. Bulgaria also has problems to face. This country suffered most in the winter of 2009 when gas delivery was temporarily interrupted as a result of Ukraine’s failure to comply with its financial obligations. Serbia and Macedonia are also affected by the cancellation of South Stream. 

SLOVAKIA’S FIСO TAKES A MESSAGE TO MOSCOW

Slovakia is best suited for finding a common language with Moscow as its Prime Minister Robert Fico (unlike Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov) enjoys the relationship of personal chemistry with Russian leaders: President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. This spring Fico spoke against the anti-Russian sanctions. Slovak media was happy to report the Prime Minister received warm welcome in Moscow during his visit on June 2. 

Perhaps one of the mission assignments was to provide Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev with details on Eastring, a joint 832 km long link to the Turkish Stream gas pipeline to be built together with Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. The project was announced at the Riga Eastern Partnership summit. «We offer a project to Russia that should become a joint project of Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia with participation of the European Union. This is associated with the Russian-Turkish route where implementation of the project will start in 2016», RT cited him saying after talks with his counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev. The Russian Prime Minister promised to study the plan. In case Bulgaria becomes part of the project, the length of pipeline may be increased up to 1274 km.

It’s hard to believe that Fico invited Russia to join the project without EU consent and backing. Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski had to face hard times some time ago as a result of his independent position when he came out in support for the Turkish Stream. There is ground to surmise that the invitation for Russia to join comes from the European Union. Unlike in case of Turkish Stream, Eastring will connect the existing gas infrastructure between Slovakia and Romania/Bulgaria. This will create a major European bidirectional conjunction bringing a great transit potential. The basic principle is diversification of gas sources. The planned list of suppliers was announced at the Riga Eastern Partnership summit with Russia trailing behind after Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Iraq and Cyprus.

EASTRING PIPELINE AS THE ROOT OF THE CONFLICT IN MACEDONIA

The attempts to reduce the dependence on Russian gas supplies have been part of EU strategy in recent years. It wants to receive Russian gas supplies without Russia exerting any influence. It’s not about political clout only – the European Union does not want to take into account the economic interests of Russia as a supplier. The gist of EU policy is defined in The Russian Challenge report published by Chatham House, a London-based think tank. It reads, «EU energy policy should aim to deprive Russia of political leverage in energy markets, rather than to remove Russia from the European supply mix».

If the construction of Eastring were viewed as a goal set by the European Union, then it would explain the hostile attitude of the Brussels and Washington towards the government of Macedonia headed by Nikola Gruevski. An attempt to stage an «orange revolution» (like it happened in Ukraine) took place there in May. These events are linked with the dismissal of FIFA President. Zoran Zaev, the political leader of the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM), got strong support from US and European media as he tried to topple the government of Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski. To achieve the goal Zaev provoked a snooping scandal. He leaked tapes of alleged wire-tapped conversations of journalists, religious and opposition leaders allegedly gathered upon the orders of Macedonian government. 

With EU backing Zaev had a formal meeting with Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, the most pro-American leader in the region. As the political crisis hit Macedonia this May, Bulgaria announced the decision to reinforce its border with Macedonia in the aftermath of the Kumanovo terrorist attack, publicly stating that it has to defend itself from possible terrorist infiltration (no matter that Eastern Macedonia has never in its history experienced this problem before) and prepare for the (unlikely) possibility that the 90,000 Bulgarian passport-holders in the country could flee across the border. The goal is to obstruct the construction of Turkish Stream going around Bulgaria through the territories of Turkey, Greece and Macedonia. 

Russia appears to understand well what this strategy is about: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it straight talking to media. According to him, Moscow sees the worsening situation in Macedonia as tied to the country’s refusal of economic sanctions against Russia and its support of constructing the Turkish Stream gas pipeline. «I cannot judge with a final definition, but objectively it turns out that these events in Macedonia are developing on the backdrop of the Macedonian authorities’ refusal to join in the sanction policy against Russia, as well as on the backdrop of its active support that Skopje showed in regard to the planned construction of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline, which many in Brussels and those overseas are against,» Lavrov said during a joint press conference with Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic in Belgrade on May 15.

