NAPPG comment on the statement of the State Department

In an interview with the British newspaper The Independent, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Matthew Bryza harshly criticized Gazprom for its «monopoly aspirations» in acquiring European energy assets and called for the beginning of a «completely new chapter» in relations with energy-rich Turkmenistan. after authoritarian president Saparmurad Niyazov passed away.

What the US State Department spokesman said about Gazprom was more politics than economics. Europe understands this. Therefore, Italy, Austria, Greece and other countries are seeking to conclude long-term contracts with the Russian gas giant, while allowing it into their gas distribution networks and building a joint business (as did the Italian Eni) in the promising territories of North Africa and the Middle East. And Germany, for example, went even further and became a full-fledged partner of Russia in the project of a pipeline on the bottom of the Baltic. In this area, convergence and rapprochement is taking place, supported by the exchange of assets, it strengthens the euro, the Russian economic structure, adds global stability in this part of the world, which cannot please America.

It is not without reason that in his interview to the Independent, Mr. Bliza gave an important place to Central Asia and the former post-Soviet republics. For overseas politicians, this is a promising springboard for regional victories. Therefore, they are pushing the leadership of Turkmenistan and, to a lesser extent, Kazakhstan to participate in the Caucasian gas transmission projects — in Nabucco and others that have not yet been formalized in any way, except for the political flair. If the US-fueled political ambition of «independence» from its northern neighbor prevails, the new leadership of Turkmenistan will follow the American lead. If it is common sense and economic calculation, then the ties between Gazprom and Central Asia will only grow stronger. We are still connected by the Soviet unified gas transportation system, and it is economically suicidal to change something here in a strategic sense. And the State Department’s plans to create a Central Asia-Caspian-Azerbaijan-Turkey-Balkans-Europe line require multibillion-dollar investments, which, in the context of an internal crisis, tension in the military budget and statements about the search for new types of energy, may turn out to be unbearable even for the United States. Their plan: ideologically bring the countries of interest to their «boiling point» and thereby make them actively participate financially in the implementation of dubious and expensive projects, increasing their dependence on American aid.