Putin: US unhappy with South Stream because it wants to deliver gas to Europe

[Exarch]

because "pipe gas is always cheaper than liquefied gas,”"

The US opposes the Russian South Stream gas pipeline project because it wants to supply gas to Europe itself, President Putin said on Tuesday. He called the situation an "ordinary competitive struggle."READ MORE: Austria and Russia sign South Stream gas pipeline treaty
“They do everything to disrupt this contract. There is nothing unusual here. This is an ordinary competitive struggle. In the course of this competition, political tools are also being used,” the Russian president said after holding talks with his Austrian counterpart, President Heinz Fischer, in Vienna.
"We are in talks with our contract partners, not with third parties. That our US friends are unhappy about South Stream, well, they were unhappy in 1962 too, when the gas-for-pipes project with Germany was beginning. Now they are unhappy too, nothing has changed, except the fact that they want to supply to the European market themselves," Putin stated.
Should this happen, American gas “will not be cheaper than Russian gas – pipe gas is always cheaper than liquefied gas,” Putin stressed.
Russia and Austria have signed an agreement to construct the Austrian arm of the US$45 billion South Stream gas pipeline project, which is expected to deliver 32 billion cubic meters of Russian gas to the country, bypassing Ukraine.
But President Putin stressed that Moscow is not bypassing Ukraine for political reasons.
"These are natural steps to expand the transport infrastructure," Putin said. "[Moscow is not] striving to bypass Ukraine."
He reminded that the Nord Stream, South Stream, and Blue Stream projects started a while ago.
"It is wrong to always say that we are doing anything against anyone," Putin noted. He added that Russia, just like its “partners,” can and will “create the most favorable conditions, and have contacts and contracts with many partners.”
Russia will continue “to promote our product in emerging markets,” Putin stressed.
At the same time, Austrian President Heinz Fischer hailed the project, calling the South Stream gas pipeline “expedient” and “useful.”
The joint South Stream Austria project will be 50 percent owned by Gazprom – Russia's largest gas producer – and 50 percent owned by Austria’s OMV Group, the country’s largest oil and gas company.
Fischer stated that if anyone criticizes Austria, they should also criticize other member countries and their companies.
“I suppose that there will be no such moment when such a country as Austria will not be holding talks with a partner, which has intense relations with us, and will not be ready to negotiate with it,” the Austrian leader said.
“We know such a dialogue does not contradict any EU decision,” he added.
Construction of the Austrian section is expected to begin in 2015. The first deliveries could begin in 2017, reaching full capacity in January 2018.
OMV spokesman Robert Lechner was slightly more optimistic, saying the first South Stream deliveries to Austria could come as early as 2016.

Source: http://rt.com/business/168224-putin-usa-europe-gas/

so this explains everything and why the US is so desperate to start a new cold war with Russia, it's all about those juicy LNG exports!
it also explains Rasmussen's outburst a few weeks back, he was only voicing what his master wanted him to say

[conon394]

No it really does explain nothing at all.

The US is not really all that keen to do LGN. Lots of interests in the US would prefer the US remain an isolated market of cheap NG. Look how many actual export terminals have been approved vs applications. Certainly the US has been looking for some time to make delivery of NG to the EU less Russia dependent but mostly by alternative pipelines around the old USSR.

Of course you realize high energy prices just also make fracking that much more viable in the US and keep our NG prices low and make it a less expensive to build things in the US with a relatively clean energy source - so I suspect Obama is laughing as well as is Micron or Ford or all those chemical producers in Texas and Baton Rouge etc.

Again the problem here is you imagine a world as a game and reality outside of the extremely expensive isolated Asian destinations like Japan for example its seems doubtful any US producer ever though the EU was a viable market.

[Exarch]

the US is actually really keen on getting Europe away from Russian energy and the frackinglobby groups have sold the Beltway on the idea of being an LNG exporter and using that as leverage.

Besides, Russian gas is cheaper and easier to get to europe anyhow, otherwise Germany wouldnt have been dithering over russian sanctions

[I WUB PUGS]

the US is actually really keen on getting Europe away from Russian energy and the frackinglobby groups have sold the Beltway on the idea of being an LNG exporter and using that as leverage.