ENERGY ISSUE: THE EU’S PYRRHIC VICTORY

Looks like the policy of exerting pressure on Macedonia and the neighboring Serbia practiced by the European Union and the United States yielded results, at least temporarily. Macedonia will participate in the construction of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline, but only after the EU and Russia have reached an agreement on the strategic project, Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski said on May 25. «As a country aiming to join the European community, this is exactly the guidelines we follow when making strategic decisions,» the Macedonian Prime Minister told Press24 online portal in an interview.

Before the June 2-4 visit to the United States where he was scheduled to meet US Vice President Joe Biden, Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic told AP in an interview that his government will accept U.S. calls to reduce dependency on Russian gas. AP reported that «in a major policy shift, the Serbian Prime Minister said his country will accept U.S. calls to reduce dependency on Russian gas by adding an American-backed pipeline that would bring gas to Europe from Azerbaijan». «Regarding energy safety, energy security, we are ready to diversify the sources of gas for Serbia, which is very important for our American friends as well», Vucic said. It’s a Pyrrhic victory for the West. Experts believe that Azerbaijan cannot supply enough gas to substitute Russia. 

Russian expert Sergey Pravosudov, the director of Russian National Energy Institute, told Nezavisimaya Gazeta daily that the Trans Adriatic Pipeline will most certainly fail to satisfy the needs of Serbia. The project’s capacity is 10 billion cubic meters. 10 billion are destined for Italy with Bulgaria and Greece to receive 1 billion cubic meters each. It means that Serbia will get 0, 3 billion at most. Evidently, it will not meet the country’s energy requirements. 

Bulgarian media also blast the anti-Russian policy of PM Borisov. They say that with the projects offered by Russia stymied, Bulgaria got nothing from the European Union, except grants to support non-government organizations. 

According to Bulgarian newspaper Duma, «In 2009 Bulgaria was to turn into an energy hub in the Balkans. There were three projects in works: the Burgas-Alexandroupolis, the South Stream and the nuclear power plant in Belene… Six years have passed. Borisov has been engaged in a fierce fight against the Russian threat. Now what we have is a fig sign with the medium finger that more resembles a one-finger salute» (the fig sight is a mildly obscene gesture used in Slavic culture with two fingers and a thumb meaning refusal or disagreement).

The same opinion is spread in Serbia. The country’s Euro Atlantic or European choice has failed to bring about any economic progress. Take, for example, the neighboring Bosnia. The European Union has actually ruled it through its representatives, including Carl Bildt, a Swedish politician and diplomat who was Prime Minister of Sweden from 1991 to 1994, and former High Representative for the peace negotiations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He serves as UN Special Envoy for the Balkans at present. This politician is known for his strong anti-Russia sentiments. The EU involvement has ended up in failure. Suffice it to remember the deplorable results of privatization in Bosnia resulting in high unemployment. The Belgrade-based daily Danas reported that Vucic and other Serbian politicians have surreptitiously made a turn to the West. At that it Vucic never said anything about the refusal to import Russian gas; he made a point of the need for «diversification» of sources, the newspaper added. 

To my mind, mutual understanding and dialogue – that’s what is needed to spur the process while the aggressive interference of the European Union should be rebuffed. 

In reality, it’s all different. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made his remarks during Government Hour at the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly, Moscow, May 20, 2015. The recording shows him saying the Macedonian events were influenced from outside. According to him, the outside interference pursues the goal of toppling Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski to punish him for the refusal to join the anti-Russian sanctions and the stated intent of Macedonia to become part of the Turkish Stream project with the pipeline going through the territory of the country. The Albanian factor has an important role to play here. There is enough evidence to make many Western media outlets agree that these are the real reasons for deterioration of the situation in the Balkans. 

