Tim Ryan, Ohio State Senator: "We have to maintain focus on how we get our gas from here to our allies in Europe so that they’re not dependent on Russia. We must have the sanctions, but we must also ship liquid natural gas to our allies".
Russia and the West are facing the worst crisis since the Cold War.
Kristian Vigenin, Bulgarian Foreign Minister, 2013-2014: "The South Stream project is very important to both Bulgaria and the rest of Eastern Europe. This project is meant to ensure our energy security".
According to US Special Envoy Amos Hochstein, Washington's goal is to reduce Russia's gas market share in Eastern Europe by 20% by 2020. Russia cannot be allowed to build a gas pipeline that would bypass Ukraine, as it would pose a threat to Europe's energy security.
Wolfgang Ruttenstorfer, OMV AG's CEO, 2002-2015 (Austria): "Ukraine is a European country and we expect it to start paying European gas prices at some point".
Meanwhile, the high-stakes game continues, and there seems to be no end in sight to the gas wars.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Prime Minister of Ukraine, 2014-2016: "Political pressure is not going to work. We won't accept the price of $500".
The West is ready to hit below the belt, but the Russian bear won't give up without a fight.
Vladimir Putin: “Taking into account the fact that we still haven't received a construction permit from Bulgaria, Russia is unable to continue the implementation of this project in current conditions.”
During a press conference held in Ankara on December 1st, 2014, the announcement was made that Russia was withdrawing from the South Stream project and launching a new one, TurkStream. The truly high-stakes game began.
Gas: The High-Stakes Game
Turkey
Kayaköy is a tiny dot on the map of Turkey. The population of this small town is only 2,500 people. These are the most ordinary people with the most ordinary problems.
Erdinch Karabawa, entrepreneur, hearth merchant (Turkey): "We have hearths at home. I sell them, too. We use such hearths to heat our homes".
Old neighborhoods aren't provided with central heating. And most people here simply don't have access to gas.
Erdinch Karabawa: "We wish we had gas here, too. We're living in the 21st century. Everyone else has gas by now, but we still have to burn wood. It's funny and sad at the same time".
Ibrahim Ishil owns a small restaurant in northwestern Turkey. He started his business in 1990. Gas means bread and butter to him.
Ibrahim Ishil, restaurant owner (Turkey): "I use gas for everything. I have a gas heater at home and my restaurant heavily relies on gas. I even have a gas water heater here: that's where I get hot water from. The costs add up. The dishes need to be cleaned all the time since this is a restaurant".
Italy
Marianna Piccolo, a teacher from Milan, prefers to use gas at home.
Marianna Piccolo, teacher (Italy): "When I moved into this house, it already had gas. So I didn't have to worry about it and it was convenient. I prefer gas because it can be used for space heating and it creates a cozy atmosphere at home".
Marianna says it's not only a matter of convenience but also of cost.
Marianna Piccolo: "I used to live in an apartment that had an induction stove-top which used electricity. It was much more expensive. You can use electricity if you don't cook a lot. But I'm Italian, I like cooking, and I do it a lot. So gas works better for me".
Greece
Most residents of Athens, the capital of Greece, use diesel fuel for space heating.
Antonis Papadimitriou, entrepreneur (Greece): "In Athens, most people never turn on their heaters. They can't afford it. We don't have a lot of energy resources here. I wish I had a gas heating system at home because it would be cheaper and more convenient. That would be something I could afford".
However, installing a gas heater is not an easy task. A replacement costs money and requires a special permit from the authorities.
Peris Panagiotis, restaurant owner (Greece): "Most people prefer electric radiators in their homes. However, if you use electricity to heat your home, it drives your electric bill through the roof. You can't control it. All you can do is make sure you have enough savings. In my experience, everyone gets cold in their own home every winter".
Europe has learned what it's like to live without gas when, in January of 2009, hundreds of thousands of houses all over Europe were left without heating. Every heater was gone from the stores in just a few hours. People had to burn wood in order to keep warm. Thirteen European countries were cut off from Russian gas.
Luca Franza, Researcher at the Clingendael International Energy Program (Netherlands): "Gas is certainly very important for the European Union. Its share in primary energy consumption is 25%. It is used to generate electricity and for residential heating. Not all European countries have easy access to natural gas reserves. Western Europe does. However, in Eastern Europe, particularly, the countries of Southeast Europe, there isn't such a wide variety of natural gas reserves. As a result, they largely depend on Russian gas supplies".