Besides, Russian gas is cheaper and easier to get to europe anyhow, otherwise Germany wouldnt have been dithering over russian sanctions

This is such crap.

I've been a shareholder in Cheniere Energy for almost 3 years now. While I am indeed sitting on nearly 1000% equity in my shares, I should be sitting on more + dividends. Cheniere is the owner of one of the very very very few LNG export facilities. The share price increase in "LNG" (actual listing) and other "natty" heavy energy companies suggests that they're doing well, they aren't doing what they want to do, which is to export.

The reason for this is that you've got a massive conglomerate of the biggest companies in the US.......like DOW, Dupont, GE, several other mega-corps blocking the export of LNG.

Americans pay 1/4 what the rest of the world does for natural gas. These companies claim this as some sort of holy grail to protect. As if they give a and as if the few exports we could push through our few terminals would make much of a difference to American consumers.

[Border Patrol]

If you actually read others posts instead of just Russia Today you would have noticed quite a few posters making note of American politicians trying to ease restrictions on sending gas to Europe over the invasion of Ukraine.

[Exarch]

your point being?

Sanctions against Russia's oil and gas would greatly help overpriced US gas companies, but it wont help Europeans

[Border Patrol]

It all depends on the game the US politicians are willing to play. The US can supply gas to Europe cheaper than Russia, make no mistake. Federal subsidies to sell at a loss for as long as the Russian leaders are sanctioned is one such tactic. The budget wouldn't even notice it.

[Exarch]

It all depends on the game the US politicians are willing to play. The US can supply gas to Europe cheaper than Russia, make no mistake. Federal subsidies to sell at a loss for as long as the Russian leaders are sanctioned is one such tactic. The budget wouldn't even notice it.

taxpayer funded subsidies to help oil and gas majors, guess that's going to be popular come next election and even if Washington wanted to pluck out its own eye to spite its face by operating at a loss, they won't be able to compete with Russian or Saudi gas and oil.
As Putin said, Russian gas via pipelines are cheaper and there's no contamination of drinking water-even the Germans who're the major customers in europe would be inclined to agree.

Another thing, Russia's moving away from the US dollar to settles its trades,

[Condottiere 40K]

It's more like that giving options to Europe will prevent the Russians gaining a monopoly and employing gas as a weapon in times of crisis.

[StarDreamer]

It's more like that giving options to Europe will prevent the Russians gaining a monopoly and employing gas as a weapon in times of crisis.

This is the most important part of building up a system to transport LNG to Europe.

[Dromikaites]

because "pipe gas is always cheaper than liquefied gas,"

Source: http://rt.com/business/168224-putin-usa-europe-gas/

so this explains everything and why the US is so desperate to start a new cold war with Russia, it's all about those juicy LNG exports!
it also explains Rasmussen's outburst a few weeks back, he was only voicing what his master wanted him to say

Nope, it doesn't explain anything.

As a rule, it is good practice to know what you are talking about, before starting a debate. That rule applies for the debates in the Political Mudpit as well.

Let me clarify the picture for you:

1) The existence of all the pipes connecting the EU and Russia are mostly beneficial for...the EU. How can we be sure of that? By looking at what Russia has done with all that money from 1991 until now. Nothing much. The Russian economy should have been rivaling China's by now, except that didn't happen. On the other hand the European economy grew stronger by gaining access to the Russian gas;

2) Adding one more pipe to that would increase the EU ability to negotiate gas prices with other providers, like Qatar, Norway, the US and quite likely Iran, in the very near future;

3) However for now the EU has blocked the building of South Stream. Why? Because the new EU policy is to flow gas in any direction through the pipes on EU's territory. While the South Stream waits, the EU will finish the process of forcing Gazprom to bend to EU's will. Once that happens (in a few months), the EU would be able to pump Qatari, American, Iranian or Norwegian gas through the pipes built with Russian money, thus putting an end to Russia's ability to use gas as a weapon;

4) As such, the fact Austria signed the deal means absolutely nothing for Putin, except the opportunity for a PR stunt;

5) The Americans would continue to be able to export their gas to the EU if they want to (and conon394 explained why the Americans might not be too enthusiastic to do that) with or without the South Stream being built. On short term Russia will be hit with sectorial sanctions, which means on short term the EU would need the American (or Norwegian, Qatari, Iranian) gas anyway.