Sergey Lavrov believes that the ideas to «federalize» Macedonia or turn it into a sort of «flexible federation» or «confederation» are fraught with danger. «The idea even has been expressed why not divide up (what is) an artificially-established state – to give part to Bulgaria, and some to Albania», Lavrov said, going on to say that the Albanian prime minister spoke of «Greater Albania». The Russian Foreign Minister was not verbal. He made his remarks against the background of European policy. For instance, the European Union has already insisted on giving Albanians the rights that Russian minorities in other states are deprived of. According to Lavrov, «…in our discussions with the EU, we raised the issue of rights of Russians and Russian-speaking people in Estonia and Latvia, we asked, «Why did you support the Ohrid Agreement and provided Albanians in Macedonia with a substantial scope of rights but you can’t do the same for Russians in Estonia and Latvia?» There was no answer. However, the conflict in Macedonia was settled at the time. The Russian Minister said that «without reference to Macedonia, the Prime Minister in Tirana is generally declaring slogans of Greater Albania». Is it not enough to admit the existence of plans to divide Macedonia?

Obviously their implementation would also entail the partition of neighboring Serbia and Montenegro. There was no response from Brussels and Washington on the statement of Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama about Greater Albania, no matter it was explosive enough being done at the time of acute crisis in a neighboring country. The European Union and the United States have no objections. The West openly displays its permissive parenting attitude towards Albanian politicians who are forgiven anything they say or do. How can this approach be explained? Is it part of the West’s traditional policy aimed at dividing Slav people? 

The Albanian Mafia, especially those who come from Kosovo, have been in control of European drug trafficking for several years. Where has money gone? With FIFA scandal in full swing, wouldn’t it be expedient to check the activities of Western structures responsible for Balkans policy? I’m sure that a lot of interesting facts would surface. 

Families of the terrorists arrested in the Macedonian town of Kumanovo organized protests in front of the government of Kosovo in Pristina asking their relatives to be released from the arrest in Macedonia. They complained about «harsh treatment of prisoners». It proves the fact that the militants were not Macedonians. They came from Kosovo. Macedonia handed over to Pristina the bodies of nine ethnic-Albanian gunmen killed in clashes with police earlier this month. The procession carrying nine metal coffins was honored in silence by hundreds of Kosovars holding national flags. Many high standing officials attended the funeral, including the members of parliament. No reaction followed from the West. The same way the statement of Edi Rama was not condemned by neither the government of Bulgaria, nor the Macedonian opposition led by Zaev. But it’s not Lavrov who actually calls for the partition of Macedonia, but the Albanian Prime Minister. The Russian Minister plainly spoke against the idea to divide the country. How can the West prove it its opposition to such plans? 

A lot of sinister things take place behind the scenes in the Macedonian scenario. The West, Bulgaria and the Macedonian opposition join in chorus to affirm that the incumbent Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski was behind the actions of Albanian terrorists invading the territory of Macedonia near Kumanovo. According to them, it was done to take the people’s attention away from internal problems. The Kosovo news agency KOHA is normally cited as the information source, no matter it failed to come up with anything like solid evidence to support the version that sounds rather strange. Nobody cares much about evidence in the conditions of ongoing hybrid war. For all that, experts pay attention on the fact that the terrorist group routed in Kumanovo was formed in the municipality of Vitino (Kosovo) near the US military base Bondstill. No way could 80 armed men pass by the facility unnoticed with all the detection means used by US military to provide surveillance in the area. 

It’s an interesting fact that Mirsad Ndrecaj, the leader of the group captured alive by Macedonian security services, goes around by the name of «Commander NATO».

Misha Jurkovic of Institute for European Studies, Belgrade, says there have been «orange revolutions» style coup attempts staged in 30 countries during the recent 15 years. 

It all started with protests organized by the Serbian youth resistance movement Otpor. Its leaders, Slobodan Đinović and Srđa Popović, became professional international revolutionaries. Paid by US, they move from one country to another organizing protest actions. Srđa Popović was seen in Skopje before the events in question. It should be noted that US Ambassador to Macedonia Jess Baily was Deputy Chief of Mission in Ankara at the time the US-supported Taksim Square protests too place in an attempt to topple Recep Erdogan. Who else can do a better job opposing the plans to build the Turkish Stream across the Balkans? It’s not a coincidence that Baily came out in support of protesters as soon as they hit the streets of Skopje. He is dry behind the ears in making «popular» protest movements look right in the eyes of public. 

