“Time” factor, political developments and problem of Iran. The crisis of Russian gas supplies to the EU via Ukraine involves a multitude of economic and political implications. It was not this column that discovered them but in looking at them as a whole, we can observe to what extent they are connected.
The first aspect is that of time, namely the deadlines required to obtain durable solutions. Those involved are obliged to take urgent action and tackle the cuts in supply; but stability is not a question of days or months, but years and sometimes decades.
There is a very real question involving the relaunch of the Nabucco project, which would enable gas from the Caspian Sea, Iran and Iraq to bypass Russian territory. At the same time, other major projects in which Russia itself is a stakeholder are being discussed: North Stream under the Baltic, South Stream and Blue Stream. When such liaisons are up and running, it is likely that the international political situation will be very different from what it is today. Experts have indicated that Nabucco will be unprofitable and only feasible if Iran participates in its supply. Moreover, the current difficulties in relations between Iran and the West will in the future be nothing more, perhaps, than a memory. The new US Presidency has been said to be looking at reopening the dialogue. The French Senate explicitly affirmed that it is “necessary to reintegrate Iran into the international energy market”. Would it be reasonable to base decisions affecting the very distant future today's situation? Turkey has just confirmed the importance with which it regards the Nabucco project (see yesterday's newsletter) and the results of Monday and Tuesday's ministerial meetings in Budapest are already being anticipated. In connection with this project, like the others mentioned above and the one that will channel Nigerian gas to Europe through the Sahara, we need to look ahead and beyond any reductionist electoral considerations!
The question of the USA. “The question of the USA” is fundamental from several points of view. The US is far away and countries on the borders of the EU ought to take this into account. The Georgian authorities have first-hand experience of this and it is unlikely that the Ukrainian authorities will be ignoring the geographical realities of the situation either. Decisions regarding NATO membership have not been made in Washington yet and decisions on EU membership are even less certain as long as there is no solution to the potentially very dangerous problem in the Crimea. If the Ukraine's strategic partner is exclusively Washington, it ought to request accession to the USA rather than the EU.
If the EU worked, Putin would not be able to divide it. Several commentators have castigated senior Russian leaders for the efforts they have made to hold separate discussions with the authorities of different EU countries and the European giants in the energy sector (GDF Suez, ENI, E.ON, Shell etc). It would be better, however, to address any reproaches to the EU itself! If member states acted together, Moscow would definitely be obliged to take notice and respond accordingly. In previous spats, even politically sensitive ones (Georgia, resumption of negotiations for a new bilateral agreement), Moscow had to agree to discussions with the EU as a body, subsequently recognising its unitary nature and the unitary character of its institutions. It would be the same for energy if the EU had the Lisbon Treaty (see this column yesterday). Affirmations such as “it is not the Lisbon Treaty that will give us warmth” (an aside made by a Czech MEP in Strasbourg) have an effect but do not correspond to what is really happening. It is true that David Cameron confirmed that if his party wins the next British elections before the new treaty enters into force, he will organise a referendum and urge his co-citizens to vote against. Pre-election declarations, however, often go beyond real intentions… I would prefer to recall what the Latvian president pointed out - that “energy policy cannot by a purely national affair”- and other similar positions as mentioned yesterday.
It is impossible to mention everything. I will just add two remarks made by different commentators: a) Gazprom and Naftogaz could not “allow their conflict to last too long without risking strangulation” due to their financial problems; b) the EU would be unable to tolerate “internal struggles for power between the Ukrainian president and his prime minister” or Russia's intention to take control of Ukrainian gas pipelines, compromising its energy supplies. The relaunching of the debate on nuclear energy (Poland has already decided on this) or the priority Spain and the Baltic countries give to their inter-connection with the entire EU energy network should not be forgotten either. (F.R./transl.rh)