Therefore the only reason the Americans would object to building South Stream is because that strengthens the EU ability to negotiate gas prices on long term, not because they want to sell LNG now. That would happen anyway, if the Americans want it.

[Exarch]

As a rule, it is good practice to know what you are talking about, before starting a debate. That rule applies for the debates in the Political Mudpit as well
Let me clarify the picture for you:

1) The existence of all the pipes connecting the EU and Russia are mostly beneficial for...the EU. How can we be sure of that? By looking at what Russia has done with all that money from 1991 until now. Nothing much. The Russian economy should have been rivaling China's by now, except that didn't happen. On the other hand the European economy grew stronger by gaining access to the Russian gas;.

irrelevant point to the subject at hand.

Russia wants these pipelines to the european economies to be built; it's the US that would much rather this wasn't the case given that it'd tie European interests to that of Russia much to the detriment of US interests.

2) Adding one more pipe to that would increase the EU ability to negotiate gas prices with other providers, like Qatar, Norway, the US and quite likely Iran, in the very near future;

Yet none of them are in any position to dominate the European gas and oil market the way Russia does. Qatar isn't going to be building any pipelines to europe, especially with the crap that's going on in Syria and IRaqi Kurdistan, but i know that China and the rest of Asia is going to be more than happy taking all of that Qatari gas that would've otherwise gone to Europe.

Which only leaves....Russia and its south stream gas as the only other likely source of natural gas (given that nordstrem is already online)

3) However for now the EU has blocked the building of South Stream. Why? Because the new EU policy is to flow gas in any direction through the pipes on EU's territory.

false, and wishful thinking on the part of Atlanticists; Bulgaria has delayed the building of the pipeline due to US pressure but it's otherwise committed to the project, and so too is Austria which just signed a deal to complete its part in South Stream:

While the South Stream waits, the EU will finish the process of forcing Gazprom to bend to EU's will. Once that happens (in a few months), the EU would be able to pump Qatari, American, Iranian or Norwegian gas through the pipes built with Russian money, thus putting an end to Russia's ability to use gas as a weapon;

what sort of crazy universe is this happening?
Qatar can only ship its gas via shiplanes which is still more expensive than Russian gas via nordstream
Iran ditto, plus sanctions mean Europe's hobbled in paying for irani gas.
Norwegian gas isn't enough to supply all of europe, especially southern europe
the US still consumes as much as it produces and can't produce enough to rival Russia's capacity, and can't compete with Russian prices for gas.

4) As such, the fact Austria signed the deal means absolutely nothing for Putin, except the opportunity for a PR stunt;

that's a $45bln publicity stunt that also happens to come with a pipeline sourcing from Russia

5) The Americans would continue to be able to export their gas to the EU if they want to (and conon394 explained why the Americans might not be too enthusiastic to do that) with or without the South Stream being built. On short term Russia will be hit with sectorial sanctions, which means on short term the EU would need the American (or Norwegian, Qatari, Iranian) gas anyway.

not going to happen, Putin's just asked and received deauthorisation from the Duma to use military force in the Ukraine; in other words, he's de-escalating on his side, which is more than can be said for the Nazis on the other side.
It's a pretty smart judo move, Putin's just placed the onus on the rest of the neocons in the West who've been praying for a Russian intervention as their rationale for keeping NATO relevant and US interests as paramount over European interests.

[Dromikaites]

irrelevant point to the subject at hand.

Russia wants these pipelines to the european economies to be built; it's the US that would much rather this wasn't the case given that it'd tie European interests to that of Russia much to the detriment of US interests.

If you have missed what was going on for the last 10 years you certainly missed the fact since 2012 the EU gets more gas from Norway than from Russia. That is because of the Russian gas tricks in 2003 and 2006.