The countries affected by the 2009 energy crisis placed the blame on Russia. They claim that Russia cut off gas supplies in order to exert political pressure. But who was it that in fact deprived Europe of access to natural gas? Why did Russia start thinking about building new gas pipelines outside of the continent? Whose interests collided over the South Stream pipeline? What are global leaders really afraid of? And in whose way does Russian gas stand?
Ukraine
For 50 years, Russia has been supplying gas to Europe, primarily via Ukraine. The former Soviet Republic inherited the largest and most developed natural gas pipeline network in Europe from the Soviet Union. The entire pipeline system is just under 24,000 miles long and consists of 22 gas pipelines. The main ones, the Progress, Soyuz, and Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhgorod pipelines were built in the 1970s and 1980s. In fact, nearly 90% of all gas supplies exported from the Soviet Union to Europe were transported through Ukrainian territory. This export route lies at the bottom of a major political dispute in the 21st century.
Vasily Vakarov, political analyst (Ukraine): "Russia has always used gas supplies to Ukraine as a political tool. The new administration... The current Ukrainian government is doing everything in its power to gain independence from Russian gas supplies".
Rainer Seele, Chairman of Executive Board at OMV AG (Austria): "As a European gas consumer and importer, all I can say is, disputes like this one don't make anyone's life easier. Other countries have to get involved. Energy security is at risk. Such disputes should be avoided".
Two major areas of Russian–Ukrainian cooperation in the gas sector typically include the European transit and supplies for Ukraine’s use.
Alexey Belogoriev, Deputy Director at the Institute for Energy and Finance (Russia): "The dispute with Ukraine arose after Gazprom decided to bring gas prices for post-Soviet countries up to the market average. It needed to happen because, for about 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia continued to sponsor post-Soviet countries, including Ukraine".
Ukraine was the only country that took the gradual shift to market prices as a personal insult. The gas transit contract with Ukraine was supposed to expire on December 31st, 2008. A new contract would mean a different price, which Kiev wasn't willing to pay. Negotiations stalled. At that point, Russian gas supplies to Europe were used for blackmail. On December 31st, 2008, Ukraine announced that it could no longer guarantee the transit of gas to Europe and threatened to seize Russian gas. After the contract expired, Russia cut off all supplies for Ukraine’s use on January 1st, 2009. At the same time, gas supplies to Europe were increased. From January 1st-4th, 2009, Ukraine devoured 65.3 million cubic meters of gas intended for transit to Europe. On January 5, 2009, Gazprom demanded that Ukraine compensate for the gas that Europe didn't receive with its own resources. From January 6th-7th, 2009 Ukraine blocked all four vents through which Russian gas is supplied to Europe, affecting 15 states: Hungary, Serbia, Macedonia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czechia, Austria, Italy, and Romania. Russia responded immediately. Gazprom halted gas supplies to the Ukrainian border.
"Gazprom claims that Ukraine has shut all four pipelines supplying gas to Europe".
Alexander Medvedev, Gazprom deputy CEO: "At 11:30 PM Europe local time Ukraine started to shut down the export pipelines remaining in operation".
"Gazprom is continuing to blame Ukraine, saying that its irresponsible moves have entailed a gas shortfall in a number of European countries and that Kiev is solely to blame for the current gas crisis".
"It's not about gas, but about Russia's major plan to destroy Ukraine".
Konstantin Simonov, head of the National Energy Security Fund (Russia): "It's not only about money, but also about reputation because that they seek to pin what happened in January 2009 on us, but it isn't quite clear why, judging from the facts".
The reliability of Russia as a gas supplier had never been questioned. And the crisis, provoked by Ukraine, could strongly hurt the image of Gazprom as a business partner.
Threat
Mikhail Fedotov, economic observer (Poland): "Russia is a reliable partner, which it has proved throughout years of uninterrupted supplies; except the situation when Russia had a conflict with Ukraine, to which Europe fell victim to some extent".
But who would have profited from seriously damaging Russia's credibility? Probably, those who want to enter the European gas market. Could the 2009 Russian-Ukrainian crisis have been provoked by someone, and someone's interests be behind Ukraine's greed?
"During the 11th five-year plan, major local industrial complexes will continue to develop. The national oil and gas supplies are enough for both domestic needs and exports".
The construction of the first Soviet gas pipelines to Europe in the late 1970s was accompanied by military conflicts and coups d'etat, imposing economic sanctions, the bankruptcy of major international companies, espionage, and human casualties. It was the first energy game that the actors played on the Eurasian chessboard.