The Macedonian opposition has a powerful sponsor lending a helping hand. Suffice it to remember the 6-months-old wire-tap scandal sparked by revelations that came to light thanks to the efforts undertaken by patriots. An almost surreal scandal involving 700 thousands of secretly recorded conversations caught top government officials discussing everything from rigging votes to covering up killings. Opposition Social Democrat leader Zoran Zaev said the tapes were made illegally by the government as part of mass surveillance operation targeting 20,000 allies and opponents alike. They were leaked to him by a whistleblower. With so many recorded conversations everyone is free to make guesses and conclusions to his heart content. The government is accused of illegal spying against opposition. But total control over the government is a real tall order. One can hardly imagine anybody in Macedonia being equal to the task. Willy-nilly one gets the impression that the powerful US National Security Agency with the spying capabilities provided by PRISM program (a clandestine surveillance program under which the United States National Security Agency (NSA) collects internet communications of foreign nationals) has a hand in it. Perhaps, the Agency decided that the time is right to forget the damage inflicted by Edward Snowden, an American computer professional who leaked classified information from the National Security Agency, and put to good use the information gathering capabilities acquired by NSA as a result of huge expenses. There is solid ground to believe that that the Agency for National Security acted together with the Bundesnachrichtendienst or BND (German Federal Intelligence Service directly subordinated to the Chancellor’s Office) to make amends for US spying on German politicians. Nikola Gruevski knows exactly what the Macedonian national intelligence can do. According to him, there is no room for doubt that the recordings were given to opposition by «a foreign intelligence agency». Zoran Zaev, the opposition leader, often says that the Prime Minister is not a patriot because he has discussed with his accomplices the possibility ceding to Western pressure and renaming the Republic of Macedonia into the Upper Republic of Macedonia or the Northern Republic of Macedonia. Athens is adamant in its insistence on the name change. Citing historical and territorial concerns resulting from the ambiguity between the Republic of Macedonia, the adjacent Greek region of Macedonia and the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia which falls mostly within Greek Macedonia, Greece opposes the use of the name "Macedonia" by the Republic of Macedonia without a geographical qualifier, supporting a compound name such as "Northern Macedonia" for use by all and for all purposes. Until now Greece has been hindering the process of Macedonia's membership in international organizations. The recorded text that became public domain testifies to the fact that Gruevski has been informed about ideas initiated from outside, but he never supported them and expressed doubts it would be acceptable to the people of the country. It proves that all accusations against him hold no water. 

According to the recent news from Skopje, Nikola Gruevski said he would join the Turkish Stream and let it pass across the country’s territory only on the condition the plan is approved by European Commission. As soon as he said that, the criticism against him began to die down. EU Commissioner for Regional Policy Johannes Hahn is expected to visit the country on June 1. Together with US Ambassador Jess Baily (his participation gives an idea on who in reality controls the situation) they will try to act as intermediaries in an effort to make peace between the government and the opposition. The whole country was brought to the verge of civil war and dozens of people were sacrificed to serve the mercantile interests.

As «energy wars» are in full swing, the United States is pursuing its own goals. Exerting pressure on Turkey is part of this policy. Washington wants Ankara to abandon the cooperation with Russia and dance to the tune of Euro-Atlantic Alliance instead. The US-Turkey differences go far beyond the energy agenda. Actually, the United States and NATO put into doubt the right of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu to define the national internal and external policies. The Turkey’s contemporary diplomacy is based on Neo-Ottomanism, a Turkish political ideology that promotes greater political engagement within regions formerly under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. The country is becoming more independent as an important actor using its clout to influence the situation in the «Greater Middle East.» In many aspects, the policy is unacceptable for those who advocate the «new world order». 

The parliamentary election in Turkey is to take place on June 7. As the date approaches, Western media, experts and politicians make Erdogan and his team come under harsh criticism. Lambasting authorities is normally part of «orange revolutions» scenarios. Until now the West has abstained from putting forward demands to overthrow the Turkish government, though that what is implied by the propaganda efforts. The New York Times, an outlet supporting Euro-Atlanticism, shed light on how the United States and the European Union viewed in general terms the situation in Turkey before the vote. On May 22, it published an editorial entitled «Dark Clouds over Turkey» that was deeply critical of Erdogan’s rule accusing him of a crackdown ahead of the polls. [1] It says Erdogan resorts to political repressions. He is pursuing political opponents and media and plunging the country into obscurity. The newspaper called on Barack Obama and other Western leaders to do what they can to improve the situation. [1]