The EU would never say no to yet another Russian gas pipe. That doesn't mean the EU would buy more gas from Russia just because there are more pipes coming from there. Especially since most of the money are paid by the Russians.

The more the Russians invest in infrastructure serving Europe, the more they are tied to Europe, not the other way round. If the EU stops buying tomorrow, the Russians can't send that gas anywhere else. If Russia stops delivering gas tomorrow, the EU would buy from elsewhere, like it did before 1980.

Yet none of them are in any position to dominate the European gas and oil market the way Russia does.

So Norway dominates the EU gas market since 2012?

Qatar isn't going to be building any pipelines to europe, especially with the crap that's going on in Syria and IRaqi Kurdistan, but i know that China and the rest of Asia is going to be more than happy taking all of that Qatari gas that would've otherwise gone to Europe.

Qatar exports LNG to Europe. Mostly to Italy and Spain.

Which only leaves....Russia and its south stream gas as the only other likely source of natural gas (given that nordstrem is already online)

South Stream is just another pipe circumventing Ukraine. The purpose of South Stream was to give Putin the ability to completely cut off Ukraine. The problem is now the EU changed the rules for pipeline ownership. In a few months that would mean the EU would be able to use the pipes built with Russian money to supply non-Russian gas to whoever the EU wants.

Which means South Stream will simply be just another pipe the EU would have if and when they want to buy Russian gas.

false, and wishful thinking on the part of Atlanticists; Bulgaria has delayed the building of the pipeline due to US pressure but it's otherwise committed to the project, and so too is Austria which just signed a deal to complete its part in South Stream:

Get your facts straight, will you? Bulgaria delayed the building of the pipeline because of the EU pressure.

Austria signed a deal which means little in the greater game. South Stream will be built anyway, once the EU has implemented the legislation which allows reverse flow. Nobody in the EU is against the South Stream. The problem for Putin is that when South Stream is finished, the gas which goes through it might get re-exported to Ukraine.

what sort of crazy universe is this happening?

In the crazy universe of the EU.

Qatar can only ship its gas via shiplanes which is still more expensive than Russian gas via nordstream

"More expensive" but still affordable - ask Spain and Italy.

Iran ditto, plus sanctions mean Europe's hobbled in paying for irani gas.

Iran is very likely going to end the nuclear dispute with the West by the end of this year. Even by the end of August, if everything goes as expected. ISIL's adventure in Iraq is pushing Iran and the West to cooperate even earlier than that. Once Iran and the West are again on friendly terms and Iraq is stabilized, the old plans about building pipes bringing oil and gas from Azerbaijan and Iran to Europe will be back on table.

Until that happens Iran would ship gas via LNG and oil via tankers. Business as usual.

Norwegian gas isn't enough to supply all of europe, especially southern europe.

Wrong. The main reason the Norwegian gas can't reach Southern Europe is Gazprom's ownership of some key pipes which would need to be transited. That issue is going to be fixed in a few months from now on.

the US still consumes as much as it produces and can't produce enough to rival Russia's capacity, and can't compete with Russian prices for gas.

You completely miss the point: "more expensive" is still cheap.

The EU is exporting high value-added products, which can absorb the difference between the Russian price and the LNG price. This is exactly why last week the German Industry Association stated they have done the maths and they now support sanctioning Russia.

that's a $45bln publicity stunt that also happens to come with a pipeline sourcing from Russia

Even if South Stream would be built in the next 5 minutes, that won't change the situation at all, as far as the EU is concerned. Nobody forces the EU to buy from Russia.

Russia on the other hand has nowhere to send that gas if the EU isn't buying. South Stream would be empty, no matter how good Putin looked on RT while signing that contract.

not going to happen, Putin's just asked and received deauthorisation from the Duma to use military force in the Ukraine; in other words, he's de-escalating on his side, which is more than can be said for the Nazis on the other side.

It would be good for you to know a thing or two before talking about stuff.

To begin with, Putin didn't need any authorization from the Duma. According to the Russian constitution he can use Russian forces where he pleases. Asking and getting that authorization from the Duma was a PR stunt.