Michael Maluf, US Department of Defense ex-officer: "I was in Pentagon when we looked at the Soviet pipelines that went out of the USSR countries. At that time much was done to interrupt the Soviet gas supplies to Europe as there were concerns that it could be used as a political weapon against Europeans".
Klaus Lissen, head of Ruhrgas (Austria): "The USSR's readiness to conclude a new treaty with us which would expire in 2008, or the next century, proves the technical capacities and reliability of the Soviet side as a supplier".
The first West European gas contract was signed with Austria. Other European countries steadily followed its example. Europe badly needed Soviet gas. But it was a great obstacle to others.
Maria Belova, International Consulting Agency (Russia): "There are two scenarios that could have played out. First, Europe's economic improvement wasn't beneficial to the USA. And, receiving cheap Soviet gas, which was situated nearby and didn't cost much, Europe could have challenged the US's position in the international arena. But according to the second scenario, at that time the USA was considering supplying its coal to Europe, and it could have been an inter-fuel competition between American coal and Russian gas".
We saw rather strange situations happening to businesspeople who viewed Russia as the most logical option for energy supplies. Probably, the most illustrative one was the fate of Mattei, a founder of the ENI concern, who realized that Russia could be a reliable energy supplier to Italy. It was under Mattei that ENI signed the first oil contracts, and it planned to sign a gas one. And suddenly, on a sunny day, Mattei's plane crashed while landing at Milan's airport. Nobody ever determined what exactly happened. Plenty of books on that case have been published, and even several movies have been made; they all draw the unequivocal conclusion that Mattei was killed by the CIA.
In 1980 the USSR launched negotiations to build another pipeline to Europe — Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhgorod.
Yury Zaitsev, Gazprom Export CEO Advisor (2010-2015): "I headed several negotiating groups. The first contract I signed was with Austria, then it was Italy, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and France".
Shortly after the beginning of the talks, the USA imposed an embargo on trade with the USSR. The official pretext for it was the announcement of the state of emergency in Poland. Then, the Soviet Union was accused of purges against the Poles.
Konstantin Simonov: "The USA has confessed many times that during the construction of the Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhgorod pipeline what happened in Poland was largely provoked by the United States in order to hinder that construction. There have been multiple confessions by American officials, by CIA leadership, saying that they did it".
In the 1980s the USA demanded that its Western European colleagues join the sanctions. But Europe continued to advocate for its interests.
Yury Zaitsev: “Well, here's what followed. Reagan issued his famous decree, imposing sanctions on rotor exports, while the rotor is the key part of a gas turbine, and you just can't do without it. We didn't expect him to do so, although there had been some threats.”
Then the FRG claimed that the contract had been concluded before the embargo was imposed and thus wasn't subject to sanctions. And Great Britain and France insisted that the existing contracts with the USSR would be fulfilled. The Italian media blatantly wrote that the US was waging a war against Europe. In the end, Reagan's sanctions were canceled.
Yury Zaitsev: "In the summer of 1984 I worked in Baumgarten which is now widely known as a major hub where systems come together. I was charged with receiving gas, signing all of the papers with the Italians, Germans, French, etc., international customers, and we hit the bottle of schnapps as extra volumes of Soviet gas had been delivered to Austria, even the radio announced it. Everybody celebrated it".
Europe was unanimous back then and managed to gain its point. Why isn't it the case today?
"50,000 participants in a rally took to the streets of Bonn with the motto of: "For friendship with the Soviet Union, for security in Europe!"
Nowadays every actor is pursuing its own interests on the Eurasian chessboard. While business in the Old European countries still can explain to the politicians that gas cooperation with Russia is profitable, this isn't the case in New Europe.
Konstantin Simonov: “The USA exercises great influence on them. It's as clear as day. They keep demanding to abandon cooperation with Russia. I mean the notorious states of Poland and the Baltic countries.”
Mikhail Fedotov, economic reviewer (Poland): "Historically, Poland doesn't like Russia and doesn't trust it, to put it mildly. It repeats all the time that at some point, during some political crisis, Russia can just interrupt the gas supply, depriving Polish consumers and, primarily, Polish industries, without raw materials".
The main material for Poland is coal. But its production was at its highest 30 years ago and has been declining ever since. Natural gas helps. The question is which supplier is more beneficial for Poland.