In June 2013 the Turkish government was strongly reprimanded for using force against the protesters in Istanbul. Those days US media and research institutions led the way, especially the American Interest, which directly accused Erdogan of intent to turn the country into a Sultanate. [2]

The criticism grew as Turkey developed its ties with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and improved the relations with Russia. This policy evoked a response. At the end of 2013, or in the wake of Ankara’s crackdown on mass demonstrations in Taksim Square, the EU accession talks with Turkey were blocked. But the campaign against Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party led to unexpected results. The party held a sweeping victory at municipal elections. Erdogan easily won the presidential election in the summer of 2014. Ex-Foreign Minister Ahmet Dovutoglu, the main ideologist of neo-Ottomanism and the President’s associate, became Prime Minister. Yeni Safak, a leading Turkish media outlet, gave a precise definition of US policy towards Turkey. According to it, the United States denies the fact that the world faces a struggle for control over energy resources and global hegemony, the same way it did in XVIII century. Turkey, like any other country, wants to avoid falling prey to geographic determinism. [3] Besides, from US point of view, Turkey has done something more dangerous and challenging than just cracking down on protesters at Taksim Square, or even cooperating with Iran – it has signed an agreement with Russia on Turkish Stream. 

The West wants to weaken the position of the Justice and Development Party which is a likely winner at the election. Early polls put the Islamist Justice and Development party ahead with 44%-46% of vote, with main opposition (the Republican People's Party" – CHP led by its president Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu) trailing behind with 23%-28%. [4] By and large, the correlation of forces is the same as it was at the municipal election in the spring of 2014. Back then the Justice and Development Party got around 45 % of votes against 28% gathered by the Republican People's Party. 

As normally, it can be expected that the destabilization scenario will be implemented by opponents inside and outside the country right after the outcome of election is announced. The results will not be recognized. The experience of organizing protests in Yugoslavia (2000) and Ukraine (2004) will come in handy. The organizers will use up-to-date technology. But the society in general, or, at least, its socially active part, should be offered a program, something unrealizable under the circumstances as the contradictions between Ankara and Brussels are getting sharper, the instability in the Middle East is growing and the gap between the United States and Turkey is getting wider, especially when it comes to energy issues. The very nature of social and political development contradicts the plans of «orange revolutions» organizers. As far back as the 1960s, James Chowning Davies, a leading US sociologist who wrote the famous book "Toward a Theory of Revolution", came up with «J curve» (economic development followed by a depression would be modeled as an upside down and slightly skewed J) theory of political upheavals explaining the rise of revolutionary movements in terms of rising individual expectations and falling levels of perceived well-being. Davies asserts that revolutions are a subjective response to a sudden reversal in fortunes after a long period of economic growth. The theory is often applied to explain social unrest and efforts by governments to contain this unrest. [5] The situation in Turkey is quite different and it reduces the effectiveness of attempts to control social unrest by staging «orange revolutions». [6]

According to Bloomberg, «The West, however, has a habit of failing to extend its support to reformers much beyond the day of regime change. The result is that countries slide back into their corrupt ways. That's what happened in Ukraine after 2005, and, in recent years, in Georgia.» [7] That is something Turkey understands well.

Keeping cool Recep Tayyip Erdoğan meets the criticism from overseas with response. In a televised speech in Istanbul he blasted the New York Times saying, «You are meddling in Turkey’s affairs by writing something like this. By publishing this editorial, you are overstepping the limits of freedom,» he said. 

«The United States and Turkey’s other NATO allies should be urging [Erdogan] to turn away from this destructive path,» the New York Times editorial said. Erdogan spat back «Who are you? Could you say something like this to the US administration?» [8]

The answer is clear as much as it is clear that the contradictions between Washington and Ankara continue to exacerbate. 

What does it mean in practice? According to Bloomberg, more than 5, 4 billion barrels are attributed to the wells that don’t exist yet.  It could easily be 15 or 20 years before some of these wells get drilled if prices stay at these levels. It results in stagnation of US shale gas production with small and medium companies suffering losses. The situation makes Washington and its allies review the current energy (and not energy only) policy.  