Likewise, having that voted out means zero to his ability to send troops over the Ukrainian border. He can still send every one of those 40k soldiers into Ukraine if he wants to, and that would be legal according to the Russian constitution. That move is another PR stunt, aimed at the [largely ignorant] Western public opinion.

It's a pretty smart judo move, Putin's just placed the onus on the rest of the neocons in the West who've been praying for a Russian intervention as their rationale for keeping NATO relevant and US interests as paramount over European interests.

Nope, it's an irrelevant move for the Western decision makers. They know better because they have lots of people paid to keep them informed about how things really are.

So unless the situation in Ukraine magically becomes calm by the end of this week, next week the evil West would slap Russia with sectorial sanctions. With of without the Duma vote.

[Elemental]

If you have missed what was going on for the last 10 years you certainly missed the fact since 2012 the EU gets more gas from Norway than from Russia.

Nope you are wrong. Norway did infact export more in 2012 but Russia is again the biggest exporter of Gas to EU

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0KK1IT20140114

And Norway dont have the capasity to replace Russian gas by far. Get your facts straight

[Dromikaites]

Nope you are wrong. Norway did infact export more in 2012 but Russia is again the biggest exporter of Gas to EU

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0KK1IT20140114

And Norway dont have the capasity to replace Russian gas by far. Get your facts straight

Did you read that part which says the Norwegians had technical problems?

As for the capacity, Norway only needs to compensate for what the EU doesn't get from elsewhere.

Let's imagine one scenario is the EU decides to sanction Russia by reducing the Russian gas imports by 25%. That would cause Russia a loss of income of about 18bn USD/year. Under this scenario Norway and everybody else would only have to increase their total production by 45bn cubic meters (m3).

Let's see if that is possible:

1) Norway has a capacity of about 127bn m3 and exports about 108bn m3.

2) Algeria has a capacity of 54bn m3 and exports 33bn m3 to Europe.

3) Libya has a capacity of 40bn m3 and exported about 17bn m3.

Which means that the EU can get all those 45bn m3 needed through the already installed pipelines, without increasing the import of LNG. Calculations like these resulted in the German Industry Association to support stronger sanctions against Russia.

Would the contract signed in Austria have any impact on such scenario? Not at all: that pipe would see 25% less traffic.

[Captain Jin]

As a rule, it is good practice to know what you are talking about, before starting a debate. That rule applies for the debates in the Political Mudpit as well

And yet you've started a debate without knowing what you're talking about. Curious.

Russia wants these pipelines to the european economies to be built; it's the US that would much rather this wasn't the case given that it'd tie European interests to that of Russia much to the detriment of US interests.

Lol. What a joke. Where do you get the idea that this is a primary move on the US's part and that we are somehow trying to pull Europeans away from Russia in some coercive manner? Who do you think injected much needed investments into Russia's obsolete and languishing energy infrastructure after the end of the Cold War? Western companies-- including major joint ventures between American corporations and their Russian counterparts. Who do you think provides the majority of technical know-how and technology to Russian projects in the Yamal peninsula and the Arctic? Western corporations-- primarily Exxon Mobil, Chevron and BP. So called 'European' interests are represented by Total and ENI's stakes with Rosneft, Novatek and Gazprom. Despite ongoing political circumstances Total has invested tens of billions into its joint ventures with these companies in order to expand their production portfolio and Total now sees Russia as its primary source of production and SHOCKINGLY the main European proponent for South Stream are not 'European Interests' but those of ENI and Total who see the opportunity to make huge dividends off their investments.

It's actually in Europe's best interests to diversify the source of its energy so it can't be used as leverage or as a weapon against the continent. If you can't see that, and somehow think this is some big American plot, then there's no point in trying to present facts to you. Just keep watching RT.

Which only leaves....Russia and its south stream gas as the only other likely source of natural gas (given that nordstrem is already online)

Wrong. I guess you've never heard of TANAP/TAP. Or Nabucco. Why do you think the Russians pushed so hard for South Stream? Because European efforts to diversify energy source by utilizing the Caspian. Nabucco would have used the BTC pipeline from Azerbaijan, then into Turkey and on into Europe via Bulgaria-- finishing in Austria. The Russians did everything they could from stopping the creation of that pipeline because it endangered their leverage on European energy imports. But now TANAP/TAP is going through so Europe is still going to get a pipeline from the Caspian that bypasses Russia.

