Translated material
Partnership through gritted teeth
Brussels sent an energy letter to Moscow
An unexpected summary of the skirmish that flared up recently between Gazprom and the European Commission was given by the head of Europe's largest energy concern E.ON, Wulf Bernotat. “I believe that the controversy surrounding Gazprom is completely exaggerated and inflated. And, to be honest, this is absolute nonsense,” he said bluntly in an interview with the British Financial Times. According to him, Gazprom’s entire pipeline infrastructure is designed to supply gas to European markets, which ensure the Russian company’s business profitability. However, the Russian concern never said that it would completely redirect gas exports to new markets. We were talking about new volumes that could be used to supply the growing needs of European countries, or we could more actively enter new markets, such as China.In Brussels itself, it seems, they realized that the raised tones and strong expressions in the discussion with Moscow (at the end of April, the head of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, addressed the US State Department with a proposal to support Europe in the fight against Russia on the gas supply issue, noting that “energy resources are gradually becoming instrument of political pressure") will not lead to anything good. And they also switched to “diplomatic” language.
Yesterday, EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs and Austrian Minister of Economy (currently presiding over the EU) Martin Bartenstein wrote a heartfelt letter to Russian Minister of Industry and Energy Viktor Khristenko. The first part of the message, according to the press release, is entirely devoted to the importance of Russia as a partner, vows of allegiance to the covenants of the energy partnership. And also to refute Vladimir Putin’s suspicions that Europeans discriminate against Russian companies that seek to operate in EU markets.
The authors of the letter realize that “Russia and Gazprom, in particular, have been and remain reliable suppliers of gas to the European Union.” “They agree that long-term gas purchase contracts enable critical investments in Russia to be made to meet future gas demand,” the European Commission said in a statement on its website. The letter also notes that the EU and Russia are and must remain in a state of mutually beneficial interdependence. Although Brussels previously talked more about freeing itself from dependence on Russian gas supplies (about 26% of the European market).
The authors of the letter note that many energy companies operate in the European oil, gas and electricity markets. “The rules applied to Gazprom will be no different from the rules applied to other companies,” they assure Viktor Khristenko. “They comply with EU competition rules and will be applied in the same way.”
But at the end of the letter it is once again confirmed that Gazprom’s export monopoly and Russia’s reluctance to sign a transit protocol allowing free access of third countries to pipeline capacities will be taken into account when deciding on the admission of Russian business to European projects. “The significant fact that Gazprom is the exclusive supplier of Russian gas to European markets, although other Russian and foreign companies with gas reserves in Russia could also supply EU countries, will be taken into account when analyzing each specific situation,” - - written in a press release from the European Commission.
Gg. Piebalgs and Bartenstein particularly emphasized the importance of the issue of ratification of the Charter and its transit protocol, since “this is a valuable mechanism that will give the EU the opportunity to manage the markets of the enlarged union on a long-term basis.” Considering that Moscow in its right mind would not agree to open its own pipeline system to the countries of Central Asia and in recent years has only been concerned with gaining full control over gas flows from this region, the fundamental basis for the progression of the conflict with Brussels remains. It’s just that now the Europeans are interested in returning the discussion from a public status to a more peaceful, behind-the-scenes format.