The hype surrounding shale gas production started in 2008. Since then all proved reserves of oil and natural gas liquids found by US companies have reached 9, 7 billion barrels. 

Undrilled prospects have always been part of oil companies’ inventories. The untapped resources are viewed by investors and lenders as a sign of a company’s growth potential. According to Bloomberg, it helped the industry attract more than $230 billion in bonds, loans and share sales since 2008. The shale boom has pushed U.S. oil production to the highest in about 50 years and slashed the country’s reliance on imported fuel. [1]

Some US shale gas producers resorted to tricks. Devon and Chesapeake were among the first companies to unlock oil and gas trapped in deep underground layers of shale. As the shale revolution started the oil industry argued that these techniques made shale formations predictable across wide expanses, and that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should allow the untapped wells further from producing properties should still count as proved. Until 2008 only wells on the verge of exploitation had considered to be such. The companies harbored great aspirations to get them involved in vibrant lobbying activities. It brought results. Eventually, the regulator agreed to consider proved the reserves that could be extracted without inflicting any losses on producers. Undrilled prospects have become a much larger share since the SEC changed the rules. Undeveloped properties account for 43 percent of proved reserves for the 44 companies, the data show, up from 26 percent at the end of 2008. And there was a catch in agreement reached with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: to count the undrilled properties as proved reserves, the companies had to tap them within five years or erase them from their books. Now, as oil prices go down, US companies fail to comply.  

As a result, the world may see the decline of what is nowadays called the “shale revolution”. The shale bubble may burst.  It will inevitably strike European countries, politicians and companies that counted on geopolitical changes to be brought about by the United States taking the place of Russia as the main energy supplier. 

All told, no wonder Europeans become more inclined to take part in Russia-sponsored energy projects. 

Harboring plans to participate in the Turkish Stream pipeline project, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania have already discussed the prospects for Eastring, a pipeline project for Central and South-Eastern Europe, that could be used as part of new route to supply Europe with Russian gas. The project is initiated by Eastream, a Slovak gas pipeline operator. Mirek Topolánek, Head of International Development and Public Affairs of Eastream said: “We propose a project which offers direct and cost-effective bi-directional transmission route between Turkey and the rest of the Europe. This project will be able to transport natural gas from different areas and alternative sources – it will bring gas from Turkish border to Europe and also from liquid European gas hubs to Turkey. In the same time it will provide South-Eastern Europe with gas from the European gas hubs. By offering the opportunity for diversification of transmission routes as well as supply sources the project enhances the security of supply, especially in the countries of the South-eastern Europe. All these highlight the strategic nature of the Eastring project.” [2]

European gas consumers and Turkey, a state playing a key role in the would-be gas supply project, will be the ones to directly influence the situation on the battlefields of raging “energy wars”. 

The United States is pursuing its own geopolitical and global economic goals.  It makes Washington seek weak points to frustrate the Turkish Stream project trying to make a cat's paw of somebody else so that it could avoid a direct conflict with Turkey which is too important being a leading Middle East actor.

The United States contributes into destabilization of Macedonia, a potential transit country on the way of future gas pipeline. Besides, the United States is increasing pressure on Greece.  Amos Hochstein, the Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs leading the Bureau of Energy Resources (ENR) at the U.S. Department of State, visited Greece to openly call on its government to refuse participation in the Turkish Stream. According to him, the project does not take into account the financial needs of Greece and makes no contribution into promoting the country’s investment attractiveness. Nonetheless, it is well known that energy projects normally   bring in high profits, create new working places and ensure profits from transit levies. That is exactly what Greece needs now more than ever.  