Wlodzimierz Kudraszew, businessman (Poland): "We've used this installation for 15 years. Of course, we'll continue to do so. We're glad. But we have no alternative to it either. Of course, one of the greatest advantages of this installation is that it doesn't require much space indoors. So, we don't waste living space. The battery requires only five square feet indoors".
Wlodzimierz Kudraszew lives in Augustow where the majority of houses are heated with gas.
Wlodzimierz Kudraszew, businessman (Poland): "This is the tank for a 2,000 square foot house for a family of five or six. One such tank lasts us about a year or a year and a half".
Andrzej Sikora, Institute of Energy Studies (Poland): "Almost 2/3rds of Polish energy comes from natural gas that we purchase from the East, Russia in particular. Our contract will last until 2020 but according to the government statements, it won't be renewed because the Polish government has decided to purchase gas from other countries".
This sea terminal in the Polish city of Swinoujscie was built to receive liquefied gas from Qatar and the USA.
Mikhail Fedotov: “The politicians that are in power now basically openly say that it's better to buy gas from your friend and ally even if it's more expensive, meaning the US and other Western countries, than buying cheaper gas from your sworn enemy — Russia.”
So far, the price of the American liquefied gas works against it. It was 80% more expensive than Russian gas in 2017. And that's just the production cost. Customers pay almost 200% more.
Wlodzimierz Kudraszew: “Heating a 2,000 square foot house costs about $1,600-1,900 per year for a family of four-to-five people. Increasing the price by 80% or100% is madness. It can't be. Our politicians must think what the people's reaction will be.
Jim Jatras, former US Department of State official: "This is not done primarily for economic reasons. It has strategic reasons. It's done so that other countries that are supposed to remain our satellites develop an energy addiction to America and make sure they don't have any other energy sources".
Alexey Belogoryev, Institute of Energy and Finance (Russia): "From the perspective of US foreign policy, there's nothing that's none of their business. There's no region that they aren't interested in. They are especially interested in the Balkans. Since 1992, 1993, the former Yugoslavian countries, Serbia first of all were an important focus of US foreign policy".
This oil refinery is located in the Serbian town of Pacevo an hour drive from Belgrade. Vladimir Gagicz has been working here for 21 years and remembers well the events of 1999.
Vladimir Gagicz, NIS Oil Company (Serbia): "I was in charge of the oil rigs back then. They were bombing us 24/7. I was here during the NATO bombing. The refinery was on fire, three of my co-workers died, and all of our essential equipment was destroyed. Our firemen showed great courage when they were extinguishing a huge burning tank, even though we thought that was the end".
Konstantin Simonov, Energy Security Fund (Russia): "In 2016, I was at a conference in the city of Novi Sad in Serbia. The Serbian Minister of Energy — the person who makes decisions attended that conference. One of the first speakers wasn't even the American Ambassador she was a minor official representing the American Embassy. We're unhappy with you. “We've been watching you — it's outrageous that you continue to purchase Russian gas. You're reprimanded.” The Serbian Minister of Energy sat there listening to this and then said he was sorry explaining that they didn't have other sources of gas and that they might be expensive and unreliable".
Yelitza Putnikovic, economics and foreign relations expert (Serbia): "And how is American gas supposed to reach the Balkans? Will they inflate zeppelins with it? But many officials kept saying that instead of Russian gas we'd have American gas and people believed them".
In the 20th century, the US didn't manage to win the European energy market with its coal. In the 21st century, it has placed its bet on liquefied gas.
Raji Horner, finance market expert (US): "We're becoming a global force in the natural gas industry which makes our geopolitical interests clash with Russian ones. Currently, it's our main battlefield.”
The South Stream pipeline was supposed to supply Russian gas to the Balkans.
Aleksandar Antic, Minister of Energy (Serbia): "This project was supposed to become one of our key projects for infrastructural development and make Serbia one of the major gas transit points on the map".
However, Russia encountered severe opposition while implementing the South Stream project.
Alexander Novak, Minister of Energy (Russia): "In general, the project has always been very political. We're having a hard time negotiating with our counterparts from the European Commission".
The work on the South Stream project started back in 2006. Almost instantly it became clear: Ukraine is not the only country whose interests clash with Russian ones. But who was unhappy with the project and why? In early 2000s Russia already understood that Ukraine is not a reliable partner. At that time, Russia started to build the Blue Stream to fulfill the needs of Turkey and the Nord Stream for Western Europe. The South Stream project was initiated at the same time. Europe treated those steps as an attempt to kick Ukraine out.