Let's not also forget Russian pressure on Caspian states to ensure they don't bring their resources to markets outside of Russia. Why do you think Russia supports Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh? To punish Azerbaijan for orienting itself to the west and trying to bring its product to the market without Russia. It's the same with Kazakhstan. The only way those ventures could be exploited were if Kazakhstan utilized its infrastructure and piped their goods into Russia. Something like 30% of Russian exports into Europe come from Central Asian countries that Russia has essentially shoe-horned into doing business with them. The stuff that would go through South Stream? Most of that would have been coming from Tengiz field which belongs to Kazakhstan and was developed by American IOCs Chevron and Exxon Mobil who have 50 and 25% shares in the stake respectively. But use of pipelines to Novorosiyssk only happened because of Russian pressure resulted in the Caspian Pipeline Consortium which saw this stuff transit Russian territory to the Black Sea port of Novorosisyssk. Lukoil only has a 5% stake in Tangiz and Kazakstan was not interested in using Russia as a transit route to bring its goods t the market, but they couldn't alienate Russia in the bargain-- that's why Lukoil got its 5% stake and the pipeline went through Russia. Central Asian states are constantly in fear of Russian moves if they act out too much and stray from Moscow's interests. The majority of the rest of of Kazakh goods are put on tankers across the Caspian to get into that Azeri BTC pipeline to the west.

Russia originally told Turkmenistan to go screw itself when it tried to find export for its natural gas because Russia had no use for it and but didn't want the Turkmens to bring it to market elsewhere. They said they would buy it for an utterly absurd low cost and say "Be thankful anyone is buying it at all-- you should be happy" while they basically blocked Turkmen efforts to seek a market elsewhere. Turkmenistan had to tread softly and was able to get a deal struck with China. Russia has to allow that since they are at least somewhat aligned with China. But rest assured Turkmenistan is probably looking to link into TANAP/TAP. Unsurprisingly Russians are making veiled threats about any Turkmen pipeline through southern Caspian.

Then you've got Uzbekistan also looking to export but Russia exercising leverage over them and also supporting Tajik territorial claims in Uzbekistan.

Russia uses failed states of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan to excuse putting a bunch of troops right on the doorstep of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. And in the case of Georgia and Azerbaijan they use Armenia as a coercive proxy, not to mention their troops stationed there.

not going to happen, Putin's just asked and received deauthorisation from the Duma to use military force in the Ukraine; in other words, he's de-escalating on his side, which is more than can be said for the Nazis on the other side.
It's a pretty smart judo move, Putin's just placed the onus on the rest of the neocons in the West who've been praying for a Russian intervention as their rationale for keeping NATO relevant and US interests as paramount over European interests.

You completely ignore, or more likely, are completely ignorant of Russian geopolitical maneuvers to keep Europe dependent on Russian energy exports. Putin knows for Russia to be an important player on the international stage he has to exploit its energy capabilities and everything he does is to that end. Including coercive maneuvers and pressuring on Caspian states to ensure they don't impede Russian supply to Europe and allow the Europeans to further diversify their energy source-- which is in their absolute best interests. Even China, Russia's part-time buddy, doesn't want to have Russia as its soul supplier. They learned in the Soviet times that wasn't a good idea.

But no. It's about the Nazi west and a justification of NATO's existence. Lol.

[Exarch]

And yet you've started a debate without knowing what you're talking about. Curious.

if you weren't so goddam beautiful, i'd have slapped you by now

Who do you think injected much needed investments into Russia's obsolete and languishing energy infrastructure after the end of the Cold War? Western companies-- including major joint ventures between American corporations and their Russian counterparts.

those werent acts of charity, those were self serving acts for profit

Who do you think provides the majority of technical know-how and technology to Russian projects in the Yamal peninsula and the Arctic? Western corporations-- primarily Exxon Mobil, Chevron and BP. So called 'European' interests are represented by Total and ENI's stakes with Rosneft, Novatek and Gazprom.

those US companies also have major stakes in shale oil and gas-which would still need to compete with russian gas; they're not against sanctions against russia per se.