The Turkish leading media outlets are unanimous in their opinion that the pressure exerted by Washington on Athens testifies to the fact that the US administration goes to any length to frustrate Russian gas supplies to Europe. That’s what it uses the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP), a project that faced great challenges   even at the initial phase as it lacked suppliers to fill the pipe. [3] According to Turkish media, the USA is exasperated with the Russia’s plans to make its gas routes go around Ukraine depriving Kiev (and also Washington) of its role as a “regulator” of Moscow-Brussels relationship. It makes Barack Obama’s administration to seek ways to “weaken the positions” of Russia on other fronts of “energy war”. [4]

Many Turkish experts believe that the Turkish Stream project has a great chance to be implemented. [5] It is at least too early to say that TANAP constitutes a serious alternative to the Turkish Stream pipeline project. According to Turkish Dünya, the implementation of the Russian-Turkish project will bring Russian gas to the threshold of Europe. Actually, there will be no need for other pipelines. The newspaper believes that in perspective the Turkish Stream project can encompass the entire Middle East. Sooner or later, Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli and Greek gas will have to go through the projected hub to be built at the border between Greece and Turkey.

(To be continued)

Endnotes:  

American energy companies want Europe to get gas from Azerbaijan, not Russia. If it’s not enough, it can launch shale gas extraction projects with US help. The United States has started exploration works and it has know-how. But what is strange, the US estimates happened to be many times higher than proven reserves. They gave Europeans a hope but the real picture is not that rosy. The US has problems with starting production because Europe has enforced rigid ecological requirements. 

With the South Stream pipeline project cancelled and the Turkish Stream on the way Macedonia becomes a key country on the route. The current government headed by Nikola Gruevski welcomes the plans to build the pipeline. But Zoran Zaev, his opponent who organized the Macedonian Maidan, is certain to refuse the participation in Turkish Stream. He is known as a staunch ally of the United States. Zaev is openly supported by Jess Baily (1), the US ambassador to Macedonia, who has publicly accused Gruevski of «unacceptable behavior». 

In February Zaev launched a campaign to discredit the Macedonian government. It would be interesting to know how Zaev & Co got the information used for the purpose. For instance, Arab dissidents in Tunisia, Egypt and Iran used gratuitously the Onion Router software invented in Massachusetts. (2) Did the Macedonian opposition do it on its own? Was it done without US help? In any event, ambassador Baily doubts the allegiance of Macedonian government to the principles of democracy and values of Euro-Atlantic community. (3) The opposition media outlets say Nikola Gruevski turned Macedonia into a dictatorship like… North Korea. (4) They accused the government of nothing less than orchestrating the police action in Kumanovo when 8 policemen and 14 terrorists died. The government allegedly paid for the provocation. 

It’s not a surprise that this version of events is strongly supported by Albanians living in Macedonia. And not them only. German Social Democrat Walter Kolbow, former Parliamentary State Secretary (1998-2005) in the Federal Ministry of Defense and the current chairman of the German-Macedonian Association, (5) also supports this view. 

The National Liberation Army (NLA) has claimed responsibility for the attack in Kumanovo. The organization is the Macedonian branch of Kosovo Liberation Army. The NLA has recently proclaimed the so-called "Republic of Ilirida", an Albanian ‘independent republic» it wants to be internationally recognized. 

Walter Kolbow believes «the safety device» has burnt in Macedonia and the situation poses a threat to the whole region. According to him, the way to keep the threat away is to dismiss Gruevski and hold snap election. This is a classic scenario «to overthrow an authoritarian regime» described by Gene Sharp, a retired professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts known for his extensive writings on nonviolent struggle, which have influenced numerous anti-government resistance movements around the world.

Western media does its best to turn a blind eye on ethnic issues. It says Macedonians and Albanians join together in an effort to overthrow the corrupt regime. James Ker-Lindsay, Senior Research Fellow focusing on the Politics and International Relations of South East Europe at the London School of Economics and Political Science, says this is not a conflict on ethnic ground. The German Foreign Ministry offers a more sober assessment of the situation. On May 20, Frank-Walter Steinmeier met his counterpart Ditmir Bushati in Berlin saying he expects situation in Macedonia to normalize and not to create a conflict that would lead to an open confrontation between ethnic communities or regional conflict. (6) German diplomats should remember well the history of inter-ethnic strife in the Balkans. 

The crisis in Macedonia is complicated enough but, whatever its origins are, it poses a threat to European security. There is a new hot spot on the European map. Austrian Witrschaftsblatt believes that Macedonia has become more important than Ukraine. (7) Sounds ridiculous! It is tantamount to comparing acts of God. What’s more damaging: an earthquake, a typhoon or tsunami?