Alexander Novak: "There's a rivalry in the coal industry due to different supply routes and ways of shipping coal. There's also rivalry in the transportation of oil and oil products due to different ways of shipping them. There are various routes, including the sea one. But for some reason, the gas industry decided that the only route lies through Ukraine and there are no other routes. But there must be other routes. There must be competition".
Maria Belova: "The South Stream is the second large-scale project that was supposed to be implemented after the Nord Stream to minimize the amount of shipments that went through Ukraine. It was supposed to include four threads with the capacity of 15.5 billion cubic meters. This pipeline was designed for South and South-Eastern Europe".
Yordan Yordanov, former South Stream Transport employee (Bulgaria): "We're on the coast of Bulgaria. The city of Varna is very close. You can see it over there. It's about 12 miles away. A pipe would have been here. A South Stream pipe".
Yordan Yordanov used to work at South Stream Transport. He was working on the surface part of the pipeline. Yordan was responsible for the construction of the terminal, electricity, and equipment.
Yordan Yordanov: "How unfortunate... It was a good project. It seems, our politicians arranged it so that we ended up in this situation. But every nation deserves its government. We're the only ones to blame. So…"
Alexander Novak: "The project wasn't implemented primarily due to the position of the European Commission the position of the European Parliament and Bulgaria that didn't issue the construction permit on time".
On June 8th, 2014, Prime Minister of Bulgaria Plamen Oresharski ordered to suspend the construction of the South Stream. It happened right after his meeting with representatives of the US Senate John McCain, Ron Johnson, and Christopher Murphy.
Senator John McCain (USA): "We agree with the Prime Minister and the government of Bulgaria that the primary goal is to establish energy independence from any country which means working with organizations that are independent of Russia".
Konstantin Simonov: "We don't know what they told him and what folders they showed him. But the fact remains. It's an officially confirmed story and not some hushed visit or a secret meeting in a bunker. It was a public conversation after which the Bulgarian government changed its decision 180 degrees. It's obvious that the United States basically ordered Bulgaria to cancel the project and turn down the money it might have earned".
Former Prime Minister of Bulgaria Plamen Oresharski is currently working as a university professor. He emphasized that he was an active supporter of the project.
Plamen Oresharski, former Prime Minister of Bulgaria: "I did not discuss the South Stream with Senator McCain and his two colleagues. We discussed the situation in the region because he directly asked me how I could help the country. I asked him to back me up in Brussels to make the processes connected with the allocation of money by the European Fund run more smoothly and help us deal with other issues that Bulgaria had with the European Commission".
Yelitza Putnikovic: "Apart from McCain, some European politicians visited Sofia to persuade the Bulgarian government that it couldn't let the project be implemented. In other words, they launched an entire campaign to prevent the construction of the South Stream. I wasn't surprised when the project failed".
Plamen Oresharski: "That's true, if one looks at the official narrative. The European Commission threatened sanctions if Bulgaria continued negotiating with Russia. We didn't really have a choice. You're asking how I made that decision? We just followed the direct order of the European Commission".
Rainer Seele, CEO of OMV AG (Austria): "I was one of the investors. The South Stream project wasn't implemented because the European Commission didn't support it. That was a political decision and Bulgaria lost the most in that case".
According to the preliminary estimates, Bulgaria lost $700-800 million per year over the next 50 years.
Atanas Tasayev, energy expert (Bulgaria): "We didn't understand the scale of our mistake at first but until several years later..."
Rumen Ovcharov, Former Minister of Economy and Energy (Bulgaria): "I'd like to add something regarding the USA. The States stopped three major Russian projects in Bulgaria: The Belene Nuclear Station, the South Stream, and the Burgas–Alexandroupoli pipeline. All of those projects were suspended after the US opposed them".
The game was stalemated. It seemed there was no escape and Russia had to give up.
Alexey Belogoriev: "Everybody assumed that the fate of the project will be decided by the European Commission during its negotiations with Gazprom. The Commission was supposed to be the strong party while Gazprom was to obey its demands. And the fact that Russia ultimately seized the initiative was a complete surprise for them".
On December 1st, 2014, Russia left the South Stream project and announced a new, Turkish one.
Gambit
This part of the energy game ended with a gambit. It's when you have to sacrifice something to continue playing or gain strategic advantage. The game entered its most dramatic and creative phase. How will the balance of power on the energy and political maps of Europe change?