It's actually in Europe's best interests to diversify the source of its energy so it can't be used as leverage or as a weapon against the continent. If you can't see that, and somehow think this is some big American plot, then there's no point in trying to present facts to you. Just keep watching RT.

of course it's in europe's interests to diversify energy but the russo-european relationship isnt just gas; look at how much business germany does in russia.
and also it is an american 'plot', central to the heartland theory, much loved by US foreign policy proponents like brzezinski.

Wrong. I guess you've never heard of TANAP/TAP. Or Nabucco.

both of which are failures considering they're not even in the same league or stage of development as south stream or north stream.

The Russians did everything they could from stopping the creation of that pipeline because it endangered their leverage on European energy imports. But now TANAP/TAP is going through so Europe is still going to get a pipeline from the Caspian that bypasses Russia.

You completely ignore, or more likely, are completely ignorant of Russian geopolitical maneuvers to keep Europe dependent on Russian energy exports. Putin knows for Russia to be an important player on the international stage he has to exploit its energy capabilities and everything he does is to that end.

i dont actually, i approve highly

[Captain Jin]

[QUOTE=Exarch;13925263]if you weren't so goddam beautiful, i'd have slapped you by now[/youtube]

You like the abuse.

those werent acts of charity, those were self serving acts for profit

Of course they were. But the existence of these companies and their stakes means they have some leverage over their governments insofar as the governments probably won't be conniving to some wild extent to completely nullify Russian exports or something.

those US companies also have major stakes in shale oil and gas-which would still need to compete with russian gas; they're not against sanctions against russia per se.

Yes but shale is unconventional, highly technical, and very expensive investment that doesn't get the same sort of margins they can get from the more conventional stakes they have in Russia. To be sure, there isn't anything easy about the stuff they're doing in the Arctic (which is why Russian primary stakeholders still have westerners operating those), but the stuff in western Siberia and so forth are far more conventional and easier to get at.

of course it's in europe's interests to diversify energy but the russo-european relationship isnt just gas; look at how much business germany does in russia.
and also it is an american 'plot', central to the heartland theory, much loved by US foreign policy proponents like brzezinski.

Other business has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're talking about Russia trying to stop Europe from diversifying. I don't really buy into the heartland theory. It's pretty clear cut and simple in this case.

both of which are failures considering they're not even in the same league or stage of development as south stream or north stream.

Actually it's quite significant. To call them failures is absolutely silly. Nabucco certainly is. It never got off the ground because of Russian pressure and interference. But as far as eventual capacity after the four phases of construction are completed you're looking at 60 billion cubic meters capacity through TANAP/TAP. As far as development goes, of course the Russian ones are going to get done faster-- they have a lot of money backing them thanks to big Russian juggernaut corporations plus investments from ENI and Total (for South Stream). On the other hand TANAP/TAP is mainly NOCs doing the investment and development with a small stake and investment from BP. The point isn't that it necessarily has to replace South Stream, or that it's less successful. The point is that it's another source of energy coming into Europe that doesn't go through Russia-- so the Russians can't use energy as political leverage. Really quite simple concept.

i dont actually, i approve highly

So you're at least admitting that this isn't so much, in reality, about Americans plots, but that you're just supporting coercive actions on Central Asian states coupled with political maneuvering just so Russia can maintain an energy monopoly of sorts? I mean, it might be beneficial for Russia, but not really anyone else. So I don't see how we're the ones starting a new Cold War and all this other nonsense you're talking about.

[Roma_Victrix]

But no. It's about the Nazi west and a justification of NATO's existence. Lol. You've got one of two things up your ass. Either your own head. Or Russian government's hand to work your mouth like a sock puppet.

That's worthy of going into someone's signature, although unfortunately mine is already occupied by a brilliant statement made by Cyclops and shall remain. In either case, bravo.

[conon394]

Another thing, Russia's moving away from the US dollar to settles its trades,

Good the US is better off that way