The Turkish coast of the Black Sea. The first thread of the TurkStream is almost laid near the Turkish town of Kıyıköy. Every day, the world's largest construction vessel Pioneering Spirit sails more than 250 miles.
Oleg Aksyutin, CEO of South Stream Transport: "The hardest part was the section along the continental slope from a depth of -250 or -300 feet to -5,000 feet. We had to maintain a certain speed and carefully lay the pipes along the slope to prevent any wrinkling or stretching of the pipes. The first time we descended down the slope to check the process was pretty stressful."
Martin van Driel, lead engineer of underwater section: "When you're installing a pipeline in an area like this it's like standing on a balcony with a thin spaghetti in your hand. And you have to accurately throw this spaghetti at the line drawn underneath the balcony. It's an extraordinary task, almost rocket science".
About ten years have passed since the new pipelines were launched. Over these years, the transit through Ukraine has decreased almost by 25%.
Konstantin Simonov: "Ukraine is desperately clinging to the transit. And it looks weird because the official position of Poroshenko is that Ukraine must sever all economic ties to Russia. A question arises. If you want to sever all economic ties why don't you want to give up the transit?"
Jim Jatras: "We have a tremendous influence over Ukraine. Remember what we say about the post-Maidan ruling elite that's currently arguing in Kiev like spiders fighting in a jar. They all look up to Washington as their godfather. They all beg for mercy in front of the government that empowered them."
Ukrainian politicians are counting the days that Ukraine can last without the Russian gas.
Vasily Vakarov, political analyst (Ukraine): "Our politicians are proud that we don't purchase gas from Russia. Even though everybody knows that the gas we purchase is Russian".
Alexander Novak: "They purchase the same Russian gas from Western countries. It's not Russian on paper, but its molecules came from Russia".
Was it worth it? Simple math proves it wasn't. The direct price of the Russian gas was $225 for 1000 cubic meters. When purchasing our gas from third-party countries Ukraine pays $310.
Yasna Perovicz, journalist (Serbia): "I believe Ukraine will continue to try to compromise Russia as long as the West allows that and supports its efforts. On the other hand, Ukraine felt it on its skin that it can't do without Russian gas. I think that Russia is fed up with these games and it's time to stop them".
Jim Jatras: “You know, the whole idea behind the American and European criticism of Russia as an energy supplier is that Russia gets involved into politics. But as far as I know, Russia's actions have never been politically motivated in this case. The Russians just want to trade".
Hans-Ulrich Engel, Chief Financial Officer of BASF SE: "Europe needs about 500 billion cubic meters of natural gas but it can produce only about 130 billion cubic meters on its own. The rest has to be imported. We can only do that via pipelines, primarily the Russian ones".
Yelitza Putnikovic: "Everybody in the Balkans knows and remembers that even during the Soviet times Soviet gas always reached its European customers on time. Even during the times of the Iron Curtain. I think that both Europe and America know that Russia is really interested in selling its gas abroad which allows it to replenish the budget".
Rainer Seele: "Trust. Mutual trust. It's good when spouses trust each other. We can rely on each other, trusting that Gazprom will supply the needed amount of gas to Austria. In its turn, it can trust that we provide our customers with Russian gas. If we encounter a challenge we can deal with it thanks to our mutual trust".
The practical part of the game is on. It's a long way from being over. The pieces are being chopped down. The moves and maneuvers are unpredictable and the result usually depends on the psychological fortitude of the rivals.
The Middlegame
Archive: July 11th, 2018: "I'm disappointed that Germany is making a large oil and gas deal with Russia while it's supposed to protect itself from Russia and pays Russia billions and billions dollars a year".
Jim Jatras: “Well, I think that's the default mode of American policy to escalate sanctions and find reasons to do so. The people who are behind this policy aren't sorry. They're perfectly aware that they're pushing it. At some point Europe will say: "Enough! We won't do that anymore. We won't play to your script." And they'll realize that economically they have much more in common with Russia than with the USA. I'm not being aggressive. We're not in Europe. Has anyone noticed that? Has anyone looked at the globe? We're in the Western Hemisphere and have no reason to have full control over Europe. The only reason we're doing that is to exclude Russia.”
While the rival was thinking about their next move Russia finished the construction of the first thread of the TurkStream. In 2019, Europe will begin receiving Russian gas regardless of whether it goes through Bulgaria or Greece.
The game continues.
Written by Irina Berezinskaya. Director of Photography Damir Abdrakhmanov
